rec.autos.simulators

Anyway, if you were putting together a system today and wanted racing sim
(on and offline) performance/stability/driver compatibility ...), what would
you select?  I am thinking it is between Windows 2000 or Windows XP.  I have
Windows 2000 on my work PC and it is way more stable that my ME systems.  On
the other hand, XP is the latest, but I'm not keen on some of stuff MS is
pushing down our throats with XP (maybe I've just heard wrong.)

Thanks,
Russell

Between 95/98/ME/2000/XP I stick with 98SE.

It's less stable than 2000/XP but also far less weighted down by the
operating system.  I've used 2000 in a workstation/server environment
and it was ok (if you don't find rebooting your computer every day to
be unusual while your Sun gear stays up for years at a time), unless
you're in a situation where you need security I wouldn't waste my time
with the OS overhead.  Same with XP.

For a single user non-workstation environment, 98SE provides the best
combination of performance via low-system overhead and software
compatibility.  XP is more stable and has better security from a
terminal-user standpoint  but that comes with the price of high
resource overhead and flaky compatibility with older software via
emulation (if that is a concern of yours).

If you're building a system for playing games, you're going to be
rebooting constantly since  XP isn't fully immune to resource leaks,
so the stability should be a non-issue.  If you need a multi-user
environment with tight security in addition to a fast *** platform,
I'd go with a dual boot of Windows 98SE and freeBSD or SuSE linux
myself.

Jason

It is the worst piece of shit that has ever surfaced from Redmond, period.
It is junk.

I was kinda suprised when I found out N4 ran better on my box with XP home
and then XP pro on another machine than it did when those machines had 98 on
it.  No to mention i haven't had a blue screen or had to reboot because of a
lockup in 6 months with XP.

my PC has never locked up with XP...maybe its just YOU. ;)

--
M. Main


Vice President, RacersEdge Motorsports Inc.   http://www.racesimcentral.net/
#69 2002 LoA/CoA Chevy Monte Carlo Sim-racecar
www.LordsOfAcid.com / www.ChildrenOfAcid.com
Maturation makes liars of us all.

  >I am currently running Windows ME.  I've heard some say this is the worst
  >version of Windows to use for racing sims.  I've been doing fairly well with
  >it, you just have to kill allot of the background junk.
  >
  >Anyway, if you were putting together a system today and wanted racing sim
  >(on and offline) performance/stability/driver compatibility ...), what would
  >you select?  I am thinking it is between Windows 2000 or Windows XP.  I have
  >Windows 2000 on my work PC and it is way more stable that my ME systems.  On
  >the other hand, XP is the latest, but I'm not keen on some of stuff MS is
  >pushing down our throats with XP (maybe I've just heard wrong.)

  Between 95/98/ME/2000/XP I stick with 98SE.

  It's less stable than 2000/XP but also far less weighted down by the
  operating system.  I've used 2000 in a workstation/server environment
  and it was ok (if you don't find rebooting your computer every day to
  be unusual while your Sun gear stays up for years at a time), unless
  you're in a situation where you need security I wouldn't waste my time
  with the OS overhead.  Same with XP.

  For a single user non-workstation environment, 98SE provides the best
  combination of performance via low-system overhead and software
  compatibility.  XP is more stable and has better security from a
  terminal-user standpoint  but that comes with the price of high
  resource overhead and flaky compatibility with older software via
  emulation (if that is a concern of yours).

  If you're building a system for playing games, you're going to be
  rebooting constantly since  XP isn't fully immune to resource leaks,
  so the stability should be a non-issue.  If you need a multi-user
  environment with tight security in addition to a fast *** platform,
  I'd go with a dual boot of Windows 98SE and freeBSD or SuSE linux
  myself.

  Jason

I ran 98SE for years for *** at home and for business at work, switched
to Win2k at work and have seen 98 run at our wide client base as a reseller.
I run Windows XP Prof. now at home and work . I will never, ever go back to
98SE.

--
__________   ____---____       Marco Antonio  Checa  Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----'      Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
       _H__/_/                      http://www.racesimcentral.net/
      '-_____|(    

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

Unfortunately I've gotten sucked into the world of IE (thinking about
trying out Mozilla again, as I hear 1.0 is pretty stable actually) but
there's always the 98lite option.  I was using the OSR2 shell with
Win98 lite awhile ago and getting some nice performance gains.  Normal
98 install with IE 4/5/6 I get 95% system resources free at boot-time,
with the OSR2 shell I've bumped that up to 98-99%.

Jason

Chris

The only thing I didn't like about XP was the resource overhead.

I'm curious.  What sort of resource usage are you seeing in XP both on
a clean boot and after a program crashes?

Jason

But, I understand your hesitation :)

-Larry

Achim

...

Right now I have Win2000 on my game box for grins and gigles. I just like
playoing with new stuff so I thought I'd check it out.

MadDAWG