rec.autos.simulators

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sat, 11 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Fair enough.
I go by the old edict "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Win95 might have 3000 bugs but as far as I'm concerned my copy "ain't
broke".......at the moment!

--
Regards,
Bruce.
----------
The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:-
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sat, 11 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Multiple partitions have been known to have saved several instances of
accidently-wiped "C" drives, my friend.
And for multiple-boot or menu systems they are invaluable.

> What do you do if you have a large drive? e.g over 2gig....Multiple partitions
> - what a pain in the arse!

--
Regards,
Bruce.
----------
The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:-
http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

by **Brett Turle** » Sat, 11 Jul 1998 04:00:00

There are advantages and disadvantages with each way you do it. These new
drives are so large that without FAT32 you have to do so many partitions its
ridiculous. My biggest problem with that many partitions is the fact that
it really messes with network drive mappings. This wouldn't be a problem on
most home PC's, but in a networked environment it can cause alot of
headaches.

Brett

>Multiple partitions have been known to have saved several instances of
>accidently-wiped "C" drives, my friend.
>And for multiple-boot or menu systems they are invaluable.

>> What do you do if you have a large drive? e.g over 2gig....Multiple
partitions
>> - what a pain in the arse!

>--
>Regards,
>Bruce.
>----------
>The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:-
>http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

by **Paul Jone** » Sun, 12 Jul 1998 04:00:00

But you can use FAT32 on Windows 95b or even 95a if you get the drivers!
PJ

> There are advantages and disadvantages with each way you do it. These new
> drives are so large that without FAT32 you have to do so many partitions its
> ridiculous. My biggest problem with that many partitions is the fact that
> it really messes with network drive mappings. This wouldn't be a problem on
> most home PC's, but in a networked environment it can cause alot of
> headaches.

> Brett

> >Multiple partitions have been known to have saved several instances of
> >accidently-wiped "C" drives, my friend.
> >And for multiple-boot or menu systems they are invaluable.

> >> What do you do if you have a large drive? e.g over 2gig....Multiple
> partitions
> >> - what a pain in the arse!

> >--
> >Regards,
> >Bruce.
> >----------
> >The GP Legends Historic Motor Racing Club is located at:-
> >http://www.netspeed.com.au/brucek/legends/

by **Eric Beer** » Fri, 17 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Strongly suggest not upgrading to win98 unless you have the ability to make
a full disk image of your system. I say this because I would have loved to
just dump it and give it back to the store, but it was too late, the problem
was already done.
What happened was the they took all my drivers, (nearly every single one)
and replaced them with 'newer' microsoft version. Result: dead sound card,
dead modem, dead printing, DEAD CD (in the middle of the install it started
thinking my CD was drive c:\[something] when it has been F: for several
months!!!), what else... anyway, I finally got everything installed again.
I find that windows doesn't forget my joystick anymore, (it used to say 'not
connected' after coming out of sleep mode, but I always play on a fresh
reboot anyway) and that's the big advantage. I really think the beta's of
win98 worked soooo much better than the full version. I didn't have any
problems with the drivers and whatnot.
Generally speaking I find the interface of win 98 much more user friendly,
powerful and intuitive, but what a price!

>I went to Win98 (clean install) and my TM F-22 hat works great in LB2 and
>others. I prefer Win98 over 95.

>>>WIN 98 has been out for a week. I need to re-build my system.
>>>I race with F1RS and fly LB2 and others.

>>> Is WIN 98 ready for prime time? Or should I stick with WIN 95?

>>> Larry

>>Well as much as I like Win98, in all honesty it screwed up LB2 so that I
>can
>>no longer use the hat switch on my Thrustmaster Stick. If you have a
Stick
>>with a Hat Switch and you like to use it in LB2 then be prepared to loose
>>that feature if you upgrade to Win98. I am hoping that Janes will include
>a
>>fix for this in the LB2 patch (If ever). Good luck. At least other games
>>are not affected AFAIK.

>>Games that do seem to work ok with Win98 that I own and have tested are as
>>follows: LB Gold, FA18 Korea, Jedi Knight, FS98, MOTS, AWIII, Janes FA,
>>Moto Racer, Red Alert & add on's, Quake 2, MTM2, F15, Descent II, Outlaws,
>>Unreal and a few more.

>>The default drivers that Win98 installed for my Monster3D and Viper 330
>seem
>>to work ok but AW3 doesn't want to display map text with the Riva drivers.
>>My 3Dfx has no problem with that. Things just keep getting more and more
>>complicated. Oh well, maybe if I get a new USB Joystick, my LB2/Hat
>Switch
>>problem will disappear. Who knows.

by **stu** » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00

>Personally I would wait about 2 or so months until they work all the bugs
>that haven't been found yet. Also I've been playing with it on the
>computers at work and find that with 64mb of ram it is a little slow so
>I'd suggest doubling that so that it won't slow down your games any.

>At work we are running a 200mhz system.

I just installed 98 a few hours ago, and after the nightmare I had that was
a 95+IE4 combo I have to say that 98 is a welcome relief. I've put it
through its paces and it certainly seems to be much more stable than 95.
However, If you're running 95 with no probs I wouldn't recommend upgrading
just yet, better to wait and see.

I have to agree with you about 98 being slower than 95. On my P200 with
64meg SDRAM it is considerably slower than 95 - "works better and plays
better" maybe... but at a cost.

stu

by **Jerry Moreloc** » Sat, 18 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Converted to FAT32 yet? If not, do it then see if you still think the same.

Jerry Morelock

by **stu** » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00

>Converted to FAT32 yet? If not, do it then see if you still think the
same.

>Jerry Morelock

I thought of this, but when I went to convert to FAT32 Win 98 informed me
that my drive was already running in FAT32 - 98 did it for me (without
asking) upon installation - how nice... So it ain't that, I quess 98 just
doesn't want to run fast on my system, which is fine with me, I see it
simply as a trade off for better stability.

stu

by **Tony Rickar** » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00

>when I went to convert to FAT32 Win 98 informed me
>that my drive was already running in FAT32 - 98 did it for me (without
>asking) upon installation - how nice...

Win98 wouldn't convert without asking - as you can't uninstall once it does
it.

You must have had a recent version of Win95 OSR2 which also included FAT32

Tony

by **Tony Rickar** » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00

>when I went to convert to FAT32 Win 98 informed me
>that my drive was already running in FAT32 - 98 did it for me (without
>asking) upon installation - how nice...

Win98 would not convert it on installation as you could not then uninstall.

You must have had a recent version of Win95 OSR2 which also includes FAT32

Tony

by **Tony Rickar** » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00

>when I went to convert to FAT32 Win 98 informed me
>that my drive was already running in FAT32 - 98 did it for me (without
>asking) upon installation - how nice...

Win98would not automatically convert on installation, otherwise you could
not uninstall and convert back to FAT16.

You must have had a recent version of Win95 OSR2 which also includes FAT32.

Cheers

Tony

by **Tony Rickar** » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00

>when I went to convert to FAT32 Win 98 informed me
>that my drive was already running in FAT32 - 98 did it for me (without
>asking) upon installation - how nice...

Win98 would not automatically convert from FAT16 to FAT32 - You could not
then uninstall Win98 and convert back to FAT 16.

You must have a recent version of Win95 OSR2 which also includes FAT32

Cheers

Tony

by **J Huggin** » Mon, 20 Jul 1998 04:00:00

Could you repeat that one more time Tony, I missed your answer the
first four times. ;)

> >when I went to convert to FAT32 Win 98 informed me
> >that my drive was already running in FAT32 - 98 did it for me (without
> >asking) upon installation - how nice...

> Win98 would not automatically convert from FAT16 to FAT32 - You could not
> then uninstall Win98 and convert back to FAT 16.

> You must have a recent version of Win95 OSR2 which also includes FAT32

> Cheers

> Tony

by **Jeff Salzma** » Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:00:00

>Could you repeat that one more time Tony, I missed your answer the
>first four times. ;)

>> >when I went to convert to FAT32 Win 98 informed me
>> >that my drive was already running in FAT32 - 98 did it for me (without
>> >asking) upon installation - how nice...

>> Win98 would not automatically convert from FAT16 to FAT32 - You could not
>> then uninstall Win98 and convert back to FAT 16.

>> You must have a recent version of Win95 OSR2 which also includes FAT32

>> Cheers

>> Tony

Same here, it only formatted when I told it to. OTOH, personally,
Win98 is a resource hog....I had a PII266 w/64MB SDRAM, and Win95
never needed a swap file (it was zero size). Win98 runs a swap,
anywhere from 64-128MB.

Same system, different (sic) OS. In other words, unless there's
something you REALLY need Win98 for, save your $$$. I think MIcro$oft
has stock in DRAM fabs or something, I can't believe a simple
'upgrade' to an OS that does the SAME things would need 64MB more
memory....pathetic really. I won't even start about the interface
changes, this IE-interface is a simple excuse to force the courts into
thinking that the OS 'needs' IE in order to run. What a crock of BS.

Bill Gates sucks donkey-dick.

by **Tony Rickar** » Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:00:00

>Could you repeat that one more time Tony, I missed your answer the
>first four times. ;)

Sorry about that -

The one problem I have had upgrading to Win 98 was that Outlook Express hung
after posting a message. I did't realise the messages has actually got
posted until a bit later (after I had re-installed Outlook Express) and
there were four messages in a row.

Re-installing Outlook Express fixed the problem.

Embarassed

Tony

rec.autos.simulators

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?

WIN 98, yes, no?