rec.autos.simulators

by **Bart Brow** » Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:19:15

I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second
Edition for *** PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing sims?

BB

by **MadDAW** » Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:35:00

I know most people will disagree with me but WinME has been alot more stable
for me than Win98SE. Also when I was using Dial-Up my connection quality was
alot better as well. I do think a OS is like any other software title in the
fact that as the version goes up so does the hardware requirements. I was
running it on a 950 Athlon Classic with 512 meg and GF2 card and my BSOD
were cut by well over 75%. You see a lot of people say to turn of system
restore, but I never have and didn't have any problems with it. Again I
think alot of that is coming from running on a lesser system. My girlfriend
runs ME as well on a 750 Athlon classic with a TNT2 Ultra and 256 meg of
ram. I can't remember when she has had a BSOD with it. Granted she doesn't
do any *** *** with it, but it did seem to run Black and White just
fine.

MadDAWG

by **Scott B. Huste** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 00:06:15

Bart,

I still use Win98SE for all ***, but I've been 'testing' and I can get
the same, sometimes better, performance out of Win2K in *** with
optimized drivers. If I were starting over, I'd probably go Win2K because
of stability. Just my experience, but I wouldn't allow WinME in my house or
near my PC.

Scott
PA-Scott

by **Jones** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 03:08:34

I here that, Scott. I tried ME, and it just seemed to me like Win98SE with
an updated Media Player and IE5, with the added 'bonus' of programs running
in the background which needed turning off!

I'd consider W2K though on a new machine; but how about XP?

> Bart,

> I still use Win98SE for all ***, but I've been 'testing' and I can get
> the same, sometimes better, performance out of Win2K in *** with
> optimized drivers. If I were starting over, I'd probably go Win2K
because
> of stability. Just my experience, but I wouldn't allow WinME in my house
or
> near my PC.

> Scott
> PA-Scott

> > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second
> > Edition for *** PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing
sims?

> > BB

by **Jan Verschuere** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 03:17:03

Still running Win98se here and so far so good basically. Never had any
problems with it. I've run every racing game you'd care to mention on this
system, but for F1 2001 (my V3 is not supported) and Rally Championship
Extreme (texturing and control issues with the demo).

Jan.
=---
"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

by **Scott B. Huste** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:51:21

I can't speak for XP.. haven't tried it. When I "obtain" a copy of the
Enterprise Edition, I'll give it a shot ;)

Scott
PA-Scott

> I here that, Scott. I tried ME, and it just seemed to me like Win98SE
with
> an updated Media Player and IE5, with the added 'bonus' of programs
running
> in the background which needed turning off!

> I'd consider W2K though on a new machine; but how about XP?

> > Bart,

> > I still use Win98SE for all ***, but I've been 'testing' and I can
get
> > the same, sometimes better, performance out of Win2K in *** with
> > optimized drivers. If I were starting over, I'd probably go Win2K
> because
> > of stability. Just my experience, but I wouldn't allow WinME in my
house
> or
> > near my PC.

> > Scott
> > PA-Scott

> > > I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second
> > > Edition for *** PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing
> sims?

> > > BB

by **Ant** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:12:50

Im running win me and i dont seem to have any probs with it
i have original copies of win98 and win98se
but i prefer to use winme, i do have all the updates though (cable comes in
handy) i like the fact that winme reconises all my stuff on installation and
recognises the 5 buttons on my mouse without installing drivers :)

by **Milhous** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 08:50:03

My guess is because they figure most people will have a copy laying around
somewhere by now; personally, I'd go XP on any box worth *** on, and a
lot lesser ones too.

Milhouse

by **Bart Brow** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:16:00

No, they actually advise *buying* Win98SE, and using that in place of
any other version of Winblows, including XP. Considering Sharky's
reputation, I assume it's not an idle fancy...

BB

> My guess is because they figure most people will have a copy laying around
> somewhere by now...

by **Milhous** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:19:08

Well, huh. Odd. Personally, I'll put XP on anything with at least 233MHz
and 64MB of RAM...I like it that much, and it even runs pretty darn well on
my brother's Thinkpad 380XD, Pentium 233MMX (that's right! -below- the
minimum Pentiun II 233) and 96MB RAM...

Milhouse

> No, they actually advise *buying* Win98SE, and using that in place of
> any other version of Winblows, including XP. Considering Sharky's
> reputation, I assume it's not an idle fancy...

> BB

> > My guess is because they figure most people will have a copy laying
around
> > somewhere by now...

by **Don Burnett** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:26:44

From all that I have read, I would either stick with win98 se or completely
updated win98, or make the jump to XP. For adventurous types , XP is a no
brainer. For those that just want to run all their current games without any
question/hassle, stick with win98 for a few more months.
Just of course, mho.

Don Burnette

by **BRH** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:09:14

Well, I'm a firm believer in "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". My system is
still running everything I want it to run, using Win98SE.

If that's the case with your situation, as well, I'd say Stick with the Tried
and True, and don't upgrade. I've got a lot of different stuff*** off
my rig, and all of it's working right now.

Of course, if you're setting up a brand new PC from scratch, that's a
different situation, to which I can't comment, as I have not tried ME or XP.

.

> I see Sharky's (among others) is still recommending Windoes98 Second
> Edition for *** PCs. Any comments re: this OS and various racing sims?

> BB

--
Bert

by **Eldre** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:22:35

>Well, huh. Odd. Personally, I'll put XP on anything with at least 233MHz
>and 64MB of RAM...I like it that much, and it even runs pretty darn well on
>my brother's Thinkpad 380XD, Pentium 233MMX (that's right! -below- the
>minimum Pentiun II 233) and 96MB RAM...

How? Does XP run that much more efficiently than 98se? I tried to load 98 on
my dad's 300(400?) mhz system with 96 MB ram. It ran DOG slow, and I ended up
re-doing it with win95...

Eldred
--
Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPLRank - under construction...

Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

by **STP** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:42:35

And what is Sharky's basing that on? A few game benchamrks? Hardly what I
would call conclusive.

by **Damien Smit** » Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:16:37

To anyone buying a new machine WinME is currently the fastest, stablest,
most compatible choice. (Though, admittedly, I unistalled PCHealth before I
was totally convinced that it was better than 98SE) WinME is worth it
purely for the 10-12sec bootup time. I'm getting extremely tired of
journalists saying that WinXP boots faster than WinME - puh-leeeze!!! Also,
the more software you install on WinXP, the longer it takes to shutdown -
30-40 seconds seems to be common...as opposed to 3-4 seconds for WinME. Oh,
and that reminds me, Win98 is notorious for not shutting down properly...

rec.autos.simulators

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?

Win98SE?