rec.autos.simulators

>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

>x-no-archive: yes

>I'm still on w98 FIRST edition. I've got SE, but I'm not installing it until FE crashes, and it's running so nicely ATM... I'm a firm believer in "If it aint broke...".

>Running F1 2001 like a dream :-)

>R.

>> 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.

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

> >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.racesimcentral.net/~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.

>In all honestly, I've found that it does.  If anything, I'd gladly take the
>reduced performance - which I haven't noticed at all, even on my mom's
>Pentium II 350, and on my box while it was a Celeron 300a at 300 for a
>while...though I think RAM makes the most difference, both the 350 and my
>300a while it was at 300 had 320MB of RAM.  Mine's now got 512MB of RAM and
>a Celeron 900, heh...

>The Thinkpad is really the only system where there's any truly noticeable
>delays in anything when you try to multitask; not bad for a box below
>minimum specs.

>What also helps some is turning down/off the visual niceties on slower
>systems; might I ask, what video card was in the 300/400/whatever box?  The
>only ones I've heard of XP running like ***on have really really piss-poor
>video cards.  (The Thinkpad gets away with it because it has 95% of the eye
>candy turned off.  Really doesn't look much different.)

> 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.

> >What also helps some is turning down/off the visual niceties on slower
> >systems; might I ask, what video card was in the 300/400/whatever box?
The
> >only ones I've heard of XP running like ***on have really really
piss-poor
> >video cards.  (The Thinkpad gets away with it because it has 95% of the
eye
> >candy turned off.  Really doesn't look much different.)

> Hehe...  I wasn't even TALKING about running games on it.  I just mean the
> desktop and the few programs he uses(word, excel, a bowling secretary
program,
> and a couple others).  It was absolutely HORRIBLE.  I can't remember the
video
> card.  It's a Presario something...don't remember the model number.

>Oh, I know.  Still.  One of my friends complains about XP running decidedly
>slow, and the only thing I can think of is the video card, everything else
>on his system is better than several boxes I've had it on.  From what I've
>heard, XP uses a decent bit of acceleration just for the desktop - i.e. the
>shadowing and fades.

>Another thing, was it a clean install?

> > Oh, I know.  Still.  One of my friends complains about XP running
> decidedly
> > slow, and the only thing I can think of is the video card, everything
else
> > on his system is better than several boxes I've had it on.  From what
I've
> > heard, XP uses a decent bit of acceleration just for the desktop - i.e.
> the
> > shadowing and fades.

> Did he try it in classic mode? That turns off all the eye candy with one
> click. My PC is more than capable of running XP with all the eye candy,
but
> I still run it in classic mode with no animated windows etc. just because
I
> prefer it that way.

> > I'm more or less ***ed to it now, I've installed it on...lessee...my
> > Celeron 928, my dad's Duron 927, my brother's P233MMX laptop, my mom's
PII
> > 350, an Athlon 1.4 box, and an AthlonXP 1700+ box.  The only one that
had
> > any sort of issue was my mom's PII 350, and switching the no-name ISA
> > soundboard in it for a newer PCI no-name soundboard in another comp (the
> > only one I still have 98SE on, a K63/400 that has a mere 560MB HD) did
the
> > trick. (Not that it's an ISA thing or anything, my dad's box has a
SBAWE64
> > ISA.)

> > Milhouse

> You did buy a copy for each machine, right? ;-)

> >Oh, I know.  Still.  One of my friends complains about XP running
decidedly
> >slow, and the only thing I can think of is the video card, everything
else
> >on his system is better than several boxes I've had it on.  From what
I've
> >heard, XP uses a decent bit of acceleration just for the desktop - i.e.
the
> >shadowing and fades.

> >Another thing, was it a clean install?

> Yes, it was.

>> >Another thing, was it a clean install?

>> Yes, it was.

>Well, huh, I'm out of ideas...maybe there's just some boxes out there that
>don't like XP.  I've yet to find one.

>Well, one last stab in the dark. FAT32 or NTFS?  I've gone NTFS on each and
>every install so far.  Yeah, it's a reach...

>Milhouse