rec.autos.simulators

by **Naim Gur** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 04:49:53

does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games) under
win xp? thinking of upgrading.

cheers naim

by **Destro** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:14:54

Most games run a fair bit slower in XP so far. I suggest waiting and
watching with trusty old 98se

>does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games) under
>win xp? thinking of upgrading.

>cheers naim

by **JJ Srickli** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:39:59

Everything runs great on XP for me. What OS are you running now? W2k is
excellent also.

by **Iain Mackenzi** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:21:46

Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as well
cf 98SE.
Iain

> Most games run a fair bit slower in XP so far. I suggest waiting and
> watching with trusty old 98se

> >does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games)
under
> >win xp? thinking of upgrading.

> >cheers naim

by **Naim Gur** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 16:03:00

WinME and never really had any problems but me is always thinking ahead!

Much difference between the home and professional editions in terms of game
performance?

ng

> Everything runs great on XP for me. What OS are you running now? W2k is
> excellent also.

> > does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games)
> under
> > win xp? thinking of upgrading.

> > cheers naim

by **Destro** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:32:12

>WinME and never really had any problems but me is always thinking ahead!

>Much difference between the home and professional editions in terms of game
>performance?

>ng

XP is slow for games. See my other post.

by **Destro** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:32:17

>Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as well
>cf 98SE.
>Iain

Not true. Well then you are the only one. None of the recent sites that
benchmarked the 8500 show XP running games well. Currently, it runs most
games alot worse actually.
http://www.rivastation.com/r8500_1_e.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1544

by **Edward_** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:56:22

Not necessarily, It will depend on your particular hardware/software combination. Mine all run faster!

>WinME and never really had any problems but me is always thinking ahead!
>
>Much difference between the home and professional editions in terms of game
>performance?
>
>ng
>
XP is slow for games. See my other post.

by **Yoshi Minam** » Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:03:24

Ok, but you should show your hardware/software conbo, before doubt his rig.

Not necessarily, It will depend on your particular hardware/software
combination. Mine all run faster!

>WinME and never really had any problems but me is always thinking
ahead!
>
>Much difference between the home and professional editions in terms of
game
>performance?
>
>ng
>
XP is slow for games. See my other post.

by **Iain Mackenzi** » Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:50:00

As has been posted on many ngs, forget the web reviews and believe what real
players are telling you.
also, I am not the only one. I think if you follow the xp ngs, you'll find a
lot of happy (***) bunnies.
Iain

> >Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as
well
> >cf 98SE.
> >Iain

> Not true. Well then you are the only one. None of the recent sites that
> benchmarked the 8500 show XP running games well. Currently, it runs most
> games alot worse actually.
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Iain Mackenzi** » Sun, 21 Oct 2001 03:50:38

No its not. See my other post.
Iain

> >WinME and never really had any problems but me is always thinking ahead!

> >Much difference between the home and professional editions in terms of
game
> >performance?

> >ng

> XP is slow for games. See my other post.

by **na_bike** » Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:58:41

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:32:17 GMT, Destroy

>>Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as well
>>cf 98SE.
>>Iain

>Not true. Well then you are the only one. None of the recent sites that
>benchmarked the 8500 show XP running games well. Currently, it runs most
>games alot worse actually.
>http://www.rivastation.com/r8500_1_e.htm
>http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1544

Take a look again at that anandtech review, and look at the nvidia
scores for 9x/2000/XP instead.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1544&p=14

The 8500 is a poor example, because of ATIs problems getting out
decent 2000/XP drivers. The nvidia 2000/XP drivers is top notch.

by **Destro** » Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:59:19

But still slower in XP than win98. Perhaps all this poor frame rate is
due to poor XP video driver optimization but until it gets proven better
for ***, I would recommend shying away from XP. It may be stable but
its slower the majority of the time.

Here is another article btw.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **Dave Henri** » Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:42:52

Even if it IS faster...the amount you gain will be SMALL, TINY, LITTLE.
Take the money you would have to spend on XP and get a faster chip. The
performance difference between "upgrading" to XP vs buying a faster cpu is
not even close. Don't bother with XP unless you have a very specific NEED
that is meets.(for example improved home networking) otherwise...your
spending lots of money for a very small gain.

dave henrie

"Destroy" <

by **Iain Mackenzi** » Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:10:22

Sorry Dave, I totally disagree. After extensively using every version of Mr
Gates' Windows operating system since 3.1, I would say that XP is a major
leap forward, and worth every pound of the 79 you have to pay!
Iain