rec.autos.simulators

by **Iain Mackenzi** » Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:14:16

Are you crazy or what? Poor frame rate!!! The article shows that there is
a trivial difference in all their tests between XP and 98. If you want to be
picky XP showed a better performance in 2 out of the 5. But, as I say, the
differences were all pathetically small.
Iain

by **Dave Henri** » Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:15:59

So taking into account that users with older video cards that aren't
compatible with XP will have to buy a new card, possibly a new wheel, most
likely more memory to gain what? 2 to 3 fps? Throw the cash into an AMD
1800 or however much chip you can afford. You'll gain far more speed than
moving from win98 to XP.
XP may be a BETTER os, but performance wise, it is still an os, not an
accelerator. Sure it may be better at any number of options, but at the end
of the day, just how much better performance do you get?
I just don't see any one feature of XP that SCREAMS go out and buy it.
If I got a new system with XP pre-installed, hey that'd be great. But what
is the cooooolest thing about XP? What is it that radically improves
***?
dave henrie

> 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

> > 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" <
> > > >The nvidia 2000/XP drivers is top notch.

> > > 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 **Iain Mackenzi** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:00:18

Dave

I didn't say anything about radically improving ***, or being in any way
'an accelerator'. What I said was that it was not a backward step in ***
terms as others here have suggested. I get marginally better performance in
XP than 98 or ME, but that is not the reason I would recommend it.

The whole interface is a great improvement and overall makes the experience
of working on a PC a whole lot better including playing games. There really
was no leap forward from 95 to 98 or from 98 to ME, and 2000 didn't really
come into it from a *** point of view. Windows XP is worth the money
that MS are asking. Whether it justifies buying a shitload of new equipment
to run it on is up to the individual. If their system is that old, then
they should be considering an upgrade anyway to make the most out of racing
sims which have very heavy CPU/graphics demands.

Iain

> So taking into account that users with older video cards that aren't
> compatible with XP will have to buy a new card, possibly a new wheel, most
> likely more memory to gain what? 2 to 3 fps? Throw the cash into an AMD
> 1800 or however much chip you can afford. You'll gain far more speed
than
> moving from win98 to XP.
> XP may be a BETTER os, but performance wise, it is still an os, not an
> accelerator. Sure it may be better at any number of options, but at the
end
> of the day, just how much better performance do you get?
> I just don't see any one feature of XP that SCREAMS go out and buy it.
> If I got a new system with XP pre-installed, hey that'd be great. But
what
> is the cooooolest thing about XP? What is it that radically improves
> ***?
> dave henrie

> > 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

> > > 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" <
> > > > >The nvidia 2000/XP drivers is top notch.

> > > > 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 **na_bike** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:44:50

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:59:19 GMT, Destroy

>>The nvidia 2000/XP drivers is top notch.

>But still slower in XP than win98.

Aw, come ON! Read the numbers.

Even IF it were 10% slower it would still be worth it. If XP is to be
shyed away from, you should be running like the wind from 9x.

Great "source". Some whatshisface just saying "games is 5-10% slower".
Well, what's the point in arguing, I just have to accept defeat at
once! Then why isn't the benchmarks 5-10% slower?

I'll give him something, though. If you're planning on playing DOS
games it may not be the best choice. Other than that, you're golden.

All In My Very Humble Opinion, of course. :->

by **Dino** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:28:25

I currently have XP and 98 loaded on a dual boot system and the XP
performance is noticeably slower than 98, It's probably hardware related as
I have yet to find compatible drivers for my SB live, V5 or LWFF. GPL is
unplayable, N4 and F12001 are both slower in XP than 98.

If /when the hardware compatibility's are straightened out XP might be the
way to go but I would suggest a little research to anyone thinking about the
upgrade.

P3 800
Abit BF6
256 RAM
V5 5500 PCI
SB live value
LWFF USB

DN

> 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

> > 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" <
> > > >The nvidia 2000/XP drivers is top notch.

> > > 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 **na_bike** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:28:44

The gain isn't performance; it's stability, security and
expandability.

by **Dave Ryerso** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:43:25

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:00:18 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie"

>Dave

>I didn't say anything about radically improving ***, or being in any way
>'an accelerator'. What I said was that it was not a backward step in ***
>terms as others here have suggested. I get marginally better performance in
>XP than 98 or ME,

That's funny, because I read a test report and XP is slower for ***
in every benchmark (games) except one. Who am I to believe, your
subjective comments or the objective test report?

by **Dave Ryerso** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:46:09

And that nice little non-option of having to register and re- register
and re-register ad-inifinitum. No thx.

by **Ian** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:10:34

Which is the reason I'll not bother with XP until someone cracks the stupid
registration ***!

Ian P

by **Damien Smit** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 06:53:14

Hmm...well I'd say games are slightly more unstable than under win9x - I'll
give XP at least 12 months before I consider it.

by **Larr** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:37:49

I'm having controller problems and really lousy graphics performance, and I
have an AthlonXP 1800+ and a GeForce 3 Ti500!

Still working on it...

-Larry

by **Larr** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:42:32

I can hit 90fps in N4 if I don't get carried away with the options. Res at
1024X768.

-Larry

by **Larr** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:40:41

Dave,

XP runs a LOT more stuff than Win2K does without any effort. That's reason
enough to consider it.

For the first time, I can finally avoid dual-boot systems.

-Larry

> So taking into account that users with older video cards that aren't
> compatible with XP will have to buy a new card, possibly a new wheel, most
> likely more memory to gain what? 2 to 3 fps? Throw the cash into an AMD
> 1800 or however much chip you can afford. You'll gain far more speed
than
> moving from win98 to XP.
> XP may be a BETTER os, but performance wise, it is still an os, not an
> accelerator. Sure it may be better at any number of options, but at the
end
> of the day, just how much better performance do you get?
> I just don't see any one feature of XP that SCREAMS go out and buy it.
> If I got a new system with XP pre-installed, hey that'd be great. But
what
> is the cooooolest thing about XP? What is it that radically improves
> ***?
> dave henrie

> > 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

> > > 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" <
> > > > >The nvidia 2000/XP drivers is top notch.

> > > > 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 **Naim Gur** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:51:56

Hell if u have that I'm asking for the impossible aren't I!

Naim

> I'm having controller problems and really lousy graphics performance, and
I
> have an AthlonXP 1800+ and a GeForce 3 Ti500!

> Still working on it...

> -Larry

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

> > cheers naim

by **na_bike** » Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:10:09

>>The gain isn't performance; it's stability, security and
>>expandability.

>And that nice little non-option of having to register and re- register
>and re-register ad-inifinitum. No thx.

Yeah, I know.

Already got that fixed, though. ;-)