I'd recommend that anyone who is having speed problems place a post
over in microsoft.public.windowsxp.games and they'll probably be able
to work out what you've done wrong.
--Morton
Ok, it's just a long post about semantics. If one is getting a new OS
because one think it's going to give double the performance or
whatever, then that person doesn't get what the hell an OS is.
Furthermore, of course you can upgrade to a better OS. You have a
shitty OS and get a better one. What the hell is that if not an
upgrade?
> 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.
Gerry
> Read the posts properly first. The argument is not about whether one OS
> gives 102fps and the other gives 100fps.
> Iain
> Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as well
> cf 98SE.
> Iain
> 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
No, wait...
> Dave
> I didn't say anything about radically improving ***, or being in any way
> 'an accelerator'.
Except for the slower performance in ***, of course.
But what about all the *** bunnies?
Sorry if you feel I've unfairly quoted you out of context. I've just
tried to summarize what you've been saying in a way that supports my
belief that you're talking out of your arse...again.
Gerry
--
Michael K. Grandy
Non Stop Cable Services East, Inc
An Estancia Cable Partners Company
> > Ok so let me clarify my posisiton.
> > I am reacting to what others call 'upgrading' to XP. When I think of
> > upgrading I think of improved performance. When I think of improved
> > performance, little small gains don't impress me. I try and look for
any
> > item that would give me the biggest increase per dollar spent.
> > XP probably is a better system. But there are usually better places
to
> > spend money to improve performance. Below are my 'general' guidelines
for
> > upgrading.
> > 1) CPU
> > 2) Video Card
> > 3) More Memory(stop at 512 if you use Win98x or ME)
> > 4) Improved subsystems(better soundcards, ata 100 hard drives, modem
or
> > broadband connection improvements etc)
> > 5) CPU (by this time you probably can begin the cycle again.)
> > I wouldn't even list an OS as a performance upgrade. If somebody
came
> to
> > me and asked what they could do to improve their system, I would
> investigate
> > their present specs and how they use it and then make recomendations.
But
> I
> > can't think of any reason to cut back on money possibly going to CPU
> > upgrades by purchasing a new OS. I'm figuring we can't all spend
> unlimited
> > amounts so I guess I should have made that clear as well. With only a
> > certain amount of money to spend, $90 or $199 (US) for an OS cuts in
half
> > what you could spend on the absolute TOP cpu or Mega video card. It
just
> > isn't worth it to me UNLESS you find it meets a very specific need.
> > For example, if I have to buy a Ge Force 2 MX instead of an Ultra or
GF3
> > because I spent extra money on XP, then I choked my system. If I have
to
> > settle for a PIII 800 when the extra money NOT spent on XP could get me
a
> P4
> > 1.8ghz, then I've once again held back my system. And no OS is gonna
> make
> > up for big jumps or lack there-of in cpu horsepower.
> > If you have a business you run with your *** system, if you have
> > networking issues, if you have unlimited $$ to spend, then XP surely is
a
> > better OS. But if you are trying to squeeze the most performance out of
a
> > system without huge amounts of money, then the OS purchase is WASTED
> money.
> > Get the rest of your system upgraded, sorted, and broken in and let
the
> > folks who can't wait beta test XP and all it's component issues.
> > dave henrie
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:53:14 +1000, "Damien Smith"
> >> The gain isn't performance; it's stability, security and
> >> expandability.
> >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.
> You can of course do what you want, but I haven't actually seen
> something that warrants such a blanket statement.
> On the other hand it's with my setup, which seems pretty well off
> driver-wise, ATM, nor do I play every game on the planet. Those with
> other hardware with poorer drivers might of course have more
> difficulty than me.
Gerry
> I'm getting the same speeds out of XP as I did out of ME. Only
> difference for me is that I'm not locking up my system 10 times a day
> with XP...
Gerry
>> On the other hand it's with my setup, which seems pretty well off
>> driver-wise, ATM, nor do I play every game on the planet. Those with
>> other hardware with poorer drivers might of course have more
>> difficulty than me.
>Which is a very good reason for many people to wait a 'while' before
>upgrading.
You think the combo nvidia and sblive is uncommon?
Gerry
Clearly I'm having trouble getting my point across. Obviously I should
consider going to some communications course in my free time, so I'll try
once again to sum up.
- Win XP gives as good performance for games as Win9X given the right
hardware. It is not a step backwards as some people in this group have
suggested. Read the XP ngs, or talk to people who actually use it. Do you
use it? Inevitably, different configurations will see increases and
decreases depending on drivers, CPU power, graphics card, etc, etc.
Personally, I saw a marginal improvement, but essentially the same level of
performance.
- it is a major step forward in many other terms, i.e. stability, ease of
use, new functions, etc. Anything that makes using a PC more pleasureable
has got to be a good thing in my eyes
- for the first time that I can remember since 3.1, the press are almost
100% behind the new MS offering and that is quite a feat.
If you don't like it, then what are your reasons? What is your experience
with XP? How did it affect you? I suspect that the answer is that you
haven't got any experience of it at all, so now who's talking through their
a***? Apologies if I'm wrong, but please share you experiences with us.
Try to get your facts right, and please stop the childish and unnecessary
insults. It doesn't do this group's reputation any favours.
Iain
> > Read the posts properly first. The argument is not about whether one OS
> > gives 102fps and the other gives 100fps.
> > Iain
> Read the first post in the thread!
> > Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as
well
> > cf 98SE.
> > Iain
> And...
> > 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
> So, according to you, XP is worth getting for improved game performance?
> No, wait...
> > Dave
> > I didn't say anything about radically improving ***, or being in any
way
> > 'an accelerator'.
> Why are all the 'bunnies' so happy in *** land then?
> > What I said was that it was not a backward step in ***
> > terms as others here have suggested.
> Except for the slower performance in ***, of course.
> > I get marginally better performance in
> > XP than 98 or ME, but that is not the reason I would recommend it.
> But what about all the *** bunnies?
> Sorry if you feel I've unfairly quoted you out of context. I've just
> tried to summarize what you've been saying in a way that supports my
> belief that you're talking out of your arse...again.
> Gerry
> > I'm getting the same speeds out of XP as I did out of ME. Only
> > difference for me is that I'm not locking up my system 10 times a day
> > with XP...
> I knew there was a reason why I didn't bother 'upgrading' to ME from 98.
> Sure I'll go to XP in the end, but right now my install of plain 98 is
> very stable. I've not seen a BSOD for months and I can't remember the
> last time a game looked up...yes I can, gpl locked up once back in the
> summer, the very hot weather was to blame for that one though.
> Gerry
> --
> Michael K. Grandy
> Non Stop Cable Services East, Inc
> An Estancia Cable Partners Company
> > Dave
> > The beta test comment is way off. I think you'll find that XP is being
> > hailed in general (even in the press!) from RC1 onwards as being by a
long
> > way the most stable OS that MS has produced. It is solid as a rock, and
> with
> > the new interface and general ease of use it is one of the best things
to
> > happen to PC users in a long time.
> > Iain
> > > Ok so let me clarify my posisiton.
> > > I am reacting to what others call 'upgrading' to XP. When I think of
> > > upgrading I think of improved performance. When I think of improved
> > > performance, little small gains don't impress me. I try and look for
> any
> > > item that would give me the biggest increase per dollar spent.
> > > XP probably is a better system. But there are usually better places
> to
> > > spend money to improve performance. Below are my 'general' guidelines
> for
> > > upgrading.
> > > 1) CPU
> > > 2) Video Card
> > > 3) More Memory(stop at 512 if you use Win98x or ME)
> > > 4) Improved subsystems(better soundcards, ata 100 hard drives,
modem
> or
> > > broadband connection improvements etc)
> > > 5) CPU (by this time you probably can begin the cycle again.)
> > > I wouldn't even list an OS as a performance upgrade. If somebody
> came
> > to
> > > me and asked what they could do to improve their system, I would
> > investigate
> > > their present specs and how they use it and then make recomendations.
> But
> > I
> > > can't think of any reason to cut back on money possibly going to CPU
> > > upgrades by purchasing a new OS. I'm figuring we can't all spend
> > unlimited
> > > amounts so I guess I should have made that clear as well. With only a
> > > certain amount of money to spend, $90 or $199 (US) for an OS cuts in
> half
> > > what you could spend on the absolute TOP cpu or Mega video card. It
> just
> > > isn't worth it to me UNLESS you find it meets a very specific need.
> > > For example, if I have to buy a Ge Force 2 MX instead of an Ultra or
> GF3
> > > because I spent extra money on XP, then I choked my system. If I have
> to
> > > settle for a PIII 800 when the extra money NOT spent on XP could get
me
> a
> > P4
> > > 1.8ghz, then I've once again held back my system. And no OS is gonna
> > make
> > > up for big jumps or lack there-of in cpu horsepower.
> > > If you have a business you run with your *** system, if you have
> > > networking issues, if you have unlimited $$ to spend, then XP surely
is
> a
> > > better OS. But if you are trying to squeeze the most performance out
of
> a
> > > system without huge amounts of money, then the OS purchase is WASTED
> > money.
> > > Get the rest of your system upgraded, sorted, and broken in and let
> the
> > > folks who can't wait beta test XP and all it's component issues.
> > > dave henrie
> > I've been using XP for about a week now and the only complaint I have is
> the
> > amount of time it takes to shut down. Everything I've ran has been very
> > stable and the menu is very quick. Pleased with it so far.\
> > --
> > Michael K. Grandy
> > Non Stop Cable Services East, Inc
> > An Estancia Cable Partners Company
> > > Dave
> > > The beta test comment is way off. I think you'll find that XP is
being
> > > hailed in general (even in the press!) from RC1 onwards as being by a
> long
> > > way the most stable OS that MS has produced. It is solid as a rock,
and
> > with
> > > the new interface and general ease of use it is one of the best things
> to
> > > happen to PC users in a long time.
> > > Iain
> > > > Ok so let me clarify my posisiton.
> > > > I am reacting to what others call 'upgrading' to XP. When I think
of
> > > > upgrading I think of improved performance. When I think of improved
> > > > performance, little small gains don't impress me. I try and look
for
> > any
> > > > item that would give me the biggest increase per dollar spent.
> > > > XP probably is a better system. But there are usually better
places
> > to
> > > > spend money to improve performance. Below are my 'general'
guidelines
> > for
> > > > upgrading.
> > > > 1) CPU
> > > > 2) Video Card
> > > > 3) More Memory(stop at 512 if you use Win98x or ME)
> > > > 4) Improved subsystems(better soundcards, ata 100 hard drives,
> modem
> > or
> > > > broadband connection improvements etc)
> > > > 5) CPU (by this time you probably can begin the cycle again.)
> > > > I wouldn't even list an OS as a performance upgrade. If somebody
> > came
> > > to
> > > > me and asked what they could do to improve their system, I would
> > > investigate
> > > > their present specs and how they use it and then make
recomendations.
> > But
> > > I
> > > > can't think of any reason to cut back on money possibly going to CPU
> > > > upgrades by purchasing a new OS. I'm figuring we can't all spend
> > > unlimited
> > > > amounts so I guess I should have made that clear as well. With only
a
> > > > certain amount of money to spend, $90 or $199 (US) for an OS cuts in
> > half
> > > > what you could spend on the absolute TOP cpu or Mega video card. It
> > just
> > > > isn't worth it to me UNLESS you find it meets a very specific need.
> > > > For example, if I have to buy a Ge Force 2 MX instead of an Ultra
or
> > GF3
> > > > because I spent extra money on XP, then I choked my system. If I
have
> > to
> > > > settle for a PIII 800 when the extra money NOT spent on XP could get
> me
> > a
> > > P4
> > > > 1.8ghz, then I've once again held back my system. And no OS is
gonna
> > > make
> > > > up for big jumps or lack there-of in cpu horsepower.
> > > > If you have a business you run with your *** system, if you
have
> > > > networking issues, if you have unlimited $$ to spend, then XP surely
> is
> > a
> > > > better OS. But if you are trying to squeeze the most performance
out
> of
> > a
> > > > system without huge amounts of money, then the OS purchase is WASTED
> > > money.
> > > > Get the rest of your system upgraded, sorted, and broken in and
let
> > the
> > > > folks who can't wait beta test XP and all it's component issues.
> > > > dave henrie
--
Michael K. Grandy
Non Stop Cable Services East, Inc
An Estancia Cable Partners Company
> > There is a registry edit to fix that. If I can remember it, I'll post
> > later.
> > Iain
> > > I've been using XP for about a week now and the only complaint I have
is
> > the
> > > amount of time it takes to shut down. Everything I've ran has been
very
> > > stable and the menu is very quick. Pleased with it so far.\
> > > --
> > > Michael K. Grandy
> > > Non Stop Cable Services East, Inc
> > > An Estancia Cable Partners Company
> > > > Dave
> > > > The beta test comment is way off. I think you'll find that XP is
> being
> > > > hailed in general (even in the press!) from RC1 onwards as being by
a
> > long
> > > > way the most stable OS that MS has produced. It is solid as a rock,
> and
> > > with
> > > > the new interface and general ease of use it is one of the best
things
> > to
> > > > happen to PC users in a long time.
> > > > Iain
> > > > > Ok so let me clarify my posisiton.
> > > > > I am reacting to what others call 'upgrading' to XP. When I think
> of
> > > > > upgrading I think of improved performance. When I think of
improved
> > > > > performance, little small gains don't impress me. I try and look
> for
> > > any
> > > > > item that would give me the biggest increase per dollar spent.
> > > > > XP probably is a better system. But there are usually better
> places
> > > to
> > > > > spend money to improve performance. Below are my 'general'
> guidelines
> > > for
> > > > > upgrading.
> > > > > 1) CPU
> > > > > 2) Video Card
> > > > > 3) More Memory(stop at 512 if you use Win98x or ME)
> > > > > 4) Improved subsystems(better soundcards, ata 100 hard drives,
> > modem
> > > or
> > > > > broadband connection improvements etc)
> > > > > 5) CPU (by this time you probably can begin the cycle again.)
> > > > > I wouldn't even list an OS as a performance upgrade. If
somebody
> > > came
> > > > to
> > > > > me and asked what they could do to improve their system, I would
> > > > investigate
> > > > > their present specs and how they use it and then make
> recomendations.
> > > But
> > > > I
> > > > > can't think of any reason to cut back on money possibly going to
CPU
> > > > > upgrades by purchasing a new OS. I'm figuring we can't all spend
> > > > unlimited
> > > > > amounts so I guess I should have made that clear as well. With
only
> a
> > > > > certain amount of money to spend, $90 or $199 (US) for an OS cuts
in
> > > half
> > > > > what you could spend on the absolute TOP cpu or Mega video card.
It
> > > just
> > > > > isn't worth it to me UNLESS you find it meets a very specific
need.
> > > > > For example, if I have to buy a Ge Force 2 MX instead of an
Ultra
> or
> > > GF3
> > > > > because I spent extra money on XP, then I choked my system. If I
> have
> > > to
> > > > > settle for a PIII 800 when the extra money NOT spent on XP could
get
> > me
> > > a
> > > > P4
> > > > > 1.8ghz, then I've once again held back my system. And no OS is
> gonna
> > > > make
> > > > > up for big jumps or lack there-of in cpu horsepower.
> > > > > If you have a business you run with your *** system, if you
> have
> > > > > networking issues, if you have unlimited $$ to spend, then XP
surely
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > better OS. But if you are trying to squeeze the most performance
> out
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > system without huge amounts of money, then the OS purchase is
WASTED
> > > > money.
> > > > > Get the rest of your system upgraded, sorted, and broken in and
> let
> > > the
> > > > > folks who can't wait beta test XP and all it's component issues.
> > > > > dave henrie
