rec.autos.simulators

> Alanb

> > it's a very dangerous and serious security problem. Microsoft describes
it
> > in detail in a security bulletin. It's AAMOF more serious than the
> messages
> > in this thread make it look like.

> > Achim

> > > I've heard this before and frankly I could care less.  Most of it is
> > untrue
> > > anyhow, the media's source probably being a drunk in a can in an alley
> and
> > > his girlfriend.  Just remember, subtract 20% for exaggeration when the
> > media
> > > reports anything.  This figure might even be higher for cable
channels.

> > > Alanb

> > > >   Just saw on one of the 24 hour news channels that both versions of
> XP
> > > are
> > > > wide open to hackers.  The entire operating system, not just the
email
> > or
> > > > other components....Supposedly the biggest security risk in MS's
> shakey
> > > > security history.  Read more about it...before a hacker takes over
> your
> > > > sy.....

> > > > dave henrie

> >:Now you can do the smart thing and replace that Wintel piece of junk
with a
> >:nice new iMac.

> And swap my lovely 21 inch monitor for a crappy 15inch one? No
> thanks....
> I would rather have a G4.

> Tsunami

> >:we _told_ ya it's dangerous.

> Yeah, lets all start using Linux, then we can just throw away all
> those lovely racing sims we bought (after all you can have more fun
> with a command line interface anyway), and see how long it takes the
> crackers and virus writers to punch holes in it. Pretty much the only
> reason there are so many viri that attack MS OSs is due to it's
> popularity. I read a while ago in a Mac magazine someone almost
> bemoaning the fact that no-one hardly ever writes viri for Mac OS due
> to its lack of popularity!
> I don't mind as long as MS keep patching up the holes...
> It is still more fun to use than Linux.

> Tsunami

> benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are
wrong.

> Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and you'll see
> that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as compared
to
> 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps counter
shows
> the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in Win9x.

> You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen. Run N4
> in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still smooth.
> Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the background
> stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects (some
of
> the yellow traffic lights).

> But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the Registry
> (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe drivers
> chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed.

> If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower.

> Achim

> > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for
> > > *** if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in order
> > > to look nice.  This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to
> > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with
> > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the
> > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing).
> > > The sole *** advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but
> > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most ***
> > > applications.  I mention this because *** is the only reason why
> > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what
> > > with the number of operating systems available now that make more
> > > efficient use of your system resources.  I sincerely hope that XP
> > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed that
> > > only run in XP.

> > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago,
> nobody
> > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now we're
> > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i had
> people
> > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over
21GB
> on
> > this 40GB and that increases daily.  =)  Win98 will not forever be the
> > better choice in ***.

> > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your
> thinking
> > that XP is less efficient for ***. They all pretty much show that
it's
> as
> > fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP are
> > usually driver related and not OS related.

> > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with.   =)
> > --
> > - Will DeRivera
> > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime...
> > - http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> > Hi Will,

> > benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are
> wrong.

> > Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and you'll
see
> > that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as
compared
> to
> > 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps counter
> shows
> > the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in
Win9x.

> > You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen. Run
N4
> > in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still
smooth.
> > Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the background
> > stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects
(some
> of
> > the yellow traffic lights).

> > But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the
Registry
> > (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe
drivers
> > chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed.

> > If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower.

> > Achim

> > > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for
> > > > *** if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in
order
> > > > to look nice.  This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided to
> > > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer with
> > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the
> > > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing).
> > > > The sole *** advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but
> > > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most ***
> > > > applications.  I mention this because *** is the only reason why
> > > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what
> > > > with the number of operating systems available now that make more
> > > > efficient use of your system resources.  I sincerely hope that XP
> > > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed
that
> > > > only run in XP.

> > > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago,
> > nobody
> > > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now
we're
> > > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i had
> > people
> > > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over
> 21GB
> > on
> > > this 40GB and that increases daily.  =)  Win98 will not forever be the
> > > better choice in ***.

> > > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your
> > thinking
> > > that XP is less efficient for ***. They all pretty much show that
> it's
> > as
> > > fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP are
> > > usually driver related and not OS related.

> > > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with.   =)
> > > --
> > > - Will DeRivera
> > > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime...
> > > - http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > > - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using the
> > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is amazing).

> Can I back-update W98SE to use the 95 shell?

> Jonny

> What I said is correct.

> XP/W2K can be faster for some applications, but they're not in games with
a
> lot of 3D action. The reasons being among others that DirectX in these
OS'es
> can't access the hardware as directly as in 9x, the permanent rights
> checking, and the immense number of Registry accesses made in 2K/XP.

> Recent drivers seem to sometimes show identical fps in all four OS'es, but
> the screen doesn't scroll as smoothly under XP/2K as it does in 9x.

> I don't know what you're trying to say with your reference to 5 years of
> benchmarking as neither 2K nor XP have existed for that long. But in the
> last 3 years it's been undisputed that W2K is slower for *** than
ME/98.
> That doesn't suddenly change miraculously. And XP is hardly any faster.

> As for N1 turning objects off on a P3 1Ghz - well, you can't expect
miracles
> from such a slow and obsolete CPU  <g>

> Achim

the
> > other benchmarks that have been used the last 5 years are wrong. Since
> they
> > have always used those tests on 98, does that mean those were invalid as
> > well??  Papy has always been known for efficient code!! LOL! Just run N1
> and
> > watch a replay and see the objects auto turn off on a P3 1 Ghz with
512MB
> of
> > RAM. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

> > > Hi Will,

> > > benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are
> > wrong.

> > > Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and you'll
> see
> > > that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as
> compared
> > to
> > > 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps counter
> > shows
> > > the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in
> Win9x.

> > > You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen.
Run
> N4
> > > in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still
> smooth.
> > > Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the
background
> > > stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects
> (some
> > of
> > > the yellow traffic lights).

> > > But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the
> Registry
> > > (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe
> drivers
> > > chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed.

> > > If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower.

> > > Achim

> > > > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice for
> > > > > *** if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in
> order
> > > > > to look nice.  This has been a complaint of mine since MS decided
to
> > > > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer
with
> > > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using
the
> > > > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is
amazing).
> > > > > The sole *** advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but
> > > > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most
***
> > > > > applications.  I mention this because *** is the only reason
why
> > > > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point, what
> > > > > with the number of operating systems available now that make more
> > > > > efficient use of your system resources.  I sincerely hope that XP
> > > > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed
> that
> > > > > only run in XP.

> > > > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long ago,
> > > nobody
> > > > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now
> we're
> > > > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i
had
> > > people
> > > > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have over
> > 21GB
> > > on
> > > > this 40GB and that increases daily.  =)  Win98 will not forever be
the
> > > > better choice in ***.

> > > > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your
> > > thinking
> > > > that XP is less efficient for ***. They all pretty much show that
> > it's
> > > as
> > > > fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP
are
> > > > usually driver related and not OS related.

> > > > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with.   =)
> > > > --
> > > > - Will DeRivera
> > > > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime...
> > > > - http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > > > - http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> > WinXP? Is anyone still using that with all the probs you see in the
NG's?
> > ;-)

> > Achim

> I don't see many probelms reported by XP users. Sure, like anything new
> there are going to be teething problems for some - tell me something new
why
> don't you?

> WinXP is definitely a better, faster *** system than Win2000.  Win98SE
> was decent in it's day, but now with all the latest hardware, I still get
> lock-ups daily with Win98SE, but have yet to get the lock-up with XP.

> As for the Security issue.  XP is still the better OS IMO.  You download
the
> patch, install it, and you are done.  All other OS's from MS have had the
> same type troubles.  I am sure that if we were all running DOS we wouldn't
> be having these problems.  But I for one am willing to have to download
> patches from time to time to improve my OS.   To think that there could
ever
> be such a thing as a perfect OS that never needs attention is simply
> unrealistic.

> > Hey, I'm pleased to see you're in such a good mood - cheers! :-)

> > What I said is correct.

> > XP/W2K can be faster for some applications, but they're not in games
with
> a
> > lot of 3D action. The reasons being among others that DirectX in these
> OS'es
> > can't access the hardware as directly as in 9x, the permanent rights
> > checking, and the immense number of Registry accesses made in 2K/XP.

> > Recent drivers seem to sometimes show identical fps in all four OS'es,
but
> > the screen doesn't scroll as smoothly under XP/2K as it does in 9x.

> > I don't know what you're trying to say with your reference to 5 years of
> > benchmarking as neither 2K nor XP have existed for that long. But in the
> > last 3 years it's been undisputed that W2K is slower for *** than
> ME/98.
> > That doesn't suddenly change miraculously. And XP is hardly any faster.

> > As for N1 turning objects off on a P3 1Ghz - well, you can't expect
> miracles
> > from such a slow and obsolete CPU  <g>

> > Achim

> the
> > > other benchmarks that have been used the last 5 years are wrong. Since
> > they
> > > have always used those tests on 98, does that mean those were invalid
as
> > > well??  Papy has always been known for efficient code!! LOL! Just run
N1
> > and
> > > watch a replay and see the objects auto turn off on a P3 1 Ghz with
> 512MB
> > of
> > > RAM. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

> > > > Hi Will,

> > > > benchmarks that 'show' that WinXP is faster for games than Win98 are
> > > wrong.

> > > > Just play a game at the limit of your system's performance and
you'll
> > see
> > > > that under WinXP you have to crank the settings down a notch (as
> > compared
> > > to
> > > > 9x) to achieve the same smooth display on the screen. The fps
counter
> > > shows
> > > > the same fps, but the smoothness clearly is lower in WinXP than in
> > Win9x.

> > > > You can check this for example in Nascar4 on a lap at Watkins Glen.
> Run
> > N4
> > > > in Win9x maxxed to settings that are at the limit of what's still
> > smooth.
> > > > Then run it at these settings under WinXP and you'll see the
> background
> > > > stutter in certain locations, and maybe also some trackside objects
> > (some
> > > of
> > > > the yellow traffic lights).

> > > > But make sure your drivers quality settings are identical in the
> > Registry
> > > > (compare them manually), as I've seen things that make me believe
> > drivers
> > > > chose settings a bit creatively under WinXP for the sake of speed.

> > > > If you make sure everything's identical, W2K/XP are slower.

> > > > Achim

> > > > > > c.) Windows 98 is and probably forever will be a better choice
for
> > > > > > *** if only because the shell in XP wastes RAM/CPU cycles in
> > order
> > > > > > to look nice.  This has been a complaint of mine since MS
decided
> to
> > > > > > kill the efficiency of their shell by replacing the 95 Explorer
> with
> > > > > > IE (the performance difference between a copy of Win98lite using
> the
> > > > > > Win95 shell and a standard copy of Win98 with IE 4/5/6 is
> amazing).
> > > > > > The sole *** advantages of XP are a slightly more stable (but
> > > > > > bulkier) kernel and SMP capability which is useless for most
> ***
> > > > > > applications.  I mention this because *** is the only reason
> why
> > > > > > anyone should be running Windows on their PC's at this point,
what
> > > > > > with the number of operating systems available now that make
more
> > > > > > efficient use of your system resources.  I sincerely hope that
XP
> > > > > > continues to sell poorly because I'd hate to see games developed
> > that
> > > > > > only run in XP.

> > > > > A) Never say "forever" when it comes to computing. Not too long
ago,
> > > > nobody
> > > > > ever thought we'd ever use more than 512kB of RAM...EVER. lol. Now
> > we're
> > > > > starting to see games that *recommend* 512MB! Not too long ago, i
> had
> > > > people
> > > > > tell me i was nuts when i bought a 1GB HD! lol...cripes, i have
over
> > > 21GB
> > > > on
> > > > > this 40GB and that increases daily.  =)  Win98 will not forever be
> the
> > > > > better choice in ***.

> > > > > B) There are plenty of benchmarks already out there to debunk your
> > > > thinking
> > > > > that XP is less efficient for ***. They all pretty much show
that
> > > it's
> > > > as
> > > > > fast or faster than 98. Most issues programs/games do have with XP
> are
> > > > > usually driver related and not OS related.

> > > > > The rest of your post, i pretty much agree with.   =)
> > > > > --
> > > > > - Will DeRivera
> > > > > - GPL Rank 105.63, i'll get to working on it again sometime...
> > > > > - http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > > > > - http://www.racesimcentral.net/