N2002: XP Pro or 98?

I am currently running 98 and I have started to have lock up problems. I am considering doing a full re-install of the OS. What OS will run N2002 the best with regards to performance, stability, etc? XP Pro or 98? hardware: PIII 933 - VIA Chipset GeForce II Ultra SB Live MS FF Wheel - USB 256 Meg RAM Brian Oster

Well Brian, the problem is that win 98SE is faster but XP is more stable. I have run both win98 and XP with Nascar 4. I upgraded to XP just for stablity reasons alone. It seems Win98 is more tweakable for gaming controllers ect. So ts a trade off. I like XP as it does not crash as often, if it gets an erro rit tells you but the machine stays up. Jack "Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I am currently running 98 and I have started to have lock up problems. > I am considering doing a full re-install of the OS. What OS will run > N2002 the best with regards to performance, stability, etc? XP Pro or > 98? > > hardware: > PIII 933 - VIA Chipset > GeForce II Ultra > SB Live > MS FF Wheel - USB > 256 Meg RAM > > > Brian Oster

Thanks for the info. Since my machine is barely able to run N2002 as it is I will probably go with 98 then. Right now I am dual booting to win2k and I tested it out on 2k and it is MUCH slower on it. I was hoping that XP would have improved over 2k and 98. On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:24:00 GMT, "Jack Pim" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>Well Brian, the problem is that win 98SE is faster but XP is more stable. I >have run both win98 and XP with Nascar 4. I upgraded to XP just for >stablity reasons alone. It seems Win98 is more tweakable for gaming >controllers ect. So ts a trade off. I like XP as it does not crash as >often, if it gets an erro rit tells you but the machine stays up. > >Jack >"Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> I am currently running 98 and I have started to have lock up problems. >> I am considering doing a full re-install of the OS. What OS will run >> N2002 the best with regards to performance, stability, etc? XP Pro or >> 98? >> >> hardware: >> PIII 933 - VIA Chipset >> GeForce II Ultra >> SB Live >> MS FF Wheel - USB >> 256 Meg RAM >> >> >> Brian Oster >

Brian Oster

Brian Oster <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Thanks for the info. Since my machine is barely able to run N2002 as > it is I will probably go with 98 then. Right now I am dual booting to > win2k and I tested it out on 2k and it is MUCH slower on it. I was > hoping that XP would have improved over 2k and 98. > It (XP Pro) is a lot faster than 98SE and Win2k (NT5.0) when configured properly. I have XP Pro(NT5.1) on 2 machines, an Intel PIII 700 Mhz and AMD 1.2Ghz, and while the 700Mhz machine does run 2002 a tad more slugish than the 1.2Ghz machine, they are both playable. Both machines have 512MB of RAM, the 1.2 has a GF3, the 700 a GF2. I dont see why a 900+ Mhz machine would have a single problem running XP Pro and NR2002 to great satisfaction, its all in the setup. I run the 1.2 machine as my personal machine and it has everything going against it, SB sound card, Via motherboard, Win XP Pro, and a GF3 with the 'dreaded' 23.11 drivers. It simply runs as good as it can until the OGL compression is implemented. 60FPS+ with decent detail (incl Max World detail and Max Car detail, 80% draw ahead and every option but skid marks @ 1024X768X16 with FSAA 2x enabled). I don't even have the 'blurries' everyone is talking about. Looks great. XP Pro in the right hands is every bit as fast as Win98SE and tons more stable. Most folks just aren't used to tweaking an NT system and the learning curve is holding them back a little.

how about supplying some tips on xp performance tweaking? "SimRacer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ifWc8.22261$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Brian Oster <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Thanks for the info. Since my machine is barely able to run N2002 as > > it is I will probably go with 98 then. Right now I am dual booting to > > win2k and I tested it out on 2k and it is MUCH slower on it. I was > > hoping that XP would have improved over 2k and 98. > > > > It (XP Pro) is a lot faster than 98SE and Win2k (NT5.0) when configured > properly. I have XP Pro(NT5.1) on 2 machines, an Intel PIII 700 Mhz and

AMD > 1.2Ghz, and while the 700Mhz machine does run 2002 a tad more slugish than > the 1.2Ghz machine, they are both playable. Both machines have 512MB ofRAM, > the 1.2 has a GF3, the 700 a GF2. I dont see why a 900+ Mhz machine would > have a single problem running XP Pro and NR2002 to great satisfaction, its > all in the setup. I run the 1.2 machine as my personal machine and it has > everything going against it, SB sound card, Via motherboard, Win XP Pro,and

Quoted text (12 lines)

> a GF3 with the 'dreaded' 23.11 drivers. It simply runs as good as it can > until the OGL compression is implemented. 60FPS+ with decent detail (incl > Max World detail and Max Car detail, 80% draw ahead and every option but > skid marks @ 1024X768X16 with FSAA 2x enabled). I don't even have the > 'blurries' everyone is talking about. Looks great. > > XP Pro in the right hands is every bit as fast as Win98SE and tons more > stable. Most folks just aren't used to tweaking an NT system and the > learning curve is holding them back a little. > > >

I run a 98SE / 2000 / XP Pro triple boot. I find XP good for almost everything, but use 98 every now and then for things that don't run on XP. If I were you, I'd back everything up, and then install a 98 / XP dual boot system. Works great for me. James "Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Thanks for the info. Since my machine is barely able to run N2002 as > it is I will probably go with 98 then. Right now I am dual booting to > win2k and I tested it out on 2k and it is MUCH slower on it. I was > hoping that XP would have improved over 2k and 98. > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 22:24:00 GMT, "Jack Pim" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Well Brian, the problem is that win 98SE is faster but XP is more stable.

I

Quoted text (25 lines)

> >have run both win98 and XP with Nascar 4. I upgraded to XP just for > >stablity reasons alone. It seems Win98 is more tweakable for gaming > >controllers ect. So ts a trade off. I like XP as it does not crash as > >often, if it gets an erro rit tells you but the machine stays up. > > > >Jack > >"Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> I am currently running 98 and I have started to have lock up problems. > >> I am considering doing a full re-install of the OS. What OS will run > >> N2002 the best with regards to performance, stability, etc? XP Pro or > >> 98? > >> > >> hardware: > >> PIII 933 - VIA Chipset > >> GeForce II Ultra > >> SB Live > >> MS FF Wheel - USB > >> 256 Meg RAM > >> > >> > >> Brian Oster > > > > Brian Oster

I have done extensive testing with Win98SE and XP Pro and found no noticeable difference in performance with the sims I run (N4, SCGT, F1 2001). But as others have said, XP is much more reliable. Your mileage may vary depending on your setup and configuration capabilities. My $.02 "ToddT" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<psWc8.3603$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (37 lines)

> how about supplying some tips on xp performance tweaking? > > > "SimRacer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ifWc8.22261$[email hidden]... > > > > Brian Oster <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Thanks for the info. Since my machine is barely able to run N2002 as > > > it is I will probably go with 98 then. Right now I am dual booting to > > > win2k and I tested it out on 2k and it is MUCH slower on it. I was > > > hoping that XP would have improved over 2k and 98. > > > > > > > It (XP Pro) is a lot faster than 98SE and Win2k (NT5.0) when configured > > properly. I have XP Pro(NT5.1) on 2 machines, an Intel PIII 700 Mhz and > AMD > > 1.2Ghz, and while the 700Mhz machine does run 2002 a tad more slugish than > > the 1.2Ghz machine, they are both playable. Both machines have 512MB of > RAM, > > the 1.2 has a GF3, the 700 a GF2. I dont see why a 900+ Mhz machine would > > have a single problem running XP Pro and NR2002 to great satisfaction, its > > all in the setup. I run the 1.2 machine as my personal machine and it has > > everything going against it, SB sound card, Via motherboard, Win XP Pro, > and > > a GF3 with the 'dreaded' 23.11 drivers. It simply runs as good as it can > > until the OGL compression is implemented. 60FPS+ with decent detail (incl > > Max World detail and Max Car detail, 80% draw ahead and every option but > > skid marks @ 1024X768X16 with FSAA 2x enabled). I don't even have the > > 'blurries' everyone is talking about. Looks great. > > > > XP Pro in the right hands is every bit as fast as Win98SE and tons more > > stable. Most folks just aren't used to tweaking an NT system and the > > learning curve is holding them back a little. > > > > > >

XP is faster and more stable provided the pc is much faster to begin with. On a marginal machine, XP will almost definitely be more sluggish than Win9X. -- Biz "Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and,......things with molecular structures,....and the....." - Ash Brian Oster <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I am currently running 98 and I have started to have lock up problems. > I am considering doing a full re-install of the OS. What OS will run > N2002 the best with regards to performance, stability, etc? XP Pro or > 98? > > hardware: > PIII 933 - VIA Chipset > GeForce II Ultra > SB Live > MS FF Wheel - USB > 256 Meg RAM > > > Brian Oster

"BW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I have done extensive testing with Win98SE and XP Pro and found no > noticeable difference in performance with the sims I run (N4, SCGT, F1 > 2001). But as others have said, XP is much more reliable. > > Your mileage may vary depending on your setup and configuration > capabilities. Maybe so, but XP is much more invasive than Win98. I used XP for quite a while but have gone back to Win98 for gaming and put Linux on another partition for other stuff. I don't need Billy boy to hold my hand thankyou.

lane <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a527il$3v6th$[email hidden]... > > Maybe so, but XP is much more invasive than Win98. I used XP for quite a > while but have gone back to Win98 for gaming and put Linux on another > partition for other stuff. I don't need Billy boy to hold my handthankyou. > > Not a flame here, what do you mean more invasive? So it runs everything, that was the old Win-on-top-of-DOS's problem (Win3.0-98SE & ME), it had to keep going to command.com to get stuff done. I'll take the all-encompassing Windows so the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

ToddT <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:psWc8.3603$[email hidden]... > how about supplying some tips on xp performance tweaking? > > It is entirely system dependant, it would be like throwing darts to just tell you stuff. Give me some specs and I will offer what I can.

"SimRacer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Uubd8.26436$[email hidden]... > Not a flame here, what do you mean more invasive? Do I really need to tell you? If you don't know what I mean then you don't know much about XP. >So it runs everything, > that was the old Win-on-top-of-DOS's problem (Win3.0-98SE & ME), it had to > keep going to command.com to get stuff done. I'll take theall-encompassing > Windows so the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. As I said already, I have Linux for other stuff.

> a GF3 with the 'dreaded' 23.11 drivers. It simply runs as good as it can <snip> The 23.11 drivers have a few problems with some games on some machines under 98 but for some reason, the 23.11 drivers for XP work brilliantly IME.

> > Not a flame here, what do you mean more invasive? > > Do I really need to tell you? If you don't know what I mean then you don't > know much about XP. XP isn't that invasive. Sure, it's got an activation thing, but a 4-year old could avoid that if they so desired. Perhaps you don't know much about XP? > As I said already, I have Linux for other stuff. Have fun running all of those MS Windows look-alike progs ; )

"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a55bt4$4o9ql$[email hidden]... > XP isn't that invasive. Sure, it's got an activation thing, but a 4-year > old could avoid that if they so desired. Perhaps you don't know muchabout > XP? Heh....obviously you don't. Did you remove the spyware from Mediaplayer8? Oh, didn't know about that? Did you go through all the services running in the backround and disable the ones that can compromise security? There's a few of them. When running a firewall on an XP box tell me why there are occasions when XP wants to connect to "sa.windows.com". That's in Redmond, Washington, BTW. They never did answer my email asking them why this happens. I've also been offline and had my dialup connection wanting to dial in to the internet with an XP message saying I, or a program, requested info from xxx.xxx.xxx.xx. I know it has something to do with me blocking access with a firewall, but dammiit, if I block something I don't need my OS trying to connect to it later while I'm in the middle of something. Once while online I decided to burn some files to a cdr using the XP built in software, my firwall went nuts with a myiad of addresses trying to connect, disconnnected from the internet and XP just kept trying to dial in even though I cancelled the requests until I rebooted. Default setup for IE6 compromises privacy. I had to hack a file just so I could remove messenger and other shit I don't want on my computer. That was the final straw and why I mainly went back to Win98. But there were other issues like certain games having prolems with XP and loss of split axis pedals under XP on my MS wheel. I don't deny that XP is a better OS than Win98, and if you use it for business use then it is a better choice, but for gaming and the least hassle then Win98 is the way to go. > Have fun running all of those MS Windows look-alike progs ; ) Heh, and most of the Windows stuff is just Mac lookalike stuff so don't get your point. But, I doubt you really have one.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 09:16:24 -0500, "lane" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

> >"Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:a55bt4$4o9ql$[email hidden]... >> XP isn't that invasive. Sure, it's got an activation thing, but a 4-year >> old could avoid that if they so desired. Perhaps you don't know much >about >> XP? > >Heh....obviously you don't. Did you remove the spyware from Mediaplayer8? >Oh, didn't know about that? Did you go through all the services running in >the backround and disable the ones that can compromise security? There's a >few of them. When running a firewall on an XP box tell me why there are >occasions when XP wants to connect to "sa.windows.com". That's in Redmond, >Washington, BTW. They never did answer my email asking them why this >happens. I've also been offline and had my dialup connection wanting to >dial in to the internet with an XP message saying I, or a program, requested >info from xxx.xxx.xxx.xx. I know it has something to do with me blocking >access with a firewall, but dammiit, if I block something I don't need my OS >trying to connect to it later while I'm in the middle of something. Once >while online I decided to burn some files to a cdr using the XP built in >software, my firwall went nuts with a myiad of addresses trying to connect, >disconnnected from the internet and XP just kept trying to dial in even >though I cancelled the requests until I rebooted. Default setup for IE6 >compromises privacy. I had to hack a file just so I could remove messenger >and other shit I don't want on my computer. That was the final straw and why >I mainly went back to Win98. But there were other issues like certain games >having prolems with XP and loss of split axis pedals under XP on my MS >wheel. I don't deny that XP is a better OS than Win98, and if you use it for >business use then it is a better choice, but for gaming and the least hassle >then Win98 is the way to go.

That is actually some pretty interesting stuff. I don't like the idea of any OS connecting to anything on the Net without the user expressly instructing it to do so. I would not want this for my home OS and I sure wouldn't want it as a business OS. I manage our companies LAN (NT 4 based) and I would not want our Internet connection clogged with repeated connections to ms sites not to mention the possiblity of security holes. My guess is that this is just the beggining. I am sure this is MS's vision of the future: the whole world staying in constant *contact* with MS, PCs becoming nothing more than glorified dummy terminals of MS servers. Brian Oster

"Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My guess is that this is just the beggining. I am sure this is MS's > vision of the future: the whole world staying in constant *contact* > with MS, PCs becoming nothing more than glorified dummy terminals of > MS servers. Yep, MS plans to make us rent their software.

Is this thread ever going to end? OMFG take it somewhere else already! "lane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a576j9$53u2j$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Brian Oster" <bgoster@*remove_to_email*swbell.net> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > My guess is that this is just the beggining. I am sure this is MS's > > vision of the future: the whole world staying in constant *contact* > > with MS, PCs becoming nothing more than glorified dummy terminals of > > MS servers. > > Yep, MS plans to make us rent their software. > >

"Mitch Alatorre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:O5Qd8.42126$[email hidden]... > Is this thread ever going to end? OMFG take it somewhere else already! Don't like it, don't read it!