win xp

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

Most games run a fair bit slower in XP so far. I suggest waiting and watching with trusty old 98se Naim Guru wrote: >does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games) under >win xp? thinking of upgrading. > >cheers naim > >

Everything runs great on XP for me. What OS are you running now? W2k is excellent also. "Naim Guru" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PjGz7.8459$[email hidden]... > does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games)under > win xp? thinking of upgrading. > > cheers naim > >

Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as well cf 98SE. Iain "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Most games run a fair bit slower in XP so far. I suggest waiting and > watching with trusty old 98se > > Naim Guru wrote: > > >does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games)under > >win xp? thinking of upgrading. > > > >cheers naim > > > > >

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 "JJ Sricklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bfNz7.11556$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Everything runs great on XP for me. What OS are you running now? W2k is > excellent also. > > > > "Naim Guru" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:PjGz7.8459$[email hidden]... > > does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games) > under > > win xp? thinking of upgrading. > > > > cheers naim > > > > > >

Naim Guru wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>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.

Iain Mackenzie wrote: >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

Not necessarily, It will depend on your particular hardware/software combination. Mine all run faster! "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Naim Guru wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>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.

Ok, but you should show your hardware/software conbo, before doubt his rig. "Edward_C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:GxUz7.38885$[email hidden]... Not necessarily, It will depend on your particular hardware/software combination. Mine all run faster! "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Naim Guru wrote: >WinME and never really had any problems but me is always thinkingahead! > >Much difference between the home and professional editions in terms ofgame >performance? > >ng > XP is slow for games. See my other post.

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 (gaming) bunnies. Iain "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > >Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up aswell

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >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 >

No its not. See my other post. Iain "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Naim Guru wrote: > > >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. >

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:32:17 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>>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.

> > > > >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 gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html

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" <

Quoted text (10 lines)

> >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 gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html >

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 "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Mw5A7.30439$[email hidden]... > 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 specificNEED

Quoted text (18 lines)

> 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 gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html > > > >

> 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 gaming, I would recommend shying away from XP. It may be stable but > its slower the majority of the time. >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

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 gaming? dave henrie "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iz8A7.32022$[email hidden]... > Sorry Dave, I totally disagree. After extensively using every version ofMr

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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 > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Mw5A7.30439$[email hidden]... > > 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 cpuis

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > 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 gaming, I would recommend shying away from XP. It may be stablebut

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > its slower the majority of the time. > > > > > > Here is another article btw. > > > http://www.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html > > > > > > > > >

Dave I didn't say anything about radically improving gaming, or being in any way 'an accelerator'. What I said was that it was not a backward step in gaming 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 gaming 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 "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zGfA7.31359$[email hidden]... > 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 speedthan > 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 theend > 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. Butwhat

Quoted text (7 lines)

> is the cooooolest thing about XP? What is it that radically improves > gaming? > dave henrie > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:iz8A7.32022$[email hidden]... > > 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 amajor

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > leap forward, and worth every pound of the 79 you have to pay! > > Iain > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Mw5A7.30439$[email hidden]... > > > 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 fastercpu > is > > > not even close. Don't bother with XP unless you have a veryspecific

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 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

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > due to poor XP video driver optimization but until it gets proven > better > > > > for gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:59:19 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: >>The nvidia 2000/XP drivers is top notch. >> >But still slower in XP than win98. Aw, come ON! Read the numbers. >Perhaps all this poor frame rate is >due to poor XP video driver optimization but until it gets proven better >for gaming, I would recommend shying away from XP. It may be stable but >its slower the majority of the time. 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. >Here is another article btw. >http://www.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html 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. :->

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 "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iz8A7.32022$[email hidden]... > Sorry Dave, I totally disagree. After extensively using every version ofMr

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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 > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Mw5A7.30439$[email hidden]... > > 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 cpuis

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > 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 gaming, I would recommend shying away from XP. It may be stablebut

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > its slower the majority of the time. > > > > > > Here is another article btw. > > > http://www.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html > > > > > > > > >

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:42:52 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > 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. The gain isn't performance; it's stability, security and expandability.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:00:18 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Dave > >I didn't say anything about radically improving gaming, or being in any way >'an accelerator'. What I said was that it was not a backward step in gaming >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 gaming in every benchmark (games) except one. Who am I to believe, your subjective comments or the objective test report?

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:28:44 +0200, na_biker <[email hidden]> wrote: >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.

Which is the reason I'll not bother with XP until someone cracks the stupid registration crap ! Ian P Dave Ryerson <[email hidden]> wrote > > And that nice little non-option of having to register and re- register > and re-register ad-inifinitum. No thx.

> 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.

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 "Naim Guru" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:PjGz7.8459$[email hidden]... > does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games)under > win xp? thinking of upgrading. > > cheers naim > >

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 "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zGfA7.31359$[email hidden]... > 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 speedthan > 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 theend > 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. Butwhat

Quoted text (7 lines)

> is the cooooolest thing about XP? What is it that radically improves > gaming? > dave henrie > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:iz8A7.32022$[email hidden]... > > 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 amajor

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > leap forward, and worth every pound of the 79 you have to pay! > > Iain > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Mw5A7.30439$[email hidden]... > > > 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 fastercpu > is > > > not even close. Don't bother with XP unless you have a veryspecific

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 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

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > due to poor XP video driver optimization but until it gets proven > better > > > > for gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

I can hit 90fps in N4 if I don't get carried away with the options. Res at 1024X768. -Larry "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:YC8A7.32045$[email hidden]... > > 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 gaming, I would recommend shying away from XP. It may be stable but > > its slower the majority of the time. > > > Are you crazy or what? Poor frame rate!!! The article shows that thereis > a trivial difference in all their tests between XP and 98. If you want tobe > picky XP showed a better performance in 2 out of the 5. But, as I say,the > differences were all pathetically small. > Iain > >

Hell if u have that I'm asking for the impossible aren't I! Naim "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NatA7.22787$%[email hidden]... > I'm having controller problems and really lousy graphics performance, andI

Quoted text (17 lines)

> have an AthlonXP 1800+ and a GeForce 3 Ti500! > > Still working on it... > > -Larry > > "Naim Guru" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:PjGz7.8459$[email hidden]... > > does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games) > under > > win xp? thinking of upgrading. > > > > cheers naim > > > > > >

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 16:46:09 -0400, Dave Ryerson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:28:44 +0200, na_biker <[email hidden]> >wrote: > > >>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. ;-)

Read the posts properly first. The argument is not about whether one OS gives 102fps and the other gives 100fps. Iain "Dave Ryerson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:00:18 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Dave > > > >I didn't say anything about radically improving gaming, or being in anyway > >'an accelerator'. What I said was that it was not a backward step ingaming > >terms as others here have suggested. I get marginally better performancein > >XP than 98 or ME, > > That's funny, because I read a test report and XP is slower for gaming > in every benchmark (games) except one. Who am I to believe, your > subjective comments or the objective test report?

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:28:25 GMT, "Dino" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>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

With the Voodoo driver development screeching to a dead halt I'm not surprised, 3dfx being dead and all. I had troubles with SBLive + GPL too, the drivers that comes built-in sucks bigtime. There are better though, some that actually works: http://www.electic.com/cgi-bin/news/News/Stories/2001/10/19/10035087882.shtml

Dino Don't know why you can't find any 'compatible' drivers for your SBLive. The ones OOTB were absolutely fine for me, then MS did an upgrade available on 'Windows Upgrade', and there are very good leaked Creative drivers and LW3 available on the web. GPL runs perfectly with me. Iain "Dino" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tfkA7.119903$[email hidden]... > 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 relatedas > 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 aboutthe

Quoted text (15 lines)

> upgrade. > > P3 800 > Abit BF6 > 256 RAM > V5 5500 PCI > SB live value > LWFF USB > > DN > > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:iz8A7.32022$[email hidden]... > > 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 amajor

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > leap forward, and worth every pound of the 79 you have to pay! > > Iain > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Mw5A7.30439$[email hidden]... > > > 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 fastercpu > is > > > not even close. Don't bother with XP unless you have a veryspecific

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 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

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > due to poor XP video driver optimization but until it gets proven > better > > > > for gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:53:14 +1000, "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> 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.

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 gaming 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

> > >Poor frame rate!!! >Yes, 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 >Look again ace. http://www.rivastation.com/r8500_1_e.htm Face the facts not what you think. > >

I've been using XP for quite some time now and I haven't seen a single BSOD (blue screen of death) from it yet. I'm using the SB Live and the drivers are just fine. No problems with any sound. The only issue I have with XP is after applying ECDC5 5.02b update the system wants to restart instead of shut down. For games that don't run in XP or NT, right click on the icon, choose properties and click on the compatibility tab. You can choose to run the program in Win95, Win98/ME, NT or W2K mode. I've found that Win95 or Win98 modes work just fine. Also, my GF2 Ultra is installed by default with some drivers that aren't very good IMHO. I replaced them with detonator drivers and all was well. On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:29:55 GMT, "Rush" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (33 lines)

>I run N4 with no difficulties. No sound card manfacture has XT drivers >ready so getting a soundblaster product to work right is a challenge and >untill the drivers get released, game playing with sound is a compromise. >Example: N4 I have working and running great except for sound. No spotter >and sometimes the sound just quits. I can escape and come back and the >sound returns. I am using a SB Auidogy X-gamer using Win2000 drivers. > >I am using an OEM install (that I did myself) using XP pro. I have about 30 >hours getting the OS to run with errors or blue screen of death. Now >everything is fine, just waiting for driver releases from HP and Creative. >N4 runs with better frame rates (Gforce3 w/ 21.83) and 3dmarks improved by >500 over 98SE. > >OEM software has no free MS support. The dealer selling me the software did >not know that. He DOES KNOW! > >If you have patience, want to save money, the OEM is okay. The retail >version may offer better documentation but the boxed version is going to >cost you 50 buck more but you get MS support. > >Hope this helps > >Rush, out >"Naim Guru" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:PjGz7.8459$[email hidden]... >> does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games) >under >> win xp? thinking of upgrading. >> >> cheers naim >> >> >

I've noticed that NFS Porsche runs slower in XP but N4 runs just as fast... On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:14:54 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Most games run a fair bit slower in XP so far. I suggest waiting and >watching with trusty old 98se > >Naim Guru wrote: > >>does anyone have experience of running f12001 (or other popular games) under >>win xp? thinking of upgrading. >> >>cheers naim >> >>

Same here... I could tell a difference in NFS Porsche but other than that, XP was just as fast. On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:50:00 +0100, "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

>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 (gaming) bunnies. >Iain > > >"Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> >> >> Iain Mackenzie wrote: >> >> >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 >> >

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... On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:59:19 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> >> >> >> >>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 gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html

Personally, I recommend a P4 system with lots of RAM for XP... On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:42:52 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> 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 gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html >> >

I think we're getting somewhere now... I'm running on a P4 1.7 GHz. ME itself runs FAST on it. XP is not too shabby but not blazing. Actual gameplay is the same for me with either OS, at least IMHO. I'm not running benchmarks, but I don't notice any differences. I've noticed that XP on a P3 system is slower overall. On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:28:25 GMT, "Dino" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (59 lines)

>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 > > >"Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:iz8A7.32022$[email hidden]... >> Sorry Dave, I totally disagree. After extensively using every version of >Mr >> Gates' Windows operating system since 3.1, I would say that XP is a major >> leap forward, and worth every pound of the 79 you have to pay! >> Iain >> >> "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:Mw5A7.30439$[email hidden]... >> > 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 gaming, 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.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >

Agreed! If you're gonna run XP, you've probably kissed DOS games goodbye a looong time ago. I like the stability of NT with the ability to run non-NT programs. And let's face it - DOS is dead or attempting to be killed by MS. XP is the way of the future. It may take some time to get all the drivers up to speed. We went through this with W2K, ME, and Win98... On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:44:50 +0200, na_biker <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (31 lines)

>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:59:19 GMT, Destroy ><[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>>The nvidia 2000/XP drivers is top notch. >>> >>But still slower in XP than win98. > >Aw, come ON! Read the numbers. > >>Perhaps all this poor frame rate is >>due to poor XP video driver optimization but until it gets proven better >>for gaming, I would recommend shying away from XP. It may be stable but >>its slower the majority of the time. > >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. > >>Here is another article btw. >>http://www.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html > >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. :-> >

I have the leaked Creative drivers installed but still get a strange digitized sound in GPL at times that also affects the FF, exiting to pit seems to straighten it out for awhile. Would be interested to know if any others have had the XP-SBL-GPL problem that can guide me to a fix. DN "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SIuA7.26809$[email hidden]... > Dino > > Don't know why you can't find any 'compatible' drivers for your SBLive.The

Quoted text (17 lines)

> ones OOTB were absolutely fine for me, then MS did an upgrade available on > 'Windows Upgrade', and there are very good leaked Creative drivers and LW3 > available on the web. > > GPL runs perfectly with me. > > Iain > > "Dino" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:tfkA7.119903$[email hidden]... > > 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

Quoted text (37 lines)

> > 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 > > > > > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:iz8A7.32022$[email hidden]... > > > Sorry Dave, I totally disagree. After extensively using every version > of > > Mr > > > Gates' Windows operating system since 3.1, I would say that XP is a > major > > > leap forward, and worth every pound of the 79 you have to pay! > > > Iain > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Mw5A7.30439$[email hidden]... > > > > 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

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > 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 gaming, I would recommend shying away from XP. It may bestable

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > but > > > > > its slower the majority of the time. > > > > > > > > > > Here is another article btw. > > > > > http://www.sourcemagazine.com/csm/Forum1/HTML/000054-3.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Thanks for the link! DN "na_biker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:28:25 GMT, "Dino" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >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 relatedas > >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 bethe > >way to go but I would suggest a little research to anyone thinking aboutthe

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >upgrade. > > > >P3 800 > >Abit BF6 > >256 RAM > >V5 5500 PCI > >SB live value > >LWFF USB > > > >DN > > With the Voodoo driver development screeching to a dead halt I'm not > surprised, 3dfx being dead and all. > > I had troubles with SBLive + GPL too, the drivers that comes built-in > sucks bigtime. There are better though, some that actually works: > >

http://www.electic.com/cgi-bin/news/News/Stories/2001/10/19/10035087882.shtm l > > > >

George Lewis <[email hidden]> wrote: >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... Agreed. I find no noticeable difference between gamespeed in Windows XP and Win98 SE. 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 Correct email: telson @ ameritech.net

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:46:58 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote: > 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. 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?

This is a pathetic 'discussion'! Personally I don't give a stuff whether you use XP or not. I'm assuming that you don't use it, so therefore what do you know about facts? All you know is hearsay. I, on the other hand, do have facts as I am a user of XP and 98 and ME and I tell you again with my system 1.4 Athlon and 512 mb RAM, XP is as fast as the others in games especially at higher res, and is more stable and user friendly than any of the other MS efforts. Those are the facts my friend. As I have said in other posts, don't get hung up on web tests, listen to actual users, or dare I say, why don't you try it yourself? Iain "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > > > >Poor frame rate!!! > > > Yes, 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

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >differences were all pathetically small. > >Iain > > > Look again ace. > http://www.rivastation.com/r8500_1_e.htm > > Face the facts not what you think. > > > > > >

Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > 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 (gaming) bunnies. Maybe all you 'bunnies' had badly configured win98 installs in the first place? Gerry

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 "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mSDA7.36020$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> 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 wouldinvestigate > their present specs and how they use it and then make recomendations. ButI > 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 spendunlimited

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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 gonnamake > up for big jumps or lack there-of in cpu horsepower. > If you have a business you run with your gaming 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 WASTEDmoney. > 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 > >

Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > 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! Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as well > cf 98SE. > Iain > And... Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > 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 (gaming) bunnies. > Iain So, according to you, XP is worth getting for improved game performance? No, wait... Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > Dave > > I didn't say anything about radically improving gaming, or being in any way > 'an accelerator'. Why are all the 'bunnies' so happy in gaming land then? > What I said was that it was not a backward step in gaming > terms as others here have suggested. Except for the slower performance in gaming, 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 gaming 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

na_biker wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:53:14 +1000, "Damien Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> 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.

Which is a very good reason for many people to wait a 'while' before upgrading. Gerry

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 "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I1_A7.38701$[email hidden]... > Dave > The beta test comment is way off. I think you'll find that XP is being > hailed in general (even in the press!) from RC1 onwards as being by a long > way the most stable OS that MS has produced. It is solid as a rock, and with > the new interface and general ease of use it is one of the best things to > happen to PC users in a long time. > Iain > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mSDA7.36020$[email hidden]... > > 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 gaming 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 > > > > > >

George Lewis wrote: > > 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

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:34:36 +0100, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> 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. > >Which is a very good reason for many people to wait a 'while' before >upgrading.

No shit sherlock, but _as I said_, the _OS_ is in tiptop shape. As are nvidia drivers. Even the SBLive ones seems to work fine now. You think the combo nvidia and sblive is uncommon?

(Attempting to be polite.) 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 "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > > 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! > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > > Most games run faster on XP for me, and my 3D 2001 benchmark went up as

well

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > cf 98SE. > > Iain > > > > And... > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > > 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'llfind a

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > lot of happy (gaming) bunnies. > > Iain > > So, according to you, XP is worth getting for improved game performance? > > No, wait... > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > > Dave > > > > I didn't say anything about radically improving gaming, or being in any

way

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > 'an accelerator'. > > Why are all the 'bunnies' so happy in gaming land then? > > > What I said was that it was not a backward step in gaming > > terms as others here have suggested. > > Except for the slower performance in gaming, 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 gaming 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

Gerry As you can see from almost any report, XP has been the most stable OS that MS has come up yet. The almost toal lack of BSOD has been one of the most widely praised aspects. It has been stable since RC1, and in the 2 months I've been using various versions, I've not had one single crash. Iain "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > George Lewis wrote: > > > > 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

There is a registry edit to fix that. If I can remember it, I'll post later. Iain "Mike Grandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Lx_A7.42337$1%[email hidden]... > I've been using XP for about a week now and the only complaint I have isthe

Quoted text (15 lines)

> 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 > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:I1_A7.38701$[email hidden]... > > 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 thingsto

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > happen to PC users in a long time. > > Iain > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:mSDA7.36020$[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (26 lines)

> 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

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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 gaming 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 outof

Quoted text (13 lines)

> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >

Mike I think it's hkey_local_machine/system/currentcontrolset/control. Then change 'waittokillservicetimeout' from the default to 200. I think that 100=1 second. Good luck. Iain "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:s58B7.62791$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> There is a registry edit to fix that. If I can remember it, I'll post > later. > Iain > > "Mike Grandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Lx_A7.42337$1%[email hidden]... > > I've been using XP for about a week now and the only complaint I have is > the > > amount of time it takes to shut down. Everything I've ran has been very > > stable and the menu is very quick. Pleased with it so far.\ > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Michael K. Grandy > > Non Stop Cable Services East, Inc > > An Estancia Cable Partners Company > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:I1_A7.38701$[email hidden]... > > > 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

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 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 > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:mSDA7.36020$[email hidden]... > > > > 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 lookfor > > any > > > > item that would give me the biggest increase per dollar spent. > > > > XP probably is a better system. But there are usually betterplaces > > to > > > > spend money to improve performance. Below are my 'general'guidelines

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > 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 onlya > > > > 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 Ultraor > > GF3 > > > > because I spent extra money on XP, then I choked my system. If Ihave > > 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 isgonna > > > make > > > > up for big jumps or lack there-of in cpu horsepower. > > > > If you have a business you run with your gaming system, if youhave > > > > networking issues, if you have unlimited $$ to spend, then XP surely > is > > a > > > > better OS. But if you are trying to squeeze the most performanceout > 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 andlet

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > the > > > > folks who can't wait beta test XP and all it's component issues. > > > > dave henrie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Thanks. -- Michael K. Grandy Non Stop Cable Services East, Inc An Estancia Cable Partners Company "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8j8B7.62822$[email hidden]... > Mike > I think it's hkey_local_machine/system/currentcontrolset/control. Then > change 'waittokillservicetimeout' from the default to 200. I think that > 100=1 second. > Good luck. > Iain > > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:s58B7.62791$[email hidden]... > > There is a registry edit to fix that. If I can remember it, I'll post > > later. > > Iain > > > > "Mike Grandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Lx_A7.42337$1%[email hidden]... > > > I've been using XP for about a week now and the only complaint I have is > > the > > > amount of time it takes to shut down. Everything I've ran has been very > > > stable and the menu is very quick. Pleased with it so far.\ > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Michael K. Grandy > > > Non Stop Cable Services East, Inc > > > An Estancia Cable Partners Company > > > "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:I1_A7.38701$[email hidden]... > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:mSDA7.36020$[email hidden]... > > > > > 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 gaming 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

na_biker wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:34:36 +0100, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > >Which is a very good reason for many people to wait a 'while' before > >upgrading. > > No shit sherlock, but _as I said_, the _OS_ is in tiptop shape. As are > nvidia drivers. Even the SBLive ones seems to work fine now. > > You think the combo nvidia and sblive is uncommon?

Do you think everyone has that combo?

Iain Mackenzie wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Gerry > As you can see from almost any report, XP has been the most stable OS that > MS has come up yet. The almost toal lack of BSOD has been one of the most > widely praised aspects. It has been stable since RC1, and in the 2 months > I've been using various versions, I've not had one single crash. > Iain

I'll build a new pc over xmas and it WILL have XP as the OS. Gerry

Iain Mackenzie wrote: > 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. Tried it for a week, wasn't any faster, had some driver problems, went back to 98. It's new, so like i often do with new os, I'll wait...if that's ok with you? > Try to get your facts right, and please stop the childish and unnecessary > insults. It doesn't do this group's reputation any favours. Have a re-read of your posts in this thread, I think you'll notice your abrupt, rude style has coloured many of the relies you have received. Gerry

Don't think so, but different people, different interpretations. No rudeness intended - unlike yourself. Iain "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > If you don't like it, then what are your reasons? What is yourexperience > > 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 throughtheir

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > a***? Apologies if I'm wrong, but please share you experiences with us. > > Tried it for a week, wasn't any faster, had some driver problems, went > back to 98. It's new, so like i often do with new os, I'll wait...if > that's ok with you? > > > Try to get your facts right, and please stop the childish and

unnecessary > > insults. It doesn't do this group's reputation any favours. > > Have a re-read of your posts in this thread, I think you'll notice your > abrupt, rude style has coloured many of the relies you have received. > > Gerry

Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > Don't think so, but different people, different interpretations. No > rudeness intended - unlike yourself. > Iain I only said you were 'talking out of your arse' hardly makes me the rudest person on r.a.s. Gerry

I thought you were gonna wait 12 months?????? Or do you mean Xmas of 2002?????? Vintook "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > > Gerry > > As you can see from almost any report, XP has been the most stable OSthat > > MS has come up yet. The almost toal lack of BSOD has been one of themost > > widely praised aspects. It has been stable since RC1, and in the 2months > > I've been using various versions, I've not had one single crash. > > Iain > > I'll build a new pc over xmas and it WILL have XP as the OS. > > Gerry

Vintook wrote: > > I thought you were gonna wait 12 months?????? I don't remember typing that...or even thinking it. > Or do you mean Xmas of > 2002?????? No. Can you quote the post where I said I was going to wait 12 months? Gerry

Didn't say you were, but comments like that are hardly conducive with a rational discussion. Iain "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > > Don't think so, but different people, different interpretations. No > > rudeness intended - unlike yourself. > > Iain > > I only said you were 'talking out of your arse' hardly makes me the > rudest person on r.a.s. > > Gerry

Rational? Damn that leaves me out...seeya! dave henrie "Iain Mackenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:F2CB7.64022$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Didn't say you were, but comments like that are hardly conducive with a > rational discussion. > > Iain > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Iain Mackenzie wrote: > > > > > > Don't think so, but different people, different interpretations. No > > > rudeness intended - unlike yourself. > > > Iain > > > > I only said you were 'talking out of your arse' hardly makes me the > > rudest person on r.a.s. > > > > Gerry > >

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:46:25 +0100, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote: >> No shit sherlock, but _as I said_, the _OS_ is in tiptop shape. As are >> nvidia drivers. Even the SBLive ones seems to work fine now. >> >> You think the combo nvidia and sblive is uncommon? > >Do you think everyone has that combo? You're an idiot, aren't you?

> (snip)but _as I said_, the _OS_ is in tiptop shape. As are > nvidia drivers. Even the SBLive ones seems to work fine now. > > You think the combo nvidia and sblive is uncommon? > Nividia products(and I'm not saying this to cause more mayhem) combined with SB Lives AND motherboards designed for AMD Athlon chips have had issues almost from the day the 3 products all reached the retail channels. This is not to say everyone with the above combo will or did have problems, But those users with AMD, Via 133 motherboard chipset, SB Lives, and Nvidia have had a demonstratable and repeatable series of problems. Nvidia is clearly the oem and now retail sales leader for video Soundblaster's Live series is probably their most sucessful sales product ever. Via133 based motherboards are as common as any mb product released in the last two years. yet.... These 3 leaders of their classes have not, to my knowledge, found a working, reasonable, method to rectify the problems. Add in Win98 and it's use of APCI during bootup and you introduce even more problems. So while his retort about nvidia and SBlives appeared snotty and childlike, it did refer to a known problem. dave henrie

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:17:16 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

>> (snip)but _as I said_, the _OS_ is in tiptop shape. As are >> nvidia drivers. Even the SBLive ones seems to work fine now. >> >> You think the combo nvidia and sblive is uncommon? >> > Nividia products(and I'm not saying this to cause more mayhem) combined >with SB Lives AND motherboards designed for AMD Athlon chips have had issues >almost from the day the 3 products all reached the retail channels. This is >not to say everyone with the above combo will or did have problems, But >those users with AMD, Via 133 motherboard chipset, >SB Lives, and Nvidia have had a demonstratable and repeatable series of >problems. > Nvidia is clearly the oem and now retail sales leader for video > Soundblaster's Live series is probably their most sucessful sales product >ever. > Via133 based motherboards are as common as any mb product released in the >last two years. > yet.... > These 3 leaders of their classes have not, to my knowledge, found a >working, reasonable, method to rectify the problems. > Add in Win98 and it's use of APCI during bootup and you introduce even >more problems. > So while his retort about nvidia and SBlives appeared snotty and >childlike, it did refer to a known problem. >dave henrie

I sincerely think that _his_ comment didn't refer to no such thing. I know about the via southbridge(part of VIA KT133 chipset) and SBLive incompatibility issues, which are pretty scary. The lesser effects being "scraping & screeching" sound and the worse harddisk read/write corruption(!!!). Some people have reproduced it with Intel 820(or was it chipsets also, and the unofficial consensus is that it is the SBLive to blame due to not complying to the PCI 2.1 specification. However, I haven't heard about the nvidia connection, sources? In all fairness, as you stated your position further down in the thread, I'd like to clarify my position on this debate that went all out of hand all too early. I know I came off like a overzealous XP advocate, but I just wanted to clarify some things, like; 1) WinXP isn't slower[in games] per se, it has every opportunity to be as fast as 9x, given good solid drivers, as shown. Which surprised me actually, because it certainly didn't look like that would ever be the case a year ago with 2000. 2) A lot of stuff works in XP that didn't in 2000. 3) If you're absolutely dying to get away from the piece of donkey dung that is win9x, like me, this is _it_. Totally hassle-free? Probably not. There's a lot I don't particularily like about it, like the price and the big-brother registration scheme that's going to cause a WORLD of problems. But if I'm going to be held hostage to windows, I'd much rather have it comfy with a decent subsystem. If I'm going to have to suffer through another 6 years of DOS-infested win9x forcefeeding, you'd best just shoot me right now. :)

> Tried it for a week, wasn't any faster, had some driver problems, went > back to 98. 98 ?..............oh ya, I remember thats that OS I used 2 years ago is it still supported?........... I didn't think anyone was lame enough to still be using that POS..............LOL

is this suppose to impress everyone? "JJ Sricklin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6u%C7.13102$[email hidden]... | 98 ?..............oh ya, I remember thats that OS I used 2 years ago is it | still supported?........... I didn't think | anyone was lame enough to still be using that POS..............LOL

na_biker wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:46:25 +0100, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> No shit sherlock, but _as I said_, the _OS_ is in tiptop shape. As are > >> nvidia drivers. Even the SBLive ones seems to work fine now. > >> > >> You think the combo nvidia and sblive is uncommon? > > > >Do you think everyone has that combo? > > You're an idiot, aren't you?

Listen, na, i'm going to give myself a rest from playing with drivers until i build my next pc. Hopefully by then all the xp drivers i need, and i'm not just talking about SB and nvidia ones, will be nice and solid. EVEN then I'll build a duel boot XP/98 box just in case! I'm in no hurry to take this pc, and with the limited time i get to use it for gaming, start dicking around with xp drivers. I'll take a guess that you're ok with xp as long as nvidia and SB are well supported, but you need to realize that some of us have more facets to our pc needs than just gaming. Regards Gerry

So how does DOS 6.22 work with your games? Surely you haven't wasted the money and upgraded your OS to a Windows version... "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mSDA7.36020$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> 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 wouldinvestigate > their present specs and how they use it and then make recomendations. ButI > 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 spendunlimited

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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 gonnamake > up for big jumps or lack there-of in cpu horsepower. > If you have a business you run with your gaming 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 WASTEDmoney. > 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 have 98SE. It came pre-installed...:) My point is...folks are running out and buying XP with the 'idea' that it is an upgrade. While I appreciate the improvements in XP I just don't think spending $$ on an OS is as beneficial as upgrading hardware. (btw..I'm building an old P166 into a Rendition box for ICR2 3d...I WILL NEED dos6.22 for that.) Looking at the features of XP, I don't see anything that would compel me to need it. I have SE fairly stable, I have full compatibility, and I have older hardware. Throwing 1 or 2 hundred bucks into replacing an OS that works just fine would cripple any improvements I could purchase in the cpu or video card areas. (since I have very little cash) XP is NOT a bad thing...it's just not a great investment if you are looking at improving gaming performance. I know I sound like the stone age...but give me bleeding fast cpu's over another version of windows anyday. dave henrie "Glen Pittman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> So how does DOS 6.22 work with your games? Surely you haven't wasted the > money and upgraded your OS to a Windows version... > > > > "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mSDA7.36020$[email hidden]... > > Ok so let me clarify my posisiton.

In article <miND7.3711$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > My point is...folks are running out and buying XP with the 'idea' that it > is an upgrade. It is....to the OS.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> While I appreciate the improvements in XP I just don't think > spending $$ on an OS is as beneficial as upgrading hardware. > (btw..I'm building an old P166 into a Rendition box for ICR2 3d...I WILL > NEED dos6.22 for that.) > Looking at the features of XP, I don't see anything that would compel me > to need it. I have SE fairly stable, I have full compatibility, and I have > older hardware. Throwing 1 or 2 hundred bucks into replacing an OS that > works just fine would cripple any improvements I could purchase in the cpu > or video card areas. (since I have very little cash)

Hardware is always advancing, so I guess you will 'never' upgrade your OS then. :) > XP is NOT a bad > thing...it's just not a great investment if you are looking at improving > gaming performance. Not 'yet'. I did dual boot for this reason alone. > I know I sound like the stone age...but give me bleeding fast cpu's over > another version of windows anyday. Me too, but I get tired of the BSOD and instability. It wasn't often, but enough. -- Skotty Flynn http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com

It is....to the OS. Hardware is always advancing, so I guess you will 'never' upgrade your OS then. :) Not 'yet'. I did dual boot for this reason alone. Me too, but I get tired of the BSOD and instability. It wasn't often, but enough. -- Skotty Flynn http://www.nascar-racing-sims.com