AMD-64 and...

Hi folks, I was wondering wether and AMD-64 CPU would run 98SE? Don't laugh, I'm still rather happy with 98se's gaming performance and XP isn't 64bit-ready either, right? Thanks for your comments, uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"AMD processors undergo extensive testing to ensure compatibility with Microsoft Windows XP, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, as well as Linux and other PC operating systems. AMD works collaboratively with Microsoft and other partners to achieve compatibility of AMD processors and to expand the capability of software and hardware products leveraging AMD64 technology. " http://www.michaelscomputers.com/amd4000.htm "Uwe Sch�rkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Hi folks, I was wondering wether and AMD-64 CPU would run 98SE? Don't > laugh, I'm still rather happy with 98se's gaming performance and XP > isn't 64bit-ready either, right? > > Thanks for your comments, > > uwe > > > > -- > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

I hoped the same thing of my AMD64 FX-53 system so I could still use my game port Sidewinder FF wheel. Alas, it was not to be. While the processor will run Windows 98SE, you'll probably hit motherboard and chipset driver problems, as I did. I got it installed but the device manager showed lots of problems with the hardware. When I went hunting for motherboard/chipset drivers, very sadly, Win98 turned out not to be supported very well. I gave it up as a bad job and bought a different (USB) wheel, a Thrustmaster Enzo Ferrari. I couldn't get used to its pedals, though - they seemed very uncomfortable compared to the MS FF pedals. But luckily I read something in R.A.S suggesting that you could combine the pedals of one wheel with the steering from another. And now I am a very happy user of MS FF pedals (going into the gameport) and the Enzo Ferrari wheel (going into the USB). It seems that Windows XP can handle the MS FF pedals going into the gameport - it's only the wheel itself that causes problems. WinXP Pro with this combination has been absolutely rock solid for me, so my desire for Win98 has disappeared.

Thanks for your replies. It really looks like I'm bound for XP Pro or whatever unless GTR patch 1.2 fixes those damn online hangs. I have the rockfire usb on order, also ZZ was kind enough to order some 250kOhm spec pots and send them to me so hopefully I'll be able to get my "all-gameport" tsw2mod working with XP. cheers, uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe Sch�rkamp wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Thanks for your replies. It really looks like I'm bound for XP Pro or > whatever unless GTR patch 1.2 fixes those damn online hangs. I have > the rockfire usb on order, also ZZ was kind enough to order some > 250kOhm spec pots and send them to me so hopefully I'll be able to get > my "all-gameport" tsw2mod working with XP. > > cheers, > > uwe > >

I'm using W2k SP4 and am very happy with that. In a few tests I've read before I made the move W2k is for games overall still faster than XP, so that's why I use W2k. If you want to go XP, check out the Media Edition (or whatever it's called). It costs less than XP Pro but offers almost the same functionality. It seems to have most of the goodies MS denied the Home version (see latest c't) and according to that article has SP2 integrated in the original installation CD! -- Achim http://users.skynet.be/AchimT

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 11:24:47 +0100, Joachim Trensz wrote: > If you want to go XP, check out the Media Edition (or whatever it's > called). It costs less than XP Pro but offers almost the same > functionality. It seems to have most of the goodies MS denied the Home > version (see latest c't) and according to that article has SP2 > integrated in the original installation CD! Hi Achim, I don't really want to, but I can get a legal home office xp pro license from work which apparently has sp2 integrated, too (the first thing that got kicked when I started that job was xp on my desktop, I need to get work done! ;-). The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting though, I'll give it a go first. All the best & thanks for your comments, uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

> The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting though, I'll give it a go > first. > > All the best & thanks for your comments, The only possible advantage Win2K SP4 has over XP SP2 is the lack of an activation scheme. XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once you've tweaked it.....

Damien Smith wrote: ... > XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once you've > tweaked it..... A common misconception among the users of XP :) Achim

Uwe Sch�rkamp wrote: ... > The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting... There are drawbacks as compared to XP as well. Some fancy stuff may require the installation of a driver whereas XP has support built-in. Overall, though, W2k is a lot easier to get to work well than XP ;) Achim

>> XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once you've tweaked it..... > > A common misconception among the users of XP :) Nope, proven in A-B comparisons on identical hardware. Some people think because old OSes are smaller that they must be faster but it's just not the case any more. The driver initialisation routines in particular in WinXP are dramatically faster than in Win2K resulting in almost half the bootup time. Win2K does have a slightly smaller memory footprint but that's about it. Even Windows Server 2003 is faster than Win2K. The only other possible way in which Win2K could be perceived as being faster then WinXP is if 'system restore' is enabled. Disabling that is as simple as ticking a box if you prefer speed over safety.

Damien Smith wrote: ... > ...proven in A-B comparisons on identical hardware. Yep, a lot of incorrect information has been published about that topic. Achim

>> ...proven in A-B comparisons on identical hardware. > > Yep, a lot of incorrect information has been published about that topic. They were my own comparisons on my own hardware. Are you calling me a liar or am I incompetant? Feel free to point out in what ways Win2K is faster.

I agree 100% Damien. Ive experimented on many machines and XP is far superior for not only gaming but just about everything else as well. Mitch "Damien Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > They were my own comparisons on my own hardware. Are you calling me a > liar or am I incompetant? Feel free to point out in what ways Win2K is > faster. > >

Damien Smith wrote: ... > They were my own comparisons on my own hardware. Are you calling me a liar > or am I incompetant? Feel free to point out in what ways Win2K is faster. I am not calling you anything, that's not my style, and not the purpose of my postings. Have a look at the games tests this review: http://www.firingsquad.com/games/winxpperf/page3.asp Achim

"Joachim Trensz" wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> <snip> > I am not calling you anything, that's not my style, and not > the purpose of my postings. > > Have a look at the games tests this review: > > http://www.firingsquad.com/games/winxpperf/page3.asp

A DX7 performance comparison might slightly favour older OSs and 3DMark also favours the most efficient graphics driver rather than the most efficient OS. My personal experience is that XP, even without performance modifications, certainly isn't any slower than Win98se on this machine. Jan. =---

Jan Verschueren wrote: ... > A DX7 performance comparison might slightly favour older OSs and 3DMark also > favours the most efficient graphics driver rather than the most efficient > OS. > > My personal experience is that XP, even without performance modifications, > certainly isn't any slower than Win98se on this machine. I'm sure 98 is beginning to look a bit dated in modern games and especially business applications. Achim

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:06:20 +0100, Joachim Trensz wrote: > I'm sure 98 is beginning to look a bit dated in modern games and especially > business applications. > But who'd be using windows for business applications? ;-) cheers, uwe ps: made the switch to xp pro yesterday and did some tweaking according to blackviper.com. So far it's quite snappy, and miraculously my poly rates in f1c have increased a bit, too! -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe Sch�rkamp wrote: ...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> But who'd be using windows for business applications? ;-) > > cheers, uwe > > ps: made the switch to xp pro yesterday and did some tweaking > according to blackviper.com. So far it's quite snappy, and > miraculously my poly rates in f1c have increased a bit, too!

Suse 9.1 here. Still, I've always been a happy camper with Windows. From 3.1 through to W2k Windows has been stable and reliable for me. The blackviper stuff is really good. Make sure not to disable the printer spooler though. Printers may not install with that disabled (happened to me a while ago). Achim

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:52:20 +0100, Joachim Trensz wrote: > > The blackviper stuff is really good. Make sure not to disable the printer > spooler though. Printers may not install with that disabled (happened to me a > while ago). Thanks for the note, Achim, but who'd want to connect printers to gaming rigs? ;-) Cheers, uwe ps: xp pro is ok so far, I probably won't be looking back once I get my higher spec pots. -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe Sch�rkamp wrote: ... > ps: xp pro is ok so far, I probably won't be looking back once I get > my higher spec pots. Good :) Achim

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting though, I'll give it a go > > first. > > > > All the best & thanks for your comments, > > The only possible advantage Win2K SP4 has over XP SP2 is the lack of an > activation scheme. XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once you've > tweaked it..... > > >

ANY version of windows is snappier once you've tweaked it.

Any tweaks recommended besides what I've seen at blackviper.com?? Bill "John Simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... >> > The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting though, I'll give it a go >> > first. >> > >> > All the best & thanks for your comments, >> >> The only possible advantage Win2K SP4 has over XP SP2 is the lack of an >> activation scheme. XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once >> you've >> tweaked it..... >> >> >> > > ANY version of windows is snappier once you've tweaked it.

>> The only possible advantage Win2K SP4 has over XP SP2 is the lack of an >> activation scheme. XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once >> you've >> tweaked it..... > ANY version of windows is snappier once you've tweaked it. Absolutely, but my point was.... Tweaked WinXP > Tweaked Win2K

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:06:20 +0100, Joachim Trensz wrote: > > I'm sure 98 is beginning to look a bit dated in modern games and especially > > business applications. > > > > But who'd be using windows for business applications? ;-) > > cheers, uwe > > ps: made the switch to xp pro yesterday and did some tweaking > according to blackviper.com. So far it's quite snappy, and > miraculously my poly rates in f1c have increased a bit, too! > > >

Not sure about the idea of disabling system restore though. ??? Fine, I guess, as long as the user creates his own restore points once in a while. -- Pete Ives Remove All_stRESS before sending me an email

> Not sure about the idea of disabling system restore though. ??? Fine, I > guess, as long as the user creates his own restore points once in a > while. Norton Ghost