Win.98 + FS2004

**Tabs** · 06-20-2003, 07:16 AM

My system boots within 30 seconds under XP with no stutters etc - I have no idea what you're talking about with 5 min boot time. ;)

Ryan

***Nels_Anderson*** · 06-20-2003, 08:18 AM

I don't know about "official", but I have run the beta on my old 800 MHz Dell system using Windows 98 and did not encounter any problems.

**rstansbury** · 06-20-2003, 08:58 AM

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-03 AT 09:00AM (EDT)[/font][p]I have to agree with you, when I first installed XP I setup a dual boot machine with 98 (when XP first came out it was kind of buggy, lack of good hardware support) it has since matured into a great OS. I have not had a single lockup or blue screen in over 6 months, and yes I push my system to the limit often. 98 can not keep up with XP when it comes to things like home networking etc. I have Ultimate traffic and have heard that 98 users are having a lot of lockups and problems. Seems UT pushes systems to the limit and 98 does a poor job of managing memory. I do have to admit one thing, XP has a much bigger footprint than 98 hence a faster machine seems to help out.

Rob Stansbury
3.06 p4
ATI 9800
1g Memory
Audigy Sound
845pe chipset

**drumex** · 06-20-2003, 09:16 AM

Before using XP for the first time 5-6 months ago, I also thought that 98 was better, and yes, "simpler". Like people thought Netscape Navigator was better than MS Internet Explerer 5-6 years ago. It actually was better than MS, but as IE became more handy, people switched to IE. I didn't want to but after some time, it was obvious that IE was easier to use, to start and was getting more compatible that NN.

Just like that, after using XP for such that long time, I can easily say that XP is way better than 98. XP really doesn't crash, or lock-up.

I actually have stutters in FS, but that's an hardware problem I hope to solve once I have internet at home. And about boot times: When I first installed XP, it took less than 30 seconds (I counted it) for the computer to boot into windows.

Boot time will eventually get longer if you install programs that execute themselves when starting windows. Now my less-than-30sec boot times are gone, but it still isn't more than 40 seconds.

Well that's my two cents.

Selcuk

**bob5569** · 06-20-2003, 11:45 AM

When DOS was king, folks declared win3.1 to be bad cuz it was SO complex....used SO much harddrive space...and what for...dos worked great. (flightsim ran great under dos)

When win3.1 was king, folks declared win95 to be the devil incarnate cuz it was SO complex...used SO much harddrive space..and none of it was needed.

Now you declare the bigger, more complex brother of win95 to be the poster child of simplicity. LOL

Do you see the humor?

Those who choose not to study history are doomed to repeat it.

Bob Bernstein

**drod46** · 06-20-2003, 06:33 PM

What I find is a problem with XP compared to 98 is that it is very easy to turn everything off in the background with 98 and is very confusing to do in XP. If any one has any suggestions, I am all ears since I would like to use XP instead of 98 since I have heard so many good things about XP.

**panzerschiffe** · 06-20-2003, 07:08 PM

In Windows XP, Control Alt Delete brings up the task manager. There you can shutdown programs, processes, along with many other system functions.

Albaro Villegas SPC [link:www.army.mil|US Army] | FDX1243 [link:www.vfedex.com|Virtual Fedex]
http://thescorned.homestead.com/big.jpg
www.md11.net www.vfedex.com | [link:www.ifdg.net|iFDG] - MD-11 Designer
No more Disco Chicken because he's 24 pixels too tall.
The mods are watching me!

sonic33 · 06-20-2003, 08:44 PM

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-03 AT 08:59PM (EDT)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-20-03 AT 08:55�PM (EDT)[/font]

QUOTE:
>I would like to go down
>on record as saying Windows
>98 has been, is, and
>will be (assuming Microsoft never
>gets around do doing it
>right again) the best OS
>ever made.
>
>Griff
Griff, I have to disagree with you on that one friend, Although it will be marked as one of the great statements of 2003 if you like......... lol :-)

Folks,
One thing worth mentioning is that XP is built on NT and most everything runs as a service.
Services can be set to run auto / manual / disabled.

In short, you can disable any service that you are not using or likeley to use.
Control Panel \ Administrative tools\ Services.

Disabled = not available
Manual = available but only running if started manually or by another service that is reliant upon it.
Auto = Will start up at boot up.

Beware when disabling services and be sure you don't disable a service that is reliant on another service.
Best practice is to go with manual, Especially if you want the service available but not to start up at boot.

As described above, using task manager, you can stop services and processes but any of these configured to start at boot will still start at boot.

Btw: Running msconfig from the 'RUN' box is still available and you can stop third party software from starting at boot up in there.

A few more reasons why XP is, by far, superior to Win 98.
Memory management:
Xp can be configured to release memory from a program once it is shut down.
Xp can support ...... well let's say that it's not currently possible to buy a mainboard that will take more memory that XP will support.

Stability:
Well, anyone who has used 98 and XP to excess (Like in work or something) will surely know how tempremental 98 is / was.
Mainly due to the way it used rescources, XP runs everything in a seperate thread and therefore it is very rare that you will get one program causing another to lock up.
Xp is solid as a rock and has many in built tools to repair any disater. Tools that work!
Almost never have to reboot in XP when changing system wide settings, Always in 98. Huh!

Networking:
IMHO The best improvent of XP over 98....... You have got to have a go to see....Too much to write here, I will be here all night.

Lots more reasons to go to XP but hey it's 01:30 here and I gotta sleep sometime.

If you are going to go XP then go XP Pro and not XP Home. Home is very limited as far as networking is concerned and based on todays standards with Cable / dsl etc. It is highly likeley that you will be networking more than one machine in your home in the very near future.
Incidentally, setting up a home network with XP pro is simplicity it's self. Absolutely no networking knowledge required.
Wizards....... Now there's another thing about XP. It is geared around peoples lack of knowledge and has wizards for everything. Not only that, wizards that work and are a breeze to follow.

Could go on all night folks, suffice to say, Although XP is built for performance, the default settings on the OS is not set for performance, you will need to tweak it a little bit to get the best from it.
If you know anyone that has windows 2003 server running then go and take a look at it. It looks almost exactly the same as XP but... It is set by default, as a prformance system and , believe me, it performs.
Check out some of the settings like system caching and Virtual memory etc etc ... then change XP to the same and you will get the same performance.

Just to make it a valid post, I would assume that fs2004 is backward compatible with windows family of Operating systems so if you choose to stay with 98 then that will not be an issue, Right Nels?

Windows is just the shell from which you run your programs, Hardware and drivers are the main culprit for software issues.
For those hardened win98 folks, Until you have tried XP then Win98 is merely only 'the devil you know' A few things have moved around a little bit as far as the GUI is concerned, But hey, take the plunge and learn something new. Remember this : In this industry, standing still means going backwards. Don't get left behind folks.

FTR: MS have announced that they will no longer support Winnt 4.0 either online or otherwise from july next year (Or was it this year) jeeeeeeeez.... doesn't time fly.
No announcement about not supporting win98 , as of yet.

BTW, Lookin at some of the great screen shots on this forum and have to say thanks to Nels for sharing his good fortune with us.

Best

Geoff

Regards
Geoff
http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/Use...e82b2308a8.jpg

*********************************
http://www.btinternet.com/~g_seal <<<< My attempt at FS Scenery Design.
*********************************

sonic33 · 06-20-2003, 09:04 PM

Jeez.... Just realised, that was my 1000th post.

Drinks are on me folks........ ;-)

Regards
Geoff
http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/Use...e82b2308a8.jpg

*********************************
http://www.btinternet.com/~g_seal <<<< My attempt at FS Scenery Design.
*********************************