Jump to content

Question for any recent Windows XP users


Skywatcher12

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

That DRM issue is this I suppose?

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?293174-This-is-a-warning-to-all-fs2004-users-who-run-this-program-on-microsoft-windows-7!!!!

 

That was a nice one M$ pulled... :D

 

Personally, I'm sticking with Win7 until there's a game I absolutely have to have (most new games don't support Win7 anymore), and then I'll upgrade. I'll probably need a new PC as well then...

 

Regards,

DDP.

 

Yes, that's the one! No amount of compatibility changes will fix that particular issue.

And yes, I will be going with Win 7 as you are running and as I did prior to Win 10. I did some testing to simulate a XP system. I will give details below in the response to bam1220

 

Skywatcher12 just go ahead and install FS9 on Win XP. It works and it works well. Like I said earlier I still use my original install of FS9 from when I bought it. I bought it the day it came out. I have two computers that I built myself. My older one is what I use for FS9 and FS9 only. My new one I use for everything else including many modern games. I tried the $1 Xbox to PC "trial" of MSFS2020 and quickly got bored with it. I am a RW pilot and tried the C152. After using it a few days I just got bored and also tired of all the glitches with the game. I have gone back to flying airliners in FS9 and I am very happy.

FS9 and Win XP just work together. They might be obsolete as some will say. But for just running FS9 it works great for me. You should do what makes you happy and what works for you.

 

I'm almost certainly going to go with Win 7.

 

Win XP is great. From this thread it appears just about everything ever created for FS9 would work today but there is one issue, address space. I ran test flights on my Win 10 PC using the same amount of address space as a XP system. FS9 crashed running high end aircraft and flying from one high end airport to another. In the past, you mostly avoided this issue but as add-ons have become better and more complex, they suck address space. I would end up having to put up with many OOM's under XP. Win XP 64bit I don't have so it's not an option.

 

I'll go with Win 7. You lose some add-ons but very few. You don't have to worry about OOM's and it works brilliantly with FS9.

 

FS9 is so enjoyable I really never intend to leave it so now it's a matter of setting things up to run it for years to come. The rest of the world can go to MSFS or wherever they like I really don't care. haha

 

Hope you guys all stick around!

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

 

What I've also done for Win7x64 is make fs9.exe Large Address Aware...

 

Addition/edit:

I'm not using any compatibility mode in Win7x64. That seems to break the Wx radar on the FT/Wilco Airbus Evos...

 

DDP.

Edited by DirkDP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a 64bit OS, with 8GB RAM helps. OOM's are long gone.

My Alaska install, with UT-Canada, UT-USA, all the LAGO Georender sceneries, Misty Moorings, Emma Field, Orcas, Tongass, LAGO FSE, EZ-Landmark, Digital Aviation Do-27, & Aerosoft collection, amongst others, should have fallen over ages ago.. That install is only 49GB.

 

There again, it just works, 70-80+ FPS, depending on complexity. No OOMs, no memory leaks, no crashes.

 

I'm still not sure as to what issues I should look out for.. "Shug'!

Edited by zswobbie1

Robin

Cape Town, South Africa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

What I've also done for Win7x64 is make fs9.exe Large Address Aware...

 

Addition/edit:

I'm not using any compatibility mode in Win7x64. That seems to break the Wx radar on the FT/Wilco Airbus Evos...

 

DDP.

 

Yep, that's all you need to do is get 4gb of space. I ran everything on Win 7, the longest flights to the most intensive airports in high end aircraft. Some flights were several hours running the full fuel capacity of a 737 or 747 and never one OOM. I did a couple of shorter sessions testing with 2gb and both times didn't make it to the gate at the destination airport.

 

Compatibility modes are not required on any system for most users. Yes, applying them and even running as admin can and does cause things to break. This is what I have tried to get through earlier in this thread.

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, iFly and Windows 10 and FS9 don’t mix so well. A frustrating operating system. Every single thing is like fighting against it in a battle to get it to play nice.

 

Yes, this is now fully confirmed! iFly is broken for some users on Win 10, myself included.

 

We are running out of planes to fly Robin! That's the best FS9 jet swallowed up by Win 10! Now what??? lol

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL,

I dont do jets, luckily, so I have not come across your issues..

& why not?

 

I've been simming for many years, since pre FS2000 days, & I got bored with the usual point to point flyings (as in jets & auto piloting). I cane across Garry's Ford Tri-Motor Project site, set up a 2nd install, & the rest is history. I also have an Alaska Bush flying install, a Golden Wings, Heritage, a Space install, with Carl Reddin's scenery & a couple of other themed installs. Hence my move away from jets. Yes, in the good old XP days, I probably flew a bunch of them, nothing now.

 

Now, off to set up an AN-2 to fly in Russian Arctic scenery...

Robin

Cape Town, South Africa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin,

I will happily fly anything and did in the past but due to time constraints these days it's been jets for quite a while and especially the iFly. I'll fly everything again in the future when I have more free time.

 

For now, I'm working on rectifying the current issues. I'll post an update when I'm done.

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ordered myself a new motherboard and CPU for my Win 7 machine! These were the oldest components and I'm replacing them while new replacements are still available. This machine will run FS9 and nothing else.

 

Last couple of years I've been stocking up on hardware to keep running old games for the rest of my life. I play so many games from the 2000-2008 period. Motherboard and CPU were on my hit list already so they've just been pushed forward a little now that I see how many add-ons won't work on Win 10. It will only get worse as time progresses.

 

Just so happy to have FS9 back on Win 7!

Edited by Skywatcher12
Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ordered myself a new motherboard and CPU for my Win 7 machine! These were the oldest components and I'm replacing them while new replacements are still available. This machine will run FS9 and nothing else.

 

Last couple of years I've been stocking up on hardware to keep running old games for the rest of my life. I play so many games from the 2000-2008 period. Motherboard and CPU were on my hit list already so they've just been pushed forward a little now that I see how many add-ons won't work on Win 10. It will only get worse as time progresses.

 

Just so happy to have FS9 back on Win 7!

 

 

This is a bit OT but have you ever played any of the Half Life series? One of my favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bit OT but have you ever played any of the Half Life series? One of my favorites.

 

Yes, got half way through the first one, life took over and never had a chance to finish. Half Life 1&2 both on my list to play. My all time fav FPS is No One Lives Forever. This genre is good from any era imo but there are plenty of old titles that are still great today.

 

Up until Windows 10, I was running games spanning over the last 40+ years from one PC. It's no longer possible to do that with Win 10. I built a XP system from all new components around a year ago dedicated for games Win 10 won't run. Now I will also have the Win 7 system for FS9.

 

Some games work well on Win 10, many don't. The 200-2008 era, so many great games were made back then. Graphics were good, we weren't talking 1979 Atari here, the games were complete, fully featured, had great game play and few bugs. Modern day gaming is a very different thing.

 

There are many reasons I want to stay with FS9 and many reasons I don't want to move to MSFS. Just for starters, 17 years later, here I am playing an old fav flight sim. I want to and I know I will, be able to play it for the rest of my life, nothing can stop me. With MSFS, MS will decide when you stop playing it. When they pull the plug on activation and streaming scenery you are done. People will literally poor hundreds or even thousands of dollars into it with no control over how much return they will get from those dollars. I don't like this aspect alone.

 

Long live FS9 and old games!

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens when all weather software (freeware included) drop support and stop providing online weather?

 

RJ

 

Agree with everything you have said.

 

Don't want this to sound bad in any way but I've thought of everything. It's not the time I can share information regarding weather. The reason is if I share, it may have a negative affect regarding weather at this moment in time for other people. I have weather fully covered as this was a major long term concern that needed a solution. My Win 7 PC will be completely offline but I will have real world weather and I will have this weather forever.

 

I agree with you XP is the best system for FS9 if you don't have OOM issues or are running a 64bit XP. I don't have a 64bit XP and did suffer OOM's testing with a 32bit environment so Win 7 is totally fine for me.

 

New hardware, yes, another issue but used parts will be around for a very long time. The motherboard I put in the XP machine I built a year ago is new. I ordered the same board for the Win 7 machine. It's compatible with either OS. CPU is the same CPU in both these PC's as well. CPU is off the market but still plenty new floating around.

 

And yes, agree on MSFS. IF it matures enough and they sort enough problems out, may be good for some GA flying as a second sim.

 

And yes again, we all use FS9 differently and it's the wide range of things you can do, tweak and create that make this let's call it "traditional" sim so great.

 

Oh and finally, YES!!! regarding 2D panels! Flight simming for me is done with a 2D panel.

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just so happy to have FS9 back on Win 7! "

 

Hi, I run FS9 and Windows XP x64 since years .... WITHOUT any problem.

 

My AI runs over 200 planes at the same time WITHIN the 60 miles FS AI radius ..., NOT the specially designed planes, no the originals planes which I fly IN ILS environment, Autopilot etc...

 

The SAME FDE files are used for AI and piloting, NO special FDE's needed IF the are "Corrected" to the real flying characteristic.

 

Floatplanes, WWI and WWII planes Je4t planes, US planes German WWi and WWII planes, land and water etc ..and EVERYTHING with the ORIGINAL version of every plane.

 

I tried FSX and it is NOT to my liking at all ...

 

Also I do NOT understand why many people like the Virtual Cockpit ...

 

Destructing like hell for a real pilot ..

 

Thanks

 

Sincerely

G. Kirschstein

 

FS9 and nothing else ... maybe MS will release FS9 to US and we can fix the 109 errors, so far, in the AI environment ... haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO.... ditto!

 

Thanks to the power of batch programming (yes command prompt, that confusing thingy), I have now downloaded just over 207GB of metar and upper wind data. haha

Active Sky 6.5 will live on forever

 

You are a funny and prepared man! lol

Looks like we will both be using FS9 for a very long time.

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FS9 and nothing else ... maybe MS will release FS9 to US and we can fix the 109 errors, so far, in the AI environment ... haha

 

I’ve thought how nice this would be as well so we could modernize FS9 for modern hardware and fix/improve some areas.

However, MS would sell it off to some company before they would give it to us for nothing.

 

On a separate note, the great thing about MSFS release is we are now witnessing the emergence of a core group of FS9 users who will never leave this sim. It’s developing into quite a nice little community! 👍😂

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with what ya'll are saying. 2D panels all the way for me. The way MSFS2020 does it really bugs me. I hate virtual cockpits. I will never give up my FS9. Oh and I also tried FSX. It was on my computer for only 1 day before I uninstalled it. I actually have it sitting on a shelf next to me in it's original box. Hasn't been touched for years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I totally agree with what ya'll are saying. 2D panels all the way for me. The way MSFS2020 does it really bugs me. I hate virtual cockpits. I will never give up my FS9. Oh and I also tried FSX. It was on my computer for only 1 day before I uninstalled it. I actually have it sitting on a shelf next to me in it's original box. Hasn't been touched for years.

 

Have you given up on MSFS yet? I notice it has taken no time to announce the paid DLC's! haha

 

As an update to this thread, my CPU I ordered arrived in really quick time. Going to put my Win 7 PC together hopefully in the next day or two and start FS9 installation.

 

Can't believe I'm this excited about setting up FS9 for the future. I think the confirmation of everything I expected regarding MSFS has simply allowed me to be excited that the future will always remain FS9.

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win XP is great. From this thread it appears just about everything ever created for FS9 would work today but there is one issue, address space.

 

 

Do yourself a favor and anyone else that reads this and read the PMDG article about OOMs in my signature below. After you do you'll know why OOMs occur in FS2004 and FSX in the first place. It's not because of Window XP and it won't get negated with XP 64 or Windows 7 64 just because you can use more RAM. It boils down to the code of these Sims its self. The code is one, only single threaded, and two, can only address 4 GB of RAM and that's it. You could have Windows 7 64 with 32 GB of RAM and it will make no difference once so ever.

 

In a nutshell, and to summarize the article, it's because FSX and FS2004 loads ALL scenery and add-ons at once whether you fly there or not. Now add to that the RAM needed for other things plus your aircraft (especially if it's something complex like a PMDG 737) and you can quickly see how you'll get an out of memory condition.

 

The solution is rather simple and it not RAM or OS related. You need to run a program coded in Java called Scenery Config Editor. It's at SourceForge. Now in there uncheck all add-ons that you won't be using on what ever trip you plan on in the Sim and only enable add-ons you will be using. But keep the base stuff on though. That you don't have to touch. This is of course if you have a massive amount of add-ons and complex aircraft. For me, my most complex add-on was a New York City update. Once I stared heading into the city I got an immediate OOM (I have 16 GB of RAM). So after the Sim crashed I unchecked a bunch of add-ons in Scenery Config Editor I wasn't using, loaded my flight back up (thanks FSX Save) and I was then able to fly into NY and land without issue. Once I flew back out of NY and headed north east on my journey, the next time around before I ran the Sim I disabled that massive and complex NY add-on to keep me from getting an OOM somewhere else.

 

Something else, the Sim will reportedly use up to 4 GB of RAM. Windows XP 32 will only address about 3.5 GB, not 4 GB due to the video card addressing. So if you use XP 32 and not 64 you lose about 500 MB of possible RAM usage capability for FS2004 or FSX. Not much, but that's the skinny. But again, and as I have already pointed out in three paragraphs above, is that it doesn't matter if your OS is 64 bit capable or not, it's OOM possibility rests squarely on the Sims's shoulders and its code.

 

I'm almost certainly going to go with Win 7.

 

This is what I would do because you won't have TLS 1.2 or 1.3 capability in XP unless you follow this guide. And at that and if it works, XP may not have 1.3 capability. With Windows 7 it probably can with an update. Why is this important? Because if an add-on purchase using a wrapper requires an encrypted connection that uses the newer TLS encryption schemes, it will fail. There could also be other issues as well where a weather engine or what ever needs an encrypted connection that uses a new, modern TLS scheme like TLS 1.2 or 1.3.

 

That's just one thing off the top of my head as to why you may not want to run XP. Though, it can be done of course. Forget about surfing the Internet for add-ons or what ever in an XP environment. Encrypted connections to websites may not even work, especially with SNI. You'd have to use some form of proxy. No, not the "privacy proxy" fallacy you read about, but a proxy that can fix TLS connections on the fly in XP. Then your choice of browser that's updated may have to be something niche like Ice Weasel or something. Not sure if Pale Moon supports XP anymore. They did. If you don't plan on using the Internet at all in XP other than for the weather engine it'll be fine. But again, if that weather engine needs a TLS 1.2 or 1.3 encrypted connection for login, you may be SOL.

 

 

 

And a 64bit OS, with 8GB RAM helps. OOM's are long gone.

 

In a word, no.

 

Prove me wrong. While in the Sim fire up Task Manager and look at the FS9.exe or the FSX.exe process. Now under the Working Set (Memory) it probably is less than 4 GB. If so you're not over and are safe from an OOM.

 

If you don't have the Working Set (Memory) column, go to View | select columns and check it off. You're not concerned with the private set, just the working set.

Edited by CRJ_simpilot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting thought as there are alot if things to consider, cant connect to vatsim with that almost 20 year old program (sqkbx) as vatsim said no more... but you can connect but you are going to need to upgrade OS's..its kinda this way for alot of things these days
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do yourself a favor and anyone else that reads this and read the PMDG article about OOMs in my signature below. After you do you'll know why OOMs occur in FS2004 and FSX in the first place. It's not because of Window XP and it won't get negated with XP 64 or Windows 7 64 just because you can use more RAM. It boils down to the code of these Sims its self. The code is one, only single threaded, and two, can only address 4 GB of RAM and that's it. You could have Windows 7 64 with 32 GB of RAM and it will make no difference once so ever.

 

You're talking about RAM. I'm talking about VAS as is the PMDG link.

 

Running 4gb of RAM in an XP machine is likely enough for FS9. The big issue is with VAS if running FS9 on a 32bit XP machine. It depends on what add-ons you run and some people may not run anything that causes OOM's on XP so for them it's the absolute ideal operating system.

 

I know from past experience and with my add-ons, OOM's on a 32 bit system are a major issue for me. I started this thread to once again reconsider XP but another potential issue running XP today besides VAS are the latest add-ons. The replies showed there is nothing to worry about here, everything works on XP.

 

I then had to look at OOM's again before considering XP. In the past when I had OOM's, I had everything enabled, scenery etc.

To see if I could use XP I ran tests using Scenery Config Manager and disabled everything except the departure and destination airports to see if this limited VAS usage to the point of making XP usable.

I flew from and to a couple of complex Aerosoft airports in the iFly 737 with flights of 2-3 hours duration and I had OOM's. I didn't go as far as monitoring VAS usage, no real need, these tests told me enough. I'm also quite certain another element adds to VAS usage greatly which I can't recall ever reading about anywhere but don't intend to state it here as fact until I've tested it properly. I eventually intend to start a website just for FS9 and add little bits of info I've discovered that I have not found elsewhere. Using a 64 bit operating system I've never had an OOM even with 6 hour flights and everything enabled.

 

The VAS test ruled out XP for me. It's undoubtedly the best OS to use for FS9 if you don't suffer OOM's. If you do, then Win 7 becomes the optimum choice.

Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just reading that PMDG link again for the first time in years, I'm not certain everything that applies to FSX is exactly the same for FS9 or possibly they missed some things in their tests. I don't want to state anything here as fact until I test myself. I'll keep it for the website in the future. Edited by Skywatcher12
Mark Daniels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, I'm not getting OOM's, & I'm also using the 4GB patch from https://ntcore.com/?page_id=371

 

This very little tool patches x86 executables in order to let them have 4GB (instead of only 2) of virtual memory on x64 platforms. This tool comes very handy for applications which need a great amount of virtual memory like games, 3D renderization, multimedia etc. To gain these 2GB, you just have to use this tool to patch the executable (*.exe file) of the software you want to have these additional GBs of virtual memory.

Robin

Cape Town, South Africa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard about that little patcher before, but thought it would be of little use since FS already uses 4 GB. It appears that in fact 32 bit coded programs use 2 GB and 2 GB is used for the system.

 

Now I patched the FSX.exe file and checked the patched version against a backup and both SHA256 bit hashes were the same. Meaning the FSX.exe file was not changed at all, i.e no flag set. Then I patched the FS9.exe file and checked the backup and the patched file hashes and they WERE changed. So the new FS9.exe was indeed patched as it should be with the flag.

 

Now reading here I see now why my FSX.exe file was not patched as I thought it would be. SP2 already did it! So to those that think this little 4 GB patcher will work for FSX SP2, you're wrong.

 

So no going back to what I said about my own OOM encounter which was in FSX SP2, it happened, even though the .exe had the flag already set due to SP2. The core game code was just not meant for x64 systems and there in lies the issue. The new FS2020 will without a doubt, and will take advantage of more than one CPU thread and the GPU. Not so with FS2004, FSX, probably FS2002 and going waaaaay back to 95 as well. These Sims are quite old.

 

So again, it's all about add-on management and what you have installed and what plane and its complexity you're flying. That WILL have an effect on whether you encounter an OOM or not. It happened to me with 16 GB of RAM, Windows 7 64. You may have to practice scenery management.

 

Don't take it for me. That PMDG article was published by the research of FSX community member Srdan “Kosta” Kostic.

 

And this is what happens when you're smarter than the rest. And it's happened to me on MANY, MANY forums all across the Internet. https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/399849-kosta-banned-by-avsim/

 

sudo 1st amendment -kaput

 

 

Edit-

 

About that EULA crap. Yeah, there isn't a kid in the whole wide world of dirt (Earth) that doesn't violate the Prepar3d EULA on a day by day basis.

 

"Your Honor, toss the case for frivolous nonsense."

Edited by CRJ_simpilot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...