URL: http://www.flightadventures.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID1
Thread Number: 617
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe GeForce specific)"
Posted by Ben_Chiu on 09-25-02 at 16:01z
Greetings:

This may be of use to some of you.

I recently upgraded XP with SP1 on my GeForce4-equipped system and lost the menu bar in FS2K2's full-screen mode (pressing the Alt key in full-screen mode did nothing). Thanks to Vic, I was able to work around the problem. (However, I now wonder how many new bugs SP1 fixes and how many new ones it introduces.)

Anyway, the work around is to:

- turn off anti-aliasing in FS2K2
- switch AA to 4x in GeForce AA settings

Hope this helps!

Ben


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Ben Chiu
-OLR.PL v1.80-

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe GeForc..."
Posted by James on 09-25-02 at 16:40z
Hi Ben,

I've also noticed this in other programmes where parts of the pop up GUI is missing. Looks like I will have to uninstall these programmes and re install (just to retrieve the missing sections of the GUI).

This looks like another Microsoft mess :-) as some one else where wrote after some thing similar. "Why should the user of the end product have to piŁ$ about with his/her system for to get some thing to work as it should prior to the SP1 release." I can also point out that it's not just the SP1 at fault here but my lips are sealed at present :-)

Regards,

James (CONman) Anderson
*** The plane in front is a Boeing ***

-= VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.2 =-
Registered to: James Anderson
-OLR.PL v1.76-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe GeForce specific)"
Posted by Emile on 10-08-02 at 06:28z
Hello guys,
I plan to upgrade my PC to a machine with beter performances. In regards with FS2K2, I still have an open question Win 98 SE or XP ??
When I read all the topics about the negative impact of XP in FS2K2....
Any recommendation?
Regards
Emile
EBBR
"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe GeForce specific)"
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-08-02 at 21:20z
Emile,

XP every time. Totally stable and a much more sophisticated OS than anything MS have delivered before for the home user. Negative issues with FS2002? Not here!

Memory management is miles better, never see a BSOD. What are you waiting for? <g>

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-19-02 at 00:40z
Hi Emile and Ray,

I'm a bit late, but I just thought I'd try to offer the contrary side for a more balanced view <G>:

> XP every time. Totally stable ...

Seems as good/bad, or actually slightly worse, than Win98SE here. And when it does crash, whether process or whole system, it's a b****r to find out what's gone wrong. The Dr Watson is next to useless and the other crash details are nearly always totally irrelevant. There's no way I can do decent debugging on the rotten thing.

> and a much more sophisticated OS

Sophistication = complication = obscure bugs & less performance

> Memory management is miles better

Not sure how you judge that. Are you watching it being allocated and reallocated somewhere?

> never see a BSOD.

Actually I've seen more BSODs or outright total hangs (three fingers not even working -- hardware reset jobs) in WinXP than I have in quite a while on any of my Win98SE systems. I think you must lead a very unadventurous life with your XP system! <G>

Regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
+ UNREGISTERED +
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-19-02 at 10:04z
Greetings Pete,

<<I'm a bit late, but I just thought I'd try to offer the contrary side for a more balanced view <G>: >>

Me senses you're going to be a troublemaker!! ;-)

<<Seems as good/bad, or actually slightly worse, than Win98SE here. And when it does crash, whether process or whole system, it's a b****r to find out what's gone wrong. The Dr Watson is next to useless and the other crash details are nearly always totally irrelevant. There's no way I can do decent debugging on the rotten thing.>>

When a program crashes you're given the opportunity to send the info to Microsoft. Whether you do or don't a prompt allows you to examine the info that will be sent. Is that different to what Dr Watson produces? Given that it tells you what files will be sent and shows detailed info useful to a programmer isn't that of any use?

<<Sophistication = complication = obscure bugs & less performance >>

I agree that sophistication can mean complexity but I really can't say anything about obscure bugs because I really don't have any problems using the OS. I don't have tools to measure against any other OS I'm afraid.

<<> Memory management is miles better

Not sure how you judge that. Are you watching it being allocated and reallocated somewhere? >>

If you right-click on the taskbar and choose Task Manager / Performance tab you can observe how much memory is currently available. Although Me had no comparable measuring tool I have never run out of memory whereas this did occasionally happen with Me. However, that was with 384Mb of RAM compared to my current 512Mb so that could be a factor. But, I have heard that XP reallocates memory away from programs that are running but minimised thereby giving more to active program(s). I have no way of proving that - just something I heard.

<<Actually I've seen more BSODs or outright total hangs (three fingers not even working -- hardware reset jobs) in WinXP than I have in quite a while on any of my Win98SE systems. I think you must lead a very unadventurous life with your XP system! <G> >>

You must be running some strange software! <g> I assume you've downloaded all the updates including the recent Service Pack 1? Up here XP Home remains 99% stable and is a pleasure to use. Wanna swap PCs? <bg>

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-20-02 at 00:09z
Hi Ray,

> Me senses you're going to be a troublemaker!! ;-)

LOL!

Actually I've now installed Win2000 Pro as my O/S on my main development system. Not because I like it or think it is better in any ways you ascribe to XP, but because Adobe Premiere and Photoshop, principally, need loads of RAM, and Win98SE won't let me have the 1GB RAM I'm installing -- its limit is 512Mb without fiddles, and those fiddles bring instability, or so I've been told.

> When a program crashes you're given the opportunity to send the info to
> Microsoft. Whether you do or don't a prompt allows you to examine the
> info that will be sent. Is that different to what Dr Watson produces?

Yes, wildly so. Mostly it doesn't even manage to identify the module responsible, or not in any way I can understand. I've read an article in this week's PC Pro that tells me how to enhance this to produce a Kernel memory or full memory dump, but those would be no use to me either -- they are aimed only at MS tech support staff.

> Given that it tells you what files will be sent and shows detailed info
> useful to a programmer isn't that of any use?

Useful to MS WinXP programmers, no others that I can see.

> I agree that sophistication can mean complexity but I really can't say
> anything about obscure bugs because I really don't have any problems
> using the OS. I don't have tools to measure against any other OS I'm
> afraid.

Did you get loads of problems on Win98SE? As far as I can tell, the same problems which cause difficulties in Win98 do so in WinXP. It was different in WinNT4 and before, and in OS/2, which was a system I really liked, while it lasted (did lots of programs for that, and it was 3000% more robust than any Windows I've met). The problem is that since WinNT5 (Win2000 -- XP is WinNT5.1) Microsoft undid the protections they had before. They let 3rd party drivers into the Kernel. They had to, really, for commercial reasons, unless NT was to remain a strictly business-only, limited hardware list O/S.

Probably 95% of crashes and hangs in Win98, Win2K and WinXP are down to drivers. I've actually just updated from Parhelia 1.00 drivers to their Beta 1.01 (or is it 1.02?) drivers, and (cross fingers) so far haven't seen another crash/hang. But it's only been a few days, so watch this space! <G>

You are probably now using very stable nVidia drivers which have been debugged over hundreds of versions -- there are more new versions of nVidia drivers per month than FSUIPC! <G>. With good drivers I get no hangs or crashes in Win98SE except those caused by my own developments, and those I can also debug, on Win98SE. But I really cannot remember the last system crash or BSOD I had on Win98SE and I've been running it full time 6.5 days per week on 5 machines, since it came out. Admittedly I do NOT leave my machines on all night. I have heard of too many fires caused by overheated/failed PCs. But switching it off and on again should, you'd think, introduce more instability, not less --- not so here, though.

> If you right-click on the taskbar and choose Task Manager / Performance
> tab you can observe how much memory is currently available. Although Me
> had no comparable measuring tool I have never run out of memory whereas
> this did occasionally happen with Me.

I think you'll find that was down simply to resource allocations, not memory. In Win9x/Me systems there's a relatively low limit on the number of handles given for things like windows, icons, files, etc. If you are running any program which uses these and doesn't release them, and that program keeps doing it, you can get what appears to be memory problems but which are merely table size problems. NT has expansible tables for this sort of resource, and is better at collecting garbage by itself so the wastage of handles doesn't grow annoying. There are some good background utilities which do some similar things for Win98 -- I use one and have done for a long time (MemMonitor Pro I think it's called), but really I don't think it's been needed in Win9X for a long time. I've never actually seen any so-called memory or resource problems in Win9X since Win95 days.

> But, I have
> heard that XP reallocates memory away from programs that are running but
> minimised thereby giving more to active program(s).

All virtual memory operating systems page out less frequently accessed memory in order to page in other memory as it is used. That's what the swap file is for, and that's the principle of VM systems anyway, whether NT or 9x. NT is probably more efficient at most things as it is all 32-bit code whereas Win9x is still a mixture based on its DOS/Win3 heritage. But where NT gains in less CPU switching it tends to lose efficiency through the stricter layering. They had to break a lot of their own rules to get DirectX as efficient as it is.

> You must be running some strange software! <g>

No, these are nearly all down to the first release of the Matrox Parhelia drivers.

> I assume you've
> downloaded all the updates including the recent Service Pack 1?

Got that from a magazine CD somewhere.

> Up here
> XP Home remains 99% stable and is a pleasure to use. Wanna swap PCs?

If you kept the same drivers and add-on cards it would make no difference. The instability is down to add-ons, not specifically Windows, EXACTLY as it was with Win98SE.

I'm not arguing for Windows 95 (ugh -- 3 crashes per day, guaranteed! <G>)), nor Windows Me, which was the biggest disaster inflicted on us by Microsoft ever, in my opinion (after 4 days only struggling with it, never getting even one thing working, and facing similar on friend's systems too!). I'm claiming that Win98SE, and only Win98SE, is/was the best (and for FS and most other such programs, the fastest) O/S Microsoft has yet produced.

> <bg>

LOL yourself! <G>

Best regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-20-02 at 16:38z
Hi Pete,

Wow, pretty heavy reply and very technical - far beyond my ken I'm afraid but I can comment on a few things...

<<Did you get loads of problems on Win98SE? >>

Don't think I ever had that one. I moved from Win98 to Me and despite yours and others bad feelings about that version I found it reasonably stable. BSOD? yes, on occasions but nothing that really made me think I should dump it.

<<You are probably now using very stable nVidia drivers which have been debugged over hundreds of versions ...>>

Well, if you remember I'm using the Omega drivers because of their exceptional quality. These are based on nVidia's of course but even if I wasn't using Omega's I probably wouldn't try every version of driver that nVidia produce. I'd get nothing done!

<<But I really cannot remember the last system crash or BSOD I had on Win98SE and I've been running it full time 6.5 days per week on 5 machines, since it came out.>>

That's a recommendation if ever I heard one. I hope that I'll be able to say the same about XP in a couple of years.

<<I think you'll find that was down simply to resource allocations, not memory.>>

Oh, okay, I'll bow to your greater knowledge but the tool quite clearly states "Physical Memory - Available". There are values shown for Kernel Memory and the size of the Page File (swap file) is also shown. Altogether better than anything Me gave me. I never bought any 3rd party utilities for memory management - I suppose if I had things would have been more stable.

<<I'm claiming that Win98SE, and only Win98SE, is/was the best (and for FS and most other such programs, the fastest) O/S Microsoft has yet produced.>>

I think users of NT4 might contest that claim. Perhaps you meant for home users? Not FS-friendly of course but still very stable as me and many of my colleagues at work will vouch for. WE're moving to Windows2000 soon so that should be interesting but outside the purpose of this discussion of course.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by Stephen on 10-20-02 at 23:57z
For stability Linux wins for me. I use Linux most of the time except when playing MS Flight Simulator and Windows games, using ACARS or the OLR, when I use Windows 2000.

My favourite version of Windows has to be Windows 2000 - it's stable, does a reasonable job of handling memory and doesn't contain some of Windows XP's bloat and Microsoft's annoyances such as Product Activation and the inclusion of Windows/MSN Messenger and MSN Explorer in the default install. I have no intention of moving to Windows XP because I have yet to be persuaded that it has any advantages over Windows 2000.

My least favourite recent releases of Windows would have to be Windows XP (MS annoyances and bloat) and Windows ME (crash-prone and incapable of handling memory properly, in my experience).

-Stephen.

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-22-02 at 21:35z
Hi Ray,

> <<I think you'll find that was down simply to resource allocations, not
> memory.>>
>
> Oh, okay, I'll bow to your greater knowledge but the tool quite clearly
> states "Physical Memory - Available". There are values shown for Kernel
> Memory and the size of the Page File (swap file) is also shown.

I think we're at cross-purposes here. I was referring to your comment about Win9x (or was it Me?) giving you lots of "out of memory" errors, whereas XP doesn't, so I was explaining that most all those sorts of errors on 9x (and Me) were down to tabulated resource handle space.

I know there are more professional looking tools for examining things in NT. There were similar tools in Win9x, but not so good, and this left the door open for more third party developers. But we weren't talking about tools, but O/S reliability and efficiency if you recall.

> <<I'm claiming that Win98SE, and only Win98SE, is/was the best (and for
> FS and most other such programs, the fastest) O/S Microsoft has yet
> produced.>>
>
> I think users of NT4 might contest that claim.

Not for FS they couldn't. Nor could they possibly claim it was fast. In fact it was slower at most things than any version of Windows, and that was because it was (rightly) so strict in enforcing the checks and protections at every layer. It was precisely these that they had to relax to get it as usable as Windows 9x in NT5, but in so doing they really did lose much of the reliability and protection benefits, with the results I am seeing here.

And anyway, I would stick up for OS/2 above NT any day! <G> I reckon OS/2 only "lost" because MS abandoned it in favour of NT in order to cash in on the locked in migration from Windows 3 which did a lot better than anyone had a right to expect considering how unreliable that was! <G>

Really it was a parallel to the Betamax vs VHS battle, and the better one lost. Ah well ...

Regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-23-02 at 22:40z
Hi Pete,

I think I'm going to start calling you "multiple Dowson" (with apologies to multiple Miggs (or was it Meigs?) in Silence of the Lambs) for your repeated postings of the same message :-)

Anyway, enough of that - on to important things...

<<I think we're at cross-purposes here. I was referring to your comment about Win9x (or was it Me?) giving you lots of "out of memory" errors, whereas XP doesn't, so I was explaining that most all those sorts of errors on 9x (and Me) were down to tabulated resource handle space. >>

You're probably right about cross-purposes. Tabulated resource handle space? Blimey, I'm lost! I'll accept that you know what you're talking about and leave it at that.

<<But we weren't talking about tools, but O/S reliability and efficiency if you recall.>>

Yes, I remember - just! I stick with my original opinion about stability despite all that's been said. As for efficiency I imagine you're probably right in that XP is excessively bloated to ensure reliability but I'd rather have a few hundred mg of space consumed if it means a more stable system.

If I didn't make it clear about NT4 and FS2002 I meant to. I agree it isn't a suitable platform to run FS on.

<<And anyway, I would stick up for OS/2 above NT any day! >>

You're moving the goalposts! ;-) The original question was Win98 vs XP. :-)

<<Really it was a parallel to the Betamax vs VHS battle, and the better one lost. Ah well ...>>

Same with BSB vs Sky! Such is life! :-(

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-24-02 at 00:32z
Hi Ray,

> I think I'm going to start calling you "multiple Dowson" (with apologies
> to multiple Miggs (or was it Meigs?) in Silence of the Lambs) for your
> repeated postings of the same message :-)

I only post them once. I've been having enormous problems with VPC and the OLR in particular, these last few weeks. In fact it was these problems that made me build an entirely new PC to replace my aging P2-450. I'm now using a P4-2GHz for Internet, Compilation, Documentation, and I've installed Win2000 Pro and 1GB memory to make it more suitable for Photoshop and Premiere with DV editing.

I still got the problems afterwards however. After much beating of head against wall I discovered that it was Norton Systemworks, though that did not get in the way of anything else. Oddly though, I've now *separately* installed the only two parts I installed and used, AntiVirus and Utilities, and everything now works. Must be something else which SystemWorks invisibly installs.

To cap it all another of my machines bellied yp a couple of days ago and it's taken me this long, full time, to figure it out -- after two Windows re-installs and a mobo and processor swap (with a spare I had in a cupboard) -- it looks like I might have it finally nailed as a Hard Disk giving intermittent total collapses! I think it must be electronic rather than media though 'cos I managed to get all the data off intact.

> Yes, I remember - just! I stick with my original opinion about stability
> despite all that's been said. As for efficiency I imagine you're
> probably right in that XP is excessively bloated to ensure reliability

No, that was NT4, and not "bloated" but "armour plated" <G>. It's XP which is generally regarded as bloatware with all the fluff added to it, most of which I've stripped off so it looks like a nice decent Win98! <G>

> but I'd rather have a few hundred mg of space consumed if it means a
> more stable system.

But it isn't. That's my point -- you yourself admitted you'd not had any problems with Win98SE, or was that WinMe, so what are you comparing it with? I get more crashes with WinXP using new XP drivers than I do with Win98SE using older well developed and tested drivers. One day XP will become as stable as Win98SE became after lots of bug fixing!

Oh, and so far Win2000 Pro, on my nice shiny new system, has crashed and auto-rebooted several times in a week. Can't find out why as it doesn't say. Just some gibberish about informing the "administrator" (i.e. me! <G>). Oh, and it crashes reliably (100%) when you tell it to shut down, so I have to wait till the PC starts booting again, then switch it off manually! I've NEVER had any of that with Win98, though it does seem reminiscent of Win95! <G>

Regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-25-02 at 15:55z
Hi Pete,

<<After much beating of head against wall I discovered that it was Norton Systemworks.>>

You're not the first person to have problems with that utility. Although I didn't have it myself Norton was responsible for wrecking my Registry a while back and I haven't been near it since.

<<No, that was NT4, and not "bloated" but "armour plated" <G>. >>

Same difference then! <g> I quite like the look of XP and have no intention of reverting to the Win98 look (yuck!)

<<But it isn't. That's my point -- you yourself admitted you'd not had any problems with Win98SE, or was that WinMe, so what are you comparing it with? >>

The problems I had with Me was that when a program crashed it would sometimes bring the OS down with it. Although programs still hang in XP they do not affect the OS which remains stable. I hope that clears up why I prefer XP to anything before it.

<<I get more crashes with WinXP using new XP drivers than I do with Win98SE using older well developed and tested drivers.>>

Obviously you know your own system better than anyone else. Just as I know mine better than anyone else. I rarely need to change drivers - maybe if I did I might encounter some of the same problems.

I think I'll not bother to tell our System Admin of your problems with Windows2000. I hope it improves for you otherwise you'll have no time to work on more important things like the next version of FSUIPC being able to assign reverse thrust to an axis please?

Now for something completely different... I'm now 20 in the queue to receive a Aerosoft 747 unit. It will probably ship next week. Just thought you'd like to know.

I've also received my ticket for the FS Show in Brum. I'm bringing another convert with me so we'll have a full car again. Maybe we'll need a second vehicle if Alan still wants a lift.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-25-02 at 20:45z
Hi Ray,

> You're not the first person to have problems with that utility. Although
> I didn't have it myself Norton was responsible for wrecking my Registry
> a while back and I haven't been near it since.

Hmm. Not heard of that. I've been using Norton Utilities now for more years than I care to count, and I trust them more than Windows!

> I quite like the look of XP and have no
> intention of reverting to the Win98 look (yuck!)

Yuck to XP's normal look from me! Just shows you how tastes differ. No politics now! <G>

> The problems I had with Me was that when a program crashed it would
> sometimes bring the OS down with it. Although programs still hang in XP
> they do not affect the OS which remains stable. I hope that clears up
> why I prefer XP to anything before it.

I've had more crashes taking down XP than just crashing not taking down XP. Using relatively new or experimental vide drivers will do it quite easily! <G>.

I cannot compare it to WinME as I couldn't get anything at all working reliable on that b****** of an O/S!

> I think I'll not bother to tell our System Admin of your problems with
> Windows2000. I hope it improves for you

It still crashes on closing or restarting. I can't figure out why. The information it provides is useless to the extreme. However, all that means is that I have to press and hold the on/off button instead.

My main annoyance is how long it takes Windows Explorer in Win2000 to obtain directory listings of nearby PCs on the local workgroup. All my Win98SE PCs see each other really quickly, no messing. The Win2000 and WinXP ones take 20-40 seconds to find another PC, and that's EVERY single time I want to access one, say in Explorer. It's even the same between the Win2K and WinXP PC. I've even added TCP/IP and Netbeui protocols to the LAN as well as my old reliable IPX/SPX, but it makes no difference. Both NT-based operating systems are really just the clunkiest, slowest, most annoying systems I have ever come across -- maybe if your office uses Win2000 Pro on a LAN you have someone there who can tell me how to make it work smoothly and quickly, like Win98? Please? I just cannot believe it is *supposed* to be as bad as this? Maybe office types don't know any better?

If you can ask for me, thanks.

> otherwise you'll have no time to
> work on more important things like the next version of FSUIPC being able
> to assign reverse thrust to an axis please?

Reverse thrust on the throttle axis has been in FSUIPC for 18 months and is used by many folks. I thought you tried it and didn't like it?

> Now for something completely different... I'm now 20 in the queue to
> receive a Aerosoft 747 unit. It will probably ship next week. Just
> thought you'd like to know.

Yes, I asked Andrew about all that, and mentioned you. He said he was aiming to clear the list by Xmas, but couldn't get the parts! Maybe he promoted you knowing you knew me? (head grows big! <G>).

> I've also received my ticket for the FS Show in Brum.

Ditto. Bob Sidwick asked me to do a presentation, but I don't volunteer for that sort of thing -- I had enough when was a manager in ICL!

Regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-26-02 at 16:31z
Hi Pete,

<<Yuck to XP's normal look from me! Just shows you how tastes differ. No politics now! <G> >>

Of course not - each to his own.

<<I've had more crashes taking down XP than just crashing not taking down XP. Using relatively new or experimental vide drivers will do it quite easily! <G>.>>

Video drivers as opposed to graphics drivers? I assume you're still using the Omega ones for FS2002 which have been nice and stable for me.

<<...maybe if your office uses Win2000 Pro on a LAN you have someone there who can tell me how to make it work smoothly and quickly, like Win98? Please? I just cannot believe it is *supposed* to be as bad as this? Maybe office types don't know any better? >>

LOL! We don't have Windows 2000 just yet - its installation date is not known by end-users such as me so my observations are all based on NT4. I can access several other servers across our network both local at Cheadle Hulme and also those at Bath with minimal access times. This suggests something is not quite right with your settings possibly but not being a network administrator I wouldn't know where to start. I'll try to contact our SA and ask him if he can offer any advice on why your access times are so bad.

<<Reverse thrust on the throttle axis has been in FSUIPC for 18 months and is used by many folks. I thought you tried it and didn't like it? >>

I must be missing the obvious. Do I not move the throttle all the way back during calibration to allow for a null area? Does that then become the reverse thrust position? If it does mean reserving part of the main throttle's axis I'm not sure I would like that and it's probable that is why I decided against it. What I was hoping for is to allocate reverse thrust to one of my spare axis on the yoke. Can I do that? There's no reverse thrust axis in FS2002 so I didn't think it was possible that way.

<<Yes, I asked Andrew about all that, and mentioned you. He said he was aiming to clear the list by Xmas, but couldn't get the parts! Maybe he promoted you knowing you knew me? (head grows big! <G>).>>

LOL! If I've been promoted then thanks for any influence you may have had. I would be slightly embarrassed if that was the case and I hope that no-one else on this site who has ordered one is reading this :-(

He confirmed my position and said I could expect an e-mail next week asking me to place my order. Having had a play with it at yours I'm really looking forward to receiving it. An early Christmas present :-)
Do you know anything about a prospective radio stack? I know you wouldn't order one as you have the PFC stuff but I might be interested.

<<Bob Sidwick asked me to do a presentation, but I don't volunteer for that sort of thing.>>

I can understand and maybe it would be quite difficult to deliver a speech on such a utility given that it dosn't have any fancy graphics! <g>

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-27-02 at 01:05z
Hi Ray,

> Video drivers as opposed to graphics drivers?

What's the difference? Graphics card == video card, innit?

> I assume you're still
> using the Omega ones for FS2002 which have been nice and stable for me.

Not on my Parhelia card, no. The Omega drivers were for nVidia. Matrox is a different thing altogether.


> I can access several other servers across our network both local at
> Cheadle Hulme and also those at Bath with minimal access times. This
> suggests something is not quite right with your settings possibly but
> not being a network administrator I wouldn't know where to start.

Access times are fine ONCE Explorer has seen and listed all the shared folders. It's something to do with sharing, but I can't figure out what. If I open Explorer and click on a network PC and wait till Explorer has listed all its shared drives, then it's as fast as anything from then on, in *that* copy of explorer. But if I close it or even just leave it and open another, then that take ages again. Very odd.

> I'll
> try to contact our SA and ask him if he can offer any advice on why your
> access times are so bad.

Okay, thanks, but please clarify it as above.

> <<Reverse thrust on the throttle axis has been in FSUIPC for 18 months
> and is used by many folks. I thought you tried it and didn't like it? >>
>
> I must be missing the obvious. Do I not move the throttle all the way
> back during calibration to allow for a null area? Does that then become
> the reverse thrust position?

You have to map the single throttle to the 4 separate ones, in FSUIPC. FS does not support reverse thrust on the single common throttle.

> If it does mean reserving part of the main
> throttle's axis I'm not sure I would like that and it's probable that is
> why I decided against it.

Oh, sorry. The only analogue reverse thrust control FS offers is the range below idle on the separate throttle inputs.

> What I was hoping for is to allocate reverse
> thrust to one of my spare axis on the yoke. Can I do that? There's no
> reverse thrust axis in FS2002 so I didn't think it was possible that
> way.

No, it isn't really. If you were building your own controls you'd arrange that by wiring the reverse throttle in series with the main one and calibrating them very carefully to give idle at the point where the reverser was full forward and the main throttle full back.

I'm not sure how I'd manage to do what you want with ordinary axes allocated through FS. I'd probably have to have you assign the reverse axis to something else, you didn't need, then if I saw the main throttle at zero and this one moving, feed some calibration from that in as reverse. It's quite a big job and I'm not sure I've got time for a while. It would also need another whole page in the options I think, as there's no room as it stands. Ugh. I'll think about it though.

> Do you know anything about a prospective radio stack? I know you
> wouldn't order one as you have the PFC stuff but I might be interested.

No, sorry. I thought his next stuff would be EICAS/EFIS control panels to go alongside the MCP.

Regards,

Pete


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-27-02 at 14:27z
Hi Pete,

<,What's the difference? Graphics card == video card, innit? >>

I wasn't sure if you were talking about drivers for some of your fancy video editing software or not. I'd forgotten you now had the Parhelia so please disregard my comments.

I'll write down your Explorer problem and see if my SA can help.

<<You have to map the single throttle to the 4 separate ones, in FSUIPC. FS does not support reverse thrust on the single common throttle.>>

Okay, let me play with that. Please don't even think about working on an alternative solution for the reverse thrust. If all else fails I can map this to a button as I did previously. Less elegant but it works.

<<I thought his next stuff would be EICAS/EFIS control panels to go alongside the MCP.>>

I've seen this and it looks interesting especially when it all slots into the connectors on the back of the MCP. It's just that I saw someone mention a radio stack on his Forum but with no further details it's probably something he has planned for the future.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by Vulcan on 10-28-02 at 20:25z
Hi Ray,

PMFJI

I use reverse thrust on the Siatek throttle by pulling back to the bottom end of travel and it works OK, even with 767PIC which Pete's notes indicate could be a problem.

Because I only have the one throttle control I map all 4 throttles to one (page 1 of 'joysticks' from memory).
Move the throttle to full forward and set that box, move back to the idle detent, which the Saitek has, and set the centre box, move fully back and set the 'low' box and then back to the detent to set the second centre box. It needs a bit of fine tuning around the detent to make sure you don't go into reverse accidentally when you only want idle.

If your throttle doesn't have a detent I an see that being a problem as there would be no way of feeling the change from idle to reverse.

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Dave Wild
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-28-02 at 22:35z
Hi Vulcan,

I've tried this last night and it does make the reverse thrust work better. The downside, as you mention, is that without a detent position on the Pro Throttle it's difficult to put the throttle in a neutral position. With practice this may improve. The N1 value would be a good indicator. Maybe CH should include a detent position in the next version.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-29-02 at 00:33z
Hi Ray,

> I've tried this last night and it does make the reverse thrust work
> better. The downside, as you mention, is that without a detent position
> on the Pro Throttle it's difficult to put the throttle in a neutral
> position. With practice this may improve.

Try gluing a little piece of rubber with a point sticking slightly over the slot in which the throttle lever moves. I did that with one throttle I had, before getting the PFC stuff. If you calibrate with the idle zone extending slightly away from that in both directions, then pulling back till you feel the slight extra resistance will give you idle. Crude but quite effective.

Regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-29-02 at 22:27z
Hi Pete,

<<Try gluing a little piece of rubber with a point sticking slightly over the slot in which the throttle lever moves.>>

I'll give this some thought. Glue is not something I want to use as it's too permanent but double-sided tape would allow me to experiment without wrecking anything. I'm not as practical as you. Thanks for the tip!

On the issue of your Windows2000 problem I see you have been offered help by the techbabe! Given that our move to Windows2000 is still many months away and the SA has not had any training in that OS it might be best if you took TD up on his kind offer.

I'm sorry I couldn't help on this point but a solution may still be on the cards for you. Good luck!

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by andrewluck on 11-09-02 at 10:38z
Pete

>>Access times are fine ONCE Explorer has seen and listed all the shared folders.

This sounds rather like a name resolution issue. The browse list is obtained from the Master Browser. Without a domain, computers on a LAN hold elections to decide who lands the role.

When you browse the network, your PC has to find out who the current browse master is and what's their network address is. There are various ways it can do this and it tries each in turn until it gets a result. If it's trying DNS ahead of other methods (and you don't have a local, correctly setup DNS server) then things take a major hold while DNS times out.

In network settings there is a box 'Use DNS for Windows Name Resolution' (can't remember exactly where and I'm not sat at a Win2K PC at the moment, sorry). Try taking the tick out of that box.

Andrew Luck
18 SW EGSH

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 11-10-02 at 01:33z
Hi Andrew,

> In network settings there is a box 'Use DNS for Windows Name Resolution'
> (can't remember exactly where and I'm not sat at a Win2K PC at the
> moment, sorry). Try taking the tick out of that box.

I've looked for such a box, in vain I'm afraid.

I found, in TCP/IP settings, the General tab where it allows me to specify an IP address. Below that there's "Obtain DNS Server address automatically" which is grayed out, and "Use the following DNS server addresses" which is selected, will NOT allow de-selection, and below that there are slots for a preferred and an alternate DNS server address. They are both blank. Should I be filling them in?

In "Advanced" there are Tabs for IP Settings, DNS, WINS and Options, but none contain anything whereby I can turn DNS off. The DNS Tab allows me to "append parent suffices" and "append these DNS suffices", and there's an option "Register this connection's addresses in DNS" which was on, and I've now turned it off. That's made no difference though.

I searched in the Help, and that says "To completely disable DNS dynamic update for all names on the computer, clear the Register this connection's addresses in DNS and Use this connection's DNS suffix in DNS registration check boxes for all connections in Network and Dial-up Connections".

But for the TCP/IP on the LAN the first of those is cleare in any case, and the second is cleared AND disabled. In my Internet connection TCP/IP properties I have DNS enabled with the two DNS IP addresses supplied by my ISP. This is part of the "rules" for Demon. So I don't see how I can disable it "for all connections in Network and Dial-up Connections" as the Help suggests.

Regards,

Pete

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by andrewluck on 11-10-02 at 19:51z
Pete

I'll check out TCP/IP settings next time I'm infront of a Win2K box. Probably not until Tuesday and it's all been NT4.0 recently so I may be getting confused between my OS's (not too difficult these days <g>).

However, meantimes, I've found a knowledge base article that appears to match your symptoms exactly, Q245800.

SYMPTOMS
When you attempt to view the computer share list on a Microsoft Windows 98-based computer from a Windows 2000-based computer, you may experience a delay of up to 30 seconds. This delay occurs only when you are browsing directly to the computer name. If you browse to a share name (for example, \\computer name\share name), there is no delay. This problem occurs when you attempt to view the shares by using either of the following methods:
Click Start, click Run, type \\computer name, and then click OK.
Right-click My Network Places on the desktop, click Search for Computers, type the computer name, and then click Search Now.
CAUSE
This problem can occur when your Windows 2000-based computer is checking to determine if scheduled tasks are enabled on the Windows 98-based computer.
STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article.

Now quite why Windows 2000 should have to check if the Windows 98 box has scheduled tasks enabled or why it takes so long to do it is a mystery to me. But it looks like the work around is to avoid using the browser and go directly to the desired share from Start - Run.

Hope this helps


Andrew Luck
18 SW EGSH

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 11-11-02 at 17:39z
Hi Andrew,

> I'll check out TCP/IP settings next time I'm infront of a Win2K box.
> Probably not until Tuesday and it's all been NT4.0 recently so I may be
> getting confused between my OS's (not too difficult these days <g>).

Okay, thanks.

> When you attempt to view the computer share list on a Microsoft Windows
> 98-based computer from a Windows 2000-based computer, you may experience
> a delay of up to 30 seconds.

Sounds right .... but it also occurs from my Windows 2000 PC to my Windows XP PC. Not vice versa though, so they've fixed something, although the XP one isn't as fast as any of the three Win98SE ones.

> This problem can occur when your Windows 2000-based computer is checking
> to determine if scheduled tasks are enabled on the Windows 98-based
> computer.

???

> STATUS
> Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products
> that are listed at the beginning of this article.

So that's it? No fix provided. That's not very good, is it?

> Now quite why Windows 2000 should have to check if the Windows 98 box
> has scheduled tasks enabled or why it takes so long to do it is a
> mystery to me. But it looks like the work around is to avoid using the
> browser and go directly to the desired share from Start - Run.

But if I'm moving files around or am just checking folder contents I want to use the Explorer tree structure. How do I do that from Start-Run? I use Explorer all the time, dragging and dropping files, and so on. I can't see how Start-Run solves anything.

Thanks anyway ... if you find anything Tuesday I'll give it a tryt but it seems I should have stuck to Win98SE all along!

Regards,

Pete

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by andrewluck on 11-11-02 at 18:19z
Pete

> STATUS
> Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products
> that are listed at the beginning of this article.

This is something that you see all the way through TechNet. I never cease to be amazed. The last reviewed date on this article was 10/10/02 but no indication on when it might be fixed. Something for SP4 I guess. Well, NT4 wasn't really useful until post SP4 so this is about par for the course.

You're right about the work-round if you want to use the Explorer tree structure. I'm usually looking for files somewhere specific so a couple of Start - Run's opens the shares I'm interested in without the pain of going through the browser service.

I'll look for anything else that's relevant when I'm in the Office tomorrow and let you know.

Andrew Luck
18 SW EGSH

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by andrewluck on 11-12-02 at 18:40z
Sorry Pete

Totally manic afternoon. I'll see how tomorrow goes.

Regards

Andrew Luck
18 SW EGSH

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by Mike_Greenwood on 11-14-02 at 02:42z
Hi Pete,

>>But if I'm moving files around or am just checking folder contents I
want to use the Explorer tree structure. How do I do that from
Start-Run? I use Explorer all the time, dragging and dropping files, and
so on. I can't see how Start-Run solves anything.<<

If you go to start|run and type in \\computername\c you should get a windows explorer window up that will list the contents of the c drive on the target machine. I do it all the time. It just seems quicker to me to type the drive\folder I'm after, rather than to navigate thru trees (waiting after each click). IOW, if I have a window open on this (not my FS) machine that contains the latest cut of FSUIPC, I go start|run and type \\home\f\fs2000\modules and I'm there instantly. Then I can drag the file right to where I need it.

Apparently from the KB article that Andrew found, if you start|run and type \\computername\ you may get the delay you see, but, if you type \\computername\c the delay should not happen. I can't verify it here since all of my machines are XP.

--Greenie
**6 miles SSE KSJC**

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Mike Greenwood
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 11-14-02 at 02:54z
Hi Mike,

> If you go to start|run and type in \\computername\c you should get a
> windows explorer window up that will list the contents of the c drive on
> the target machine. I do it all the time. It just seems quicker to me to
> type the drive\folder I'm after, rather than to navigate thru trees
> (waiting after each click).

Hmm, I'm so used to the latter, and NOT ever waiting. Win98SE was always instantaneous with all of its LAN links. I can't understand why they made such a hash out of NT/2K/XP (XP isn't REAL slow like Win2K, but it is *much* slower than Win98SE, always).

> Apparently from the KB article that Andrew found, if you start|run and
> type \\computername\ you may get the delay you see, but, if you type
> \\computername\c the delay should not happen. I can't verify it here
> since all of my machines are XP.

Maybe. What I've now got in the habit of doing is starting up Explorer once when I've switched everything on and everything is ready, then open all the LAN processor links (30 seconds each x 4) , and then just leave that copy of Explorer running all the time. At least with 1 Gb memory it isn't really in the way.

Regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.82-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by Mike_Greenwood on 11-14-02 at 05:51z
Hi Pete,

>> I can't understand why they
made such a hash out of NT/2K/XP (XP isn't REAL slow like Win2K, but it
is *much* slower than Win98SE, always).<<

My only guess is security. Win98(SE) is *extremely* insecure on a lan, even with share level passwords. Each progression of windows is more and more secure with the advent of *always on* broadband, and the like. Hell, when I first got Win98, I had 2 computers (one a laptop) and a dial-up connection...not too many security issues there. Four years later, I have 4 PCs at my home all on a wireless connection, and sharing an "always on" DSL connection. If the initial connection to a network share is slow because of security, then I'm all for it on my setup. However, since my network is all XP, I really don't see a slowdown of connections to other machines. I *still* prefer the start|run method, and I was a convert to that during my beta testing of XP...not too long ago. Try it, you may like it <g>.

--Greenie
**6 miles SSE KSJC**

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Mike Greenwood
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by TD on 10-28-02 at 20:54z
Pete,

You might be able to convince the Techbabe to answer this question. She oversees a 5 state WAN, and I believe they are using Win2K Pro. Let me know, and I can give you her email address.

"TD - Virtual FAA investigators are on line 2, AGAIN!!!"

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-29-02 at 01:00z
> You might be able to convince the Techbabe to answer this question. She
> oversees a 5 state WAN, and I believe they are using Win2K Pro. Let me
> know, and I can give you her email address.

Techbabe? Wassat?

If any one can help I'd be grateful. It's not a crippling problem, just so annoying when I've been used to such a good instant response when all my LAN was Win98SE.

Thanks,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81P-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-29-02 at 01:01z
> You might be able to convince the Techbabe to answer this question. She
> oversees a 5 state WAN, and I believe they are using Win2K Pro. Let me
> know, and I can give you her email address.

Techbabe? Wassat?

If any one can help I'd be grateful. It's not a crippling problem, just so annoying when I've been used to such a good instant response when all my LAN was Win98SE.

Thanks,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81P-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-29-02 at 01:01z
> You might be able to convince the Techbabe to answer this question. She
> oversees a 5 state WAN, and I believe they are using Win2K Pro. Let me
> know, and I can give you her email address.

Techbabe? Wassat?

If any one can help I'd be grateful. It's not a crippling problem, just so annoying when I've been used to such a good instant response when all my LAN was Win98SE.

Thanks,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81P-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by AlanParkinson on 10-27-02 at 13:53z
Hi Ray,

> I've also received my ticket for the FS Show in Brum. I'm bringing
> another convert with me so we'll have a full car again. Maybe we'll need
> a second vehicle if Alan still wants a lift.

I was wondering about Brum only the day before your message - I'd not seen any mention of it here, and don't even know when it's happening this year. It looks like I may have missed the opportunity if you've already filled the car.

Alan


**** VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.0.0.0 ****
++++ UNREGISTERED ++++
**** OLR.PL Build 1.73 ****

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-27-02 at 14:19z
Hi Alan,

The show is on 23 November and as I said earlier I'm bringing a friend who hasn't been before. It may be that a second car will be required this year. I know you don't have one but I wonder if Vulcan would be able to help out? Five in a Focus is a bit of a tight squeeze.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by vgbaron on 10-27-02 at 20:20z
> able to help out? Five in a Focus is a bit of a tight squeeze.

No problem, Ray - do it the way we do it here - have the youngest run along side <G>.

Regards,

Vic

Of All the Things I've lost, I miss my mind the most!


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Vic Baron
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-27-02 at 22:39z
Hi Vic,

<<No problem, Ray - do it the way we do it here - have the youngest run along side <G>. >>

LOL! Great idea! Wait... wait... wait... AARRGGHH! That's me!! Let's make it the oldest instead!! <g>


Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by Vulcan on 10-28-02 at 20:25z
Hi Ray,

No problem with the taxi <g>

Sort out who's going with who and from where and let me know, I'd far sooner be stranded somewhere on the M6 with someone than on my own LOL!


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Dave Wild
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by AlanParkinson on 10-28-02 at 22:18z
Hi Vulcan,

That sounds like you don't expect the car to survive the journey! I'm not sure whether it's a matter of getting a lift, or volunteering for a dangerous mission! <G>

Alan


**** VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.0.0.0 ****
++++ UNREGISTERED ++++
**** OLR.PL Build 1.73 ****

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-28-02 at 22:36z
Hi Dave,

Okay, wilco. If I haven't reported by 15th November please remind me.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by AlanParkinson on 11-09-02 at 01:20z
Hi Dave,

> No problem with the taxi <g>

If that's still the case, sharing passengers between your car and Ray's, please let me know - I'll go ahead and book the advance ticket if I can be reasonably sure of getting there.

I'll be away from a computer for much of next week, so I'll let you have my mobile number - I have the list of email addresses put together by Guido when the CS forum closed, is the compuserve address he listed still valid (from last November)?

Alan


**** VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.0.0.0 ****
++++ UNREGISTERED ++++
**** OLR.PL Build 1.73 ****

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by BillC on 11-12-02 at 19:24z
Hi Alan..

PMFJI here..

> If that's still the case, sharing passengers between > your car and Ray's,
> please let me know - I'll go ahead and book the > advance ticket if I can
> be reasonably sure of getting there.
>
> I'll be away from a computer for much of next week, so > I'll let you have
> my mobile number - I have the list of email addresses > put together by
> Guido when the CS forum closed, is the compuserve > address he listed
> still valid (from last November)?

I would've offered you a lift if I was returning home via the same route...but
I'm returning via Carnarffon and the A5 (and staying over for one or two nights at
my sister's) so returning you to your pickup point would have been quite
a way 'out of my way' so to speak.

Sorry about that. Otherwise you would have been welcome.

Got my ticket.

Barring last minute hitches I hope to see you all there.
Can't wait to see the Getmapping presentation for FS2002....

Regards
BillC


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Bill Cusick
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by AlanParkinson on 11-14-02 at 01:07z
Hi Bill,

Thanks for the non-offer! No need to feel guilty, I'll probably get there, somehow.

You'd be amazed how thoroughly one can loose the sense of relative positioning by not having a car, so I would have been a little reluctant to drag you out of your way even if you hadn't been making the detour into Wales.

Alan


**** VPC OffLine Reader Version 1.0.0.0 ****
++++ UNREGISTERED ++++
**** OLR.PL Build 1.73 ****

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-22-02 at 21:22z
Hi Ray,

> Me senses you're going to be a troublemaker!! ;-)

LOL!

Actually I've now installed Win2000 Pro as my O/S on my main development system. Not because I like it or think it is better in any ways you ascribe to XP, but because Adobe Premiere and Photoshop, principally, need loads of RAM, and Win98SE won't let me have the 1GB RAM I'm installing -- its limit is 512Mb without fiddles, and those fiddles bring instability, or so I've been told.

> When a program crashes you're given the opportunity to send the info to
> Microsoft. Whether you do or don't a prompt allows you to examine the
> info that will be sent. Is that different to what Dr Watson produces?

Yes, wildly so. Mostly it doesn't even manage to identify the module responsible, or not in any way I can understand. I've read an article in this week's PC Pro that tells me how to enhance this to produce a Kernel memory or full memory dump, but those would be no use to me either -- they are aimed only at MS tech support staff.

> Given that it tells you what files will be sent and shows detailed info
> useful to a programmer isn't that of any use?

Useful to MS WinXP programmers, no others that I can see.

> I agree that sophistication can mean complexity but I really can't say
> anything about obscure bugs because I really don't have any problems
> using the OS. I don't have tools to measure against any other OS I'm
> afraid.

Did you get loads of problems on Win98SE? As far as I can tell, the same problems which cause difficulties in Win98 do so in WinXP. It was different in WinNT4 and before, and in OS/2, which was a system I really liked, while it lasted (did lots of programs for that, and it was 3000% more robust than any Windows I've met). The problem is that since WinNT5 (Win2000 -- XP is WinNT5.1) Microsoft undid the protections they had before. They let 3rd party drivers into the Kernel. They had to, really, for commercial reasons, unless NT was to remain a strictly business-only, limited hardware list O/S.

Probably 95% of crashes and hangs in Win98, Win2K and WinXP are down to drivers. I've actually just updated from Parhelia 1.00 drivers to their Beta 1.01 (or is it 1.02?) drivers, and (cross fingers) so far haven't seen another crash/hang. But it's only been a few days, so watch this space! <G>

You are probably now using very stable nVidia drivers which have been debugged over hundreds of versions -- there are more new versions of nVidia drivers per month than FSUIPC! <G>. With good drivers I get no hangs or crashes in Win98SE except those caused by my own developments, and those I can also debug, on Win98SE. But I really cannot remember the last system crash or BSOD I had on Win98SE and I've been running it full time 6.5 days per week on 5 machines, since it came out. Admittedly I do NOT leave my machines on all night. I have heard of too many fires caused by overheated/failed PCs. But switching it off and on again should, you'd think, introduce more instability, not less --- not so here, though.

> If you right-click on the taskbar and choose Task Manager / Performance
> tab you can observe how much memory is currently available. Although Me
> had no comparable measuring tool I have never run out of memory whereas
> this did occasionally happen with Me.

I think you'll find that was down simply to resource allocations, not memory. In Win9x/Me systems there's a relatively low limit on the number of handles given for things like windows, icons, files, etc. If you are running any program which uses these and doesn't release them, and that program keeps doing it, you can get what appears to be memory problems but which are merely table size problems. NT has expansible tables for this sort of resource, and is better at collecting garbage by itself so the wastage of handles doesn't grow annoying. There are some good background utilities which do some similar things for Win98 -- I use one and have done for a long time (MemMonitor Pro I think it's called), but really I don't think it's been needed in Win9X for a long time. I've never actually seen any so-called memory or resource problems in Win9X since Win95 days.

> But, I have
> heard that XP reallocates memory away from programs that are running but
> minimised thereby giving more to active program(s).

All virtual memory operating systems page out less frequently accessed memory in order to page in other memory as it is used. That's what the swap file is for, and that's the principle of VM systems anyway, whether NT or 9x. NT is probably more efficient at most things as it is all 32-bit code whereas Win9x is still a mixture based on its DOS/Win3 heritage. But where NT gains in less CPU switching it tends to lose efficiency through the stricter layering. They had to break a lot of their own rules to get DirectX as efficient as it is.

> You must be running some strange software! <g>

No, these are nearly all down to the first release of the Matrox Parhelia drivers.

> I assume you've
> downloaded all the updates including the recent Service Pack 1?

Got that from a magazine CD somewhere.

> Up here
> XP Home remains 99% stable and is a pleasure to use. Wanna swap PCs?

If you kept the same drivers and add-on cards it would make no difference. The instability is down to add-ons, not specifically Windows, EXACTLY as it was with Win98SE.

I'm not arguing for Windows 95 (ugh -- 3 crashes per day, guaranteed! <G>)), nor Windows Me, which was the biggest disaster inflicted on us by Microsoft ever, in my opinion (after 4 days only struggling with it, never getting even one thing working, and facing similar on friend's systems too!). I'm claiming that Win98SE, and only Win98SE, is/was the best (and for FS and most other such programs, the fastest) O/S Microsoft has yet produced.

> <bg>

LOL yourself! <G>

Best regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PeteDowson on 10-22-02 at 21:35z
Hi Ray,

> Me senses you're going to be a troublemaker!! ;-)

LOL!

Actually I've now installed Win2000 Pro as my O/S on my main development system. Not because I like it or think it is better in any ways you ascribe to XP, but because Adobe Premiere and Photoshop, principally, need loads of RAM, and Win98SE won't let me have the 1GB RAM I'm installing -- its limit is 512Mb without fiddles, and those fiddles bring instability, or so I've been told.

> When a program crashes you're given the opportunity to send the info to
> Microsoft. Whether you do or don't a prompt allows you to examine the
> info that will be sent. Is that different to what Dr Watson produces?

Yes, wildly so. Mostly it doesn't even manage to identify the module responsible, or not in any way I can understand. I've read an article in this week's PC Pro that tells me how to enhance this to produce a Kernel memory or full memory dump, but those would be no use to me either -- they are aimed only at MS tech support staff.

> Given that it tells you what files will be sent and shows detailed info
> useful to a programmer isn't that of any use?

Useful to MS WinXP programmers, no others that I can see.

> I agree that sophistication can mean complexity but I really can't say
> anything about obscure bugs because I really don't have any problems
> using the OS. I don't have tools to measure against any other OS I'm
> afraid.

Did you get loads of problems on Win98SE? As far as I can tell, the same problems which cause difficulties in Win98 do so in WinXP. It was different in WinNT4 and before, and in OS/2, which was a system I really liked, while it lasted (did lots of programs for that, and it was 3000% more robust than any Windows I've met). The problem is that since WinNT5 (Win2000 -- XP is WinNT5.1) Microsoft undid the protections they had before. They let 3rd party drivers into the Kernel. They had to, really, for commercial reasons, unless NT was to remain a strictly business-only, limited hardware list O/S.

Probably 95% of crashes and hangs in Win98, Win2K and WinXP are down to drivers. I've actually just updated from Parhelia 1.00 drivers to their Beta 1.01 (or is it 1.02?) drivers, and (cross fingers) so far haven't seen another crash/hang. But it's only been a few days, so watch this space! <G>

You are probably now using very stable nVidia drivers which have been debugged over hundreds of versions -- there are more new versions of nVidia drivers per month than FSUIPC! <G>. With good drivers I get no hangs or crashes in Win98SE except those caused by my own developments, and those I can also debug, on Win98SE. But I really cannot remember the last system crash or BSOD I had on Win98SE and I've been running it full time 6.5 days per week on 5 machines, since it came out. Admittedly I do NOT leave my machines on all night. I have heard of too many fires caused by overheated/failed PCs. But switching it off and on again should, you'd think, introduce more instability, not less --- not so here, though.

> If you right-click on the taskbar and choose Task Manager / Performance
> tab you can observe how much memory is currently available. Although Me
> had no comparable measuring tool I have never run out of memory whereas
> this did occasionally happen with Me.

I think you'll find that was down simply to resource allocations, not memory. In Win9x/Me systems there's a relatively low limit on the number of handles given for things like windows, icons, files, etc. If you are running any program which uses these and doesn't release them, and that program keeps doing it, you can get what appears to be memory problems but which are merely table size problems. NT has expansible tables for this sort of resource, and is better at collecting garbage by itself so the wastage of handles doesn't grow annoying. There are some good background utilities which do some similar things for Win98 -- I use one and have done for a long time (MemMonitor Pro I think it's called), but really I don't think it's been needed in Win9X for a long time. I've never actually seen any so-called memory or resource problems in Win9X since Win95 days.

> But, I have
> heard that XP reallocates memory away from programs that are running but
> minimised thereby giving more to active program(s).

All virtual memory operating systems page out less frequently accessed memory in order to page in other memory as it is used. That's what the swap file is for, and that's the principle of VM systems anyway, whether NT or 9x. NT is probably more efficient at most things as it is all 32-bit code whereas Win9x is still a mixture based on its DOS/Win3 heritage. But where NT gains in less CPU switching it tends to lose efficiency through the stricter layering. They had to break a lot of their own rules to get DirectX as efficient as it is.

> You must be running some strange software! <g>

No, these are nearly all down to the first release of the Matrox Parhelia drivers.

> I assume you've
> downloaded all the updates including the recent Service Pack 1?

Got that from a magazine CD somewhere.

> Up here
> XP Home remains 99% stable and is a pleasure to use. Wanna swap PCs?

If you kept the same drivers and add-on cards it would make no difference. The instability is down to add-ons, not specifically Windows, EXACTLY as it was with Win98SE.

I'm not arguing for Windows 95 (ugh -- 3 crashes per day, guaranteed! <G>)), nor Windows Me, which was the biggest disaster inflicted on us by Microsoft ever, in my opinion (after 4 days only struggling with it, never getting even one thing working, and facing similar on friend's systems too!). I'm claiming that Win98SE, and only Win98SE, is/was the best (and for FS and most other such programs, the fastest) O/S Microsoft has yet produced.

> <bg>

LOL yourself! <G>

Best regards,

Pete

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Peter L Dowson
-OLR.PL v1.81-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by Vulcan on 10-23-02 at 22:19z
Hi Pete,

Thanks for that view of XP.

I had toyed with the idea of moving from Win98SE to XP but I was put off by all the c$$p that surrounds it, like product activation and the fact that you think you can get rid of IE if you want to use an alternate browser, but in fact IE still there and active <g>

Also a site, Simhq I think, did a recent comparison between Win98SE, 2k, & XP for running FS and found 98SE best. Win2k was thrown out because it was not designed to run games and XP gave lower frame rates than 98SE.

I'll stick with 98SE :-)

Ray,

At college we moved from NT4 to Win2k and a week's training on it (not that it was much use <g>) and the guy training us pointed out all the things Win2k did that were pinched...sorry, very similar to Novell, such as Active Directory, and how Novell's version did a much better job of it.

One bit that amused me was the fact that MS declared that NTFS managed files so much better than the other versions of Win that the HDs did not need defragging.

What appears in Win2k? A rather weak version of Disk Keeper lite so that you can defrag the HD...go figure ???
I used it on a PC at college, 3 defrags before the HD looked anything like reasonable, so much for NTFS.

Also some things in Win2k which are quirky to say the least. If you wanted to connect a PC to a network printer in NT you just told it to connect a network printer, look for it on the network, double click and bingo, it was printing. In Win2k you have to connect the same network printer as a LOCAL printer??????

Just my thoughts, enjoy your XP.

I think Stephen has the right idea, Linux, but as he says not much use for FS :-(


-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Dave Wild
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-23-02 at 22:44z
Hi Vulcan,

As far as W2000 is concerned I'm just a lowly end user. Maybe I should pass your thoughts onto my system admin but it wouldn't make any difference. Courses have been attended, public money has been spent and it will be installed. Watch out for the fun! :-)

I don't really have a problem with the activation issue - it was a one-off and although I may change one or two pieces of hardware in the next two years I don't anticipate a problem with Microsoft convincing them it's still the same machine. If you have two or more machines then I can understand why you might not want to move to XP.


Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by Mike_Greenwood on 10-24-02 at 01:16z
Hi Ray,

>>although I may change one or two pieces of hardware in the
next two years I don't anticipate a problem with Microsoft convincing
them it's still the same machine.<<

You have to change more than a couple of pieces of hw to trigger activation. Besides, after 4 months, the activation record at MS is wiped out (leaving your machine activated of course), so you could change *all* of your hardware after that, and it'll be another simple online activation. Of course if you had another machine w/out XP... ;-)

--Greenie
**6 miles SSE KSJC**

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Mike Greenwood
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by RayProudfoot on 10-24-02 at 15:57z
Hi Mike,

Thanks for that most useful info. It gives me some comfort to know that I won't need to convince MS that it really is the same machine should I do a major upgrade. The downside to this is that when I come to sell this machine it will be devoid of an OS unless the prospective purchaser buys a copy of XP (or maybe XQ by then!) and I'll graciously install it for him.

I have no plans to buy a second machine but your info is duly noted :-)


Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by Mike_Greenwood on 10-25-02 at 01:40z
Hi Ray,

>>Thanks for that most useful info. It gives me some comfort to know that
I won't need to convince MS that it really is the same machine should I
do a major upgrade. <<

You're most welcome. AAMOF, just today, I replaced the MB and processor on one of my machines as well as changed the memory size. Once done, I re-installed XP and it didn't ask to be activated! Quite honestly, I thought for *SURE* I'd have to get on the phone with MS after that upgrade. MS really took the teeth out of activation, but kept it very quiet.

>>I have no plans to buy a second machine but your info is duly noted :-)<<

Ahem...did *I* say that?? ;-)

--Greenie
**6 miles SSE KSJC**

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Mike Greenwood
-OLR.PL v1.80-

"RE: XP SP1 and FS2K2 menu (maybe Ge..."
Posted by PaulCroft on 10-10-02 at 23:28z
Hi Emile

I've used FS02 with win98SE and winXP. I liked 98SE, it was a pretty good OS, but I'd never go back. I've been using XP for about 8 months now, it's very stable indeed and it's given me no problems at all with FS02.

Paul

Hi Emile

Paul Croft
10 miles SE of Heathrow (EGLL)

-= VPC OffLine Reader 2.1 =-
Registered to: Paul F. Croft
-OLR.PL v1.80-