Don, I am running Win 98 and XP as a dual boot. My games are simulation
games, car and flight. These were installed on Windows 98 first and run
from there. They were then installed in XP using the same directories as
in 98 so they could be run from either OS. From XP, they do run far
better than they did on 98. Graphics and frame rates were improved. My
Geforce 2 graphics card has the latest drivers installed for both
Windows 98 and XP. This probably would not apply to all types of games
but I would rather use XP for my simulations.

Regards,
Alan Priol.




Alan writes:

<<if you can install Windows XP on the computer, NASCAR 2002 will run
like you
wouldn't believe. XP is fantastic for running games. Far better than Win
98 or ME. >>

This raises some interesting questions.

Most people, when they install a new OS, will reformat. That fact alone
will usually see a performance increase, which often is wrongly credited
to
the new OS.

But if the new system  isn't carrying the same baggage the old system
had
(included perhaps a bloated registry) then It may be very difficult to
attribute just how much of the perceived performance increase is due
solely
to the OS.

Perhaps Alan could expand on this.  Is he really comparing like with
like---ie a newly reformatted HD with new installation of Win 98 with a
similar setup in XP---and the same hardware and computer configurations?

I don't deny his claim that certain games may run faster/better on XP,
because I don't know. I just think it would take some fairly rigorous
testing to validate that claim.

I'm assuming, of course, that identical RAM is being used in both cases.
This alone may be quite rare, as one would normally increase RAM when
moving "up" to XP.

Also, as XP  includes latest drivers for most of your hardware, simply
updating drivers (assuming they'll work with 98) could alone account for
superior performance. And I suppose a lot depends on which OS a
particular
game is optimally designed for.

So many factors to compare--my head is in a whirl. I suppose one would
expect a performance gain from XP. But, as the man said "'T'aint
necessarily so".

I remain to be convinced. Has anyone done a rigorous "Same-with-same"
test?

I suspect that in the end, results would be rather inconclusive, such
as:
With 64 Mb RAM, 98 is the better system.
With 256 RAM, XP is the better system.

And so on.

Don Penlington

                         PCSOFT's List Owner's:
                      Bob Wright<[log in to unmask]>
                       Drew Dunn<[log in to unmask]>