PDA

View Full Version : Questions About XP SP3 and Windows Vista



sorryroper
07-13-2008, 03:59 PM
Hello All,

I am have to options for my IL2 1946 re-install... Windows XP SP3 with a P4 2.66GHZ and 1GB of 333Mhz Ram, ATI All In Wonder 9000 that only has 64 MB of DDR Ram or Windows Vista machine with a 1.83 GHZ Dual Core 4GB Ram and a Nvidea Geforce 8600M GS with 512MB video ram.

It seems like the Vista machine (a laptop) would be the logical choice, but the installation disc clearly states that the game is for Win 98 and Xp ONLY. Is there a pacth available that would solve the Vista issue?

Thanks!
Sorryroper

sorryroper
07-13-2008, 03:59 PM
Hello All,

I am have to options for my IL2 1946 re-install... Windows XP SP3 with a P4 2.66GHZ and 1GB of 333Mhz Ram, ATI All In Wonder 9000 that only has 64 MB of DDR Ram or Windows Vista machine with a 1.83 GHZ Dual Core 4GB Ram and a Nvidea Geforce 8600M GS with 512MB video ram.

It seems like the Vista machine (a laptop) would be the logical choice, but the installation disc clearly states that the game is for Win 98 and Xp ONLY. Is there a pacth available that would solve the Vista issue?

Thanks!
Sorryroper

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-13-2008, 04:18 PM
It will run on vista just fine, go into the control panel and turn off UAC (it's under user accounts). Then explore the DVD and run A.exe and you should be good to go, read more here: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/1921070116

K_Freddie
07-13-2008, 04:41 PM
A lot of the people I know in the industry say..
"Keep away from Vista until it is stable".. once again.
But of course uSoft need people to fault find for them.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WTE_Galway
07-13-2008, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
A lot of the people I know in the industry say..
"Keep away from Vista until it is stable".. once again.
But of course uSoft need people to fault find for them.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

XP SP3 &gt; Vista SP1

but

Vista 64 &gt; XP 64

neither 64 bit OS is overly good though.

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-13-2008, 07:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:

XP SP3 &gt; Vista SP1

but

Vista 64 &gt; XP 64

neither 64 bit OS is overly good though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I have all 4 OS's on my system, and I can tell you that if you have a good upper-mid to high end system with a decent amound of RAM, that Vista 64 is the best of the bunch.

I'm running an AMD 4800+ with 8GB RAM, and 3870 X2, all water cooled. Not the fastest CPU on the planet, but fairly decent.

I do beta testing for HyperOS which allows for all versions of windows to be installed, and I have XP 32 & 64 bit, and Vista 32 & 64 bit OSs installed. This gives me an opportunity to see all of them on the same system, and I don't have to rely on lies, 1/2 truths, and rumors from someone's GF's hair dresser's, third cousin's, btother-in-law.

Vista Ultimate 64 is hands down the best, and most stable OS MS has released since Windows for Workgroups 3.11.

I use Vista 64 the most, followed by XP 64. I only have Vista 32 installed for beta testing purposes, and XP 32 bit for the Wife, who is using an OLD Geneology program, that just won't run properly on Vista. That isn't Vista's problem.

As for 32 bit vs 64 bit. Anyone that thinks that the 64 bit versions of either XP or Vista are not mature have never used them for any length of time. Granted in the very early days of both there were some driver issues, but those were because people like nVidia, Creative, and others that were to lazy to get off their ****s and make them.

The one of the best things I like about Vista 64, is that as I sit here looking at the performance tab in task manager, in Physical Memory, I only see 1918 free (out of 8192). Now for those uneducated in the ways of Vista your first thought might be "OMGZ Vists sucks, it's a resource hog!" Nope, quite the opposite. With Vista "Free memory" is WASTED memory. Vista uses as much memory as it can to PRE-LOAD your most used applications into memory, so that it doesn't have to waste time going to the HDD to copy them in. If I want WORD, it's already in memory, and load time is almost non-existant. When I double click the icon it comes up immediately, not sometime after the system goes to the HDD, pulls it into memory and then opens it. SUPERFETCH is responsible for that, and if you don't know what is and what it does, you need to research it.

I find it interesting that the people that have ACTUALLY USED Vista for any length of time like it and the ones that don't have never used it, or only used it for a very short time. I don't know about you, but I know which group I would believe.

WTE_Galway
07-13-2008, 07:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:

I find it interesting that the people that have ACTUALLY USED Vista for any length of time like it and the ones that don't have never used it, or only used it for a very short time don't. I don't know about you, but I know which group I would believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I do IT support for an agricultural software company with about 60 employee's.

Our issues with the 64 bit OS's are the lack of drivers for a lot of our older hardware (yes this is not Microsoft's problem ... but it doesn't matter its still a problem) and the apparent abandonment of any 16 bit support for older software.

The issues with Vista are twofold, we run resource hungry databases and graphical design software and Vista 32 just cannot hack it. the second issue (not my area so I do not know details) is major support issues for some programming platforms in Vista.

I would also point out that pre-SP1, the first year or so it was out, we had no end of weird problems and issues with Vista, SP1 has fixed soem of that.

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-13-2008, 07:34 PM
hhmmm...using that argument, could I claim that a FARMALL 350 with fast-hitch is superior to a John Deere 9630 because the 9630 can't pull a fast hitch plow?

WTE_Galway
07-13-2008, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
hhmmm...using that argument, could I claim that a FARMALL 350 with fast-hitch is superior to a John Deere 9630 because the 9630 can't pull a fast hitch plow? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the John Deere 9630 was designed by marketing people rather than engineers and without adequate consideration of the needs of the current clientèle that might work as an analogy.

Basically Vista 64 with 4Gb or more RAM on a current generation processor with all new supported hardware (no older scanners, EFTPOS machines, bar code readers etc etc) seems to be now quite OK.

My personal opinion is that Vista 32 with its 2Gb ram limit is only barely capable of running itself plus a few non demanding miniscule apps like IE explorer or MS Office. it seems adequate for basic home use, for the kids to do homework on and chat up other teenagers online and watch the odd DVD but thats about it.

But that is still my OPINION there is no fact of the matter, many people do seem happy enough with Vista.

RAF_OldBuzzard
07-13-2008, 09:02 PM
Actually with either XP or Vista 32 bit you can install 4GB, and the system will see something in the neighborhood of 3.1-3.5 GB depending on how much memory your Vid card has.

That will help Vista 32 bit, as will using a 4GB USB RAM stick, and allowing Vista to use it for RAMBOOST.

That's one reason I'm a firm believer in the 64 bit OSs. You can use the max amount of RAM that your MB will support, and the OS will use it.

To stick with the AG analogy, having a 64 bit processor, and running a 32 bit OS with it, is like having that 9630, and only pulling a 2-bottom plow with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I can understand some people reluctance to switch though. XP has been out a long time, and everyone is comfortable with it. I'll admit to being a bit hesitant in taking the plunge too, but with HyperOS, it wasn't as big a plunge as the average person, as all I had to do was install it into an unused partition, and I still had all of my XP installs to use if I found Vista to be not to my liking.

I can also understand that there are cases, where Vista 64 won't work, for some of the reasons you listed. However, for the vast majority of Windows users those reasons don't apply. Especially in the home market.

I guess that some of my willingness to try new systems and hardware is the result of being around computers since the days of the IBM 360 mod 20. I've done more hardware/software/platform changes than I'd care to remember. I'm used to it, and have been there and done that so many times, that I'm not intimidated by it, and understand that not everythig will be, not can it be expected to be, 100% compatabile. However, in virtually every one of the upgrades (just don't ask about the NCR Centuty series mainframes), in the end it was worth it, and life for the programmer and user got better and easier.

DmdSeeker
07-14-2008, 03:39 AM
I'll echo all that RAF old Buzzard says.

So far, the change from XP to vista has actually been less painfull than it was from Win98 to XP; providing one completely disregards the marketing driven minimum specs. There's no more point on putting Vista on your old single core 3 gig athlon than there was putting XP on your old MMX 200 Mhx pentium.

And if one changes, then there's little Vista 32 can do for you that XP can't, it's only when you jump up to 64 bit that the difference begins to shine.

I'm using Vista 64 on my game machine and it flies with IL-2 and FSX; though I'll admit I can't get GTL or TOCA to run on it yet.

And the real irritation - I can't get TS overlay to work on it either, but that's not too bad as I don't go on public TS servers that often.

Bewolf
07-14-2008, 09:57 AM
Gotta agree. Though beeing sceptical at first myself, I made the switch from XP to Home Premium 64bit fairly early, as for once I had the money left and also am quite an ambitious gamer (comes with the job in a motion capture company). I actually never regretted it. Contrary to my fears I found all the drivers I required, though I gotta admit I do not have particulary old hardware. But I never had a more stable system. And I also never had a problem with game performance after the switch.

Then again I always had a fairly modern system, and I suppose you gotta have a look at vista coming from a forward looking POV, not thinking about how to make old stuff run on it to be satisfied with this OS.

jarink
07-14-2008, 01:59 PM
Not that it matters in the context of this forum, but my biggest complaint about Vista is it's near-total incompatibility with a Windows 2000 domain. We use lots of Group Policy settings and roaming profiles. Well, Vista just doesn't integrate with our current infrastructure worth a hoot. (Yes, I know, we're still on Windows 2000 server. Guess why? It simply works!)

Maybe we'll look at it again once Windows Server 2008 SP1 goes gold... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-14-2008, 02:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
Not that it matters in the context of this forum, but my biggest complaint about Vista is it's near-total incompatibility with a Windows 2000 domain. We use lots of Group Policy settings and roaming profiles. Well, Vista just doesn't integrate with our current infrastructure worth a hoot. (Yes, I know, we're still on Windows 2000 server. Guess why? It simply works!)

Maybe we'll look at it again once Windows Server 2008 SP1 goes gold... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've heard great things about Server 2008...

ytareh
07-14-2008, 04:39 PM
Have had Vista on my PC twice in the last year and uninstalled it and reinstalled XP Pro both times .Yes Vista is pretty but a hardcore gamer is gonna turn off all that stuff anyway .Yes I definitely found it faster at copying files etc .Yes it may be slightly more 'stable' in that some crashes may be healed 30 seconds later instead of having to a reboot in XP ...(45 seconds or less on my pc)
Did I say Reboot well lets start there XP loads to USABLE desktop in well under half the Vista time .Vista telling you about something its found out about regarding your pc and its inevitable Vista related problems is endearing at first ("Oh hey you care enough to get back to me personally about that latest issue...How sweet!")but it soon becomes a chore that you cant actually do anything with your pc for 2 or 3 minutes minimum after boot up because it wants to go talk to Bill Gates on your internet .
System Restore is something I find very useful despite the fact I know some tech folk look down on it as the saviour of noobs ,a memory hogger and potential security weak link....I would LOVE anybody to tell me why a 2 minute System restore on XP takes 10 minutes almost on Vista ...And how come on both my (EX Vista)PC and my wifes( Sony Vaio Laptop) there is an issue which thousands of others have with not being able to use Windows Updates(both legit copies)?How grave a security risk is that?!
An XP system with 1 gig RAM will be faster than a Vista one with two ...Most gaming and general speed testing benchmarks including everyone Ive ever carried out show XP to be faster than Vista .Genuine XP cd-roms are gaining in value and will be worth their weight in gold for some years to come.

WTE_Galway
07-14-2008, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
(Yes, I know, we're still on Windows 2000 server. Guess why? It simply works!)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

2000 ? That is pretty modern. I shut down our last NT4 server just a week ago. The system disk was failing so we moved the file shares to a linux machine.


Our web server runs 2003 advanced server but aside from that everything else in this place is a variant of Linux, SCO Unix or VMS.

Jaggy.
07-15-2008, 10:47 PM
And to be completely off topic, anybody hiring? I just got my A+ and Network+ a few months back.

How about that for a long shot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif