If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
AMD-64 and...
Hi folks, I was wondering wether and AMD-64 CPU would run 98SE? Don't
laugh, I'm still rather happy with 98se's gaming performance and XP isn't 64bit-ready either, right? Thanks for your comments, uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"AMD processors undergo extensive testing to ensure compatibility with
Microsoft Windows XP, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, as well as Linux and other PC operating systems. AMD works collaboratively with Microsoft and other partners to achieve compatibility of AMD processors and to expand the capability of software and hardware products leveraging AMD64 technology. " http://www.michaelscomputers.com/amd4000.htm "Uwe Schürkamp" > wrote in message ... > Hi folks, I was wondering wether and AMD-64 CPU would run 98SE? Don't > laugh, I'm still rather happy with 98se's gaming performance and XP > isn't 64bit-ready either, right? > > Thanks for your comments, > > uwe > > > > -- > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) > GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I hoped the same thing of my AMD64 FX-53 system so I could still use my
game port Sidewinder FF wheel. Alas, it was not to be. While the processor will run Windows 98SE, you'll probably hit motherboard and chipset driver problems, as I did. I got it installed but the device manager showed lots of problems with the hardware. When I went hunting for motherboard/chipset drivers, very sadly, Win98 turned out not to be supported very well. I gave it up as a bad job and bought a different (USB) wheel, a Thrustmaster Enzo Ferrari. I couldn't get used to its pedals, though - they seemed very uncomfortable compared to the MS FF pedals. But luckily I read something in R.A.S suggesting that you could combine the pedals of one wheel with the steering from another. And now I am a very happy user of MS FF pedals (going into the gameport) and the Enzo Ferrari wheel (going into the USB). It seems that Windows XP can handle the MS FF pedals going into the gameport - it's only the wheel itself that causes problems. WinXP Pro with this combination has been absolutely rock solid for me, so my desire for Win98 has disappeared. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for your replies. It really looks like I'm bound for XP Pro or whatever unless GTR patch 1.2 fixes those damn online hangs. I have the rockfire usb on order, also ZZ was kind enough to order some 250kOhm spec pots and send them to me so hopefully I'll be able to get my "all-gameport" tsw2mod working with XP. cheers, uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 11:24:47 +0100, Joachim Trensz wrote:
> If you want to go XP, check out the Media Edition (or whatever it's > called). It costs less than XP Pro but offers almost the same > functionality. It seems to have most of the goodies MS denied the Home > version (see latest c't) and according to that article has SP2 > integrated in the original installation CD! Hi Achim, I don't really want to, but I can get a legal home office xp pro license from work which apparently has sp2 integrated, too (the first thing that got kicked when I started that job was xp on my desktop, I need to get work done! ;-). The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting though, I'll give it a go first. All the best & thanks for your comments, uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
> The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting though, I'll give it a go
> first. > > All the best & thanks for your comments, The only possible advantage Win2K SP4 has over XP SP2 is the lack of an activation scheme. XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once you've tweaked it..... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Damien Smith wrote:
.... > XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once you've > tweaked it..... A common misconception among the users of XP Achim |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Uwe Schürkamp wrote:
.... > The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting .... There are drawbacks as compared to XP as well. Some fancy stuff may require the installation of a driver whereas XP has support built-in. Overall, though, W2k is a lot easier to get to work well than XP Achim |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
>> XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once you've tweaked it.....
> > A common misconception among the users of XP Nope, proven in A-B comparisons on identical hardware. Some people think because old OSes are smaller that they must be faster but it's just not the case any more. The driver initialisation routines in particular in WinXP are dramatically faster than in Win2K resulting in almost half the bootup time. Win2K does have a slightly smaller memory footprint but that's about it. Even Windows Server 2003 is faster than Win2K. The only other possible way in which Win2K could be perceived as being faster then WinXP is if 'system restore' is enabled. Disabling that is as simple as ticking a box if you prefer speed over safety. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Damien Smith wrote:
.... > ...proven in A-B comparisons on identical hardware. Yep, a lot of incorrect information has been published about that topic. Achim |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|