A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Simulators
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AMD-64 and...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 6th 04, 05:58 PM
Uwe Schürkamp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old December 6th 04, 10:39 PM
Rinda Lynn Ferguson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old December 7th 04, 12:07 AM
Rob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 7th 04, 10:41 AM
Uwe Schürkamp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old December 7th 04, 09:17 PM
Uwe Schürkamp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 7th 04, 10:37 PM
Damien Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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  
Old December 8th 04, 07:58 AM
Joachim Trensz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 8th 04, 08:04 AM
Joachim Trensz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 8th 04, 08:29 AM
Damien Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

>> 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  
Old December 8th 04, 11:13 AM
Joachim Trensz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.