I'm preparing to use Partition Magic and some HD housekeeping to get ready for FS2004. In prior years when a new version has been released I've also done a re-install of the OS (Win 98 in those days), a task that has always resulted un superior performance.I now have WinXP on C:. and am contemplating if I should do a re-install of it. I know that XP doesn't accumulate all that "junk" as much as XP obviously did, so I'm wondering if it's worth it. Has anyone else ever re-installed XP just for performance and found it to be justified? I have considered installing on D: and using multi-boot, at least until I migrate everything from C:.Thanks,Bruce.

Bruce,I have found performance gains when reinstalling XP, but not huge leaps and bounds. The best thing you can do for yourself performance wise is to uninstall every program you don't use, and then defrag. You have no idea how many programs I got rid of when I did just the same thing this last week. I saved over 6 gigs of data, and that sped thingsup nicely. Also, do disk cleanup and rid yourself of all but the last restore point(only do this if your system is doing well otherwise). Those restore points eat tons of disk space...Good luck!

Thanks, much appreciated!Bruce.

Bruce - I've reinstalled WinXP a jillion times (to correct my Senior Moments) and I've never seen a noticeable performance difference. But I run MSFS on it's own drive(s) with a fresh copy of XP (dualbooted) so it's only the "regular" stuff that is affected by the XP reinstalls. The "MSFS" XP install is just the original XP release - unlike the primary install, I have not updated with SP1 or any other MS "update" on that drive (the only updates are for the mobo chipset and video drivers). That way I never have to worry about the XP security, or other, updates unhooking something with flight sim. I think the "clean-it-up-and-defrag-it" approach is the right one if you're not having some other sort of problem.Doug

Thanks Doug,Some interesting thoughts. I'm not having any trouble specifically, other than the age-old question: "Does FS run faster on a fresh install of XP". :) I believe the answers indicate it is not worth the trouble :)Thanks,Bruce.

Hi.If you decide to reformat / reinstall, I do not think you will gain anything in XP, and want to get a few extra FPS, try to partition your HD in at least two partitions, one about 20Gb the other any thing left over. Install your old 98SE on the first partition, and then XP in the second, it will dual boot for you. Then try to run 2002, and other Benchmarks, on them. I think a lot of people are going XP, thinking they gain some performance, in reality you loose at least 2 % in the FS2002, remains to be seen how 2004 will perform, I expect it to be the same. Good luck. TV

Thanks for the recommendation.I actually have this set-up (although my HD is in many partitions :) ). I agree- but I'd rather have the XP memory manager any day over 98.Thanks,Bruce.

This subject was brought up in another post but what the heck...:) Actually you will see in the neighborhood of 10-15% improvement running WindowsXP w certain applications and the same to lower w others. The majority of people who report slower performance w WinXP are usually running less than 512 megs of ram. XP is a resource hog but when provided w a decent amount of memory and a CPU to back it up it will outperform any other Windows OS. FS may well be a different story but on the whole the above statement is not true.Also, although small, you will see a slight performance improvement by installing xp on a single part. due to the way XP arranges it's files on the HD. If your looking for the absolute best performance a single part. is the way to go.Bobby

>Also, although small, you will see a slight performance>improvement by installing xp on a single part. due to the way>XP arranges it's files on the HD. If your looking for the>absolute best performance a single part. is the way to go.Absolutely couldn't agree more about the single partition. I used to run 6 or so partitions on my 80 gig HDD. What a pain...I had to manage where apps installed to, how much disk space they took up, etc etc. I was always battling partitions that were too small for what I wanted them to do, or so large that they could never be filled. A friend of mine suggested to me that I ought to use one partition and I scoffed, and told him that my arrangement was 'the way to go.' Well, the rest is history, and I have one partition. Performance is up, not leaps and bounds but most assuredly HDD access times are way quicker.And, for my backup(only files, not installed apps), I have a smaller HDD hooked up for that job :)

Hi.I disagree, most of the utilities, including a lot of the Benchmarks, and including FS do not use anywhere in the 512 Mb range, check it out for yourself.The problem is that most of the people are unable to set up the 98SE correctly and they never really exploit the full benefits of the OS / Hardware / Firmware combination. The XP is more easily configured, but it will only allow you access to certain features, and most of the Drivers for the Video etc. are less efficient. Little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Try to get some input from a programmer that understands what is going on in the background, multiple layers of useless tasks. TV>The majority of people who report slower performance w WinXP are usually running less than 512 megs of ram.

TV,I was not speaking of any utilities or benchmarks including FS. If none of these use anywhere in the 512 Meg range than why is so much of an improvement shown when one goes from 256 Megs to 512 Megs. Most people never really exploit the benefits? I'm not sure what your point is. Just the stability factor alone is enough to make most people run XP. You say that XP doesnt allow you access to certain features? These would be?. I was not arguing your statement about 98SE. That's your personal choice. Like I said in my other post, XP is a resource hog. Take the time to disable services that are not needed and I'll put XP up against 98 on any given benchmark. As bruce stated above the memory manager alone is a valid reason to choose one over the other.Most reviews I have seen comparing the 2 OS'es Show that in stock form 98SE can and will stay w XP. Now leave those same systems up and running for 6 hours and rerun them. 98 is known for memory leak problems, surely the outcome would be different. That was not the gentlemans question though. Also, these benchmarks are all done w default settings on both OS'es. It is a well known fact that with a little tweaking XP CAN and WILL outperform 98.The main purpose of my post as well as the point of this threads author was would he see a difference in performance after a reinstall of XP. He even stated he no longer runs 98. The answer is YES. My statement is also true that running XP on a single partition will result in slightly better numbers than when run on a multiple partition system.I could care less what a programmer has to say. I'll let them do there job of writing effecient, optimized code and I'll worry about putting together machines that can run it w the greatest level of performance. We all know the difference between what the Prog. writes and how it behaves in reality when implemented.Back to the subject at hand.BobbyP.S. Perhaps you should heed your own statements..."Little knowledge is a dangerous thing" (Sarcastic and quite honestly uncalled for)

Thanks for all the interesting information. BTW, I have 1G of PC-2700, and operate with a 2G fixed size pagefile (on a partition other than that used by the OS).The only "surprise" I got when reading above was the slight increase in performance with a single partition. I'll take anything I can get :), so might heed your advice. I've used partitions to manage files and apps, although as one poster above states, there's always more HD partition space required, or there's wasted space. I've partitioned for years and never really thought about that fact, but it's true. And then considering the potential performance increase (albeit "modest"), it makes one wonder why we do partition HD's :)Thanks again all,Bruce.

Hi.>it makes one wonder why we do partition HD's

>1-Maintenance, many fold, I will give you a couple, you can>have your OS only, about 1.6 Gb patition for W98SE, and use an>image type utility to completely restore your system in under>5 min.Definately the restore reason is a good enough one to use partitions, if you happen to have a HDD large enough. 80 or less gigs is just not enough to have an active partition, and a restore partition....IMHO of course.> If you have to Defrag, / Surface scan, an active, most often>used, drive you can save days, by having partitions.Then there is always the issue of defragging all your partitions, in my experience it takes the same amount of time anyway. All together or apart, they take the same amount of time.> Ability to separate many of your alike utilities in one>partition, that can be shared by the multiple OSs, etc.Not good enough. This leads to the annoying errors of 'rrr, this partition is too full and access times are too slow on my util partition, but this other partition is huge and is wasting space. Now I need to resize them....' Rinse and repeat the next time you install something.>2-Recovery, if your system

You're right, if it's only for performance it's not worth the trouble. There is no noticeable difference seen here. But, for security reasons, I have to have a "twin XP" dualboot anyway so I just chose to put the second copy on the MSFS drive.