Hi all!I have been thing about upgrading from 98se to XP Home, I am running::-ukliamIntel PIII 866Mhz256MB PC133 SD-RAMGeForce 2 MX 400 64MBSoundblaster 16 Bit PCI17" Samsung monitor- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -How's my computer gonna be able to handle XP and FS2002 ?I don't want to move up and get horrible performance on Windows xp home... Any suggestions?? Please!!!!-Shane *:-*

Your computer will run it just fine, I would recommend XP PRO, if you have the extra money, and in order to get the most out of XP, make sure have at least 512 MB RAM, my PIII 500 with 768 MB RAM and XP PRO, work great together! It is really worth the upgrade!

Like above, you must have 512Mb of ram if you want to run FS2002 (any modern texture heavy game/sim)I also recommend the Pro Version...it's worth the extra money.I do not recommend upgrading from Win98 to WinXP...make it a clean full install. Back up all your data and choose clean install option, wipe the drive and partition during the WinXP process. Often when upgrading, XP will mistakenly create tiny 64K File Blocks on the HD. These severly hamper performance. Clean installs do not have this problem.

Also, isn't XP only NTFS or is there an option for FAT32? I tried doing a reformat many moons ago and the only option I could select was NTFS. :-( Of course data loss. x(

Hi thanks for replying :)I was reading the problems some are expirenceing with win xp, deleteing FS2002, etc... and problems... Maybe I might re-think!Windows 98 is fine for now.. anyways-Shane

"Like above, you must have 512Mb of ram if you want to run FS2002 (any modern texture heavy game/sim)"Is this an issue with XP? I have no problems running 2k2 under 98SE with 256megs of RAM. With FS loaded, I average 60-80 megs free depending on mesh density, and no swap file usage. I have heard that XP has a larger memory footprint, however.

It's best to have the extra memory with XP, in my experience. It definitely made a difference in it running more smoothly. As for the others who suggested that the original poster upgrade to the professional version, no reasons were given. Why would he want to do that? Isn't Professional more for the "power user," or one who connects to a network?

Well I have a neighbor, who bought a new Dell with Home Edition, is computer was so unstable, I have heard that XP PRO sometime is more stable, so my friend send it back to Dell, they formatted his HD and put PRO for him, works great now it is really up to you what you want to buy. The ram is not critical if you have a 2 GHZ or higher computer, but if you have a lower end computer, like for example my PIII 500, going from 256 to 512, I could not beleive how much better it performed.

>Well I have a neighbor, who bought a new Dell with Home >Edition, is computer was so unstable, I have heard that XP >PRO sometime is more stable, so my friend send it back to >Dell, they formatted his HD and put PRO for him, works greatOK, your neighbor...in what way was it "unstable?" Where have you heard that Pro is "sometimes" more stable?>The ram is >not critical if you have a 2 GHZ or higher computerPlease explain to me how you arrived at that conclusion. Let's say that I have a 2GHz PC with 64 megs of RAM. Would that be considered "critical?" And what *is* "critical" in your mind anyway?Inquiring minds want to know.

First of all, his computer would freeze when you tried to open ceratin programs, it just did not run well, it would go good then slow down, and when he hit CTL+ALT+DEL to try and end a program that froze he would have to reboot, I beleive I read that PRO is sometime more stable in my local newspaper. Well I did not clarify when I said critical, to me if you have 2 GHZ with 256 MB RAM, its not critical to go and get 512, because your computer is already fast, that is my opinion, but if you have only 64, well then its very critical that you go to at least 256 or 512, hope this clears some stuff up.

>First of all, his computer would freeze when you tried to >open ceratin programs, it just did not run well, it would go >good then slow down, and when he hit CTL+ALT+DEL to try and >end a program that froze he would have to reboot, I beleive >I read that PRO is sometime more stable in my local >newspaper. Well I did not clarify when I said critical, to >me if you have 2 GHZ with 256 MB RAM, its not critical to go >and get 512, because your computer is already fast, that is >my opinion, but if you have only 64, well then its very >critical that you go to at least 256 or 512, hope this >clears some stuff up. Yep. It sure does.

WinXP does seem to run very smoothly with 512MB of RAM, it's silky!

For me XP works good with 256 and great with 512, time to think about going to 768!, Minimum amount of RAM I think is 256!