Sign in to follow this  
Guest SlimDady

Comparing FS9: New WinXP install vs Original XP Install.

Recommended Posts

Last week I installed an ATI 9800 Pro and had some issues with the install- short story, I used BootMagic to create another C: drive on my system, installed Win98, and upgraded to XP, then installed the video card. I've now got the card running in both instances of XP, same card settings in control panel- however the new XP instance has older drivers (from the CD that came with, not the cat 3.6's).I tried installing FS9 into the new XP install (now unused, as I've got the video card working in the original install). Same video settings, both have no AI traffic, and both have unlimited video frames so there's no fps limiter.At KSEA, mid-day today:Old XP install: 22.6New XP install: 26.3Now, the new XP install has no updates whatsoever, has no Norton AV (I realize this is a compromising position :) ), even has the old "tele-tubby" graphics on the desk-top; plus the older drivers. No programs other than XP stock, other than FS9. No connection to the internet.I must standardize this FS9 comparison by copying over one FS9.cfg file to the other instance. But I found the comparison interesting, to say the least. Is it all those updates and SP1 that burdens XP down? Or Norton AV (I tried disabling it, no change)?. Maybe just a larger registry file?Bruce.P4-1.8G1GB PC-2700ATI 9800 Pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

tons of factors hinder the performance.. Im sure norton does the most.but hd fragmentation and things like that always slow it down.. i love how fs performs right after i do a fresh format and install

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this