Sign in to follow this  
Cactus521

FS2004 - WinXP v Win98 Experiment - result

Recommended Posts

This morning a friend and myself (on the basis that two heads are better than one) decided to once and for all see if there is any difference in performance between Win98 (orig not SE) and Win XP insofar as FS2004 is concerned. I have both OS installed on what is a clean machine - dedicated exclusively to FS. The PC specs are:Athlon XP 2500+, (Barton) not overclocked512MB PC2700,GeF4 Ti4200 (128MB)30.82 WHQL driversWin 98 on FAT32 on a Seagate ATA 100 HDD (7200)Win XP(SP1)on NTFS on a Seagate ATA 100 HDD (7200)Win 98 - swap file min 512, no maxWin XP - swap file min 768 max 1536I don't normally fly the default planes but we decided it would be better to conduct the test using the default Cessna Skylane at Meigs and all settings were set exactly the same.The result is quite simple. The performance is basically the same except that Win 98 gave marginally higher frame rates than XP (examples: 55 - 50, 23 - 21)We were shocked to discover that, in both cases, the Frame rate dropped by an enormous 60% when the 2D panel was on view. If the panel was closed or undocked onto the second monitor, or the VC window was used instead the frames went back up to what they were. This I would not have believed had I not seen it with my own eyes.Next time we may experiment with different drivers but that's the result of today's work.P

Share this post


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

Just shows how things can vary PC to PC---Two weeks ago I did a similar test but using WinME and XP on a dual boot machine.The machine is fairly similar to yours in capability except you have a 25% edge over me with CPU speed.(All details below)In this case I used the default Cessna from SeaTac and got an opposite result as far as frame rates were concerned with the XP copy showing about a 10 -15% improvement over ME at all times.Obviously both OS were using the same hardware but the XP copy has a later set of NVidia drivers(ME has the 43.45 and XP 44.03) but thats the only difference.Both OS are on the same HDD in separate partitions and both are FAT32.The WinME drive has a Memory manager(RamIdle ) running but not on XP. Every thing in the FS9 settings was at default(Scree res at 1024) in both copies of FS9.I agree the 2D cockpit reduces frame rates but in my case by only about 15%.The VC seems to have little effect on frame rates.The thing that does affect it is the GPS(20% frame rate drop),but,like your experience with the 2D cockpit,moving it to a second monitor reduces the impact.All the above said- I've really no complaint about frame rates in either OS as my worst situation seems to be in WimME (Take off or landing at major airport - everything running - about 15fps) and mostly ,either system is giving me 25-30fps(ME is locked at 25.XP at 30)It would be nice to see a few more direct comparisonsAMD Athlon 2000XP (@133/133)ECS K7S5A Mobo 3.1 :04/29/02 Rev BiosSiS 735 Chipset Rev 12 x 256mb DDR RAMGeforce4 Ti-4200-8x 128mb DDR AGPAGP 1.16 WHQL . 43.45/44.03 Detonator XP Drivers2 x Maxtor 40GB HDD (7200rpm)(HDD1 split C/WinME and E/WinXP. HDD2 split D/Storage and E/Backup)LG 8x4x32 BurnerLG 52xCDROMDirect X 9.0 Windows ME/ Windows XP dual bootBIOS Settings- DRAM Timing Ultra. CAS Latency 3T,RAS ACtive 6T,RAS Precharge 3TL1 Cache Enabled.L2 Cache Enabled.Sys BIOS Cache Disabled.DRAM Drive Slew Rating - FastDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Win 98 /Win Me, ressource problems and after some hour peformance will degrade need to reboot. See your performance on right click properties to my computer. Open some more software, open some Internet page windows, it will degrade alot, 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, 50 % etc. the Os will became slower and slower...These ressource problems not happend with windows 2000 and windows XP after week without restarted.ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure quite what you're implying Chris- I've run both FS9 and FS2k2 on continuous - on-line flights of up to 5 or 6 hours on both XP and WinME with no problems,no degradation of performance(This means using Squawkbox,RogerWilco,AOL-Internet,Servinfo etc simultaneously)Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Chris. I love your clouds etc but you're wrong on this one.This is a dedicated FS PC (no other programs opened, not even IE - it still has the original IE4 untouched) and it flies for days on end in Win 98 with no degradation whatsoever. Not as much as one BSOD either in the 3 years it has been installed. I'm not saying it's better than XP - just every bit as good.Can't speak for Me but if Dave says so I believe him.P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi btrjet, If you have read what`s I have said, open more program and use many software see your resource, this Os will have to be rebooted, One software used can be acceptable but not for intense works, 3d painting, 3d rendering; MAYA, 3D MAX, Autocad, Softimage, X-frog, Bryce 5, Rhino 3D, Aura, Poser, etc. Music creation with long ours simply forget about that`s. I have used Win98 se before many years before for multi purpose. My freind a 30 years of C++ coding on new software told me couple years ago before windows 2000 came out, the same things happend when he working with win98 with C++ and others things, I saw the same resource problems that`s I have at that`s time. The memory is better handeled in windows XP.Windows NT, 2000 and XP more stable for hard works and multi usage system for long ours without rebooting. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-"Win 98 /Win Me, ressource problems and after some hour peformance will degrade need to reboot. See your performance on right click properties to my computer.-"-"These ressource problems not happend with windows 2000 and windows XP after week without restarted.-"The Win98 resource figure is not comparable to XP and has little to do with memory.http://www.aumha.org/a/resource.htmKurt M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,You may well be right but the purpose of this test (and this thread) was for running MSFS2004 only - so what happens when there are all those other programs running as well is of no consequence.Looking forward to seeing the new clouds.P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi btrjet, You are one of the few one use win98 on a dedicated machine with no internet connection and no software running at the startup, most user that`s have Win98 and ME are their own computer and do everything including, having a firewall, antis virus, open internet explorer page, check their email, use mp3, msn, ICQ, program start at startup, some painting here and here, which already reduce ressource and make the system slower before they have opened fs2k4. Each time fs2k4 is opened and closed fs2004 ressource will drop even lower.My main post was for general peformance and stability on general, most of user do not use only fs2004 with their Win98/Me.The links of Kurt http://aumha.org/win4/a/resource.htm is the fact from what`s I have noticed before at that`s time, and even at 75% resource the system degrade and have to be rebooted.I have been frustrated on the past with win98 for rebooting the Os 4 time a day if not more, the Famous Win98 blue screen, even with no software on startup on the background. None of these since window 2000 and XP.I prefer to have one Os Windows XP for everything, no ressource problems with any application on all weeks.In your case it is acceptable from what`s you have done, but normaly An Os is for others purpose also. I am not here to trash Win98 and Me, only share the experience and trouble I have before with these stability/ ressource problems and try to help on some degree if they have these same situation. ThanksChris Willis[link:fsw.simflight.com/FSWMenuFsSim.html]Clouds And Addons For MsFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,I agree that WinXP would be the OS of choice for the scanarios you mentioned. I wouldn't dream of having multiple high resource programs running concurrently for long periods of time in 98, let alone WinME. But as the others pointed out, the test was about just running FS2004. I still run Win98 for FS2004 and am more than happy with it. I'm not suffering any performance issues and have had the machine on for many hours on end (I even ran FS2004 for three days non-stop after buying it to test it for stability) without noticing any degradation in FS2004 performance whatsoever. If someone just wants to run FS2004 on an existing Win98 machine, I certainly would not recommend they upgrade simply on account of FS2004. There would have to be other reasons as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All, Just to add a wee bit of fuel to the fire, I have a 1.8 overclocked to 2l2, Ti4600, also overclocked. Two identicial hard drives, which one has Win98se and the Winxp pro with all the service pack updates.Now, keep in mind that I have various programs installed (identical again) on both, however before I use FS I shut everything down other than what is necessary to just run the machine.Win98se on the average runs 10-15% better frame rates and less stutters than XP pro on both 2002 and 2004.As for the matter of rebooting, well, this thing gets shut down every night so that isn't even an issue. Just my .02cents worth.Best to allClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All, After Installing Windows XP about 4 weeks ago, My stutter are gone now and my frame rate are 10%/15% better over Win98.P4 3.2GHZ , Gforce 5800 FX 128 MBCheers!BestEric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris...I also don't know what your hinting at regarding resource problems. My performance under Win98 is consistent even after COF has been up for hours, like this morning's microlight flight along the Keys... I have no degradation with RAM or system resources, and I've looked at both with Sysmon over time several times.My record session with COF so far is an approx. 10 hour flight. I had enough resources left over to dive into both FS2002, an hour or two's session on the Web, and an hour with NoLimits Coaster... No problems at all. Any resource issues that do happen with Win98 are almost always the cause of a system that hasn't been weaned of startup apps.....-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem of the 60% reduction in frame rate for panel view is now solved. I couldn't go to sleep tonight without trying to see if anything could be done about that. I recalled that I had previously disabled AGP FAST WRITES in the BIOS (Advanced Chipset) so I enabled it and now the hit is only 15%. To be sure to be sure I rechecked by disabling it and enabling it again and this fact is now definitely confirmed.This affects FS2004 in both Win98 and XP and the previous slight extra frames in Win98 still applies.Thanks to all for your interest and input.P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm not saying it's better than XP - just every bit as good.It may be "as good" if all you do is FS on it. Use it like anyone else would and watch it buckle. I've three machines; they all perform differently. My main M/C is dual boot win98/XP initially with separate installations of FS9 (just to see how each performed). I found that initially XP was marginally better but after a 2-3 flight XP would wipe the floor with 98.Cheers,Paulhttp://www.strontiumdog.plus.com/sbird.jpgOfficially licenced by British Airways plc for use of name and logo[p]AMD XP2800+ Barton, Gigabyte GA-7NNXP nForce2, 1Gig Crucial PC3200 DDR 400MHz, Gainward 128 MB GF4-4200, SB Audigy, 3 x WD Caviar SE[/p]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the panel hit...Since I've always locked my fps in FS2002 at 25 (which was my "low" number, given my 2k2 slider settings), I never really bothered to see if the panel fps hit was truly something of FS2004 only. So, I set up the same scenario, and set fps to unlimited in both sims. I found two interesting things out. First using my default resolution, panel performance did cause a hit of about 15 pct...in BOTH sims. Having a fps lock of 25 kept the issue hidden in FS2002 (my numbers in FS2002 with my situation and the Cessna panel were 31/35. They were 22/25 in FS2004. Since FS2004 throws in more detail at my preferred settings (e.g. the taxiway signs and airport gas stations), my fps performance was low enough that I could "detect" a performance problem with panels.The second interesting thing--some resolutions seemed immune to the issue. Anything over 1024x767, and it was hard to detect any fps loss at all--although overall fps fell to about 19 for 1280x1024 in FS2004. One can also optimize panel performance with multipart panels. An example of that is a typical twin with a light panel or centerpost. If the centerpost or light panel can be closed by right clicking it, 2-d panel performance is much improved.-John

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