I believe the Pentiums at the same speed as a K6/2 worked a lot better. I think the K6/2 had floating-point problems causing them to choke at times.My daughter has a PIII 600MHz system and it ran fs2002 a lot smoother than the K6/2 550MHz system.W. Sieffert

Victor.You do not have to use the latest tecnology to run fs.2004.Just make sure you have a balanced system,-that means hardware that is made for your system. Drivers/monitors etc.I did a test on my old computer P3-600 IBM Aptiva.Win98-sec.addition.This is upgraded with 128mb.ram and a VOODOO 5 videocard.Running the ms.flightsims including fs.2004 on this computer is OK.The framerates at the largest airport could have been better, butNo big broblems.Take care.Lars Peter.:-wave

Mine:1.7Ghz P4512MB SDRAMTi4200 128MBXP Home120GB WD SEIs getting around 14 fps in FS2004 and about 18 in FS2002. Other people seem to be getting a lot more, and I'm not even using FSAA, so I wonder if something is not configured correctly or just that my system is too slow. The new Athlon 64 3200+ looks like a solid performer, much better than the 3200+ or 3.2 Ghz P4, and not that much below the FX51. It is also a lot cheaper than the FX and a bit less than the 3.2 or 3200+. So if I do upgrade it seems that my options are either to buy an A64 3200+ now, and have to get XP 64 bit when it comes out if I want, and have to change motherboards if I upgrade. Or I wait and get a PCI Express motherboard, based on 939 pins, in the spring. Budgeting is a fairly large issue, I'd probably get a 9800 Pro after the price drop once the 9800XT is out, if I do upgrade to a 3200+.Any opinions?

Instead of relying on opinion, which of course is tinted by peoples perceptions of their OWN systems, rely on the current market.I bought a new system 2 weeks after FS2004 came out.I bought the cheapest complete system I could. It cost me $500.It consisted of a Compaq Athlon 2400XP, running at 2.0Ghz, 128Meg of Ram, and a 40Gig Hard drive, (plus the monitor, speakers, keyboard and mouse). I purchased an additional 512Meg of Ram and a 90 dollar FX5200 GF Graphics card.Considering this is the LEAST expensive system available today, I would call it low end. Luckily my "Low End" system has no trouble running FS2004 at 24FPS 85% of the time.One of the really tough things people are dealing with today, is the common rule that processor speeds are still doubling every 12 to 18 months. When A CPU went from 200Mhz, to 400 Mhz in a year or so, no one really was concerned. A 300Mhz machine had quite a bit of teeth then.Now that we can go from 1.8Ghz to 3.6Ghz in the same amount of time, a 2.4Ghz machine is obsolete the day it gets put in the box.So face the facts, in todays market, a 2.4Ghz machine is considered a budget machine and is a low end system.And I fully expect 5 Ghz machines to be available this time next year or earlier. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you DO have a low end machine. Luckily for you, some minor adjustments should allow you to run FS2004 adequately.

>And I fully expect 5 Ghz machines to be available this time>next year or earlier. Intel and AMD roadmaps are calling for no more than 4Ghz.

That is for sure. I don't know why I keep responding to this continuing debate but........ I have said it all before. I am very happy with my current very low system. PIII 1000, 384 megs of ram, nvidia gforce3 Ti200It runs CFS3 and FS2004 both very well. I don't however use the ATC system ar a lot of AI stuff. I never turn on the frame rate counter but reaction times are very good with very very little stalling noticed. I am big on the eye candy and really injoy the out side views and don't spend a lot of time staring at gauges. Well, to each his/her own. Just go fly.Steve A