Greetings,Right now I've got FS2000 running on an XP 'puter, and I started wondering what was the original Windows OS intended to run FS2000? Clearly XP is superior in many ways, but I was also wondering, if I switched FS2000 back to a computer with that original OS how do you think the quality of the sim would differ? I think XP has much better graphics ability, do you think that the graphics of FS2000 would suffer? I like FS2000, I love those blue night skies.Was Windows ME the original OS? Is ME the bane of the computing world?(I also have FS9 and am looking forward to FSX.)

Well, the box says (system requirements):Pentium (not 2, 3 or 4) - simple Pentium/MMX 166 MHz (lol) - ok, that was probably the *absolute* minimum to run it at single digit fps :)OS: Windows 95, Windows 98 or Windows NT 4 SP3 (FS2000 appeared in the 2nd half of 1999 as far as I know, so neither Windows ME nor 2000 were available at that time and XP was far away).32 MB RAM :)350 MB harddisk space (minimum), 430MB recommendedSVGA graphics card (yes, FS2000 could run w/o 3d acceleration) with 16bit color depth.Directsound 7.0 compatible sound card.I remember, I was running it on a Pentium Pro 230 and a 3dfx card with good results. Later (long before FS2002 appeared), I upgraded to a Pentium 3 500 system and FS2000 was really great on that system. The release of the PSS 747-400 was the first add-on which really gave framerate problems (FS2000 was known for its stuttering problems).I think, FS2000 should run better on XP (not sure, but I think I did install it after upgrading my system to XP, but I cannot exactly remember, maybe that was already FS2002).Downgrading to 98 or ME doesn't make much sense unless your system is reasonably old. A modern system with a new CPU and lots of RAM doesn't run very well with 9x based operating systems due to their lack of proper resource management and you may even run into problems with drivers as Win 9x is no longer well supported for most modern hardware.If it runs on XP, stick with it.

It was Windows 98. But, I think the performance will be better with WinXP in almost all cases.Doug

Silvercircle,Thank you very much for all your trouble. I totally can't imagine running FS2000 on a 166 mhz computer, I have a 120 mhz 'puter and it can barely run Word! Right now I have it on a 333 mhz pentium II w/ 256 mb's of ram, and my ram is maxed, and with I think an ATI Rage video card can't remember the specs. I've been running it like that for maybe a year, I love those POSKY's. But most of the time I have to switch to full screen mode which is set at a lower resolution which improves my frame rates so that I can land smoothly. On take off and cruise from the cockpit not in full screen mode, my frame rates are barely acceptible, and an outside view is terrible, down to maybe 5 fps or worse. I've been upgrading my 'puters and trying to think of how to juggle all my upgrades and how to upgrade my fs2000 'puter. I'm tempted to use my old ME HD and upgrade some hardware and put it in another box, and maybe use this 'puter w/ XP and upgrade the hardware significantly and make it a FS9 'puter. I like to have several 'puters and run several simulators, but I've been thinking that FS2000 might be really nice on a faster 'puter. I think I could upgrade the chip to 500 or maybe 600 mhz possibly w/ a pentium II slot 1, or possibly I could use a spare pentium III 600 mhz chip & mobo that maxes at 512 mb's of ram, but I only have 256 mb's of ram laying around right now. It's a really awesome flight simulator in my opinion, and I run FS9 every day on another 'puter. Have to get more simulators. I'm confused by all of these upgrades I want to do, I might write it out on a chart to try to organize it all. Duh! Perhaps I should just buy more hardware and everything will just iron itself out instead of having to make hard choices--when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping!! Thanks once again.

When FS2000 came out it was right around the time WindowsME was released... Everyone with a new computer was running WindowsME or Windows 2000. Windows98 was still in use by many simmers because WindowsME was such a crappy OS. Microsoft had intended on releasing a comparable version of WindowsXP at the time (which was what Windows2000 was supposed to be). They couldn't so another 9X series OS had to suffice (hence ME)... They had allot of trouble trying to tie in the 9X series with NT networking capabilities (XP). So to answer your question, FS2000 was intended to be used on Windows 98/ME. WindowsXP is the optimum choice because it

Thanks very much Doug and Dillon,And thanks for reminding me how bad ME was. I had one friend who said that it fried his computer, sent it to a repair shop, then replaced ME w/ XP. At one of the local repair shops they said that they had a lot of ME repairs; one customer was angry because they "upgraded" his computer w/ Win 98SE, but they assured him it was a step forward I had an ME meltdown, my video driver was somehow zipped out, the old fashioned serial type port mouse was no longer working due to a hardware conflict I couldn't figure out, and I found a line of code, or command text had been deleted (I named that 486 the HAL 9000). I re-entered that line of code (as if I know anything about programming or system administration), downloaded a new video driver, and had to use a USB mouse with a gigantic driver. Since then though, that 486 running the fully updated ME has run flawlessly and very stable. Do you think that Microsoft patched ME's core to operate more stably, and less harmful to hardware?One of my friends who is a pro graphics and web developer swears by 98 SE, he actually won't upgrade to XP. My fully patched 98SE Windows folder is almost half of the size of my fully patched ME Windows folder! I've been tempted to format my 486 HD and install 98SE, but that computer w/ ME has so many frustrating memories, so it's a choice of frustrating nostalgia, or better functionality.My XP system running FS2000 works excellently, but I think I might upgrade that setup. I just haven't decided how I'm going to do that yet. That processor is way too slow, 333 mhz, and limited to only 256 mb's of ram.

>Is ME the bane of the computing world?>heheh. I would say that's a good way to put it.To be honest, I have never been a fan of FS2000, either. That was the version with the "terrible pauses" problem.Rhett

I skipped FS2000, wasn't even into airplanes at the time. Anyways it should run well on a modern computer with XP. I have FS98 installed on my old Pentium 3 with XP so FS2000 should run with it. I don't have it installed on my new Athlon 64 based system but should work even better. It runs great on the Pentium 3 machine. XP is the best OS from MS.Regards, Carlos

>XP is the best OS from MS.>>Regards, CarlosExcept for DOS 6.22. :)Rhett

Rhett and Carlos, thanks once again. Can DOS 6.22 be downloaded from Microsoft? I have a nice DOS based chess program that they say won't run on XP. The best I've done is lose with the 486, HAL 9000, having two chess pieces left to my KO'd king, normally I get wiped out much faster and worse, duh!FS2000 was quite a leap forward compared to FS98, but FS98 may possibly be more popular than FS2000 based on the new addons that still come out for FS98. I like FS2000 much more, but I like all of them, the only one I don't run nearly every day is FS2002, totally skipped it, but I've heard of some people who were very pleased by it so if I come across it I will probably get it, the pro version. I've only been running my sims for almost two years, however I'm really a big fan, completed 12,120 hours so far, 260 flights around the world.I was looking online at a FS2000 Pro package for sale in the UK, but it said that it was in "Pal", "standard UK format", do you guys know if there is a separate CD-Rom format in the UK, and will it work on a US 'puter? Will any CD-Rom work on an ME 'puter?--I'm just kidding, telling ME jokes (actually my ME has been totally stable for two years, before that however it was scientifically determined to be HAAAAUNTED!!!)I thoroughly enjoy this flight sim hobby and it's great visiting with you guys.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154636.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154637.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154638.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/154639.jpg

I meant "Windows" OS.Regards, Carlos