|
Home > Archive > Flight simulator > October 2005 > Dual boot question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Dual boot question
|
|
| Richard Hardiman 2005-10-25, 7:33 pm |
| If I partition my hard drive and put a second install of Windows XP to the
2nd partition, to be used only for FS9, am I likely to see any improvement -
or is the complexity of having two O/Ss and patitions going to undo the
benefits?
Rich
| |
| Tom Orle 2005-10-25, 7:33 pm |
|
Why would it?
You still have the same CPU, hard drive, video and memory to contend
with.
-=tom=-
"Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote:
quote:
>If I partition my hard drive and put a second install of Windows XP to the
>2nd partition, to be used only for FS9, am I likely to see any improvement -
>or is the complexity of having two O/Ss and patitions going to undo the
>benefits?
>
>Rich
>
| |
| Adam Webb 2005-10-26, 2:32 am |
| what he means, is the every day useage OS will have anti virus, firewalls,
and all other types of software, DLL's etc on, which means loads of tasks to
run.
However a OS with ONLY FS2004, and all unneeded tasks removed might be
*Slightly* better... However i think the difference will be less than 2 or 3
fps.
--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
"Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c70tl15u33l97tnfci1ejkqjr0r4sot37g@4ax.com...
quote:
>
> Why would it?
> You still have the same CPU, hard drive, video and memory to contend
> with.
> -=tom=-
>
> "Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
| Crash Lander 2005-10-26, 2:32 am |
| Doesn't FSAuto achieve a similar state?
Crash Lander
--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Adam Webb" <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yvSdnbxsm4wxXsPeRVnyrg@eclipse.net.uk...
quote:
> what he means, is the every day useage OS will have anti virus, firewalls,
> and all other types of software, DLL's etc on, which means loads of tasks
> to run.
>
> However a OS with ONLY FS2004, and all unneeded tasks removed might be
> *Slightly* better... However i think the difference will be less than 2 or
> 3 fps.
>
> --
> From Overlag - Adam Webb
> "Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:c70tl15u33l97tnfci1ejkqjr0r4sot37g@4ax.com...
>
>
| |
| stevem 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
|
"Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djlquk$qne$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
quote:
> If I partition my hard drive and put a second install of Windows XP to the
> 2nd partition, to be used only for FS9, am I likely to see any
> improvement - or is the complexity of having two O/Ss and patitions going
> to undo the benefits?
>
> Rich
>
Richard,
Before you get too bogged down on this, remember that you'll have to
activate that second copy of XP, and Microsoft won't be happy about that!
(Unless, of course, you've got an OEM version).
Regards,
Steve.
| |
| Adam Webb 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| OEM copies are even worse for activation problems....
--
From Overlag - Adam Webb
"stevem" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:bYJ7f.137901$G8.57891@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
quote:
>
> "Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:djlquk$qne$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> Richard,
> Before you get too bogged down on this, remember that you'll have to
> activate that second copy of XP, and Microsoft won't be happy about that!
> (Unless, of course, you've got an OEM version).
> Regards,
> Steve.
>
| |
| Bob McKellar 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| I think the activation process will see the same computer signature, and
treat it as a reinstall.
They let you do some reinstalls, and allow a cretain number of changes, such
as new drives.
The actual parameters are of course secret!
Bob McKellar
| |
| Richard Hardiman 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| I'm possibly being very dumb, but I guessed that having FS9 on a bare o/s
with minimal programs and processes running would be "a good thing" (tm)?
Rich
"Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c70tl15u33l97tnfci1ejkqjr0r4sot37g@4ax.com...
quote:
>
> Why would it?
> You still have the same CPU, hard drive, video and memory to contend
> with.
> -=tom=-
>
> "Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
| Chris Curtis 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| "Bob McKellar" <bob@coastcomp.com> wrote in message
news:zv2dnQuCZrYu5cLeRVn-vw@comcast.com...
quote:
>I think the activation process will see the same computer signature, and
>treat it as a reinstall.
>
> They let you do some reinstalls, and allow a cretain number of changes,
> such as new drives.
>
> The actual parameters are of course secret!
>
> Bob McKellar
Indeed it does.
No re-activation should be required; it wasn't when I put a new system on a
separate (but already installed) HD.
Personally I think it is an excellent idea to provide a separate environment
for FS. Apart from being easier to 'control' its environment it also makes
the management of the other disk/partition easier.
Chris
| |
| Richard Hardiman 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| I'm led to believe that activation 'resets' at Microsoft after about 3
months, so shouldn't be an issue.
Rich
"stevem" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:bYJ7f.137901$G8.57891@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
quote:
>
> Richard,
> Before you get too bogged down on this, remember that you'll have to
> activate that second copy of XP, and Microsoft won't be happy about that!
> (Unless, of course, you've got an OEM version).
> Regards,
> Steve.
>
| |
| Richard Hardiman 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| So the concensus is:
good idea for neatness, not much point for fps.
Have I got that right?
Rich
"Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:djlquk$qne$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
quote:
> If I partition my hard drive and put a second install of Windows XP to the
> 2nd partition, to be used only for FS9, am I likely to see any
> improvement - or is the complexity of having two O/Ss and patitions going
> to undo the benefits?
>
> Rich
>
| |
| Gregory 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:41:59 GMT, "stevem" <nobody@home.com> brought
the following to our attention:
quote:
>
>"Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
>
>Richard,
>Before you get too bogged down on this, remember that you'll have to
>activate that second copy of XP, and Microsoft won't be happy about that!
>(Unless, of course, you've got an OEM version).
>Regards,
>Steve.
>
10 years ago.. there was a machine that had four installs of NT. It
was P5-120 with IDE slots and also had Adaptec AHA-2940 adapter with
four Fast SCSI2 drives. Had 7 hard drives total. Two versions of NT..
and each had a `bare-bones' or administrative install on the IDE. Ran
from the SCSI's. That box still sits on the floor today and meets the
specs to run Win2000. It also booted DOS with a SCSI CD-ROM and
has all the DOS games in place. It has FS5 also!!
-Gregory
p.s. not sure about activation with Win2000! not dual-booting anymore.
| |
| Tom Orle 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| "Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote:
quote:
>I'm possibly being very dumb, but I guessed that having FS9 on a bare o/s
>with minimal programs and processes running would be "a good thing" (tm)?
>
>Rich
Why not try a' bare o/s' first before you build a whole new dual-boot
system.
Close as many running processes/tasks as possible and see if you
notice any performance difference.
(To close running tasks - open the task manager by giving it the '3
finger salute' in XP and open the Processes tab.Get rid of stuff you
don't think you need. If your PC freezes, not to worry! You may have
closed a task needed by the o/s - just reboot the PC because this will
only remove the process for the current session!)
Running the defrag regularily, removing not needed programs from the
start up folder and/or registry will, IMHO, have a more noticable
effect.
You also won't have to worry about keeping 2 OS's current with
updates.
Me thinks, you suffer from the 'a newly washed and clean car runs
better than a dirty one' syndrome. :-))
Been there ... done that ...
-=tom=-
| |
| Roger Burton West 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| In article <3p4vl1dtgfnaq88j3eta10nt31stbbtb06@4ax.com>,
Gregory <flightsim.maps@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
>p.s. not sure about activation with Win2000! not dual-booting anymore.
No such thing. That's why I run Win2000 on the games machine (all the
others are running Linux). When I rebuild and/or reinstall the box,
that's nobody's business but mine.
R
| |
| Gregory 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:07:03 +0000 (UTC), Roger Burton West
<roger@nospam.firedrake.org> brought the following to our attention:
quote:
>
>Gregory <flightsim.maps@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>No such thing. That's why I run Win2000 on the games machine (all the
>others are running Linux). When I rebuild and/or reinstall the box, that's
>nobody's business but mine.
>
>R
What about some of the FS9 addins? they have system files that can
damage Win2000? Ever have any of that [kind of thing]? As for the
old workstation platform (went from that one to the present Beast)..
here are the specs:
It still meets the the Microsoft specs for Windows 2000 Workstation.
1) Micronics mainboard with dual -1.6GB IDE drives.. boots to
drive-0.. has open IDE port..with enough room to install Win2k
on drive-1
2) Boots into DOS 6.22 and runs all the apps and games from the
early to mid-90s.. (including FS5)
3) Has an AHA-2940 SCSI bus with four HP 2GB Fast-SCSI2 drives
that work great.
4) Has a main SCSI CD-ROM drive that also loads up in DOS with
DOS drivers..
5) Has a high-density SCSI port out the back for scanners and tape
drives..
6) Runs Win2000 Pro no problem.. all native drivers for hardware..
7) Has a Promise Ultra66 IDE adapter with two WD40GB drives
attached..
8) Has an open ATA-66 port to attach large IDE drives..
9) Has a full functioning Soundblaster Stereo card with Roland
Wavetable Synthesizer daughter-board that works in DOS and NT5..
10) Matrox Millennium 2MB, PCI graphics card..
11) Has an Intel 180MHz Pentium Overdrive CPU.. (Win2k spec is 166)
12) Has 80MB or EDO-DRAM.. (Win2k spec is 64)
| |
| Richard Hardiman 2005-10-26, 7:39 pm |
| Thanks Tom; sound advice and I'll give it a try.
Rich
"Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:se6vl15ma4734ar0ec1upjb5ei9l7a5flo@4ax.com...
quote:
> "Richard Hardiman" <Richard.Hardiman@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why not try a' bare o/s' first before you build a whole new dual-boot
> system.
> Close as many running processes/tasks as possible and see if you
> notice any performance difference.
>
> (To close running tasks - open the task manager by giving it the '3
> finger salute' in XP and open the Processes tab.Get rid of stuff you
> don't think you need. If your PC freezes, not to worry! You may have
> closed a task needed by the o/s - just reboot the PC because this will
> only remove the process for the current session!)
>
> Running the defrag regularily, removing not needed programs from the
> start up folder and/or registry will, IMHO, have a more noticable
> effect.
> You also won't have to worry about keeping 2 OS's current with
> updates.
>
> Me thinks, you suffer from the 'a newly washed and clean car runs
> better than a dirty one' syndrome. :-))
>
> Been there ... done that ...
>
> -=tom=-
>
| |
| Roger Burton West 2005-10-26, 11:33 pm |
| In article <v7bvl1t035oh6ul3nohrhb96t56boeldj8@4ax.com>,
Gregory <flightsim.maps@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote:
quote:
>What about some of the FS9 addins? they have system files that can
>damage Win2000? Ever have any of that [kind of thing]?
Nothing I've met, but I'm fairly light on addins - FSNav, ActiveSky, and
a bunch of aircraft, and that's basically it. All that machine does is
run flight sims, games (NB separate category, really) and 3D modelling
for the webcomic... :-)
R
| |
| Andy Robinson 2005-10-27, 11:32 pm |
|
Have you tried creating a different hardware profile?
You can get a list of services that can be 'safely' disabled in XP
compiled by the 'Black Viper'. Unfortunately the main web site is down,
but you can get a pdf file from:
http://home.comcast.net/~optimizexp...nXPServices.zip
You can then create multiple hardware profiles, for instance, you could
have a 'Normal' profile for web browsing etc with all the network
services running and you could then have a 'Sim' profile with nearly all
services disabled for the most speed/memory. The only slight niggle is
that you need to reboot everytime you want to switch profiles.
I suppose it depends on your base system, if you have a super-fast ninja
PC already it's unlikely to make a huge amount of difference. But, on a
low-end/middle-of-the-road PS it may give you a performance boost
(probably not going to be mind blowing mind you :o)
You could then create a seperate partition for a clean FS9 install and
keep it defragged etc for maximum 'neatness' and speed.
Just my thoughts...
Andy
Richard Hardiman wrote:
quote:
> If I partition my hard drive and put a second install of Windows XP to the
> 2nd partition, to be used only for FS9, am I likely to see any improvement -
> or is the complexity of having two O/Ss and patitions going to undo the
> benefits?
>
> Rich
>
>
|
| |
|
|