Best news ever

[zarker99]

Just heard that MSTSX will run on XP!
YAHOO!

now I don't have to spend £60 on Vista, £100 on 2gb ran, £300 on Office for Vista, £200 on a new DX10 graphix card, £100 on a new sound system, £50 on new antivirus solutions, and whatever new hardware would be needed to replace those without compatible drivers etc etc (which I was never going to do anyway, not just for one game)

[cp5513]

If true then they have my purchase. I have all the requirements for Vista, but I'll be damned if I install that resource intensive garbage on my harddrive. Good business decision on MS's part.

[zarker99]

From the FAQ at TSinsider HERE (http://tsinsider.com/product/FAQ.aspx)

Q: What operating systems will Train Simulator 2 run on? I heard it was Vista only.
A: Train Simulator 2 will be available for Windows XP and Windows Vista operating systems. But DirectX 10, which provides enhanced 3-D graphics-rendering capabilities and helps noticeably improve your computer's gaming performance, is available only on Windows Vista.

[AlanCh]

This is very old news - I first posted about this in January 2008 here http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=266794 .

[zarker99]

This is very old news - I first posted about this in January 2008 here http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=266794 .

Well - maybe it should be stickied. There's a LOT of people around still bitching about this. That's why I'm trying to spread the word :o Of course, by the time MSTSX come out in a year or so it will be common knowledge. yet, some people might buy KRS just because they've scratched out MSTSx mistakenly.

I only found out after trwaling through a year's worth of posts on another forum discussing this very thing.

[AlanCh]

Maybe the people bitching should read a little here or on TSInsider before they start their bitching! :)

[zarker99]

Maybe the people bitching should read a little here or on TSInsider before they start their bitching! :)

Good point :)

For me, I've never frequented any MSTSX forums just beacuse I'd written it off as soon as I saw it was going to be for Vista only.

Maybe this fact should be stickied in the KRS forums :eek: But if it was tsickied in the MSTSX forum it would be the first thing people saw when they did a quick browse of it from brief curiosity.

This is going to be a BIG selling p[oint for MSTSX - it should shouted from the rooftops.

[stonelance]

now I don't have to spend £60 on Vista, £100 on 2gb ran, £300 on Office for Vista, £200 on a new DX10 graphix card, £100 on a new sound system, £50 on new antivirus solutions, and whatever new hardware would be needed to replace those without compatible drivers etc etc (which I was never going to do anyway, not just for one game)

I hope you are exaggerating because most of that stuff you listed is not required for Vista. I would say having 2gb of ram for Vista is a good idea. The old version of office works fine in Vista as far as I know, and Vista doesn't require a DX10 graphics card, or a new sound system (unless it is so old you can't get Vista driver for them).

If your system is not good enough to run Vista, then I imagine it isn't going to run TS2 very well either.

[zarker99]

well - i don't HAVE to buy a DX10 card seeing as I only bought a 7950gx2 18 months ago, no. But what's the point of upgrading to Vista and not utilizing its DX10.

Audigy2 apparently doesn't work well with Vista even if it does have Vista drivers.

I don't NEED 2gb of ram for XP, but it helps with games, the same as 4gb is recomended by most players for gaming on Vista.

I was informed by some nice checkout girl at PCWORLD that I'd need to upgrade my office 2003 to run on Vista (at which point I returned the new laptop to the shelf).

I just checked, and there seems to be a fix for office 2003 now. Still - that doesn;'t help the other issues.
I think basically, people who like me got burned with windows ME are a little skeptical about new windows versions - especially when Bill Gates himself slates Vista.

[eaglefan9727]

If your system is not good enough to run Vista, then I imagine it isn't going to run TS2 very well either.

From the sounds of that statement. Pretty much any of the PC's you see at best buy or circuit city would work for TS 2 as most of them have vista and have over 2 GB's of RAM. Of course, That is just a guess. All I know is I am planning to get a duo core with 3 or 4 GB's of RAM and a decent video card. That should do the trick for TS 2 in my opinion.

[djt1]

I have all the requirements for Vista, but I'll be damned if I install that resource intensive garbage on my harddrive.

This is the usual response from someone who does not know how to properly install Vista (or any other operating system for that matter) or who really doesn’t have the hardware.

Most drivers for Vista have become more refined than their XP equivalents months ago and the trend is going to continue. Out of a dozen or so sims/games I’ve tested on my dual boot XP/Vista setups, Vista always shows a performance advantage. Unless your running a weak system for gaming, Vista 64 bit is the way to go at this point.

Sure MSTS-2 might run on XP but who cares if the performance isn’t there.

Here’s some good reading about current state of Vista, take a close look at page 2 –

http://www.tweakguides.com/VA_1.html

[cp5513]

This is the usual response from someone who does not know how to properly install Vista (or any other operating system for that matter) or who really doesn’t have the hardware.

I have a duo-core, 2 Meg of RAM, and everything else required with the exception of DX10. I also am knowledgable enough to be able to install an OS, new drivers, etc - so thanks so much for your wonderful opinion of me.

My only fault is not bothering to look much at the MSTS-X forum (I am of the opinion that it's pointless to post here with speculations) so I was not in the loop that MS gave the definite word that MSTS-II could be played on XP. Heck I still consider that speculation.

My views on Vista as that is an inefficient load of programming garbage. Now once MS comes up with a service pack 2, it will then probably be a stable and decent enough OS ...but it will still be a resource hog. I'll stick with XP and the lowered graphics of DX9 until: a) XP is no longer supported, or b) Mojave (or whatever MS will call it) is released.

PS - I run FS-X on my XP machine and enjoy it enough even with DX9.

[zarker99]

yep. I think, unless you bought Vista right at the start, it'd be silly to buy it now with the next OS coming out soon. Who know what else you'd need hardware wise to run that, or what apps its compatible with.

Certainly not everybody can afford the hassle or money to keep upgrading your OS and hardware/software every 2-3 years.

[djt1]

My views on Vista as that is an inefficient load of programming garbage.

That’s just it, “your views” on Vista have little to do with fact or the opinions coming from users who have real experience with using it.

Do some research instead of speculating and you’ll see that Vista/SP1 is actually more stable than XP.

If it’s such a resource hog then how do you explain better performance in sims/games than what you get in XP?

LOL, by the way “Mojave” was an experiment (it’s not a new OS) to see if the Vista naysayers really had any clue about the OS or if it was just more of the usual “I heard this, I heard that” speculation.


http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/html/?fbid=Kqa4Z

http://www.vistax64.com/vista-news/170885-vista-haters-swallow-placebo.html

[djt1]

yep. I think, unless you bought Vista right at the start, it'd be silly to buy it now with the next OS coming out soon. Who know what else you'd need hardware wise to run that, or what apps its compatible with.


I suggest you read page 9 of the above review to find out if it would be “silly to buy it now with the next OS coming out soon”.

http://www.tweakguides.com/VA_9.html

[cp5513]

Wow I thought that such passionate responses where only seen in The Yard back in the days when you could talk about politics. Mon Dieu, we’re only talking about an operating system. Fine you like it, but many don’t. C’est la vie.

[djt1]

Fine you like it, but many don’t.

What’s amusing is the reason why they don’t like. As the MS “Mojave” experiment proved, it’s just B.S. hearsay.

[zarker99]

Whatever. I'm quite happy with XP, and see no compelling reason to spend any money replacing it at this time.

[glcbn]

This is the usual response from someone who does not know how to properly install Vista (or any other operating system for that matter) or who really doesn’t have the hardware.

Most drivers for Vista have become more refined than their XP equivalents months ago and the trend is going to continue. Out of a dozen or so sims/games I’ve tested on my dual boot XP/Vista setups, Vista always shows a performance advantage. Unless your running a weak system for gaming, Vista 64 bit is the way to go at this point.

Sure MSTS-2 might run on XP but who cares if the performance isn’t there.

Here’s some good reading about current state of Vista, take a close look at page 2 –

http://www.tweakguides.com/VA_1.html

I totally agree. Everything I run on XP,runs just as well,if not better on my 64 bit Vista:)

[zarker99]

I suppose Vista is like any other program which gets released before it's properly cooked. Look at KRS. I'm sure that will be pretty decent when they've finished patching it. But the damage is done, it's got a bad name.

If Vista has a bad reputation it's because it was released in a poor condition. never mind about service packs, and the new state of Vista. It's hard to overtcome 1st impressions, and negative publicity. If a restuarant serves omelettes with runny eggs, then a second chef has to come out with a little portable stove to finish them off, who is to blame but themselves if nobody wants to eat there? Of course, theres always a few who like omelettes with runny eggs...

[eaglefan9727]

I suppose Vista is like any other program which gets released before it's properly cooked. Look at KRS. I'm sure that will be pretty decent when they've finished patching it. But the damage is done, it's got a bad name.

If Vista has a bad reputation it's because it was released in a poor condition. If a restuarant serves omelettes with runny eggs, then a second chef has to come out with a little portable stove to finish them off, who is to blame but themselves if nobody wants to eat there? Of course, theres always a few who like omelettes with runny eggs...

Like Ive always stated and have told people. First impressions means alot when it comes to things especially when youre dealing with cosumers. Take a look at what people think of vista and KRS for example.

[zarker99]

Like Ive always stated and have told people. First impressions means alot when it comes to things especially when youre dealing with cosumers. Take a look at what people think of vista and KRS for example.

Exactly. If Mojave was just a test to see what falsities get spread on the grapevine then it was a pretty redundant one. Everybody knows about the 'chinese whisper', which is why it's so critical to get things done right the 1st time. Word of mouth is the best publicity any product can get.

Which is why I think it's important to make it clear that MSTS-X will now run on XP, and counter the bad publicity that it would only run on Vista.

[djt1]

It's hard to overtcome 1st impressions, and negative publicity.

Again, take a look back at Windows XP reception, nothing really different, same story just another new OS release.

http://www.tweakguides.com/VA_2.html

[TrirailF40PHL]

Wow I thought that such passionate responses where only seen in The Yard back in the days when you could talk about politics. Mon Dieu, we’re only talking about an operating system. Fine you like it, but many don’t. C’est la vie.

Agreed. Never could understand why folks get themselves tied in knots over the subject.

Someone likes Vista, another dislikes it and prefers XP. Wonderful - nothing wrong with that. The problems only start when someone embarks on preaching one or the other.

-Kurt

[zarker99]

Exactly. If Mojave was just a test to see what falsities get spread on the grapevine then it was a pretty redundant one. Everybody knows about the 'chinese whisper', which is why it's so critical to get things done right the 1st time. Word of mouth is the best publicity any product can get.

Which is why I think it's important to make it clear that MSTS-X will now run on XP, and counter the bad publicity that it would only run on Vista.

bump. Back OT.

[djt1]

Word of mouth is the best publicity any product can get.


LOL, so what’s your response to all the complaints about Windows XP at the time of its release? How could you have possibly accepted such a flawed OS?

[djt1]

The problems only start when someone embarks on preaching one or the other.


Actually the problem starts when someone who has no experience with the subject starts spread hearsay as if it were fact.

As far as a gaming is concerned you want to use an OS that is going to provide the best performance. With SP1 and the latest drivers, Vista has passed by XP months ago.

[zarker99]

LOL, so what’s your response to all the complaints about Windows XP at the time of its release? How could you have possibly accepted such a flawed OS?

I think I'd rather discuss that in a Windows Vista vs XP thread.

This one is about MSTS-X being compatible with XP as well as Vista and what a joy it is to hear about it :D

[djt1]

This one is about MSTS-X being compatible with XP as well as Vista and what a joy it is to hear about it :D

Yeah right, what joy, I can’t wait to see the complaints from all the unhappy campers when they install MSTS-2 and are greeted with less than satisfactory performance.

[zarker99]

This is as good as having the thread stickied.

[TrirailF40PHL]

Actually the problem starts when someone who has no experience with the subject starts spread hearsay as if it were fact.

It's still the same bit of preaching that gets folks on edge, differing only that it is presented with little or no fact to back it up.

-Kurt

[tf51d]

Yeah right, what joy, I can’t wait to see the complaints from all the unhappy campers when they install MSTS-2 and are greeted with less than satisfactory performance.

For what it's worth, my experience as well with many others over at avsim with Vista, is while the service pack and newer drivers have improved performance with 32 bit Vista in FSX it is still slower in Vista than XP (I do have and use both) It is said, though (I have no experience with it myself), that Vista 64 bit runs just as well as XP. (Provided all your hardware components are supported). This may not be an issue with TS2 since although it's graphic engine was to be based off of FSX, it has since been reported it will be redeveloped for TS2. Time will tell.

I believe one of the main reasons TS2, which was originally said to be a Vista only title was changed to support both XP and Vista was in order to be able to use the "Games for Windows" moniker. Which require support for both platforms in it's standards.

[djt1]

It's still the same bit of preaching that gets folks on edge, differing only that it is presented with little or no fact to back it up.

-Kurt

Like I said, it’s just the usual B.S. hearsay.

When you ask the naysayers what exactly is the problem, they can’t respond, why, because they have no experience with using it to begin with.

Then you have responders that state opinions based on what they are not willing to pay for, again justifying their personal decisions as if it were fact or actual results.

[djt1]

I believe one of the main reasons TS2, which was originally said to be a Vista only title was changed to support both XP and Vista was in order to be able to use the "Games for Windows" moniker. Which require support for both platforms in it's standards.

Exactly right. While being based on a reworked FSX engine, MSTS-2 is supposedly going to take advantage of DirectX 10 features a lot more than the “DirectX 10 Preview” that we got with FSX/SP2. Not to mention that DirectX 11 is also in the not too distant future.

[cp5513]

djt1 - as I stated earlier in this thread, Vista will probably be a very good OS after service pack 2 comes out. It may be there already with service pack 1? But even so there are still plenty of us novices spreading the 'hearsay' on Vista, such as cnet:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13554_3-10034486-33.html?tag=mncol;posts
I can list plenty of other current articles, but I'd be steering this thread off topic again.

Yes you are correct about XP being less that stellar when it was released (likewise it took me years to switch from Windows 98 to XP). In fact it took until XP's sp2 until it finally broke over 40% market penetration. Vista will get there too, but until then I would caution you about your comments. My initial post was only my opinion that I don't wish to touch Vista, meanwhile you are getting quite personal. I respect your views on Vista, and I'm happy it works for you. In turn please repect the views of those who are tired of Microsoft's consistent use of the general public as beta-testers for their OS systems. Thank you.

BTW - I'm willing to take the hit on graphics with MSTS-II, but the track record of initial train simulator software performance (MSTS took over 5 years to get it right, KRS will take ? long) seems to mimic that of Operating Systems - so who knows when I'll take the MSTS-II dive? My KRS disc is currently sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

[djt1]

Vista will probably be a very good OS after service pack 2 comes out. It may be there already with service pack 1?

but the track record of initial train simulator software performance (MSTS took over 5 years to get it right, KRS will take ? long) seems to mimic that of Operating Systems


My comments were never intended to be a personal attack towards you, but a response to the usual “I don’t like it, but never tried it either” crowd.

Head over to some of the hardware forums around the internet and see what others are using for an OS. Better yet try one the most respected hardware review sites, Anandtech.com and see what they use when they test new components. I don’t sink $3000.00 on a machine just to get mediocre performance. Believe me if Vista 64/SP1 was not up to snuff I sure as hell would not be using it. I have three copies of Windows XP sitting here collecting dust right now if I wanted to go back.

As far as performance in a train sim goes as you can see from my screen shots of KRS right from its initial release, it’s never been lacking in performance. By the way those screens shots were taken with Vista 64/SP1 also.

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=274224&page=4

http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=267462

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic.php?f=215&t=85642&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=120

[zarker99]

Yeah right, what joy, I can’t wait to see the complaints from all the unhappy campers when they install MSTS-2 and are greeted with less than satisfactory performance.

Well if they did, wouldn't that just be neurotic hearsay?
Anyway, It might be poor at the start, but I'm sure that after a few service packs it will be better than sliced bread. :)

If it's anything like FSX, Microsoft will advise that if you have more than 25% of the total available AI trains running it will perform like a dog anyway, XP or whatever. :rolleyes: (There is nothing better in a flight sim than operating in a practically deserted airport...)

But at least now they've at least given us the option to have it run (poorly - maybe?) on XP.

[djt1]

But at least now they've at least given us the option to have it run (poorly - maybe?) on XP.

So by late 2009, at which time drivers for Windows XP (which are already being ignored) will have been left in the dust in comparison to Vista, you will be willing to give up considerable performance just because of misconceptions about an OS?

Then we haven’t even gotten into the whole DirectX 10 or 11 situation, which further leaves XP users out in the cold.

[zarker99]

when i feel the time is right to move up, i will. i see no point at this moment in time. Whether Vista is better than XP or not, I'm fine as I am.

I'm just happy that I'll be able to play MSTS-X without upgrading. If the feedback from forums isn't too bad I'll buy it and judge it's performance against FSX. If it runs really bad on my XP system then I'll leave it on the shelf until I do upgrade to Vista, or whatever else is out there at the time.

[TrirailF40PHL]

djt1, remember what I said about preaching one or the other? I get the feeling that you're pressuring those who don't wish to use Vista.

Performance hit there may be, but zarker apparently seems content with it. Don't see why you have to get upset over his own decision. Some of us are content with DX9 and XP, some of us not.

-Kurt

[djt1]

djt1, remember what I said about preaching one or the other? I get the feeling that you're pressuring those who don't wish to use Vista.

Performance hit there may be, but zarker apparently seems content with it. Don't see why you have to get upset over his own decision. Some of us are content with DX9 and XP, some of us not.

-Kurt


LOL, who’s preaching, getting upset, pressuring? What do you think, I'm getting kick backs from Microsoft for promoting their OS?

We went from “I think Vista isn’t as good as XP, but I don’t know why” to “I’m just more content with XP”.

So it looks like this turned into your typical “don’t tell me what I don’t want to hear" thread.

[zarker99]

LOL - no. We have a "MSTS-X will run on XP" thread.

All I know is that Windows Vista has a bad reputaion of being a resource hog and bug ridden. If that's all changed then fine. But I still don't want to buy it. I have XP64 bit on that shelf too. I don't use it because there's no (at least last time I tried) performance advantage to it, and quite a few downsides to it. Like: nobody seems to make XP64 compatible anti-virus programs, and the downloadable Audigy2 driver update works fine, but the interface isn't as good as the 32 bit version. Maybe that's all changed, but I'm still not going to re-install it just to make microsoft happy. My system works good enough for me. If it aint broke, why fix it? Only double glazing salesmen and bible-bashers will argue differently :eek:

One good example is my mother-in-law, who bought a PC from PCWORLD which had Vista on it, but only 512 MB ram. It ran like a dog, so I installed XP on it for her. It still ran bad, but not half as bad as Vista. That was 6 months ago, Maybe Vista has improved since then, but possession is nine-tenths of the law, and I'm not about to go through the hastle of re-installing Vista on it because she's quite happy with the system as it is. Again, why fix it if it aint broke?

I;m actually thinking of re-installing XP64 on all my XP32 PCs because Windows Update no longer works on them. OK, I have a fix for it, but it means having to back out all the service packs 1st. A reall ba!!-ACHE. :mad:

So you see I'm not a blind die-hard XP fanatic who can't see any bad in it, I just want a nice easy life without having to spend a shed-load of cash to make something work smoothly on my existing hardware.

Can you see any circuitous patterns emerging in this discussion? :D

[djt1]

If that's all changed then fine. But I still don't want to buy it. Maybe that's all changed, but I'm still not going to re-install it just to make microsoft happy.

That pretty much sums it up and goes back to justifying your wallet and your personal decision doesn’t it?

I don’t install a new OS to make Microsoft happy; I install it to get the most out of my system which makes me happy.


If it aint broke, why fix it?


If I had taken that approach to computers I wouldn’t have learned anything about them. It’s more like “it’s not broke, but I can make it better”.

By the way why would automatic updates just stop working?

[zarker99]

That pretty much sums it up and goes back to justifying your wallet and your personal decision doesn’t it?.

What's wrong with that? Lots of people have limited budgets. Or are you calling us XP users tight-fisted now as well as stupid, un-enlightened bull-headed stick-in-the-muds? :D




If I had taken that approach to computers I wouldn’t have learned anything about them. It’s more like “it’s not broke, but I can make it better”.

By the way why would automatic updates just stop working?

Apparently quite a few reasons. And there's quite a few different fixes. The one which worked for one of my PCs was having to uninstall all the service packs and installing WindowsXP-KB842773-v2-x86-enu.exe

[TrirailF40PHL]

What's wrong with that? Lots of people have limited budgets. Or are you calling us XP users tight-fisted now as well as stupid, un-enlightened bull-headed stick-in-the-muds? :D

I'm getting that feeling myself.

-Kurt

[djt1]

What's wrong with that? Lots of people have limited budgets. Or are you calling us XP users tight-fisted now as well as stupid

There’s nothing wrong with that, but justifying not being able to upgrade to something new does not make Vista inferior to XP.

As a matter of fact just saying from the beginning, “I haven’t tried or upgraded to Vista because it’s not in my budget at this time”, isn’t that easy?

What is “stupid” is making assumptions, and then stating it as fact without ever having any experience with the subject to begin with.



Apparently quite a few reasons. And there's quite a few different fixes. The one which worked for one of my PCs was having to uninstall all the service packs and installing WindowsXP-KB842773-v2-x86-enu.exe


With the three copies of XP/Pro I have I must have reinstalled and reactivated them at least a hundred times and never had any problems getting Windows updates. Have you tried on a fresh OS install? Are these legitimate copies of XP?

[zarker99]

So have I. But since SP3 I've been having these problems. Like I say, I have a fix, but wondering if there's any milage in trying XP64 again.

And yes, they are all legal :) And these aren't blacklisting problems. (at least, not on the one which is now fixed. Possibly I've mixed up the installation CDs on the other two. only an attempted use of the fix will determine that).

[djt1]

So have I. But since SP3 I've been having these problems. Like I say, I have a fix, but wondering if there's any milage in trying XP64 again.

And yes, they are all legal :) And these aren't blacklisting problems. (at least, not on the one which is now fixed).

How did you install SP3, was it on a clean XP OS or did you install through Windows updates over a previous installation of Windows?

As far as XP 64 Bit goes, the drivers really never have matched what we already have for Vista 64. What are the specs on this machine?

[zarker99]

first update was over an existing installation. can't say I noticed the problem after that one, but then I only let windows update on auto.

I've clean installed all three over the last month or so, that's when I noticed it, as the manual windows update prompts to install SP3 before anything else. A few uopdates worked ok after SP3 - namely the urgent security updates and .NET 1 & 2. But the security fixes for .NET 1.1 failed, and so did all subsequent ones,

Two PCs have identical specs, but no idea about the third. Its been a good few years since i built it.

The two good ones I spent a lot of money on, and got the best stuff (all things considered) availabke at the time. I made my choice of equipment based on Nvidia's SLI compatible spec guide, hoping to tap into their 'auto performance boost' feature (something I can't say I've noticed).

mobo: Gigabyte Ga-M59sli-S5
CPU: AMd AM2 5000+ x2
RAM: 2gb (forget make - but expensive).
PSU: Silverstone ST75ZF
GPU: Gigabyte Nvidia 7950 GX2 1gb
HDD: samsung 500gb
SOUND: Creative audigy2 ZS analog

Few problems on the mobo. 'Ocassionally' get DMI update protection BSOD STOP D1 status. Since flashing it to F8 am now always getting DMI UPDATE SUCCESSFULL msg 'every' time it boots up.

[djt1]

first update was over an existing installation. can't say I noticed the problem after that one, but then I only let windows update on auto.

I've clean installed all three over the last month or so, that's when I noticed it, as the manual windows update prompts to install SP3 before anything else. A few uopdates worked ok after SP3 - namely the urgent security updates and .NET 1 & 2. But the security fixes for .NET 1.1 failed, and so did all subsequent ones,





zarker99,

I’ve done five or six reformats with SP3 this past month for customers as well as my own machines. If it’s possible I would suggest you install the redistributable on a fresh OS install.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=5B33B5A8-5E76-401F-BE08-1E1555D4F3D4&displaylang=en

I stay away from Windows update as far as service packs go and I always install them on a fresh/full reformat; I haven’t had any
problems yet.

On a clean corruption free machine I download all the latest drivers along with the service pack and burn them to CD/DVD.

Right after the full reformat I install the latest service pack followed by the chipset drivers, latest DirectX update and then the network adapter drivers. After this I connect to Windows updates and install the latest updates. When that’s complete I install the video card and sound card drivers.

An excellent guide to installing Windows can be found here –

http://www.abxzone.com/forums/f41/operating-system-software-installation-guide-34558.html


With a little modification it works great for Vista also.

I also have found this to be a decent guide also –

http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/installxp/installXP1.htm

http://www.tweakhound.com/vista/installguide.htm

[zarker99]

Yep - that's more or less the order I install windows. From a similar guide.

Just a quick question, because I think I know where I'm getting my problem. Do you just install SP3, without SP2 first? Cos I install SP2 from a downloaded redist, then sp3 from windows update (cos I thought it was just a few most common security updates bundld together and given the bloated title of Service pack).

I'm getting a sinking feeling that SP3 would also install all of SP1 & SP2 too, if i let it... :eek:

haha

My problem is down to corrupted service pack files - so looks like its a chair-keyboard interface error :D

Nice idea putting all your files onto a dvd first. Thanks for the help :)

[djt1]

Just a quick question, because I think I know where I'm getting my problem. Do you just install SP3, without SP2 first? Cos I install SP2 from a downloaded redist, then sp3 from windows update (cos I thought it was just a few most common security updates bundld together and given the bloated title of Service pack).



zarker99,

We should probably take this over to the “PC Tech” section, but you can install that SP3 redistributable on a SP1 or SP2 copy of Windows XP. Just remember to use Windows Update after the SP3 installation as there have been more updates since the SP3 release.

One other thing I forgot to mention is to make sure that you only have your keyboard, mouse and obviously your monitor plugged in your machine during the reformat process. Do not leave your internet cable plugged in during the reformat, the less exposure to the internet until the service pack is installed the better.

[USRailFan]

Wouldn't the best solution be to "slipstream" the Service Packs into the Windows Install routine, and then burn that to a new bootable CD/DVD?

[djt1]

Wouldn't the best solution be to "slipstream" the Service Packs into the Windows Install routine, and then burn that to a new bootable CD/DVD?

Sure you can use nLite, which works great by the way –

http://www.nliteos.com/download.html

Before I started using Vista 64/SP1 exclusively I used this with my dual boot machine and on reformats for customer’s computers.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116515