How Many Use Windows 2000?

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Just an informal poll: how many here are using either Windows
2000 or Windows 2003 for playing FS2004?

The recent upgrade to Reality-XP's Garmin GPS is now Windows XP
only. Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
5% market share, they decided to only support XP. What is even
a worse development is that Dreamfleet's latest airplane only
supports Windows XP (probably because it uses the Reality Garmin,
but they refuse to disclose why). When you ask Reality what API
they use in Windows XP that is not present in Windows 2000, they
refuse to answer claiming it is "proprietary". (How can
Microsoft's public API be proprietary to the vendor that uses
it?!)

I tried to start a thread on Dreamfleet's support forum, but
their policy appears to be to simply answer "tough" and then lock
down the thread so no one can say anything further. They
encourage people to "upgrade" to Windows XP, which is of course a
non-sequitor considering that Windows XP is a consumer system and
Windows 2000 is a more robust OS with a superset of the basic OS
and APIs found in Windows XP.

Before I go out and blow another $1500 to buy a Windows XP
computer just to play FS2004, and before I spend another 40 hours
of my life re-installing the 20 other aircraft and hardware
add-ons to the toy operating system, I just want to be convinced
that very few people are running anything else but Windows XP.
Having a separate computer for FS2004 is probably not a bad thing
in any case, as I can keep the configuration simple and focused,
but if there are any other Windows 2000 users out there I would
like to hear from you.

--
Will
Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com
76 answers Last reply
More about windows 2000
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:59:35 -0800, "Will"
    <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> brought the following to our
    attention:

    Will.. the 85% market comes from where? New sales? Really now.. I'll
    bet a LOT of companies still have Win2000-based departments. Back in
    1998 I predicted both verbally and in writing that continuously up-
    grading hardware, software... and the support to straighten out issues
    would WIPE the profits from a company.

    Personally I witnessed a company that was mired in serious and
    unresolved WinNT/95/95 system and office problems that were killing
    their bottom line. So then.. let's venture to say that quite a few
    LARGE organizations are still using 2000. (any more data on this?)


    * * * *

    Personally.. am quite happy with a Win2000 Advanced Server and
    5-client Wkstn License.. and run the Server on a BIG boat-anchor of
    a box with 6-bay horizontal SCSI cage in front. Not to mention a dual
    Xeon Workstation which is the main-line machine! Here's the `Lab'..


    http://home.comcast.net/~g-abbey/dual_Sim.jpg (dual 21" tubes)

    * notice Sidewinder Precision 2, and mini-stick (arrow) for spoilers


    As for DF.. installing one of their latest packages in Win2000 Pro
    damaged the OS to a `near re-install' condition. (see post in this NG)
    With some Admin tricks and Recovery Console.. was able to repair the
    OS fully. T-o-M for instance works ok now.. but like you said.. NOT
    ready to shell out 1'000s of $$ for a new LAN and OS license.


    This isn't a rag on DF.. just a reply in support of the Win2000 OS.


    -Gregory


    p.s. been wanting to post that pic.. just had to find it!! :)

    ----------
    >Just an informal poll: how many here are using either Windows
    >2000 or Windows 2003 for playing FS2004?
    >
    >The recent upgrade to Reality-XP's Garmin GPS is now Windows XP
    >only. Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    >5% market share, they decided to only support XP. What is even
    >a worse development is that Dreamfleet's latest airplane only
    >supports Windows XP (probably because it uses the Reality Garmin,
    >but they refuse to disclose why). When you ask Reality what API
    >they use in Windows XP that is not present in Windows 2000, they
    >refuse to answer claiming it is "proprietary". (How can
    >Microsoft's public API be proprietary to the vendor that uses
    >it?!)
    >
    >I tried to start a thread on Dreamfleet's support forum, but
    >their policy appears to be to simply answer "tough" and then lock
    >down the thread so no one can say anything further. They
    >encourage people to "upgrade" to Windows XP, which is of course a
    >non-sequitor considering that Windows XP is a consumer system and
    >Windows 2000 is a more robust OS with a superset of the basic OS
    >and APIs found in Windows XP.
    >
    >Before I go out and blow another $1500 to buy a Windows XP
    >computer just to play FS2004, and before I spend another 40 hours
    >of my life re-installing the 20 other aircraft and hardware
    >add-ons to the toy operating system, I just want to be convinced
    >that very few people are running anything else but Windows XP.
    >Having a separate computer for FS2004 is probably not a bad thing
    >in any case, as I can keep the configuration simple and focused,
    >but if there are any other Windows 2000 users out there I would
    >like to hear from you.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in message
    news:t8WdnSfCffyVTKjfRVn-1A@giganews.com...
    > Just an informal poll: how many here are using either Windows
    > 2000 or Windows 2003 for playing FS2004?

    I use W2K Pro on my only computer.

    > The recent upgrade to Reality-XP's Garmin GPS is now Windows XP
    > only. Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    > 5% market share, they decided to only support XP. What is even
    > a worse development is that Dreamfleet's latest airplane only
    > supports Windows XP (probably because it uses the Reality Garmin,
    > but they refuse to disclose why). When you ask Reality what API
    > they use in Windows XP that is not present in Windows 2000, they
    > refuse to answer claiming it is "proprietary". (How can
    > Microsoft's public API be proprietary to the vendor that uses
    > it?!)

    Guess I'll avoid those products, then. Oh well, they sounded nice, but
    if they won't work with my OS...

    --
    Earl Needham
    Clovis, New Mexico USA
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com>
    Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:59:35 -0800

    Newsgroups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim
    Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 11:59 AM
    Subject: How Many Use Windows 2000?

    Just an informal poll: how many here are using either Windows
    2000 or Windows 2003 for playing FS2004?

    Count me for one.

    The recent upgrade to Reality-XP's Garmin GPS is now Windows XP
    only. Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    5% market share, they decided to only support XP...

    I have a hard time believing that XP has 85% of the market share and
    that Windows 2000 only has 5%. Since the last I had heard the
    Windows 9x (including ME) still has about 50% of the market share.

    ... I tried to start a thread on Dreamfleet's support forum,
    but their policy appears to be to simply answer "tough" and
    then lock down the thread so no one can say anything further.
    They encourage people to "upgrade" to Windows XP, which is of
    course a non-sequitor considering that Windows XP is a consumer
    system and Windows 2000 is a more robust OS with a superset of
    the basic OS and APIs found in Windows XP.

    I don't like the sound of that!

    Before I go out and blow another $1500 to buy a Windows XP
    computer just to play FS2004, and before I spend another 40
    hours of my life re-installing the 20 other aircraft and
    hardware add-ons to the toy operating system, I just want to be
    convinced that very few people are running anything else but
    Windows XP. Having a separate computer for FS2004 is probably
    not a bad thing in any case, as I can keep the configuration
    simple and focused, but if there are any other Windows 2000
    users out there I would like to hear from you.

    Well count me in! I've told people who have XP to go ahead and
    install SP2. And in every case I have been called out to fix them.
    And XP SP2 was removed to restore them back to operational state
    once again. XP SP2 has some good things, but it only allows all or
    nothing. That is so sad! I'm glad that I still only use Windows 2000
    here.


    Cheers!


    ________________________________________________________
    Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Will wrote:
    > Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    > 5% market share, they decided to only support XP.

    Where did those statistics come from? I know loads of people on Windows
    2000, I reckon the percentage is higher than that.

    Huw
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Here is the thread I started on the Flightsim forum asking why
    did they fail to support Windows 2000:

    http://forums.flightsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID33/86.html

    They refer to the statistics I am quoting in the thread.

    From what I understand the Dreamfleet airplane runs under Windows
    2000. They just don't support it. The problem is that Reality
    XP actively *blocks* Windows 2000. Not supporting is one thing.
    Deliberately crippling is quite another, and it seems just petty.
    He is going to make people spend thousands of dollars to buy new
    hardware and run a second OS just to avoid three or four days of
    programming?

    --
    Will
    Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com


    "Huw Roberts" <f@ke.com> wrote in message
    news:uYkZd.21046$3A6.625@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
    > Will wrote:
    > > Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    > > 5% market share, they decided to only support XP.
    >
    > Where did those statistics come from? I know loads of people
    on Windows
    > 2000, I reckon the percentage is higher than that.
    >
    > Huw
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Huw Roberts" <f@ke.com> wrote in message
    news:uYkZd.21046$3A6.625@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
    > Will wrote:
    > > Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    > > 5% market share, they decided to only support XP.
    >
    > Where did those statistics come from? I know loads of people on Windows
    > 2000, I reckon the percentage is higher than that.
    >
    > Huw
    count me i nIuse win 2000 pro only on all my computers

    John
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I work for the main power distributor in my state (NSW Australia) and
    every one of the thousands of PCs and laptops they use runs Windows
    2000 Pro.I'm not sure if this is for reliability or that they just got
    the licences cheap and are too stingy to upgrade

    Bryan

    _________________________________________________________
    Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://forums.simradar.com
    Visit www.simradar.com and try our Flight Simulation Search Engine!
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Will wrote:
    > Just an informal poll: how many here are using either Windows
    > 2000 or Windows 2003 for playing FS2004?
    >
    > The recent upgrade to Reality-XP's Garmin GPS is now Windows XP
    > only. Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    > 5% market share, they decided to only support XP.

    <snip>

    I'm guessing here, but maybe they are referring to the home PC market? I'm
    sure lots of business users have 2000 on their machines, but not so many
    home users perhaps? Even so, those figures still seem a bit skewed.

    Tim
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
    news:t8WdnSfCffyVTKjfRVn-1A@giganews.com:

    > Just an informal poll: how many here are using either Windows
    > 2000 or Windows 2003 for playing FS2004?
    >
    > The recent upgrade to Reality-XP's Garmin GPS is now Windows XP
    > only. Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    > 5% market share, they decided to only support XP. What is even
    > a worse development is that Dreamfleet's latest airplane only
    > supports Windows XP (probably because it uses the Reality Garmin,
    > but they refuse to disclose why). When you ask Reality what API
    > they use in Windows XP that is not present in Windows 2000, they
    > refuse to answer claiming it is "proprietary". (How can
    > Microsoft's public API be proprietary to the vendor that uses
    > it?!)
    >
    > I tried to start a thread on Dreamfleet's support forum, but
    > their policy appears to be to simply answer "tough" and then lock
    > down the thread so no one can say anything further. They
    > encourage people to "upgrade" to Windows XP, which is of course a
    > non-sequitor considering that Windows XP is a consumer system and
    > Windows 2000 is a more robust OS with a superset of the basic OS
    > and APIs found in Windows XP.
    >
    > Before I go out and blow another $1500 to buy a Windows XP
    > computer just to play FS2004, and before I spend another 40 hours
    > of my life re-installing the 20 other aircraft and hardware
    > add-ons to the toy operating system, I just want to be convinced
    > that very few people are running anything else but Windows XP.
    > Having a separate computer for FS2004 is probably not a bad thing
    > in any case, as I can keep the configuration simple and focused,
    > but if there are any other Windows 2000 users out there I would
    > like to hear from you.
    >

    My hand's in the air.

    O.T., but a rant irregardless ...Am stuck with Adobe Premier 6.0, 'cause
    the newest version only supports XP. Can you say discrimination? Am I
    living in the past?

    --
    e v e n S k y

    Athlon 266Ghz
    1 G Ram
    GeForce FX5900XT
    160G H-D
    80G H-D
    W2K, FS9
    Wingman Strike force 3D AND....
    Newly Acquired....
    CH Products Yoke and Rud Ped's
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Will"
    > They refer to the statistics I am quoting in the thread.

    From the 2004 Avsim survey:

    Windows 95 0% (0)

    Windows 98, 98SE 5.9% (90)

    Windows ME 1.1% (17)

    Windows NT 0.3% (5)

    Windows XP Home / XP Pro 87.1% (1326)

    Windows 2000 5.4% (82)

    The survey size is only 1522 responses... you might have an argument with
    the small sample size. You might also argue out of (guessing) 20,000
    sales 5.4% represents 1080 lost customers and that's $25 grand gross in lost
    sales.

    Money talks.

    Dallas
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
    news:iAmZd.8837$oO4.2667@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:35:26 GMT

    "Will"

    > They refer to the statistics I am quoting in the thread.

    From the 2004 Avsim survey:

    Windows 95 0% (0)

    Windows 95 hasn't been updated as far as Windows Updates since the
    late 2000's. As far as modern hardware, it isn't so good. But I
    still have one machine (not connectioned to the Internet) that still
    runs Windows 95 (no MS FS though).

    Windows 98, 98SE 5.9% (90)

    I have a hard time believing that this number as I believe it is too
    low.

    Windows ME 1.1% (17)

    This is an odd ball OS from MS. Some "hate" it and some "love" it.
    Rumors have it it MS spent too much time on Windows 2000 and not
    enough time on ME.

    Windows NT 0.3% (5)

    No experience here whatsoever.

    Windows XP Home / XP Pro 87.1% (1326)

    It's big, but I doubt if it is that big!

    Windows 2000 5.4% (82)

    That is hard to believe. Since Windows 2000 in many ways is better
    than Windows XP.

    The survey size is only 1522 responses... you might have an
    argument with the small sample size. You might also argue out
    of (guessing) 20,000 sales 5.4% represents 1080 lost customers
    and that's $25 grand gross in lost sales.

    Money talks.

    Dallas

    Well I don't know about the above... but I only know about those
    that I know of.


    Cheers!


    ________________________________________________________
    Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    BillW50 wrote:

    > Well count me in! I've told people who have XP to go ahead and
    > install SP2. And in every case I have been called out to fix them.
    > And XP SP2 was removed to restore them back to operational state
    > once again. XP SP2 has some good things, but it only allows all or
    > nothing. That is so sad! I'm glad that I still only use Windows 2000
    > here.

    Hey Bill.... Are you saying *not* to install XP SP2????

    Every time I start my computer the balloon pops up telling me I have an
    update to install. I always click the X :)

    --

    boB

    U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Will wrote:

    > Try signing up on Dreamfleet's forum and start a new thread
    > making the request. They aren't going to listen to me, that's
    > clear. It's only if many Windows 2000 users get in their face
    > and make a stink that they are going to understand isn't just
    > used by three geeks in a closet.
    >
    > http://forums.flightsim.com/dcforum/DCForumID33/86.html


    Will, I read the whole thread. Am I correct in reading that the majority
    of user complaints logged on their Web page was from Win XP users? It
    seems THAT should tell them something. I won't be buying anything from
    them.

    --

    boB

    U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I'm with you, but tell that to them in their public forum. I think they
    are going to need to hear from 20 W2K users before they believe they aren't
    all living in my house. :)

    --
    Will


    "boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
    news:gNoZd.14291$U_4.1524@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > Will, I read the whole thread. Am I correct in reading that the majority
    > of user complaints logged on their Web page was from Win XP users? It
    > seems THAT should tell them something. I won't be buying anything from
    > them.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    boB wrote:

    > Hey Bill.... Are you saying *not* to install XP SP2????
    >
    > Every time I start my computer the balloon pops up telling me I have an
    > update to install. I always click the X :)
    >

    Installing SP2 only broke Norton Antivirus for me. That wasn't a
    problem though, as I was planning on switching virus scanners anyway and
    that was the kick I needed. :)

    Huw
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Huw Roberts wrote:

    > boB wrote:
    >
    >> Hey Bill.... Are you saying *not* to install XP SP2????
    >>
    >> Every time I start my computer the balloon pops up telling me I have
    >> an update to install. I always click the X :)
    >>
    >
    > Installing SP2 only broke Norton Antivirus for me. That wasn't a
    > problem though, as I was planning on switching virus scanners anyway and
    > that was the kick I needed. :)
    >
    > Huw

    I switched over to AVG Free and am as pleased as punch!

    --

    boB

    U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
    Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    boB wrote:
    > BillW50 wrote:
    >
    >> Well count me in! I've told people who have XP to go ahead and
    >> install SP2. And in every case I have been called out to fix them.
    >> And XP SP2 was removed to restore them back to operational state
    >> once again. XP SP2 has some good things, but it only allows all or
    >> nothing. That is so sad! I'm glad that I still only use Windows 2000
    >> here.
    >
    >
    > Hey Bill.... Are you saying *not* to install XP SP2????
    >
    > Every time I start my computer the balloon pops up telling me I have an
    > update to install. I always click the X :)
    >

    I installed sp2 and half of my programs quit working. So I uninstalled
    it real quick. All the fixes to Windows sure make The Linux on my dual
    boot look good.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:52:39 GMT, boB <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom>
    wrote:

    >BillW50 wrote:
    >
    >> Well count me in! I've told people who have XP to go ahead and
    >> install SP2. And in every case I have been called out to fix them.
    >> And XP SP2 was removed to restore them back to operational state
    >> once again. XP SP2 has some good things, but it only allows all or
    >> nothing. That is so sad! I'm glad that I still only use Windows 2000
    >> here.
    >
    >Hey Bill.... Are you saying *not* to install XP SP2????
    >
    >Every time I start my computer the balloon pops up telling me I have an
    >update to install. I always click the X :)

    On the PC I just replaced, SP2 brought my frame rates down in half and
    caused the audio to stutter. Uninstall left it the same way. Luckily
    system restore fixed it.

    Bob
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
    news:XAoZd.14287$U_4.3224@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:52:39 GMT

    BillW50 wrote:

    > Well count me in! I've told people who have XP to go ahead and
    > install SP2. And in every case I have been called out to fix them.
    > And XP SP2 was removed to restore them back to operational state
    > once again. XP SP2 has some good things, but it only allows all or
    > nothing. That is so sad! I'm glad that I still only use Windows 2000
    > here.

    Hey Bill.... Are you saying *not* to install XP SP2????

    Yeap! That is what I am saying.

    Every time I start my computer the balloon pops up telling me I
    have an update to install. I always click the X :)

    Good deal boB! On the Kim Commando show (on the radio), she claims
    that corporate America has to install SP2 like by April 16th. That
    will be fun for sure.


    Cheers!


    ________________________________________________________
    Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    BillW50 wrote:
    > "boB" <akitaREMOVECAPS77@excite.Icom> wrote in message
    > news:XAoZd.14287$U_4.3224@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:52:39 GMT
    >
    > BillW50 wrote:
    >
    >> Well count me in! I've told people who have XP to go ahead and
    >> install SP2. And in every case I have been called out to fix them.
    >> And XP SP2 was removed to restore them back to operational state
    >> once again. XP SP2 has some good things, but it only allows all or
    >> nothing. That is so sad! I'm glad that I still only use Windows 2000
    >> here.
    >
    > Hey Bill.... Are you saying *not* to install XP SP2????
    >
    > Yeap! That is what I am saying.
    >
    > Every time I start my computer the balloon pops up telling me I
    > have an update to install. I always click the X :)
    >
    > Good deal boB! On the Kim Commando show (on the radio), she claims
    > that corporate America has to install SP2 like by April 16th. That
    > will be fun for sure.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Cheers!
    >
    >
    > ________________________________________________________
    > Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    > -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0


    I honestly am suprised there are so many that still have not installed SP2,
    if nothing else for the security reasons. I peruse the XP forums on the MS
    server, and continue to see a bunch of folks that are talking about
    installing SP2.
    I guess I am just one that likes to keep updated best I can.

    I will say, I had no trouble with it, and in fact, my XP Pro system seemed
    to be a little more robust afterwards. But I did take all the necessary
    precautions and made sure my system was cleaned, tuned, spyware free, and
    ready for SP2.

    Heck, I'm even now running dual boot with XP Pro 64 RC2, and both are doing
    well. . :)


    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:q8jc319ttbvsnjti35bbt2c52q3274542s@4ax.com...
    Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:49:54 GMT

    On the PC I just replaced, SP2 brought my frame rates down in
    half and caused the audio to stutter. Uninstall left it the
    same way. Luckily system restore fixed it.

    Hi Bob... I haven't heard that one yet. But I wouldn't doubt it. I'm
    still waiting to hear from anybody who just loves SP2. But so far,
    nobody.


    Cheers!


    ________________________________________________________
    Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message news:5rmdnaxdTOLd_qvfRVn-gQ@giganews.com...
    Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:23:27 -0600

    I honestly am suprised there are so many that still have not
    installed SP2, if nothing else for the security reasons.

    In my experience, SP2 only has modest security. Meaning those that
    has none.

    I peruse the XP forums on the MS server, and continue to see a
    bunch of folks that are talking about installing SP2.

    It is like 75MB in size and changes the OS drastically.

    I guess I am just one that likes to keep updated best I can.

    Careful! As not all updates are a good thing! I used to take meds
    for high blood pressure. But mine was only borderline. Although they
    had made me dopey. As I couldn't remember the last 2 minutes. And
    they only worked for about 2 weeks and then my blood pressure
    returned to my norm anyway. So I quit taking them. Later two of them
    where taken off of the market for killing people. While I know of no
    software that will shorten your life, but it works about the same.

    I will say, I had no trouble with it, and in fact, my XP Pro
    system seemed to be a little more robust afterwards. But I did
    take all the necessary precautions and made sure my system was
    cleaned, tuned, spyware free, and ready for SP2.

    Well you are the first! Although those that had a cleaned system to
    begin with really don't need SP2. As SP2 is only useful for those
    that don't.

    Heck, I'm even now running dual boot with XP Pro 64 RC2, and
    both are doing well. . :)

    You seem to be a big upgrade fan. I rather wait and buy last years
    new technology stuff at a big discount.


    Cheers!


    ________________________________________________________
    Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    BillW50 wrote:
    > "Don Burnette" <d.burnette@clothes.comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:5rmdnaxdTOLd_qvfRVn-gQ@giganews.com...
    > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:23:27 -0600
    >
    > I honestly am suprised there are so many that still have not
    > installed SP2, if nothing else for the security reasons.
    >
    > In my experience, SP2 only has modest security. Meaning those that
    > has none.
    >
    > I peruse the XP forums on the MS server, and continue to see a
    > bunch of folks that are talking about installing SP2.
    >
    > It is like 75MB in size and changes the OS drastically.
    >
    > I guess I am just one that likes to keep updated best I can.
    >
    > Careful! As not all updates are a good thing! I used to take meds
    > for high blood pressure. But mine was only borderline. Although they
    > had made me dopey. As I couldn't remember the last 2 minutes. And
    > they only worked for about 2 weeks and then my blood pressure
    > returned to my norm anyway. So I quit taking them. Later two of them
    > where taken off of the market for killing people. While I know of no
    > software that will shorten your life, but it works about the same.
    >
    > I will say, I had no trouble with it, and in fact, my XP Pro
    > system seemed to be a little more robust afterwards. But I did
    > take all the necessary precautions and made sure my system was
    > cleaned, tuned, spyware free, and ready for SP2.
    >
    > Well you are the first! Although those that had a cleaned system to
    > begin with really don't need SP2. As SP2 is only useful for those
    > that don't.
    >
    > Heck, I'm even now running dual boot with XP Pro 64 RC2, and
    > both are doing well. . :)
    >
    > You seem to be a big upgrade fan. I rather wait and buy last years
    > new technology stuff at a big discount.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Cheers!
    >
    >
    > ________________________________________________________
    > Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    > -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0


    LOL, yeah, I guess I am at that. I ain't happy unless I am tinkering with
    something on this dang machine! I do try and stay a little behind anyways to
    give me something to look foward too - holding out on upgrading my 9800 Pro,
    and I know it is a bottleneck in my system right now..

    To me, it seems like SP2 was a really major update to the OS, millions of
    line of code were changed, a lot of things to it's core that we don't see I
    am sure.


    --
    Don Burnette

    "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
    way of the man that's doing it."
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    boB wrote:

    > I switched over to AVG Free and am as pleased as punch!
    >

    Same here! :)

    Huw
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    I just love SP2. Had problem with it installing an older version of my video driver and sound driver. But I just
    installed after that and all was good.

    --
    ....Carl Frisk
    Anger is a brief madness.
    - Horace, 20 B.C.
    http://www.carlfrisk.com


    "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message news:AdtZd.5271$ZB6.1790@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

    "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:q8jc319ttbvsnjti35bbt2c52q3274542s@4ax.com...
    Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:49:54 GMT

    On the PC I just replaced, SP2 brought my frame rates down in
    half and caused the audio to stutter. Uninstall left it the
    same way. Luckily system restore fixed it.

    Hi Bob... I haven't heard that one yet. But I wouldn't doubt it. I'm
    still waiting to hear from anybody who just loves SP2. But so far,
    nobody.


    Cheers!


    ________________________________________________________
    Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    -- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    If you already have a good firewall, and virus protect running, you
    need SP2 like a fish needs a bicycle.

    Bob


    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:09:04 GMT, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

    >
    >"Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    >news:q8jc319ttbvsnjti35bbt2c52q3274542s@4ax.com...
    >Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:49:54 GMT
    >
    > On the PC I just replaced, SP2 brought my frame rates down in
    > half and caused the audio to stutter. Uninstall left it the
    > same way. Luckily system restore fixed it.
    >
    >Hi Bob... I haven't heard that one yet. But I wouldn't doubt it. I'm
    >still waiting to hear from anybody who just loves SP2. But so far,
    >nobody.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Cheers!
    >
    >
    >________________________________________________________
    >Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    >-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Not quite true. There are a lot of under the hood security fixes (unpublished for security reasons) not in SP1 that are
    incorporated in SP2. And a few recent updates that only work with SP2 that you should have also. Some of these fixes
    are for security problems that have nothing to do with firewalls. Saying you don't need SP2 is just plain bad security
    advice. Granted some of the fixes are IPSEC related and domain related and don't apply to the home user, but some are
    generic to all machines.

    On the W2K topic I really like that OS. But you need to be a bit savvy on OS security to really use it safely.
    Anything prior to W2K I don't bother with.

    Think about it, all the cells in your body have replaced themselves since WIN98 came out.

    --
    ....Carl Frisk
    Anger is a brief madness.
    - Horace, 20 B.C.
    http://www.carlfrisk.com


    "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:rhed31tr6pke2mq1hfmesdb2hp46oa05nn@4ax.com...
    >
    > If you already have a good firewall, and virus protect running, you
    > need SP2 like a fish needs a bicycle.
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:09:04 GMT, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    >>news:q8jc319ttbvsnjti35bbt2c52q3274542s@4ax.com...
    >>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 02:49:54 GMT
    >>
    >> On the PC I just replaced, SP2 brought my frame rates down in
    >> half and caused the audio to stutter. Uninstall left it the
    >> same way. Luckily system restore fixed it.
    >>
    >>Hi Bob... I haven't heard that one yet. But I wouldn't doubt it. I'm
    >>still waiting to hear from anybody who just loves SP2. But so far,
    >>nobody.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Cheers!
    >>
    >>
    >>________________________________________________________
    >>Bill (using a HP Pavilion AMD 1.2GHZ under Windows 2000)
    >>-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0
    >
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:49:01 GMT, "Carl Frisk"
    <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote:

    >Not quite true. There are a lot of under the hood security fixes (unpublished for security reasons) not in SP1 that are
    >incorporated in SP2. And a few recent updates that only work with SP2 that you should have also. Some of these fixes
    >are for security problems that have nothing to do with firewalls. Saying you don't need SP2 is just plain bad security
    >advice. Granted some of the fixes are IPSEC related and domain related and don't apply to the home user, but some are
    >generic to all machines.
    >
    >On the W2K topic I really like that OS. But you need to be a bit savvy on OS security to really use it safely.
    >Anything prior to W2K I don't bother with.
    >
    >Think about it, all the cells in your body have replaced themselves since WIN98 came out.


    According to our Worldwide Company IT people, SP2 is not necessary,
    if you have good firewall's and security in place. Microsoft admits
    that about 15% of people that install SP2 will have problems with it.
    If you had a chance to have cosmetic surgery, and the Doctor told you
    that there was a 15% risk of something going very wrong, would you
    consider that a good gamble? I wouldn't.

    Bob
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:49:01 GMT, "Carl Frisk"
    <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote:

    >Not quite true. There are a lot of under the hood security fixes (unpublished for security reasons) not in SP1 that are
    >incorporated in SP2. And a few recent updates that only work with SP2 that you should have also. Some of these fixes
    >are for security problems that have nothing to do with firewalls. Saying you don't need SP2 is just plain bad security
    >advice. Granted some of the fixes are IPSEC related and domain related and don't apply to the home user, but some are
    >generic to all machines.
    >
    >On the W2K topic I really like that OS. But you need to be a bit savvy on OS security to really use it safely.
    >Anything prior to W2K I don't bother with.
    >
    >Think about it, all the cells in your body have replaced themselves since WIN98 came out.


    http://support.microsoft.com/?id=884130

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=842242

    Just some examples of some of the issues that pop up.

    Bob
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "evenSky" <evensky1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns9619D1D16BEB1evenskycomcastnet@216.196.97.136...
    > "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in
    > news:t8WdnSfCffyVTKjfRVn-1A@giganews.com:
    >
    >> Just an informal poll: how many here are using either Windows
    >> 2000 or Windows 2003 for playing FS2004?
    >>
    Remarkably (for me) I have had no issues with SP2 but I did install it as
    part of a new insatllation so that may have avoided some problems! This
    was a couple of months ago since I decided to wait and let others sort out
    problems! My feedback from the IT world is that it has been mostly well
    received.
    However, FS2004 is on a separate scsi drive which is W2000!

    Chris
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Carl Frisk"
    > Think about it, all the cells in your body have replaced themselves since
    WIN98 came out.

    I've got a few in my brain that didn't come back. <G>

    Dalli
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:59:35 -0800, Will wrote:

    > The recent upgrade to Reality-XP's Garmin GPS is now Windows XP
    > only. Because XP has 85% market share and Windows 2K has only
    > 5% market share, they decided to only support XP. What is even
    > a worse development is that Dreamfleet's latest airplane only
    > supports Windows XP (probably because it uses the Reality Garmin,
    > but they refuse to disclose why). When you ask Reality what API
    > they use in Windows XP that is not present in Windows 2000, they
    > refuse to answer claiming it is "proprietary". (How can
    > Microsoft's public API be proprietary to the vendor that uses
    > it?!)

    There are a lot of advanced features in the FS engine that simply aren't
    supported by Win2000, WinME or Win98SE. Specifically, Win2k doesn't
    support the FS implentation of GDI+ at all, which is what most of the newer
    gauge programming uses, including Reality XP. The Avidyne Entegra system
    featured in ESDG's Cirrus SR20G2 currently under development will likewise
    be limited to WinXP or later systems.

    Bill
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:26:44 -0800, Will wrote:

    > From what I understand the Dreamfleet airplane runs under Windows
    > 2000. They just don't support it. The problem is that Reality
    > XP actively *blocks* Windows 2000. Not supporting is one thing.
    > Deliberately crippling is quite another, and it seems just petty.
    > He is going to make people spend thousands of dollars to buy new
    > hardware and run a second OS just to avoid three or four days of
    > programming?

    As I stated previously, it isn't a simple matter of "three or four days of
    programming." The new version of GDI+ available in WinXP simply isn't
    supported by earlier versions build on the .NT core:

    "GDI+. Graphics Device Interface Plus (GDI+) is the portion of Microsoft
    Windows.NET that provides two-dimensional vector graphics, imaging, and
    typography. GDI+ improves on GDI (the graphics device interface included
    with earlier versions of Windows) by adding new features and by optimizing
    existing features."

    Now it is certainly POSSIBLE for Win2k users to utilize the newest
    releases, IF the user is willing and able to do a little work:

    "Where Applicable
    GDI+ can be used in all Windows-based applications. GDI+ is new technology
    that is included in Windows XP and the Windows Server 2003. It is required
    as a redistributable for applications that run on the Microsoft Windows NT
    4.0 SP6, Windows 2000, Windows 98, and Windows Millennium Edition (Windows
    Me) operating systems.

    Run-time Requirements
    Gdiplus.dll is included with Windows XP. For information about which
    operating systems are required to use a particular class or method, see the
    More Information section of the documentation for the class or method. GDI+
    is available as a redistributable for Windows NT 4.0 SP6, Windows 2000,
    Windows 98, and Windows Me. To download the latest redistributable, see
    http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/psdkredist.htm .

    Note If you are redistributing GDI+ to a downlevel platform or a platform
    that does not ship with that version of GDI+ natively, install Gdiplus.dll
    in your application directory. This puts it in your address space, but you
    should use the linker's /BASE option to rebase the Gdiplus.dll to prevent
    address space conflict."

    Considering the number of potential PROBLEMS that can ensue with trying to
    create a "one size fits all" payware release for FS, that is a HEADACE few
    are even willing to consider...

    Bill
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Thank you for a very informative and meaningful explanation of the real
    technical issue.

    So I have to ask why didn't RealityXP and Dreamfleet both do the following:

    1) State that their software is supported by Windows XP and Windows 2003
    because only those versions of Windows include GDI+, which is a required
    technology only bundled in those two systems.

    2) State that other versions of Windows OS *MAY* work if you install these
    libraries manually, but none of these OS versions will be formally
    supported.

    The above would:

    1) Provide a positive framework for the need to support a restricted set of
    Windows OS platforms.

    2) Provide a positive migration path for Windows 2000 users, by stating a
    need to upgrade to Windows 2003.

    3) Provide a fall-back plan for users who insisted on going it alone without
    support.

    Instead what does Reality XP do? They actively destroy the ability for
    downlevel users to buy and use their software. I now at least understand
    the technical issue, but the particular solution is not very positive.
    And what happens with Reality XP if you upgrade to Windows 2003? My guess
    is that they will also fail to work because probably they hardcoded a check
    for Windows XP only.

    --
    Will


    "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1aclgahwpxzxb$.qeq0a0vnlq9y.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:26:44 -0800, Will wrote:
    >
    > > From what I understand the Dreamfleet airplane runs under Windows
    > > 2000. They just don't support it. The problem is that Reality
    > > XP actively *blocks* Windows 2000. Not supporting is one thing.
    > > Deliberately crippling is quite another, and it seems just petty.
    > > He is going to make people spend thousands of dollars to buy new
    > > hardware and run a second OS just to avoid three or four days of
    > > programming?
    >
    > As I stated previously, it isn't a simple matter of "three or four days of
    > programming." The new version of GDI+ available in WinXP simply isn't
    > supported by earlier versions build on the .NT core:
    >
    > "GDI+. Graphics Device Interface Plus (GDI+) is the portion of Microsoft
    > Windows.NET that provides two-dimensional vector graphics, imaging, and
    > typography. GDI+ improves on GDI (the graphics device interface included
    > with earlier versions of Windows) by adding new features and by optimizing
    > existing features."
    >
    > Now it is certainly POSSIBLE for Win2k users to utilize the newest
    > releases, IF the user is willing and able to do a little work:
    >
    > "Where Applicable
    > GDI+ can be used in all Windows-based applications. GDI+ is new technology
    > that is included in Windows XP and the Windows Server 2003. It is required
    > as a redistributable for applications that run on the Microsoft Windows NT
    > 4.0 SP6, Windows 2000, Windows 98, and Windows Millennium Edition (Windows
    > Me) operating systems.
    >
    > Run-time Requirements
    > Gdiplus.dll is included with Windows XP. For information about which
    > operating systems are required to use a particular class or method, see
    the
    > More Information section of the documentation for the class or method.
    GDI+
    > is available as a redistributable for Windows NT 4.0 SP6, Windows 2000,
    > Windows 98, and Windows Me. To download the latest redistributable, see
    > http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/psdkredist.htm .
    >
    > Note If you are redistributing GDI+ to a downlevel platform or a platform
    > that does not ship with that version of GDI+ natively, install Gdiplus.dll
    > in your application directory. This puts it in your address space, but you
    > should use the linker's /BASE option to rebase the Gdiplus.dll to prevent
    > address space conflict."
    >
    > Considering the number of potential PROBLEMS that can ensue with trying to
    > create a "one size fits all" payware release for FS, that is a HEADACE few
    > are even willing to consider...
    >
    > Bill
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    By the way, when I asked the question to Reality what API did they need that
    was only in Windows XP, they just made the situation even more frustrating
    by saying that this was "proprietary information." Now how the heck can a
    public Windows API to improve graphic handling and add graphic features be
    proprietary to any vendor who uses it? I think their unwillingness to
    explain decisions to adults in an adult way is even more frustrating than
    the decision itself.

    --
    Will


    "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1aclgahwpxzxb$.qeq0a0vnlq9y.dlg@40tude.net...
    > "GDI+. Graphics Device Interface Plus (GDI+) is the portion of Microsoft
    > Windows.NET that provides two-dimensional vector graphics, imaging, and
    > typography. GDI+ improves on GDI (the graphics device interface included
    > with earlier versions of Windows) by adding new features and by optimizing
    > existing features."
    >
    > Now it is certainly POSSIBLE for Win2k users to utilize the newest
    > releases, IF the user is willing and able to do a little work:
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:35:06 -0800, Will wrote:
    > (What extra programming time? A well-written Windows
    > application should be easily portable between XP and 2000 if it
    > doesn't rely on any of the APIs that are only in Windows 2000
    > (such as asynchronous I/O) ).

    You are beating a dead horse, Will. Nearly all of the major players in FS
    payware are now implementing the newest GDI+ API available in WinXP, as
    well as some internal FS9 .dll's that simply aren't compatible with earlier
    OS platforms.

    Bill
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Why is it that all major FS players are not including GDI+ as a
    resdistributable inside their application directories? If the OS already
    has it installed, then don't install it.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/gdicpp/GDIPlus/GDIPlus.asp

    --
    Will


    "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:14im5dmr1jzik$.jhkhgij75n0e.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:35:06 -0800, Will wrote:
    > > (What extra programming time? A well-written Windows
    > > application should be easily portable between XP and 2000 if it
    > > doesn't rely on any of the APIs that are only in Windows 2000
    > > (such as asynchronous I/O) ).
    >
    > You are beating a dead horse, Will. Nearly all of the major players in FS
    > payware are now implementing the newest GDI+ API available in WinXP, as
    > well as some internal FS9 .dll's that simply aren't compatible with
    earlier
    > OS platforms.
    >
    > Bill
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:35:26 GMT, Dallas wrote:

    > The survey size is only 1522 responses... you might have an argument with
    > the small sample size. You might also argue out of (guessing) 20,000
    > sales 5.4% represents 1080 lost customers and that's $25 grand gross in lost
    > sales.

    You might find this surprising, Dallas... but there is not one single FS
    payware product that has EVER broken the 10,000 unit sales figure...

    The *average* total sales for a product's sales life is under 5,000 units.

    Bill
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:05:48 GMT, boB wrote:

    > Will, I read the whole thread. Am I correct in reading that the majority
    > of user complaints logged on their Web page was from Win XP users? It
    > seems THAT should tell them something. I won't be buying anything from
    > them.

    Bob,

    As with most such "teething problems," well over 90% are from what might be
    most charitably described as "self inflicted wounds."

    Bill
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:15:38 -0700, Earl Needham wrote:

    > Guess I'll avoid those products, then. Oh well, they sounded nice, but
    > if they won't work with my OS...

    They WILL work on Win2k, *IF* you're willing to install the needed GDI+
    support.

    Bill
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:34:35 -0600, evenSky wrote:

    > O.T., but a rant irregardless ...Am stuck with Adobe Premier 6.0, 'cause
    > the newest version only supports XP. Can you say discrimination? Am I
    > living in the past?

    Adobe is using XP's GDI+ for drawing, along with "shared components" and
    "side-by-side assemblies," none of which are supported by earlier
    incarnations of Windows.

    "An isolated application may use side-by-side assemblies. Assemblies are
    the fundamental units of naming, binding, versioning, deployment, and
    configuration. They come in two varieties, shared and private. A shared
    assembly is available for use by multiple applications on the computer,
    installed in the WinSxS folder in the Windows directory. A private assembly
    is only visible to that application and is deployed within the directory
    structure of the application."

    Bill
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:24:18 -0800, Will wrote:

    > I'm with you, but tell that to them in their public forum. I think they
    > are going to need to hear from 20 W2K users before they believe they aren't
    > all living in my house. :)

    None of which will mean a damn thing. This hobby horse is dead, Will.

    Even if you could whistle up 5,000+ Win2k users to bitch and moan it won't
    make any difference. Technical incompatibilities are simply that, and no
    amount of complaining is going to change the situation...

    Bill
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    This isn't cosmetic surgery for one so the comparison makes no sense as the analogy rapidly breaks down. Who is this
    unidentified Worldwide Company? I'm curious what IT people think that. Though they may be using IPSEC which may
    account for their bravado. But that advice then no longer applies to the home user as I know of no home users that have
    the time, knowledge or hardware domain to enforce IPSEC.

    --
    ....Carl Frisk
    Anger is a brief madness.
    - Horace, 20 B.C.
    http://www.carlfrisk.com


    "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:cngd31160qu0n4opifrgp1dc4iko5j0fu1@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:49:01 GMT, "Carl Frisk"
    > <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Not quite true. There are a lot of under the hood security fixes (unpublished for security reasons) not in SP1 that
    >>are
    >>incorporated in SP2. And a few recent updates that only work with SP2 that you should have also. Some of these fixes
    >>are for security problems that have nothing to do with firewalls. Saying you don't need SP2 is just plain bad
    >>security
    >>advice. Granted some of the fixes are IPSEC related and domain related and don't apply to the home user, but some are
    >>generic to all machines.
    >>
    >>On the W2K topic I really like that OS. But you need to be a bit savvy on OS security to really use it safely.
    >>Anything prior to W2K I don't bother with.
    >>
    >>Think about it, all the cells in your body have replaced themselves since WIN98 came out.
    >
    >
    > According to our Worldwide Company IT people, SP2 is not necessary,
    > if you have good firewall's and security in place. Microsoft admits
    > that about 15% of people that install SP2 will have problems with it.
    > If you had a chance to have cosmetic surgery, and the Doctor told you
    > that there was a 15% risk of something going very wrong, would you
    > consider that a good gamble? I wouldn't.
    >
    > Bob
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Those are firewall issues and I do agree with you on using a good firewall. XP's firewall is not a good firewall.
    Those who disable it after install have no problems outlined in those KB articles.

    --
    ....Carl Frisk
    Anger is a brief madness.
    - Horace, 20 B.C.
    http://www.carlfrisk.com


    "Bob Cordone" <nospam@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:61hd31tqdkdnivv43fjfsroqbfrl5675ok@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:49:01 GMT, "Carl Frisk"
    > <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Not quite true. There are a lot of under the hood security fixes (unpublished for security reasons) not in SP1 that
    >>are
    >>incorporated in SP2. And a few recent updates that only work with SP2 that you should have also. Some of these fixes
    >>are for security problems that have nothing to do with firewalls. Saying you don't need SP2 is just plain bad
    >>security
    >>advice. Granted some of the fixes are IPSEC related and domain related and don't apply to the home user, but some are
    >>generic to all machines.
    >>
    >>On the W2K topic I really like that OS. But you need to be a bit savvy on OS security to really use it safely.
    >>Anything prior to W2K I don't bother with.
    >>
    >>Think about it, all the cells in your body have replaced themselves since WIN98 came out.
    >
    >
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?id=884130
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=842242
    >
    > Just some examples of some of the issues that pop up.
    >
    > Bob
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Found them :)

    You said what to your fifth grade teacher!

    --
    ....Carl Frisk
    Anger is a brief madness.
    - Horace, 20 B.C.
    http://www.carlfrisk.com


    "Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message news:4OGZd.9493$oO4.8771@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Carl Frisk"
    >> Think about it, all the cells in your body have replaced themselves since
    > WIN98 came out.
    >
    > I've got a few in my brain that didn't come back. <G>
    >
    > Dalli
    >
    >
  46. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    "Bill Leaming"
    > You might find this surprising, Dallas... but there is not one single FS
    > payware product that has EVER broken the 10,000 unit sales figure...

    Yes, I'm surprised. My thoughts were based on a visit to PMDGs upgrade
    download page. On that visit they had a "counter" displayed of the number
    of downloads. The counter showed 20,760 downloads of the 1.3 upgrade. The
    counter was not there the next time I went by...

    I figured they had roughly one sale per upgrade downloaded.

    How did you come up with the 10K figure?

    Dallas
  47. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:43:47 -0800, Will wrote:

    > Instead what does Reality XP do? They actively destroy the ability for
    > downlevel users to buy and use their software. I now at least understand
    > the technical issue, but the particular solution is not very positive.
    > And what happens with Reality XP if you upgrade to Windows 2003? My guess
    > is that they will also fail to work because probably they hardcoded a check
    > for Windows XP only.

    According to my last correspondence with Jean-Luc, the version check HAS
    been removed from the stand-alone release package. But, they still will
    not provide support for OS other than WinXP Home or Pro editions.

    The reality is that the technical requirements are even more complex than
    I've written about thus far, which further exacerbates the support issues.
    There are currently at least FOUR versions of the core gdiplus.dll (and all
    its related gdixxx.dll components thay may be found on any WinXP user's
    system, only ONE of which is compatible with the FS9 address calls from the
    panels.dll and g3d.dll modules.

    We have to program a version check of the current machine's gdiplus
    components, and then install the correct ones if necessary, and register
    them during the install process... all without replacing the current
    gdiplus components (which may well be needed by another application!)... :)

    Now you might wonder if the advantages of using GDI+ vector drawing classes
    is worth the increased installation headaches, but they most certainly are!
    A gauge such as the Avidyne Entegra with built-in TAS, moving map,
    flightplan display, navaids, etc. simply isn't possible with conventional
    bitmap based technology.

    The MFD is currently 98% complete, yet weighs in at a mere 948 KB file
    size. The equivalent gauge with conventional bitmap technique would offer
    less than 40% of the functionality of the current GDI+ MFD, and would be in
    excess of 2.3 MB!!! <Yikes!> ;)

    Bill
  48. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    Bill, again, why don't the FS9 applications that need particular
    GDI+ DLLs install those in their *APPLICATION* directories. Do
    NOT overwrite the system DLL. By doing it that way you
    guarantee:

    1) You aren't going to accidentally wreck a shared resource that
    was upgraded outside the scope of your application.

    2) You aren't going to have a resource you depend on overwritten
    by someone else.

    3) You are always going to load your preferred version of the DLL
    into your application's process space in preference to the system
    shared copy.

    4) You aren't going to need to write any kind of complex
    installer, because you are now just affecting your own
    application directory.

    --
    Will
    Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com


    "Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1642tufife0pf$.1r15wqdgsxe0r$.dlg@40tude.net...
    > The reality is that the technical requirements are even more
    complex than
    > I've written about thus far, which further exacerbates the
    support issues.
    > There are currently at least FOUR versions of the core
    gdiplus.dll (and all
    > its related gdixxx.dll components thay may be found on any
    WinXP user's
    > system, only ONE of which is compatible with the FS9 address
    calls from the
    > panels.dll and g3d.dll modules.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:46:18 -0800, Will wrote:

    > By the way, when I asked the question to Reality what API did they need that
    > was only in Windows XP, they just made the situation even more frustrating
    > by saying that this was "proprietary information." Now how the heck can a
    > public Windows API to improve graphic handling and add graphic features be
    > proprietary to any vendor who uses it? I think their unwillingness to
    > explain decisions to adults in an adult way is even more frustrating than
    > the decision itself.

    Welcome to the "World of Jean-Luc." Actually, he is just as obtuse at
    times to his putative "partners." We're used to it by now and are able to
    work around it... ;)

    Bill
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows 2000 Windows XP Video Games Product