RE: [OT] WinXPro - IPX Support?

["Ian Lowe, Wintermute Consultancy" <ian@xxxxxxx>]

>> Windows XP was *even* slower, of the order of about 2750 on
Identical
>> hardware. That=92s 32fps as opposed to 75fps in normal gaming.

>Does this not point to very immature XP video drivers Ian. What=92s the
card?=20

It Probably does, yes. The card is a Nvidia Geforce 2MX 400/64. Like
Tim, if it doesn't say Nvidia on the Tin, it is't a purchase option
anymore (other than for vid capture, where I use ATI All-in-Wonder
Cards)

The drivers I was using are Nvidia's Detonator XP Drivers, v 10.84,
Microsoft's drivers were indeed incredibly poor.

>> Basically, Windows XP is pretty, and ncie to use, but it is
*terrible*
>> for any application you actually want to perform worth a damn.
=20
>Hmmmmmm...bit of a sweeping generalization there  :-)=20=20

Indeed, born of frustration.

Under XP, I found that office ran like a dog, outlook seemed capable of
freezing the machine when checking/sending email and any more than 2 or
3 apps would grind the machine down..

Machine is a PIII 800 EB w256Mb and IBM ATA 100 HDD, under W98, or W2K
for that matter, I could easily have seven/eight apps open, and no
noticeable "drudge" when using office/outlook..

>I never play games on my machines these days =96 but I would stick to
Win98SE if I was.  I >now have XP Pro on two of my home machines and I
have (so far) found them fast and=20
>stable.  This machine is only a P2-450 (with 512meg RAM) and it runs
beautifully.=20

I am going to dual-boot XP and 98, I think. I like the Scanning
interface, and Cleartype screen technology, but I need the speed for
games.

I believe Unreal 2 is going to be fully native DX8, so here's hoping..

Ian.