Below are user reviews of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 and on the right are links to professionally written reviews.
The summary of review scores shows the distribution of scores given by the professional reviewers for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000.
Column height indicates the number of reviews with a score within the range shown at the bottom of the column.
Higher scores (columns further towards the right) are better.
| Summary of Review Scores |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 0's | 10's | 20's | 30's | 40's | 50's | 60's | 70's | 80's | 90's |
User Reviews (41 - 47 of 47)
Show these reviews first:
Incredibly Useless
1
Rating: 1,
Useful: 4 / 21
Date: November 27, 2000
Author: Amazon User
I don'y know if you've ever paid almost 60 dollars for something you and up hating. Flight Simulator for windows 95 IS BETTER THAN the 2000 version. You can't even run it on a slow machine or in many regualar computers: you have to have a PENTIUM PC. Please reconsider if you're thinking about buying it. There are better simulators aut there.
Absolutely Spiffing
5
Rating: 5,
Useful: 1 / 2
Date: December 26, 1999
Author: Amazon User
Hello, we are English folk, and have recently used FS2000. We are absolutely delighted with the detail given in the UK and Europe - but deeply saddened by the absence of London's new Millennium Dome, and the fact that at Denham aerodrome, you are placed on the default runway 15 - not used in earnest since the war!. Pip pip chaps - keep up the good interncontinental work.
This is outrageous!
1
Rating: 1,
Useful: 7 / 57
Date: September 22, 2000
Author: Amazon User
I've just bought a new (admittedly somewhat not state-of-the-art computer) and installed FS2K and I'm terribly disappointed!
My new computer is an IBM!
It's a couple of years old (it's an XT though!), but this new FS version locks up before I even get started!
I don't know what the hell to do.
I love to fly.
My new machine has a processor speed of 4.77 megahertz! If the new FS won't run on this they shouldn't be selling it!
Any advice would be appreciated.
MikeS
Laser147@Juno.com
Not a review - just a heads-up
3
Rating: 3,
Useful: 1 / 3
Date: November 30, 2004
Author: Amazon User
I got this game a few years back as a steal, thinking that my P4 wouldn't satisfactorily run "FS 2002", or that the differences between the two were minor enough to obviate the higher price of the "newer" game. With the release of the even newer version (ACOF), I got a bargain price on '02, and found it ran at least as nice as FS 2000, and had more fluid atmospheric effects (including - at last - movable waves). Add-On aircraft are more easily sorted on 2002 than 2000, and the old game gains less in of an edge in framerate on 2002 than it lost over FS 98. In short, by now any decent machine will run 2002 without hiccups. You don't need FS 2000 anymore.
It sucked
1
Rating: 1,
Useful: 4 / 34
Date: December 14, 1999
Author: Amazon User
nothin like the old one..so much slower hard to countrol and even complicated...its a waste of money!
IT ROCKS!
5
Rating: 5,
Useful: 4 / 73
Date: November 17, 1999
Author: Amazon User
it is everything I have been looking for!
Good for its time, but now it is dated...
5
Rating: 5,
Useful: 0 / 0
Date: December 24, 2006
Author: Amazon User
FS2000 was an INCREDIBLE program when it came out around 2000 (go figure...) but for the year 2006-2007, I would HIGHLY suggest FSX, if you computer can handel it. It is an incredible ammount more realistic!!! If FSX is too powerful for you, I suggest getting FS2004. It is a great program, with TONS of addons and a great comunity around it. Its computer specs aren't nearly as demanding as FSXs, but still, don't expect any of these programs to run smoothly on that $500 computer from Best Buy.
Review Page:
1 2 3 4 5
Actions