Having access to all the operating systems excluding 2k3 I would have to recommend xp as the generically best os for gaming. second runner up 98se if your system specs are a touch lower. Xp is simply more stable has a better use of memory and resources and can be cut back to the simplicity of 2k easily. 2k suffers from driver support and software compatability issues more than xp . and win 98 isnt as stable . I currently have 2k , nt4, linux rh7, mandrake 9 , 98, me, 95c, 3.11 for workgroups , dos v2.1 on and beos all installed for work and get to play with them all a great deal . For modern hardware XP for older systems the os that best suits ur specs and doesnt use all ur cpu cycles
I just trashed Win98SE because it was heavily polluted over the two years since the last install (and it barely survived two motherboard upgrades), and driver updates are running behind. I was running a W2K/98SE multiboot, W2K for office apps, video editing and internet, and 98SE for games. I decided to install W2K a second time and get rid of 98SE. Problem: Games generally don't like more than one CPU (benchmarks and game performances are much lower), and HT was enabled in the BIOS and SMP support was functioning in the other W2K. By installing W2K a second time, it would detect the "second CPU" and use it. Solution: I disabled HT in the BIOS and set the PIC/APIC setting to PIC. I installed the second W2K, installed the drivers and the service packs, and then enabled HT and APIC again. Now I have one W2K for games without SMP support and the plain old 16 IRQs, and one W2K with SMP support and 24 IRQs for office apps and video editing. I never have to disable APIC & HT before booting to the Games W2K and I don't have to re-enable them again to boot to the Office W2K. Both operating systems run fine without BSODs or other crashes. And I don't have to "pollute" my office installation with games or "pollute" the games installation with office apps.
i'm sorry to burst some bubbles, but this needs to be said. First off, win 2000 adv server is in my opinion the best MS operating system. because of the tools, and multiple processor support. and with the sp's it is stable as hell and efficient if tweaked right. ME is a flippin joke, they tried to make 98 fancy and created a memory hogging, blue screening hunk of ****. windows xp home and pro, were both rushed to release, even with the service packs and hot fixs... it is still a waste of ****ing time. if MS actually put thought into there development, there would be a "gaming os" already releases. but sadly, i doubt we will ever see something come from them that can actually stand up to linux or unix.
Re: thought I would move this here Here's what worries me about those temps: I think you've got them backwards. Mind you, I could be wrong here, but one point that most people miss when running 9x is this: The OS itself causes CPUs to RUN HOTTER than their NT/2K/XP/2K3/Unix/FreeBSD/Linux/etc etc counterparts. 9x does not issue HLT (HALT) instructions to the CPU when it's idle to turn off unneeded parts of the CPU. In other words, right from booting the PC, as soon as 9x starts to load after POST your temps will max out as though the PC was under a full load constantly, 24/7. NT/2K/XP/2K3/Unix/FreeBSD/Linux/etc all have a thread that runs as part of the basic OS itself that issues HLT (HALT) instructions meaning the CPU runs much cooler. This is a proven fact and if necessary I can provide plenty of links to back up this important and neglected point. If you're running something on 9x like Rain or CPU-Cool or CPUIdle to keep a HLT thread running, that's fantastic, but I still think you got the temps reversed or they're just plain old inaccurate in the first place. At the Desktop in 9x, even with no programs being run (I'm not talking about the OS itself, I mean user-activated programs, I think you know what I mean), 9x will pretty much max out your temps constantly. At the Desktop in NT/2K/XP/2K3/Unix/FreeBSD/Linux/etc, you won't see the same temps, you'll see proper idle temps. Hope this helps, br0adband
Uhmmm... ok, so what you're saying (or what you just said there) is that Win2K/Win2K Server/XP Pro/Windows Server 2003/etc etc are all sucktastic because... they don't use multiple processors? EH? Might wanna check your facts before posting something like that because all of them support 2 processors, the Advanced Server versions support more than that -- but really, how many people run Quad CPU 'puters at home... and why would you bother running a game on it, for bragging rights? br0adband EDIT: Mind you, I'm not saying Win2K AdvServer isn't a nice OS, I'm just saying that you should be careful making a statement like the one you made because it's so open to interpretation that it might cause someone to wonder what you were thinking... as I did.
Undoubtably XP is best...followed by 2k, every other Windows OS *SUCKS*, exceptionally crappy ME, this is from my personal opinions and experience...this xp box with great hardware and xp has NEVER fully crashed, only had minor crashes that were so EASILY recoverable
Up until a few days ago, I would have said that Windows 2000 Pro was the best OS for gaming. I actually would have said WinXP was just another chance to experience the horror of ME. But changes at work mean, I must now support it. I finally broke down and bought Win XP Pro and loaded it on my home PC. After tweaking Win XP for performance and putting it to the test, my opinion has changed. 3D Mark 2001 benchmarks scores are pretty much the same as what I was getting in 2000, however I have a higher lowest resolution in XP. In 2000, I used to benchmark at 640x480. In XP, my lowest resolution is 800x600. But the benchmarks scores are very close. The real difference I see is while playing games, I see huge gains in FPS over what I was getting in 2000, even with AA, AF turned on. Image quality is great. Using FRAPS, in 2000, it seemed all my games framerates were limited to 60 max. With XP, it's like that limitation is gone, I'm seeing much higher frame rates than I was before. With 2000, when playing some games, I had a problem with refresh rates at high resolutions. Had to use a utility to force refresh rates. With XP that issue is gone. I have had no driver or stability issues with either OS. My opinion is Windows XP (properly tweaked) = Best OS for gaming.
With all of the security bugs in Windows 2000/XP and the program compatibilty issues in Windows XP, I'm sticking to Windows ME. Remember that Windows ME has System File Protection and System Restore from Windows 2000/XP, so it isn't that un-stable. Windows ME has been rock-solid for me and I have never had any OS issues with it - I guess it must depend upon how well-behaved your applications are. Windows ME does sometimes get a bit twitchy over drivers, so you ought to use ones that are specifically compatible (WDM drivers are supported in Windows ME, again another feature taken from Windows 2000). So, Windows ME has all of the compatibility of Windows 95/98/98SE and elements of stabilty from Windows 2000/XP - it is a good choice for home users IMHO.
Windows 2000 Pro SP4 by default is 10%-20% faster & more stable than the default XP home & pro. That's a fact. There are a lot of tests on the net that prove it - especially when tested with different versions of MS Office -> Win XP + Office XP is the slowest combo of them all!!! XP is overbloated & loaded with stuff that should be optional. And i hate the spyware that became part of the system. I also hate that the "new" bloated media player is installed by default (as it turns out, so does EU ) I definitely prefer the classic 6.X media player (which works with all new WMV codecs too). It's funny that some say they have driver problems with W2K and not with XP - come on, ppl - the driver model is the actually the same! That's why 99,99% of all drivers have a 2000/XP signature... You can tweak the XP to beat the W2K easily, but remember, you can also tweak W2K too...
Windows 2000 PRO- PROS: Faster Gaming Light installs faster CONS (all things when you where used to XP ) Windows XP Home or PRO- PROS: newbie friendly fairly easy to tweak CONS: TOO MUCH UNEEDED CRAP FOR 1337 PEOPLE! LUNA IS SLOW AS HELL Windows 2003 SERVER PROS: unbeatable HDD performance Unbeatable net code faster than XP CONS: needs 1 hour of tweaking after install updates actually KILLS it some compat problems how did you get it in GENERAL PROS: NT Kernel CONS: they all need to disable DCOM
I would stick to Windows 2000 with all the latest Service Packs and all Upgrades. Or Windows XP (Home or Pro) with all the latest Service Packs and Upgrades. Mainly because, the difference in the end between the NT kernel based OS's and 9x's machines, is probably so small. (If you test over 50 games, 1 or 2 tests of a game is not sufficient) Please let us all make sure our OS's are up to date and virus free, because lets try and cut down on all vunlerbilities. The OS may not be perfect but lets keep it up to date and try.
I used to use Winxp Pro and I found even when fully updated my computer acted awkwardly. I'm sure this was an isolated situation. The problem I was having was with sluggishness of the machine, even with all the crap off. It just seemed to be chained to a log while running through mud. So I got out my old Win2000 Pro Disc and all my problems are gone with SP4. Gaming is great, it loads fast and closes fast. I'm VERY skeptical about Longhorn, Win2k is my choice for now.
In benchmarking I have found that win2k is faster than xp, and there doesn't seem to be near the security risks. Anyway xp is pretty much a souped up version of win2k designed at making an operating system for the masses with good looks and very internet oriented. Unfortunately this is where the security holes come from. For nothing more than just gaming I think win2k is a good choice because it isn't bloated with microsoft thinks we need lik xp is.
w2k or wxp pro i'm in a tough spot i'm wonder which would be better XP or w2k. I'm sick of bloatware too but the integrated feartures of XP are really good. for gaming and for for Video Editing, what whould you suggest?
