Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > General > Links
Links Archived stickys.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Best OS for games in here
Old
  (#1)
Dave
Don Fredo Corleone
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Talking Best OS for games in here - 11-25-2002, 21:25 | posts: 8,377 | Location: Lost in boxes

Here is the official, unnoficial answer for certain, sorta.

First of all, a windows OS is best for games. Yea, I'm aware that some linux junkies can squeeze more outta a linux box than some can from windows, but who has the years it would take to get to that point? Let the programmers make a few more advances yet right?

Now your saying, "I was thinking windows, which windows is best" Right?

It is primarily opinion, your opinion, it is your computer right?

The facts you should consider are
Drivers older hardware like soundcards and some vid cards may run only with 98/ME. Do your own research here.
If you have up to date hardware, then run with 2K or XP, as newer drivers are comming faster for XP and 2K. ME and 98 are getting left behind, not just with drivers, but with apps, games, everything. My opinion is, in the next year, to year and a half all programming will be for the NT kernels. Thats strictly 2K,XP and up.
Ram, 256 and under, stay with the 9X's (that includes ME) over 256, and 2K or XP should run slick.
Hard drive space, again the older, the smaller, I really don't think this should be an issue, but if it is, again 9X's.
There is no difference in games between XP pro and XP home.

Now if your wondering between 98 and ME, It's a real split, some people have great luck, some don't. Pick one and join the horde of people on that side of the fence.

Performance in games between the os'. The differences are, or should be, impossible to notice. Between any of the 4 os', tweaked or not, there should be no difference, the only suggestion is that win 2K have SP2 installed at least. After that, the frames per second difference shouldn't be so drastically different that you even find them without a meter running.

Good luck and happy formatting
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
ReBeL
Maha Guru
 
ReBeL's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUS GTX 970
Processor: Intel Core i5 3570k
Mainboard: GIGABYTE GA-Z77X-D3H
Memory: Corsair 8 GB DDR3 PC12800
Soundcard:
PSU: Antec TruePower Trio 550w
Default 11-25-2002, 22:48 | posts: 2,089 | Location: Tennessee

But you didn't say anything about how games actually perform in said OS's. That's what they want to know.

Look, I don't have hardcore evidence on hand to post to back me up, but gaming performance in 98SE, ME, and 2000/XP are neck and neck. Do a google search and find out for yourself. It is true that overall 98SE beats out 2000/XP in performance, but it's by such a small margin you won't notice anything. The only way to tell is to run benchmarks.

And like Dave has already said, if you have up-to-date hardware (pretty much anything released in the past year and a half to two years) and enough system RAM, go with XP. That's where everything is going. Stick with 98SE or ME and you will be left behind.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Andrew
Maha Guru
 
Andrew's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI GTX-970 4G
Processor: i7 6880K (Broadwell-E)
Mainboard: ASUS X99-A II
Memory: 32GB Corsair Dominator
Soundcard: Harman/Kardon Soundsticks
PSU: BeQuiet! 630W
Default 11-25-2002, 23:45 | posts: 1,469 | Location: Ipswich, UK

IMO, i would rather have the stability of the NT kernel from Win2K/XP over the marginally higher gaming performance you would get from using 9X/ME operating systems.
After all, if you played a game for hours with no way of saving it and your PC crashed, you would only be *slightly* pissed off
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
Seal
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 11-26-2002, 09:05 | posts: n/a

Ok, Well, heres a question

Windows XP Home Edition or...
Windows XP Pro

What should i use?
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
Dave
Don Fredo Corleone
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 11-26-2002, 10:11 | posts: 8,377 | Location: Lost in boxes

Quote:
Originally posted by Seal
Ok, Well, heres a question

Windows XP Home Edition or...
Windows XP Pro

What should i use?
OFFS I can't believe I didn't address that.
there is no difference in the two as far as games go.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
Holocron
Don of the Dead
 
Holocron's Avatar
 
Videocard: GF 7600 GST
Processor: Pentium D 820
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: 450w
Default 11-26-2002, 13:34 | posts: 2,163 | Location: Philippines

Its a good thing this popped up, I have been engrossed with XP these past few days... I've just upgraded from Win98SE so let me share my experience:

My friend passed by w/ a copy of XP Pro and *skips details*.

The only game I have played so far on my system with a fresh install of XP(disp. properties is on default theme) is Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2002 and the frame rate was smoother at 1024x768, No AA, all details maxed out(I solemnly swear) at 40.72 w/ RivaTuner. Haven't tried other games yet...

My system?

lowly...
PIII 450MHz
ASUS P2B w/ i440ZW chipset (2x AGP)
256 SDRAM (a mix of double-sided PC100 and a single-side PC133)
Inno3D GF4 Ti4200 64MB

Now my sister noticed that her PC on Win98SE(which she only uses for business purposes) was drastically slower than mine in terms of starting up, loading apps, etc...

Her system?
P4 1.5GHz
ASUS P4B i845 chipset(4x AGP)
128 SDRAM PC133
ASUS TNT2 M64

So I set her PC up to XP and did some simple but effective tweaks that most of the regular forum visitors probably know of...

I'll cut this short:

Despite her system having a 1.4GHz Intel and having done all the tweaks that I know of(no overclocking), it still seems slower than my system, whether the amount of RAM or the obvious difference in Video Card is a significant factor.

The point here is XP is indeed dependent on the memory. While the degree of eye-candy within XP can be set to minimal(Classic Theme), some apps(and GAMES ofcourse) will depend on the video card such as media player. But interms of user-friendliness, I think XP is a step ahead. Nice sounds on the introductory too!

PS - I will try to install Neverwinter Nights compare how it will do on XP when my friend returns it to me. Right now, I'll try Hitman 2...

I was thinking, should I go to the extremes and try a GeforceFX on a 450MHz? lol. only time will tell...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
NicotineBigGulp
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 11-27-2002, 04:39 | posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally posted by Rebel7254
go with XP. That's where everything is going. Stick with 98SE or ME and you will be left behind.
Personally, the mountaing privacy and security issues with XP are enough to keep me away, far away, until M$ releases its next OS. Then I will wait a few months and see if its any better.

I'll use Win98SE until I feel there's a suitable replacement. Linux is also gaining ground, and advances are being seen in gaming. It's only a matter of time before Linux becomes a popular desktop alternative.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
ReBeL
Maha Guru
 
ReBeL's Avatar
 
Videocard: ASUS GTX 970
Processor: Intel Core i5 3570k
Mainboard: GIGABYTE GA-Z77X-D3H
Memory: Corsair 8 GB DDR3 PC12800
Soundcard:
PSU: Antec TruePower Trio 550w
Default 11-27-2002, 07:20 | posts: 2,089 | Location: Tennessee

Quote:
Originally posted by NicotineBigGulp
Personally, the mountaing privacy and security issues with XP are enough to keep me away, far away, until M$ releases its next OS. Then I will wait a few months and see if its any better.

I'll use Win98SE until I feel there's a suitable replacement. Linux is also gaining ground, and advances are being seen in gaming. It's only a matter of time before Linux becomes a popular desktop alternative.
Yeah, that's what people have been saying about Linux for the past few years......
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Dave
Don Fredo Corleone
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 11-27-2002, 10:10 | posts: 8,377 | Location: Lost in boxes

I think Linux has a superior product, and if coded for games, it would romp M$ in performance. The problem is, they have no united wall against M$, no ads saying here is why we are better, no muscle to back up why they are superior. Word of mouth from the thin margin of users able to work the os just isn't going to get them dominating market share.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
wildman69
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-02-2002, 11:36 | posts: n/a

A problem with Linux too, is that it is non-standardised. Different versions operate slightly differently, have different requirements, and as such, lead to incompatibilities, in a way that Windows doesn't. Plus of course, it's still got a LONG way to go before it becomes as user-friendly as Windows. Virtually every thing you do has to be done through a terminal, and 'arcane' DOS style commands need using, even for such simple things as unzipping files, etc. I'm sure most PC users prefer to right-click an item and select an option from the drop-down menu, and have the OS take care of it!!!

As for which Windows is 'better' for gaming? The main contenders of 98, Me, and XP all have their good points. 98/Me may nudge ahead slightly in overall FPS, but XP can still run that same game more smoothly, with less stuttering due to it's better memory management and less reliance on Swap-Files (Page File).
This though can also work the other way, if the game pre-dates XP....it may well work OK under XP, but it's performance is better under Me....
Because of these performance variences, I'll stick with a dual-boot Me/ XP system

It would be an interesting idea, I think, for a strictly gaming oriented OS to be released - maybe a port of the XBox OS - so that users could boot into normal Windows for general internet/ email/ office type apps, or, boot into the 'Gamer Windows' for gaming. With all the unnesessary stuff removed from this OS, the games would fly. All you'd need is a basic screen to accept game icon shortcuts, and game-save accessability.....a browser screen much like the default XBox, or PS 2 screens.
Just a thought...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
Holocron
Don of the Dead
 
Holocron's Avatar
 
Videocard: GF 7600 GST
Processor: Pentium D 820
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: 450w
Default 12-03-2002, 07:15 | posts: 2,163 | Location: Philippines

Quote:
Originally posted by wildman69
It would be an interesting idea, I think, for a strictly gaming oriented OS to be released - maybe a port of the XBox OS - so that users could boot into normal Windows for general internet/ email/ office type apps, or, boot into the 'Gamer Windows' for gaming. With all the unnesessary stuff removed from this OS, the games would fly. All you'd need is a basic screen to accept game icon shortcuts, and game-save accessability.....a browser screen much like the default XBox, or PS 2 screens.
Just a thought...
I think you can do that w/ XP.

Just make a Gamers account or profile or something and unload the unnecessary processes for gaming on that profile.

as for Linux gaming, check out http://www.linuxgames.com/
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
GigaPixel
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-07-2002, 10:20 | posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally posted by wildman69
It would be an interesting idea, I think, for a strictly gaming oriented OS to be released - maybe a port of the XBox OS - so that users could boot into normal Windows for general internet/ email/ office type apps, or, boot into the 'Gamer Windows' for gaming. With all the unnesessary stuff removed from this OS, the games would fly. All you'd need is a basic screen to accept game icon shortcuts, and game-save accessability.....a browser screen much like the default XBox, or PS 2 screens.
Just a thought...
That would be PERFECT IDEA for gamers. All computer resources would be directed to game like XBox OS does. Unfortunately all PC-games computer requirements would drop heavily and computer parts manufacturers like AMD, Intel, Nvidia or ATI won't be happy. Micro$oft knows that and less money is coming if they do OS for games only
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
GigaPixel
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-07-2002, 22:17 | posts: n/a

But it's hard to optimize OS for PC-games because there are so many hardware types. XBox is easy case because all users hardware is same.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Dave
Don Fredo Corleone
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-08-2002, 03:23 | posts: 8,377 | Location: Lost in boxes

an os for games would kinda suck, what about multitasking?
what about net access, where do they stop removing non game oriented features, that enhance a game experience.
I dunno about you guys, but I'd use stuff like notepad for notes on games, etc,

to me, a game should more or less turn off all the stuff in the background, and do it's thing, turning it all back on when you exit the game.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
wildman69
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-08-2002, 10:01 | posts: n/a

Hey Dave...it was only an idea!!
Plus I did actualy suggest that it be a second O/S option that one could boot into (Dual-Boot system) if you don't want regular Windows, just a gaming session...
I think I'm going to have a play-around with what Sith Lord said, and make a second profile and strip out all the extraneous stuff....
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
Dave
Don Fredo Corleone
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-08-2002, 13:13 | posts: 8,377 | Location: Lost in boxes

Quote:
Originally posted by wildman69
Hey Dave...it was only an idea!!
Plus I did actualy suggest that it be a second O/S option that one could boot into (Dual-Boot system) if you don't want regular Windows, just a gaming session...
I think I'm going to have a play-around with what Sith Lord said, and make a second profile and strip out all the extraneous stuff....
don't take it too personal, it's just kinda hard to draw a line of where games will stop, thats all.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
Dark Psycho
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-31-2002, 00:13 | posts: n/a

Games will stop when the OS is too, also one big game.

:
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
Graek
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Titan xp sli Titan x 1
Processor: Intel Core I7 6950x
Mainboard: Asus Rampage V Edition 10
Memory: 64GB Dominator Platinum
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: Corsair AX1500i
Default 01-08-2003, 01:40 | posts: 553 | Location: Hollywood, Florida

Quote:
Originally posted by wildman69
I think I'm going to have a play-around with what Sith Lord said, and make a second profile and strip out all the extraneous stuff....

http://www.tweakxp.com/tweakxp/display.asp?id=114

Try this. I tried it on my P3 laptop with a 16mb video and it really helped big time!!!.

Its strictly for gaming....I havent tried it yet on my desktop but I plan to. I was able to go on the internet but I wasnt able to check email and stuff on msn.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
Damian
Master Guru
 
Damian's Avatar
 
Videocard: nVidia Geforce 8600GTm
Processor: Intel Core2Duo 2.2 (mobile)
Mainboard: Notebook
Memory: 2 GB
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 01-17-2003, 19:35 | posts: 549 | Location: The Pit of Despair

Linux CAN be superior, if you have the time and dedication to make it that way. As far as the XP Pro or Home questions go, it depends on weather you plan on actually buying the M$ product. Home has an almost unbeatable registration system, as in it looks at all of your hardware, and your registration code is based on an algorythem that spells out your system and compares that to your CD key. Pro doesn't go into that much detail, you just can't download any Service Packs (well, you can, but it's a pain in the @$$). I have 3 OS's running on my rig at the moment, and the ironic part of it is, the only one I paid for is the Linux. I could have downloaded it for free, but I'm stuck on ancient dial-up connection. I happen to own just about every other OS you've heard of (and a few you probably haven't) and Linux is still the only one I bought! For $30, how could I resist? Anyways, after many reformats, crashes, and a loss of most of my sanity, I have decided to use XP Pro primarialy for gaming. It's just better supported. Hope that helps.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
JACK4HIRE
Ancient Guru
 
JACK4HIRE's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI Mobility Radeon 5870
Processor: Intel Core I7 740QM
Mainboard: Asus G73JH-BST7
Memory: 8GB DDR3 1333
Soundcard: Realtek / Altec Lansing
PSU: Laptop
Default 01-21-2003, 07:31 | posts: 3,497 | Location: The armpit of the planet.

Windows XP Home/ Pro has been good for me. EASY plug and play, networking, driver installation, no more BSOD, DirectX, I could go on and on. I admit I know very little about Linux only what I've read. As one of the Max PC Editors once wrote about Linux "I want to play games not read about them on a crappy Netscape Browser". One other thing. I highly dought all the software/ game developers are going to change what they've been doing for 5+ years....codeing for M$. M$ is a monopoly get over it.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
_-=GODSPEED=-_
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 02-21-2003, 10:54 | posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally posted by Rebel7254:
But you didn't say anything about how games actually perform in said OS's. That's what they want to know.

Look, I don't have hardcore evidence on hand to post to back me up, but gaming performance in 98SE, ME, and 2000/XP are neck and neck. Do a google search and find out for yourself. It is true that overall 98SE beats out 2000/XP in performance, but it's by such a small margin you won't notice anything. The only way to tell is to run benchmarks.

And like Dave has already said, if you have up-to-date hardware (pretty much anything released in the past year and a half to two years) and enough system RAM, go with XP. That's where everything is going. Stick with 98SE or ME and you will be left behind.
>>> I agree!!! 98SE and ME beats out 2000/XP in gaming but only in slight margins. Some games cannot run smooth on 2000/XP. For stability, i'll go for XP. The truth is that XP is good and more better than you think but it lacks spices especially when we talk about gaming. Even with service packs around, I cannot say that i will go XP on games. In my experience i'll go for 98/ME on games but XP on more applications and stability.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
locki
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 03-06-2003, 13:37 | posts: n/a

yeah, 98 for gaming, xp for other applications....but when the ps3 comes out, im gonna stick with it for gaming purposes...i just want to play on visually phenomenal frame rates on an easy to handle console, where you just insert the cd, play the game all you want while waiting for the pizza delivery.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
FunKdaFriEd
Master Guru
 
FunKdaFriEd's Avatar
 
Videocard: ATI 9800 =(
Processor: Athlon64 Venice 3000+ @2.5
Mainboard: DFI LAnparty UT
Memory: 2x1gig Patriot Ram
Soundcard: Nvidia
PSU: Enermax 460w
Default 03-10-2003, 15:19 | posts: 146 | Location: Long Island, NY

I do mostly gaming on my machine .... and Im a happier gamer since using xp pro..... my machine runs rock solid with next to no problems at all...... it handles resources used for gaming excellent IMO....I have 768 ddr btw...when I was running win98se(with 512 sdram) I would have to reboot every couple hours to get some resources back and get my performance back up to par, but with XP this thing can run all day perfectly
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
Emanon75
Ancient Guru
 
Emanon75's Avatar
 
Videocard: 6800GT / 9800Pro / Ti4600
Processor: A64 3200+ / 2400+M / 2500+M
Mainboard: Dfi LP250GB / Abit NF7-S x 2
Memory: 2x512 Mushkin 3500L2 / 4x512 CorsairXMS 3200XLPT
Soundcard: Audigy 2 / 2 x Soundstorm
PSU:
Default 04-03-2003, 20:11 | posts: 3,795 | Location: Where I am.

Without a doubt, xp has been better than any OS I've ever used for gaming, compatibility problems aside..

I run my gaming rig with a tweaked XP install, running only 5 necessary background services. If done correctly, it'll do all the things you'd expect your pc to do, only it uses less than 70mb at idle. Not too bad considering it was close to 120mb before tweaking...

It shuts down and boots faster than ever too, even without using bootvis.

I used to use 98 and ME, but from what I've seen, XP is sometimes 10% faster in most games in comparison to older operating systems.

That shouldn't be a suprise really, as long as you have enough memory to keep xp from using the swap file constantly, it's gonna be faster, afterall, it's more advanced and better optimized for multimedia than past operating systems have been.

If only it didn't have problems with old games...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
Graek
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Titan xp sli Titan x 1
Processor: Intel Core I7 6950x
Mainboard: Asus Rampage V Edition 10
Memory: 64GB Dominator Platinum
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: Corsair AX1500i
Default 04-03-2003, 21:22 | posts: 553 | Location: Hollywood, Florida

Cool.

How did you do it? Is there a webiste or an online guide we could see?
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.