Best OS for games in here - Page 5

D.K.I. · *Last edited by D.K.I.; 03-29-2005 at 03:07.*

Personally i tried different flavours of linux without much success but got reasonable far but hopfully the linux course the college bundled on will change all that.

(I personally think that Linux is more a business orenated OS than XP it is more adapatable to businesses needs but also lacks apps. Also it can make a good games OS but first you need the devolopers to stop coding to DX and use Open GL for linux games. Also linux is to well open and needs proper standards. LSB i think it is called with newer versions is a start but still needs work and also made more easier for all end users expect a pc to switch on and work and not have the hassle of compiling programs to work or finding dependencies that most people do in linux (yes i know there are programs like apt get that does pull the program and the depencies and install them) and also needs better hardware manufucture support)

Now Back on topic
I have used Windows XP, 2000, ME and 98se and 95. (Friends, college machines at lunch times and also mine) for games and i find that both lines of OS'es NT and 9X had advantages and disadvantages.

XP Pro with newer hardware is better cause of its support but with the CTR moniters can be a headache especially with open gl games still defaulting to 60hz and DX games to 75 unless forced to use the speficed refresh rate in dxdiag. the draw back is the program managment that you have to give some prioity unless it you got a high end machine then that won't matter. (personally i like the flat screen moniters for XP and gaming especially when it comes to XP and open GL games)

For windows 95/98/ME the best part i liked is it did not have much loaded onto the OS as XP has, it has optimal refresh rates so games use the highest refresh rates possible instead of 60hz for opengl and 75 for dx. Also although this is where the instable part comes into it the games and drivers had direct access to the kernel and also was unrestricted in what games needed in terms of resources. but had it limits of 512mb of ram

Out Of both OS'es XP and 98se I own. I still find some games that refuse to budge under compatibility wizard with XP they launch but crash when back to the desktop when it comes to using the game play so it has to be backto 98 on an older machine which i find some games work better on than on older hardware with 98se. but new games XP all the way

Detrol · 04-10-2005, 04:51 | posts: 176 | Location: Sweden

how much better is x64 then 32?

AlecRyben · 04-10-2005, 16:40 | posts: 7,781 | Location: Utopia Planitia, Mars

Currently, there are no performance advantages of using XP64. It has to mature enough in order to show any performance improvements over "classic" XP.
When drivers and Apps are optimized for the new architecture, expect improvements of about 20-25%.

TheDimSide · 06-06-2005, 17:48 | posts: 39 | Location: Wondering, where am i...

I have use a wide range of os like linux, mac and all windows version. The only i'm satisfied is Win2k3. It has better stability and perfomace is a bit faster than xp. Game is smooth compare to xp with same spec. But need a hella lot of tweaks to make it user friendly enough for home user. Win98 is much² better but not much support for gaming lately.

hazeyguy · 07-15-2005, 07:51 | posts: 23 | Location: England

I went from 98Se lite to win2k lite. After the usual tweaking my 2k lite boots up with 15 processes running and 70 megs of memory being used after a fresh reebot leaving a greta deal of resources available for gaming. It has been installed on a stream lined copy with iexplorer taken out (replaced with opera) and all language crud and other non necessary addins removed. Gaming = Superb

also mint-clan.com run public cs source servers which are very system hungry.. one of the deidcated servers has a win2k lite instal and boots up only using 57 megs of memory. The Srcds servers run as services with the system resources set to background services rather than foreground applications.
Gaming = Superb

the above can be done to any windows instal after 98 and isnt hard to do if you use the right software ... 95% of windows installation is non-essential for a gaming platform .... its just a tad bit odd that no one has yet marketed a gamers os .... even if they have just done the above and renamed it .... legal reasons and ms being tossers is to be expected but sureley ms will release something once they have finished toying with the console market?

07-15-2005, 17:58 | posts: n/a

i'm running 7 processes and between 45 and 55 megs at boot.

win 2k no SP with the latest Nihu nLite

hazeyguy · 07-15-2005, 18:09 | posts: 23 | Location: England

7

Any chance u could pm / email me more details?

stefanie · 07-21-2005, 02:01 | posts: 238 | Location: Canada

If most games whether it be high performance ripping graphics or otherwise are designed with Windows Xp or pro or some earlier than why even waste the time with another OS? Windows Xp and pro are stable or moderatley stable considering what type of tweaks were done or destroyed by the individual. I say stick with what the games manufaturers and designers suggest. Of course we can tweak and twist other systems, but why? If you ever read the specs on the top gamers of the world they are using Windows Xp pro... Think about it..:-) None the less, I am sure what works for one may not work for another.

Swe_per · 08-02-2005, 16:27 | posts: 2 | Location: Sweden

Windows 2k Pro sp4 with IE 5.5 sp2

speed is insane in all areas IE 6 realy kills anykind of speed!
ie5.0 is faster but far to buggy.

tweak 2k is easy tweakui / X-Setup / adjusting Services
thats it.

never wonderd WHY m$ withdrew IE 5.0 to 5.5 update from the update and only supporting the 5.5 sp2 update withOUT the IE5.5?

buggy nope, fast indeed,stable indeed,faster than their new hot product whom we all must buy aka XP with the buggy ie6

PC dos = what a horror..
dos 6.22 = yihha works everytime! and is unbelivable fast!
win 3.11 = works like a charm but damn its ugly but works
win95 = fancy eyecandy for 3.11 that went horribly wrong
win98 = buggfixed win95 that when horribly wrong
win98se = buggfixed still needs some work but ok it works
winNT4 = FFS it works but lotsa bugs
win2k = oppff nt4 updated and workable, sp4 now were talking
win ME = fancy eyecandy for 98 that went horribly wrong
win xp = fancy eyecandy for 2k that went horribly wrong
win2k3 = theyre buggfixing xp (longhorn)??
win VISTA = omg they already replacing 2k3 aka xp that couldentbe be fixed ;P

thats what I (that means ME SWE_PER) thinks abt those erm system os hoggs.

r0k0 · 08-30-2005, 00:37 | posts: 2,722 | Location: Gatineau, Canada

im downloading Win XP PRO x64bit from the net

(dont tell anyone!) and i just wondered if everything would go faster with that OS than the normal WinXP ?

i didnt read all treads in here lol to long!

thx yall

Kalisto · 09-06-2005, 22:28 | posts: 193 | Location: in the moon

you seriously STUPID^^^ r0k0 , but sure install xp 64Bit on that cpu you got... go ahead, and i hope the Feds knock on your door too.

r0k0 · 09-07-2005, 00:06 | posts: 2,722 | Location: Gatineau, Canada

yeah lol im immune to feds!!! i live in Canada and they dont have durristriction to Canada

:

fozzylyon · 09-07-2005, 15:58 | posts: 116 | Location: UT

If only we had a spell checker...

r0k0 · 09-07-2005, 20:18 | posts: 2,722 | Location: Gatineau, Canada

lol i dont know how to spell that word its the first time i write it hehe

OldGuy932 · **Memory**: 2x1gb Kingston 5-5-5-15 1.8v 1060

Over the next few days I could probably bench windows98se up to the windows vista beta. When I installed vista, i got the performance of when I overclocked the amd comp at stock settings. The bad thing is that overclockability with vista goes down ALOT. I normally run at 9.5x235. With vista I went down to 11x210. Maybe this will change with future releases.

Edit:I thought i would be able to. I installed win2k with sp4. As soon as I installed the new internet explorer to try and get the windows updates faster, it started crashing mroe than it already had. I guess I'll only be able to get data for xp, 2003, and longhorn beta.

AlecRyben · 09-11-2005, 01:28 | posts: 7,781 | Location: Utopia Planitia, Mars

I wonder if the final Vista (or some SP) bans overclocking alltogether. That pesky DRM may require stock speeds in order to issue "clean bill of health" approval to use any media on your machine... maybe Billy (Goat) Gates thinks that all overclockers are pirates?

09-11-2005, 04:20 | posts: n/a

if only they could make Xp as simple as 2000!!! That would be sweet.

OldGuy932 · **Memory**: 2x1gb Kingston 5-5-5-15 1.8v 1060

Well... here's the results. I'll add the longhorn beta if I can install it without corrupting my xp install, although we all know xp is crap anyway.

The tests were conducted after a clean install of windows with all hardware running at stock settings. More data will be added when possible.

Windows 2000 Professional SP4
Forceware 77.72
3DMark2001SE - 11676
3DMark03 - 1675
Aquamark3 - 15981

Windows XP Professional
Forceware 77.72
3DMark2001SE - 11276
3DMark03 - 1253
Aquamark3 - 12698

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Forceware 77.72 (modded to support ti4200)
3DMark2001SE - 11049
3DMark03 - 1529
Aquamark3 - crashed

Windows Server 2003 Standard
Forceware 77.72
3DMark2001SE - refused driver
3DMark03 - 1663
Aquamark3 - 15960

Windows Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition
Forceware 77.72 (modded to support ti4200)
3DMark2001SE - refused direct x
3DMark03 - 1530
Aquamark3 - doesn't start

Windows 2000 is the overall winner, although the difference of speed between it and Windows Server 2003 Standard are negligible. Hope this helps everyone.

AlecRyben · 09-25-2005, 12:40 | posts: 7,781 | Location: Utopia Planitia, Mars

Hehe... that's why i always laugh at people say that using Windows 2000 is "stupid since it's old while XP is tons better because it boots faster and looks much prettier"...

sniperbr0 · 09-29-2005, 20:50 | posts: 1,055 | Location: Brazil

I hate XP but I use it cuz its compatible with all my hardware and new games are optimized for it

but is 2000 compatible with DVD-RW drives, SATA, A64, PCI-E, USB 2.0, RAID, and other new hardwares?

I used 2000 b4 and i loved it, I hate XP ****ty stuff, but I when I format I dont update it cuz I benched it b4 and the updates make my internet slower and XP laggier, so I just format with SP1 included and install drivers, games and play. What would I need to update in 2000? what programs do u guys use to make it better?

is game performance better than XP or just the benchs?

are there any negative points of using 2000 instead of XP?

I see now in newer games minimum requirements that they require 2000 or XP with lastest SP, so If I use XP SP1 am I not going to get the best performance in those games? wat If I use 2000 SP4, would performance be better than XP SP1 in those games?

also I have an Audigy 2 ZS and I use XP SP1, in the installation it says it requires XP SP2, is there anything wrong then?

madlax · 10-18-2005, 03:19 | posts: 234 | Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

I guess I won't install 2000 because it's a bit old but I want 2003 instead. Which version is faster? Standard or Enterprise?

sniperbr0 · 10-22-2005, 15:38 | posts: 1,055 | Location: Brazil

no answers, ill create a new thread...

haris2887 · 10-25-2005, 17:13 | posts: 68 | Location: AUSTRALIA

hi guys...
i went form win xp sp2 to win 2000 sp4 and i tell you it is great...
the preformance difference is surprisingly high...
at boot xp took 486 meg of ram
and xp only tkaes 82 meg leaving heaps for my apps ect....

i think everyone shoul try win 2k if they are experiencing slugishness.....

the preformance of FEAR rocketed up when i installed 2k and it runs a lot smoother than before....

madlax · 10-25-2005, 22:44 | posts: 234 | Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Why Micro$oft makes each version of Windows worse?

I'm defiantely installing Windows 2000 Service Pack 4 very soon.

madlax · 11-03-2005, 19:26 | posts: 234 | Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

I tried to reproduce OldGuy932's results on my machine with 77.72 but...

Windows XP Service Pack 2 Release to Manufacturer Final
3DMark03: 1972

Windows Server 2003 Standard Service Pack 1 Corporate/VLK
3DMark03: 1956

I'll have to format an entire 250GB partition to install 2000 here... If I get about the same results as XP, I'll be really disappointed