Best OS for 3D FPS gaming?

[Streetracer]

I'm about to put together a small system I will use primarily for FPS 3D games with either a GF4 Ti4600 or the new Radeon 9700 Pro, but I've been hearing from my friends that Win98SE makes a better platform for gaming than XP or 2000. What is the best OS for this? I'm clueless. Thanks!

[catch23]

XP...without a doubt.

[Streetracer]

Pro or Home? Or does it really matter? Also, is there a massive benefit in upgrading to an Ultra160 15k RPM drive vs. a nice ATA133 >8ms IDE drive? I mean, am I going to see a major improvement?

[TwoRails]

My vote is for Win 98.2

[catch23]

Either or...the only difference is a few advanced features

98 SE...memory problems.....waste of memory...waste of video performance...the prime example of unstable.

[Streetracer]

Now I have XP Home Edition and XP Pro. My laptop (Toshiba) came with XP Home, but I installed XP Pro afterward. Can I erase Pro, and reinstall the Home Edition, so I can use Pro on my desktop, or do I have to buy it again?

[Texuspete00]

People were saying 98 was better. Now that XP isn't new and fresh, many have been changing there minds. Myself and many others, from what i've read, find their new hardware works better with XP. Performance under the XP OS is first and most important in the minds of the companies that make the drivers and hardware. Oh, and home is just stripped of a few features from the pro version, reverting back will be of little to no use if it is possible.

[FantasySoul]

I suggest WinME ......It was the most compatible OS for gaming .

[Pants]

I would have to suggest XP Home, I've had it for months and not one single problem. I can run games from Counter-Strike, 1942, and Warcraft 3 great.

[Orcmonkey]

Just make sure you're away of the refresh rate patches for XP/2k if you have an Nvidia card.

[Evil-Lab-Monkey]

I read on the boards somewhere recently that the XP/2000 kernel handles RAM differently. According to what I read 98/ME gives more ram to games that need it, they can give all the ram to a game. Where as XP/2000 gives it a much smaller amount but because of this, even if the game crashes, the computer is much less likely to completely crash. So XP/2000 is more stable and better for multitasking but 98 could produce better benchmarks.

That being said I don't think the performance difference is enough to warrant having to deal with the stability issues. I use XP with my GF4 Ti 4400 and I, on average, score lower on benchmarks than others with 98/ME. However, this is not an issue for me because my monitor limits me to 1024X768 so even with all the settings maxed I never experience slowdowns and everything is rock solid stable.

I'd say go with XP.

[DilLy]

98/ME was horribly unstable for me.

XP all the way. (for almost anything you do).

[TwoRails]

I like 98.2 for several reasons. It is stable for me. It's suppused to be much leaner. A tremendous amount of hardware compatibility. I can pick out any gadget or controller, or video card, or sound card and know it will work. And without driver issues. It will play older DOS and legacy stuff, which I have a large collection of. (I have to admit that I don't know if XP will run DOS or legacy games.) I know it.

:D
TwoRails

[glc]

Most of my customers that are gamers run 98SE on their gaming boxes. If they also have to use the machines for business I usually recommend a 98SE/Win2K dual boot. With 98 good backups are essential because games can be really rough on a 9x-based OS and you can be looking at frequent reinstalls.

[AcidJazz]

I've been using Windows 2k Pro for my gaming needs and pretty happy with it so far...

[mike breck]

I will keep on using Win98SE for gaming until forced to update.

However, having been gaming since DOS, forgive me if I don't rush in with the same enthusiasm for upgrading "yet again" to the latest and greatest MS OS.

And if "Big Brother" Bill tightens his Orwellian hold on OS use any further, then I might be upgrading my OS to Linux and use a console for gaming.

[TwoRails]

Originally posted by mike breck
I will keep on using Win98SE for gaming until forced to update.

However, having been gaming since DOS, forgive me if I don't rush in with the same enthusiasm for upgrading "yet again" to the latest and greatest MS OS.

And if "Big Brother" Bill tightens his Orwellian hold on OS use any further, then I might be upgrading my OS to Linux and use a console for gaming.

Mike, are you reading my mind ?? <bg>

I was totally disappointed with Win 95. I lost a lot of functionality. I agree with the theory that 95 was only a beta for 98. I do a lot with my system(s), like convert old music, play with editing home movies, do some digital editing, play DOS - legacy - new games, and on-and-on. Win 98.2 does everything I want, and does it as well as I want. Not to mention that it has been working just fine right out of the box, although I do keep it updated.

:D

TwoRails

PS: I actually legally own a copy of XP, but am so disinterested that I've not installed it on any machine yet. I have a friend that couldn't give away his old computer that just had XP installed, so I gave him a $100 for the ownership of XP, and got a free computer in the process that I'm going to pass on to a family member. And, yes, I already purchased another (OEM) Win98.2 CD to install on it.

[wilsontc]

i got 98, it runs everything - eventually
i may have to restart once or twice everynow and again but apart from that it is sufficient

[casey]

I use WinME for the last 18 months (on the kid ((10 years)) game PC) Solid as a rock.

[mike breck]

Yes TwoRails,

My wife has XP on her laptop, so I can peruse it at leisure. Although I have done a lot research on the OS (so I can keep au fait with problems and developments), I haven't been tempted to buy a copy for my main system.

As you say, when all your games and applications run well on 98SE, there's less incentive to change.

However, as we both know, support for Win9x in games and applications will slowly be phased out in the future, and then we will have to make a decision re our gaming platform.

But I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

No point rushing these things...

:)

[Alaron]

I have Win98 First Edition on my computer. I game a lot, with Unreal Tournament (soon to be 2003:)), Jedi Knights 2, Half Life and others. I have never had any problems with stability on my machine. Ive restarted only about 10 times in the last 7 months Ive had this machine.

I get a kick out of everyone arguing which OS is better. All of them work just fine. I have 98 because I had a copy at home. I personally hate the new features and "stability" of XP. All of my friends have upgraded to it but I do not see the need. Eventually I will be forced to upgrade but until then Ill be gaming on with 98.

[JCB]

Win ME here. I get crappy frame rates with xp or 2000.

[Streetracer]

Maybe I should rephrase the question. All things being equal, will a game run faster on a 98/98SE/Me machine than on an XP machine? I want maximum performance while playing the games on this PC. I don't care what Microsoft calls it.

[TwoRails]

Originally posted by Streetracer
Maybe I should rephrase the question. All things being equal, will a game run faster on a 98/98SE/Me machine than on an XP machine? I want maximum performance while playing the games on this PC. I don't care what Microsoft calls it.

Hi Streetracer,

I would still have to say Win98.2. XP's system requirements are far greater than 98's, which indicates tigher code in 98. Also, since 98 was built when a 256MB mem stick was $300 would also indicate frugalness in the coding since it would run on mem small enough to choke XP. So, on a machine being equal, like a mid range box with 64 - 128MBmemory and, say a 1.2gig CPU, Win98 should have a better showing.

When a system is max'ed out, say with 512MB memory and a 2+ gig processor, then you'd probably have to split hairs.

But, if XP can't run you favorite older games on your favorite hardware due to driver issues or the like, then that's a different issue.

HTH

TwoRails

[DilLy]

TwoRails makes a good point.

I just want to add something here...
Take UT2003 for instance. It was built to run optimally on a good WindowsXP machine. Not many games are like this right now, but I think the trend will continue. Note that it will run just fine on 98se/ME/2000 as well. And a Linux version is coming out as well as a Mac version. They did most of the work on the DirectX API though, so OpenGL still has some issues (OpenGL being what Linux and Mac users would play through.)


That was slightly off topic, but I hope it added some insite.
:)

[morriswindgate]

For gaming go back to 98Se Real DOS support for older games and it doesn't have all the running services that XP has. And if you take your time installing it, it will run quite stable.

[Streetracer]

Maybe this is a bit extreme but does XP support a dual-boot feature? I like XP Pro (on my laptop) but I also feel that Win98SE will run the FPS games I have quicker, with less overhead. I'm thinking maybe I should just boot to 98SE for the games.. if possible.

[glc]

Yes, you have to install 98se first on C, then install XP on a different partition. The XP setup will set up a dual boot menu for you.