|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
03-29-2002, 08:31 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member (4 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8
|
What is the best OS for games??
I probably use my PC for games more than anything else. What is currently the best OS to run games on right now. Most of what I play is FPS. I do play a few strategy games like Commandos and Age Of Empires as well.
Thanks in advance! Mobjack |
|
|
|
03-29-2002, 12:23 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 91
 |
Win9x/ME are pretty stable with all games, XP with most games. My personal gaming favorite OS is win98 Second Edition. Pretty stable and easy to use.
|
|
|
|
|
03-29-2002, 03:02 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Fullerton, CA
Posts: 7,030
|
I agree, probably Win98SE but almost all games should work fine with WinXP as well.
__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire |
|
|
|
|
03-29-2002, 08:08 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: nowhere.com
Posts: 4,819
 |
Win2k is the same NT kernel without the XP bloat. If your games don't work in 2000 they're either...
a) older dos-based games, or b) destined to suck anyways because the company that made it isn't gonna support it if it only runs properly in Win9x |
|
|
|
|
03-29-2002, 11:16 PM
|
#5 |
|
Mondsreitersmann
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Skingrad
Posts: 8,781
|
Windows 98.
Have been using XP RC1. It crashes a lot. Only the Max Payne demo did work.
__________________
Darum still, füg' ich mich, wie Gott es will. Nun, so will ich wacker streiten, und sollt' ich den Tod erleiden, stirbt ein braver Reitersmann. |
|
|
|
|
03-30-2002, 06:10 AM
|
#6 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pickerington, OH-IO
Posts: 875
|
As far as speed, all of the benchmarks I've seen show the different versions of Windows to run games at essentially the same speed. No significant difference- hence, I still use the original Win 98 (with upgrade DirectX of course).
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2002, 08:42 AM
|
#7 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 122
|
If you already have Win98SE stick with it you will not go far wrong for gaming. If have to buy a new OS from scratch XP comes recommended straight from the box, or at least with the 20 odd MB of patches from MS.
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2002, 09:06 AM
|
#8 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 586
|
I find WinME fine and trouble free. NO crashes and no blue screens.
__________________
Work PC: Asus Sabertooth 55i / Core i7 875k @ 3.5 ghz with Zalman CNPS 10X / 8 gig Corsair DDR1600 / Asus Xonar Essence ST / Sapphire 6870 Toxic / Case: Coirsair 650 / Seagate 1TB 7200.12 / WD Black 1TB / Corsair Force 60 SSD / LG GH20NS10 DVD Writer / LG GGC-H20L BlueRay Player / Logitech Ultra S510 / Boston Speakers / Sony EX4/32 HD TV 32" / Antec Signature 650 PSU / Windows 7 Ultimate. Video Edit PC: Asus P5Q Deluxe / Q9550 @ 3.5 ghz with Zalman CNPS 10X / 4 gig Patriot Signature DDR800 / Asus Xonar D2S / Sapphire 5850 / Case: Corsair 600 / Corsair Force 60 SSD / Seagate 500 x 2 SATA / Seagate 1tb SATA / LG GH 22NS30 DVD Writer / LG BlueRay Writer / Logitech Ultra X Cordless / Logitech Z640 / Samsung 260 26" LCD / Zalman 600 PSU / Win7 Pro |
|
|
|
|
03-30-2002, 09:08 AM
|
#9 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 586
|
I find WinME fine and trouble free. No crashes or blue screens.
|
|
|
|
|
03-30-2002, 08:25 PM
|
#10 |
|
Member (11 bit)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 1,029
|
Although it's not too popular for gaming, I love 2000! I do lots of gaming (H-L, Counter-strike, Diablo II, everquest, starcraft, etc.) and they all run great. Much more stable than 98. The ONLY game of mine that will not run is THE SIMS, which I don't really care for. As long as you're running SP-2, with all your games patched, it runs like a dream.
__________________
"The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd edition, June 1972 |
|
|
|
|
03-31-2002, 08:42 AM
|
#11 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,965
|
I vote for win98se, IMO, it's the fastest OS for gamimg, and it supports nearly every game.
|
|
|
|
|
03-31-2002, 09:00 AM
|
#12 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 267
|
A friend of mine keeps telling me that windows xp lowers the framerate in games compared to running windows 98. I dont really believe him, but is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
03-31-2002, 05:25 PM
|
#13 |
|
Mondsreitersmann
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Skingrad
Posts: 8,781
|
Yes! It is true.
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2002, 01:46 PM
|
#14 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,700
|
Not trying to be funny Nuke but can you point me to the benchtests that confirm this. The only ones I've seen show it's marginally quicker than W2K and about on par with Win9x.
There doesn't seem to be a lot in it anyway you look at it. What seem certainly true is that XP (and W2K) has a lower fixed refresh rate hence the need for the NVidia Refresh Rate Fix or MultiRes. By default, Windows 9x always plays games at the highest refresh rate your monitor and video card can handle. However, Windows XP plays games at much lower refresh rates. In every resolution, all DirectX games in Windows XP run at only 75 Hz, and all OpenGL games in Windows XP run at only 60 Hz. I researched this before with W2K and at that time the consensus was that W2K would run games at a higher resolution if the resolution was specifically stated by the game developers in their coding. But as most were concentrating on the Win 9x platform, this was not happening. However, why MS didn't clear this up in XP is a mystery and a pain. I think the safest course for any gamer is a dual boot setup with Win 9x and XP. That would allow them to experiment with the new OS while ensuring all their old games will work. |
|
|
|
|
04-01-2002, 02:23 PM
|
#15 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 468
|
I have had th best luck with 98SE but I have been using ME for 6-7 months now with no crashes. bluescreens, lockups, or any problems whatsoever
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2002, 05:46 PM
|
#16 |
|
Sibak
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,080
|
I vote for Win98 SE
__________________
By knowing what we value We will know what we want And how to act in life |
|
|
|
|
04-01-2002, 09:26 PM
|
#17 |
|
Mondsreitersmann
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Skingrad
Posts: 8,781
|
Mike Breck
The only benchmark I used were my own eyes. And I can trust them on this one, because I tried NOLF in W98 and then in XP and the drop in the frame rate was very notorious. I downloaded the new drivers from nVidia and that didn't address the problem. I did no tweaking tough. Now that you mention it, I'll tweak with the options and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2002, 09:53 PM
|
#18 |
|
Member (13 bit)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: nowhere.com
Posts: 4,819
|
I can get from 60-150 frames in UT in Win9x (when I'm standing looking at a wall it's 150, if any action happens it fluctuates from 60-90 badly).
I get between 105 and 120 frames in UT in Win2000, no amount of action going on can drop it below 100. Which is better? You do the math  . None of you people running Windoze 98 can claim 20+ day uptimes either, which I also have.
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2002, 11:01 PM
|
#19 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in harms way
Posts: 2,768
|
I feel that ME was the best of the 9X kernel. Fewer problems with it than 98SE for me. I have XP and can endorse it.
I feel that the resulting performance is based on the system specs. If you have a 733 PIII(or the like), it may be slow in XP. Just my experience. It can vary due to system specs. If you have a 98SE/ME class box stay with it. I feel that a certain cpu headroom is needed for XP to run fast. Just some thoughts |
|
|
|
|
04-02-2002, 01:26 AM
|
#20 |
|
Member (6 bit)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 44
|
well i would like to address the sims problem with win2k... i have win 2k pro and i run the sims all the time, you need to download the latest patch from maxis to get it to work right though....but my only complaint is that win 2k pro wont run my driving games right, nascar 4, nascar heat and sports car gt just wont run on it...its all very odd to me cause they are supposed to be supported games. well i shouldnt say that gt doesnt work cause it does, just my logitech force feedback wheel doesnt work nor the keyboard steering commands. so far i like win 2k for gaming just because its really stable, the only thing im upset about is some of my rather expensive software doesnt play nicely like pro tools and pcdj red...very disheartening when over 3000 in software is not compatible with your os
-Ryan- |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
