What's the best OS for gaming?

Thorbar

I've got a computer that I use almost exclusively for playing games on. I'm giving it an overhaul at the moment with a new graphics card and I was wondering if I should update the OS while I'm at it. Its currently running Windows 98 (not SE) and I've been having a lot of problems with stability performance. I was considering just formatting everything and reinstalling Win98 from scratch to see if that might help. At the same time I've gotten very used to Windows XP which I've got on my laptop which I use for work, college and browsing. Do you reckon I'm better off sticking with win98 or getting XP for this computer?

Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this thread, the tech forum has changed a lot since the last time I've posted here not sure where to stick it.

BloodBath

I'd go with xp as long as it's pro.

It's definitely the best OS outta the windows line. I hardly ever get any crashes.

I have a secondary computer with low enough specs. I had w2000 on it but had to format it recently. I put xp pro on instead and it runs better now than it ever did with w2000, especially start up times.


BloodBath

mrhappy42

XP Pro is prob best as Win2K build on NT and still has direct access issues (Kernel on NT protected direct access)

Stephen

I'd recommend XP as well (Pro or Home, doesn't really make a difference for games purposes), but pretty much any recent game will work fine on both 2k and XP. Ditch Windows 98 asap.

Jammer

i have XP Pro on a secondary PC, and XP Home on this one, and i honestly can't tell the difference. I cant remember this computer crashing since ive been using it. The "My Network Places" is quicker to come up, thats all.

aidan_walsh

Anything that'll run DX9 or OpenGL

Stephen

The main difference is that XP Home cannot join a domain, which is of feck all consequence unless your lan is a windows domain (with domain controllers etc).
For businesses, sure, this would be major, but for home use its of no real consequence.

koneko

XP Pro or Win2k, don't bother with 98 or ME, they're unstable as hell.
I've been running XP Pro on my machines for ages now, no turning back.

[CrimsonGhost]

Alot of people seem to be recommending xp over 2k. I'd have to go the other way. Apart from the longer startup time 2k is a whole hell of a lot more stable than xp. On the same spec machine it and programs run better as it isn't as memory hungry. Also, stuff is generally easier to find in the menus etc than in XP in my opinion.

Optikus

If your taking the Windows route then i'd have to recommend Xp Pro, its better for networking than home and has more support for newer games.
But you might want to try a linux based Os like SuSE 8.2 or Mandrake, there are a hell of alot less virus's targeted at these Os's than windows, but you will need the gaming-sources kernal and may find not all games are supported.
Personaly i think Xp Pro is best.. also try Longhorn BETA.

BloodBath

There are a few more than that but i'm not sure about some of them.

They say home doesn't support multi processor support. Does that include HT on p4's?

Home doesn't have Automated system recovery.

There are a few other diffirences but they might not be important to you. Search for it on google and you can see if they are.

Alot of people seem to be recommending xp over 2k. I'd have to go the other way. Apart from the longer startup time 2k is a whole hell of a lot more stable than xp. On the same spec machine it and programs run better as it isn't as memory hungry. Also, stuff is generally easier to find in the menus etc than in XP in my opinion.

I haven't had stability issues with either. I have found xp to be faster on my 2nd rig which only has 256mb of memory than 2000 was though. It does eat up more memory though. The menus in xp can be set to classic mode which is the same as 98 or 2000.


BloodBath

bambam

yep, xp home supports HT but not multi processors

http://www.intel.com/support/platform/ht/os.htm
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,601826,00.asp

davmigil

Alot depends on the spec. of the PC. If it has limited processing power/memory I would stick to 98 (SE preferably). If you are upgrading to XP, make sure you have enough memory installed (256Mb minimum, 512Mb better for gaming). W2K is _slightly_ less of a memory hog. 98 is the slimmest.

If the PC is up to it, go with XP. Turn off all unnecessary eye candy and unneeded services to speed up performance. Hyperthreading supported in Home or Pro. For a gaming machine Home should suffice.

Re-formatting and starting from scratch is sadly a way of life with Windows 98. It does usually improve performance as it gets rid of a lot of the built up fluff.
There after ensure DirectX up to date, all Windows patches up to date and all latest drivers installed.

Redrocket

i have always hated xp, it uses more memory than 2k when running the same programs, for networking its the same. 2k doesnt come with all the flashy confusing **** that xp has. if i ever try to find anything in xp it always takes longer than 2k

Stephen

once you turn all the crap off its just the same. Use it for a couple of days and you'll get used to where everything is.

astrofool

if u can't find where things are in XP, u shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.

Tho I guess old skool DOS was really the most intuitive interface.

Redrocket

ive never installed it, just used it on other peoples machines, and always hated it's flashyness. its pointless

BloodBath

You can simply turn the "flashiness" off if you like the old style which most people do. It's more functional.


BloodBath

po0k

Win2k Pro + Sp4 and associated drivers and tuning // WinXP Pro + same

or

Linux + Wine and/or Cedega + lots of tweaking

Matt Simis

BloodBath wrote:

You can simply turn the "flashiness" off if you like the old style which most people do. It's more functional.


BloodBath

I dont really think most people like/use the old style at all, but the newer interface is definately an improvement over the Win95-esq Win2K interface. I like 2K, always did, but some people have a deep distrust when something comes along and changes their way of "doing things". Full XP interface is how to use a modern PC.

I suppose those same people will eventually switch to XP and then dislike Longhorn.. I remember the exact same arguments when people went from 95-98, or upto 2K. Where are all the Win9x zealots now eh?


Matt

po0k

astrofool wrote:

if u can't find where things are in XP, u shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.

Tho I guess old skool DOS was really the most intuitive interface.

If you can't find things in XP it's probably because you're a power user who doesn't want or need all those "helpful" diaglogues and animated characters.
There should be an option at install or first login to try it oldskool simple 2k-like interface or cuddly "neu" tellitubbios style, or custom.

One simple menu would remove my greatest gripe about it.
The start menu is the worst offender though.

jozi

I'd have to recomend windowz Xp to, dont know diff between Pro and Home as i dont have Home.
But... i had Mandrake (wont boot anymore after som hardware issues?) and i was getting better FPS playing ut2k4 than i did in windows. It did crash a few times but that was before i was getting hw problems so that could have been it. As mentioned above there are games that you cant run on a linux os.

Jozi

OfflerCrocGod

stevenk wrote:

always hated it's flashyness. its pointless

Yes it's trying to be like MacOS X and really fails as soon as I sit on front of a WinXP machine I revert everything to classic.

Redrocket

you see when i go to fix an xp machine, i dont wanna have to go and change from shiney/dopey/stupid settings to plain/simple/ordinary settings and then back again. all those colors only attract people who havnt got a clue. its shiney, its colorfull, therefore it is good! but the main thing that always kept me away from xp was the fact that it is more memory hungry. i have loads of ram, plenty, but i still dont want my os taking it for no reason.
xp IS win2k, except for it is shiny.
the only reason id use XP is because of sp2, and thats when i have an Athlon64 and sp2 will take advantage of the NX-Bit feature of the chip

Redrocket

mac OS X is a REALLY nice OS, hopefully there will be more games out for it soon

Stephen

I wonder how it'd fare if they made an x86 version to go up against windows? I'd give it a whirl anyway.

fenris

Win2k = less overhead for the OS, you own it, you can change your hardware when you want, does not expire.

XP = more overhead for the OS, you are renting it, you have to beg Microsoft to be allowed to use your own PC if you make any significant hardware changes. You are assumes to be of criminal intent with regard to any media files.

Thorbar

Thanks for all the replys lads, I think I'll go and get myself Win XP, but what's the story with changing hardware. I can see myself swapping a lot of stuff around in the next few years. Will this be painful with win xp?

Stephen

Fenris, it is very - very - easy to change multiple hardware components. Even if XP moans about having to reactivate all it takes is a free phone call - no questions asked.

You're not renting it. You don't have to 'beg' MS for anything. stop talking out of your arse.

Fenster

XP Pro gets my vote also. Win 2k comes a distant second. It has mostly the same features as XP, but mine is inclined to crash if I do anything system intensive.

Fenster

fenris wrote:

Win2k = less overhead for the OS, you own it, you can change your hardware when you want, does not expire.

XP = more overhead for the OS, you are renting it, you have to beg Microsoft to be allowed to use your own PC if you make any significant hardware changes. You are assumes to be of criminal intent with regard to any media files.

Ehh, well that means most of us here are thouroughly screwed.

LegacyUser

[CrimsonGhost] wrote:

Alot of people seem to be recommending xp over 2k. I'd have to go the other way. Apart from the longer startup time 2k is a whole hell of a lot more stable than xp. On the same spec machine it and programs run better as it isn't as memory hungry. Also, stuff is generally easier to find in the menus etc than in XP in my opinion.

very true, win2k sp4 over xp anytime, xp IS win2k with alot of modifications, and all the bugs that come with those mods, if you want stability 2k sp4 will always win, it takes at least 3 years for any microsoft OS to stabilise, granted 'YOU' may find XP great, but i work in a company with 2000+ users and xp causes more probs than a service packed and patched 2k

unkel

I got banned (my only ban yet) on boards.ie a year ago because of mocking someone (in a funny and unagressive way) that proclaimed that windows 98 was still the best OS ever :rolleyes: a 5 year old OS at the time :rolleyes: thanks again historically, vexorg for my ban :rolleyes:

My history of OS on my home pc:

- 1995 DOS, Windows 3.1, WFW 3.11
1995 - 1996 Windows 95
1996 - 1998 Windows NT4 (pain in the neck with hardware and config, comms(RAS) and games, but true 32 bit and much more stable/solid and much faster than windows 95)
1998 - 2000 Windows 98
2000 - 2001 Windows 2000
Early 2001 - now Final beta XP pro to XP pro just before release sp2

(had every single version from final beta to RC - must have been about 10 different ones - complete reformat reinstall every time )

Have never ever been on an OS as long as on XP

unkel

bananayoghurt wrote:

i work in a company with 2000+ users and xp causes more probs than a service packed and patched 2k

Two completely different scenarios. Managing users on a particular OS in a business as an IT professional or running an OS at home as a user / gamer etc.

In the former capacity I'd recommend Windows NT and get a massive bonus saving on your budget by not having to upgrade all those PIII Windows NT machines to P4 Windows 2000

Different story for the PC at home that is managed by yourself for yourself I'm afraid

Tivoli

get winxp pro and goto this dudes page and tweak it up

Slutmonkey57b

The guy wants to know which OS is best for GAMING, not running a corporate network or tampering with kernal compile times. FFS, read the thread title. Linux Whores, stop recommending linux, you know you can't get games for it. You'll be recommending Macs next, and I speak as an ex-mac user.

I use win 98. Arrrgh! Arrgh! Why?

Because I want to play old games.

(No you can't do that with custom config setups in WinXP. Don't bull.****)

fenris

You do not buy a licence for XP to use in perpetuity, you rent it for a number of years and agree to abide by the terms of Microsoft licence V6, this means that you have to keep it updated, agree to the compulsory updates that may reduce the usability of your hardware (DRM), interfere with other installed software and compromise the privacy that you would expect on your own PC.

It is possible that a day will come when you will try and log onto XP and be told that its licence has expired and that it will operate in reduced function mode for a short period of time to allow you to upgrade to Longhorn 007. This is to turn the operating system sales market from a single shot revenue opportunity to a revenue stream. Why do you think so many companies and governments resisted the deployment of XP and are actively looking to move from M$ products?

Regarding the simple phone call - it is an extra step that did not exist before XP and provides you with no benefit, you CAN be refused new activation keys if microsoft decide that it is a completely new system, just because you have not been does not mean that you will not be so in the future.

Under the terms of the licence you agreed to you have agreed to beg for permission to use your system every time you make a change to it, what you do with your hardware is no longer your decision, now there is a "privilege" worth paying for!

Next time a click through licence comes up have a proper look at it, why do you think most companies ban Hotmail?
Because of Spam?
Uncontrolled mail access?
Or because a document sent via hotmail automatically becomes the Intellectual Property of Hotmail?

What can I say, the truth hurts, try and deal with it through a more adult mechanism that shooting the messenger!

astrofool

hopefully the above is a pisstake, otherwise we're talking paranoia city.

fenris

RE hotmail, Passport

hotmail / passport property grab

"...you are granting Microsoft and its affiliated companies permission to:

1.Use, modify, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, publish, sublicense, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any such communication.
2.Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the communication.
3.Publish your name in connection with any such communication.

The foregoing grants shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in such communication, including but not limited to rights under copyright, trademark, service mark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction. No compensation will be paid with respect to Microsoft's use of the materials contained within such communication."

Pisstake - I wish !
Paranoia - in small doses it is also known as "cop on"

When you agree to a licence you are entering into a contract, granted none of us really expect to be held to it. The fact that you could be means that you should read your licences !

Civilian_Target

This is all nonsense. See these people here, they're feeding you a big line of bull****. Mac OS X is clearly the best OS for gaming°. I could argue my case but I think you'll find this video clip much more convincing.

http://tinyurl.com/mhrj

° - This may not be true.

Webmonkey

SyxPak wrote:

One simple menu would remove my greatest gripe about it.
The start menu is the worst offender though.

You know that you can change the start menu to classic style don't you?. Its totally customizable. You can make windows xp like 2000 easily if you wanted

BloodBath

It's been mentioned about 5 times.

I think he chooses to ignore it.


BloodBath

[CrimsonGhost]

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

The guy wants to know which OS is best for GAMING, not running a corporate network or tampering with kernal compile times. FFS, read the thread title. Linux Whores, stop recommending linux, you know you can't get games for it. You'll be recommending Macs next, and I speak as an ex-mac user.

I use win 98. Arrrgh! Arrgh! Why?

Because I want to play old games.

(No you can't do that with custom config setups in WinXP. Don't bull.****)

You obviously don't know much about gaming on computers these days. Most games released run under linux, either with a quick download from the site of the company who released it, or under winex.

Last time I was in the apple store connected to compustore on stephens green in dublin there was a wide selection of game, many recent released.

Also you can get most older game to run under linux fairly easily so you don't need 98.

You are correct about getting old DOS games working under XP, it generally can't be done.

Stephen

Download and install DOSBox (DOS emulator) - plays most things.

bottles

Just Buy A FOOKIN Xbox! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Mutant_Fruit

XP home will is just as good as Pro in the home enviorment, and a hell ofa lot cheaper. If you were in a corperate network, or have multiprocessors, those are the only reasons to go for PRO. Get the home version and save a bundle.

Most games released run under linux, either with a quick download from the site of the company who released it, or under winex.

Maybe i'm wrong, but i thought winex didn;t run all games perfectly. Some games it can't run, and others it runs slowly. If you are going to be a big gamer, would windows not suit better?

And dosbox can't run any games that use dos4gw (not quite sure what that baby does, but i know i can't run construtor because of that.)