Page 1 of 1
XP or 98SE for games
Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:57 pm
by Cypher
I'm only running M$ windows for games. That considered wich would be the best OS for games..98 or XP? XP has sooo much overhead and I run it grey anyway on a fat32. So wich is it?
-98 SE
-XP Home
XP
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 11:35 pm
by Jeremy
Of the two, I'd choose XP. Stabler and widely supported now. 98 is outdated and BSOD prone, and doesn't manage as well unless you're playing older games
Gaming on Win2000 is suprisingly good.
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2003 11:53 pm
by JawZ
Tough call for me. I guess it depends on the titles you are playing, wehter they are old or new and what type of hardware you have in your system. You can get older titles to run in XP by utilizing the compatibility wizard. So I think this is a user dependent decision.
If I had a wish...it would be for everything to work great under XP.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 1:01 am
by Brk
Win2000/XP = better memory management.
XP wins.
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:59 am
by YeOldeStonecat
Depending on your gaming...but with todays games, they are RAM hungry....RTCW, BF1942, any of the newer Unreal variants....all really play best with at least 512 megs of RAM. Therefore, an NT based OS is best...such as 2K or XP...and I like XP better than 2K...better compatibility.
Long as your rig has the horsepower to swing XP....I recommend over a gigahertz CPU for WinXP.
Win98 will run snappier on a rig with under a gigahertz CPU, but it's RAM use pretty much flatlines around the 320 - 380 meg mark....it's not good at using RAM past that point.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 10:19 am
by Ghosthunter
Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
Depending on your gaming...but with todays games, they are RAM hungry....RTCW, BF1942, any of the newer Unreal variants....all really play best with at least 512 megs of RAM. Therefore, an NT based OS is best...such as 2K or XP...and I like XP better than 2K...better compatibility.
Long as your rig has the horsepower to swing XP....I recommend over a gigahertz CPU for WinXP.
Win98 will run snappier on a rig with under a gigahertz CPU, but it's RAM use pretty much flatlines around the 320 - 380 meg mark....it's not good at using RAM past that point.
So Yeoldstonecat,
at home i have a win98se machine with p3 866, 512 ram, gf3ti500
just upgraded XP at work and love it, seems to be faster then 2k,
anyway was thinking of upgrading my home machine, but really afraid of losing performance epsecially when i play games, but now i think about it i have all that 512 ram and i know win98se does not really use it.
but I am under a 1 ghz cpu
What do you think? Format and install XP Pro? Or stay with win98se until i get a new machine?
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:55 pm
by Cypher
Thanks for the feedback.
I forgot about all those bsod on 9x. XP stays.
Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 11:34 am
by BlackSword
Originally posted by davy19
anyway was thinking of upgrading my home machine, but really afraid of losing performance epsecially when i play games, but now i think about it i have all that 512 ram and i know win98se does not really use it.
but I am under a 1 ghz cpu
What do you think? Format and install XP Pro? Or stay with win98se until i get a new machine?
I have XP pro running on a PIII 866 with 384 meg ram,, and it runs great. With win98 your wasting all that memory, XP would use it and I believe would run more stable.
Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:49 am
by Ghosthunter
Originally posted by BlackSword
I have XP pro running on a PIII 866 with 384 meg ram,, and it runs great. With win98 your wasting all that memory, XP would use it and I believe would run more stable.
Thanks you are right, just upgraded tonight and what a difference in speed...i am amazed at how fast xp runs and i did no tweaking yet.