Recommended Posts

I've had excellent luck with Win 98 SE, especially with legacy games.

Windows XP is great for newer games. Just that Simple. Try the dual boot yourself and see how it works for you. That is best, usually. (Y)

Best of luck!

Exactly what I would've suggested only install XP using fat32 instead of NTFS. Lose alot in security, but gain quite a bit in speed.

All those claiming Windows 2000 is more stable \ faster really don't know what you're talking about...

First off, Out of the box installation, YES, W2k is a lot faster... simply because it is a classic window OS; however, if you were to tweak XP, within minutes, your OS will run just as fast.

Second, WXP is based off W2k...I wonder what that means?? It means WXP is essentially W2k, but better and more robust; therefore, XP is theoretically more stable or just as stable. W2k may have 4 service packs, but XP came out after Service pack 2 or 3 of W2k. Since WXP is based off W2k, it stands to reason that their internal architecure is very similar and benefit from the same fixes. Add on the fact that WXP has had a SP and W2k now has SP 4, I'd say they are more even than you think.

Third, W2k is not more secure. Since they are based off the same technology \ kernel, they share the same faults. Hence the reason why all the blaster viruses affect 2k and XP.

Fourth, Part of your slow-down is the fact you have multiple partitions. I have posted this before... multiple partitions actually promote slower seek times as the data is further and further into the platter, which means the HDD must spin-up more while the heads must find the data.

The point is that you think 2K is faster \ sleeker because the Out of Box experience is faster than XP's Out of Box. Yes, that is true, but given some tweakage... they are both the same. I have personally tweaked the hell out of both OS's and I constantly return to Windows XP. It just seems a tad bit more responsive, but it's not that big if a difference.

Edited by HeartsOfWar
Windows 98 is CRAP for gaming. Nvidia and ATi no longer produce drivers for it, what good is an OS for gaming without up-to-date drivers? Also, newer games require Windows 2000 or XP, look at Thief: Deadly Shadows as a good example. Use 2K Pro or XP, both work great.

I agree with you on only one point - that since the major driver developers are dropping support for Win 9x, that it puts 9x gamers in a bit of a bind.

But 9x is NOT bad for gaming - it is extremely good for most games. Perhaps some won't run on 9x any more, but for many, many games, 9x does a great job. UT2004 runs just as good on 98 SE as it does on 2K or XP, for example.

It is baffling that MS says it extended support for 9x to July 2006 but has gone ahead and dropped WHQL certification for 9x. Isn't that contradictory?

There is really nothing wrong with XP or 2K for gaming, but there is also nothing wrong with Dual Booting to ensure you get the best of both worlds, IMO.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It is silly there is no simple way to check whether this profile has been activated. CFRs are normal, but trying to even hide the fact if it's on / off seems silly, especially for something so user-facing. Surely Microsoft is "proud" of their engineering efforts on this one and ought to display it somwhere in the GUI.
    • Many Linux distros are not known for excellent battery life, so I'm not sure that is the best example. A more apt example may be Apple, but Apple's CPUs are simply far more efficient than Intel & AMD at single-threaded tasks like these, so "boosting" is not as power-hungry and less heat-inducing. Not to mention Apple will hardly engage P-cores for basic UI tasks; they use a pretty complicated QoS scheme to only activate P-cores for more serious workloads like HTML / JS execution or decompression or application launch. Microsoft is (smartly) doing it for launch, but also for UI tasks, which is the more nonsensical part: why ... do Windows 11's UIs need modern CPUs to boost? It should load so quickly that there's not even time for the CPU to boost.
    • I've not seen any controlled testing and, judging by Microsoft's mentality, within a year, they'll have added so much more bloat, it'll undo any perceptible latency benefit and we'll have boosted the CPU clocks for nothing.
    • It depends: heat soak is a thing. Initially on cold boot-up, the heatsinks & heatpipes are at ambient temp. After heatsinks & heatpipes warm up (through normal usage), they don't immediately cool to ambient temp when the load goes away. So their baseline is higher and the trigger point for fans is much less stress. Add a few more CPU spikes → it's too hot to stay at the same fan RPM → fans get triggered to start up up much sooner / get triggered to ramp much more quickly.
    • Can LibreOffice just shut up and worry about themselves and stop comparing themselves? Do we see Microsoft complaining about euro office?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      slackerzz earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      FBSPL earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      501
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      198
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      157
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      73
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!