10-09-2003, 22:33
|
#1
|
|
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Potton - Bedfordshire
Age: 33
Services: BT Phone - Freeview and virgin adsl
Posts: 11,095
|
GAMES on PC
What would you say is the fastest WINDOWS OS for playing games on my pc?
The choices I have are :-
Windows 98
Windows 2000
Windows XP
My system is a Athlon XP 2600 with 512mb 333Mhz memory
The gfx Card is an FX5200
Any opinions would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
10-09-2003, 22:36
|
#2
|
|
Permanently Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Age: 22
Posts: 3,044
|
Win 2000, i would say no too straghit away. Its good for dedicated servers though.
Out of win 98/xp, for your PC i would say XP, better support for the latest tech and such
|
|
|
|
|
10-09-2003, 22:42
|
#3
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Stoke-On-Heaven
Age: 22
Services: Freeview, 512k Pipex.
Posts: 1,757
|
Go For XP.. any patches etc, for games will be built for XP mainly.. Considering its the latest OS. (Of the microsoft series)
|
|
|
|
|
10-09-2003, 23:21
|
#4
|
|
We have always been here!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wirral / Ex CWC Area
Age: 25
Posts: 2,431
|
98 is fastest In my opinion but due to your conifguration I would say you would be better with 2k.
Only use Win 2k though if you are willing to patch to sp4, win 2k is only slow (As stated above) if it is unpatched i.e. SP1 or original release, the sp's make it much faster and due to it hogging much less system resources than XP your machine should run much faster.
Off Topic: I typed this in my living room from my NEW laptop on the wireless network, this is my first of mny posts from it 
__________________
Put 100 monkeys in a room with a typewriter and they'll produce Seinfeld!!!
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2003, 08:47
|
#5
|
|
Come on you mighty REDS
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Liverpool
Age: 29
Posts: 1,748
|
XP
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2003, 15:58
|
#6
|
|
[NTHW] pc clan
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Tonbridge
Age: 41
Services: Be* Unlimited ADSL2+ BB
Posts: 17,741
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZrByte
98 is fastest In my opinion but due to your conifguration I would say you would be better with 2k.
Only use Win 2k though if you are willing to patch to sp4, win 2k is only slow (As stated above) if it is unpatched i.e. SP1 or original release, the sp's make it much faster and due to it hogging much less system resources than XP your machine should run much faster.
Off Topic: I typed this in my living room from my NEW laptop on the wireless network, this is my first of mny posts from it
|
I have a new wireless network thats too flaky for words 
__________________
Step by step, walk the thousand mile road...
-----------------------------------------------------
Are you a mature PC gamer? Then go to the mature gamers site: nthwgaming.co.uk 
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2003, 18:09
|
#7
|
|
Eva Longoria Fan
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Essex
Age: 20
Services: BT,
Sky multiroom (Sky+ & HD),
UKOnline 8MB ADSL
Posts: 6,139
|
Yeah go for XP i play games most of the time when not doing school work and it is brilliant for games in 3D.
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2003, 18:46
|
#8
|
|
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Potton - Bedfordshire
Age: 33
Services: BT Phone - Freeview and virgin adsl
Posts: 11,095
|
I guess I'll leave XP on then
I was just unsure if it was worth putting an earlier version of windows on for my games.
I mainly use windows for games and Mandrake for internet and most other things.
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2003, 08:33
|
#9
|
|
Guest
|
May be this would suit your needs better - never be stuck for an OS again
Link
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2003, 17:36
|
#10
|
|
Guest
|
I'd say windows 2000. Windows XP is just full of crap and made to look like some fisher price toy.
Window 98 used to be the fastest but its not supported anymore and so I'd imagine by now games developers are now focusing more on the Windows 2000/xp engine
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2003, 17:38
|
#11
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve_NTL
Go For XP.. any patches etc, for games will be built for XP mainly.. Considering its the latest OS. (Of the microsoft series)
|
Based on the Windows 2000 kernal 
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2003, 22:03
|
#12
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Derry
Posts: 7,597
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Based on the Windows 2000 kernal
|
Based on the NT kernel even.
|
|
|
|
|
12-09-2003, 22:08
|
#13
|
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bifta
Based on the NT kernel even.
|
Changed a little since windows nt4 (1996)
|
|
|
|
|
13-09-2003, 01:31
|
#14
|
|
BOFH :D
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NW UK
Posts: 1,942
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Changed a little since windows nt4 (1996)
|
only a little... hence the same RPC / DCOM vulnerabilities on NT4, 2K, XP, Server 2003......
__________________
Veni Vidi Velcro - I came, I saw, I stuck around.
If you find the information provided by members of this forum helpful, please remember that you may express your thanks via rep points 
|
|
|
|
|
13-09-2003, 11:58
|
#15
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Derry
Posts: 7,597
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Changed a little since windows nt4 (1996)
|
Who said NT4?
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:54.
|
Join CF
You are here: 
