rec.autos.simulators

which OS is best for gaming?

Tom

which OS is best for gaming?

by Tom » Sun, 26 Jan 2003 11:48:05

I'm planning a new *** PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+.

Which operating system is best for a *** PC, Win 98SE or XP?
I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is there
any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home?

Thanks
Tom

Haqsa

which OS is best for gaming?

by Haqsa » Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:56:41

I recently upgraded from 98 to XP Pro and am very happy with it.  One catch,
a lot of people, myself included, have had problems with sound in GPL under
XP.  There are various workarounds and I found one that works for me, but
YMMV.  Only other drawback I can think of is that XP video drivers by
default are locked at 60 hz refresh rate in 3D mode, but there are many
different fixes available for this, so it's not really an issue, just
something you should be aware of.  Other than that I vastly prefer it to 98
because it is much more reliable and it multitasks better.  Games can't
crash my PC any more, and I no longer have to kill all my background apps to
avoid slow downs.  I also now for some reason need considerably less latency
correction for the force feedback in Papy sims.  Between XP Pro and Home I
would recommend Pro because it offers management tools that allow you to
permanently turn off all the background processes you don't want.  Because
it has this ability I think XP Pro can be just as lean as any other Windows
OS if you take the time to configure it, with the advantage of the best
reliability of any MS OS yet.

Another thing to keep in mind is that XP will do a better job of supporting
newer hardware.  Trying to use 98SE on a new home built PC could mean a lot
of scrounging around for device drivers and patches.


Internet Use

which OS is best for gaming?

by Internet Use » Sun, 26 Jan 2003 14:50:06


> Between XP Pro and Home I
> would recommend Pro because it offers management tools that allow you to
> permanently turn off all the background processes you don't want.  Because
> it has this ability I think XP Pro can be just as lean as any other Windows
> OS if you take the time to configure it, with the advantage of the best
> reliability of any MS OS yet.

And if you purchase the educational version of XP Pro, it will cost you
the same as XP Home (retail price).  Just go to Newegg, Staples, etc,
and pick up the 'education' version.  I purchased mine at Newegg, but
most retailers offer the same deal.
Joachim Trens

which OS is best for gaming?

by Joachim Trens » Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:31:36

For pure *** 98SE or WinME are probably better because they use less
system ressources than XP or 2k. There were a few benchmarks which tried to
prove that XP can be faster than 98SE or WinME in certain games, but if I
had that game and tried it, I never found those benchmark results confirmed
because even if the fps was indicated as being identical in both, in WinME
the game was still smoother in certain ways, or looked better. And I know
pretty well how to set those OS up, therefor I think I'd set them both up
optimally.

Achim


Jason Moy

which OS is best for gaming?

by Jason Moy » Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:41:31

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 11:31:36 +0100, "Joachim Trensz"


>For pure *** 98SE or WinME are probably better because they use less
>system ressources than XP or 2k.

I'd be willing to argue that actually.  Out of the box that's the
case, for sure, but you can disable many things in XP that you can't
touch in 95/98/ME.  I would expect an XP system with all of the
non-critical services and TSR's running, using the classic explorer
shell with effects/smoothing/etc disabled would use fewer resources
than 98 or ME, and it certainly seems that way in practice.

Aside from that the resource usage is handled much more efficiently
and resources are given back to the system with much more stability.

To be truthful the only reason I upgraded to XP was because 98 would
refuse to run any directx applications after I put a second stick of
256mb pc133 RAM in my system, even on a clean install of the OS.
After using XP for a bit, I would not go back, and I was incredibly
skeptical prior to upgrading.

Jason

Uwe hoover Schuerkam

which OS is best for gaming?

by Uwe hoover Schuerkam » Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:05:42


> I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is there
> any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home?

the price tag? You *were* going to pay Billy for it, right? ;-P

98SE is still fine for all my *** needs, no sound issues and
rock stable with GPL (basically all I care about, I use Linux
for productivity needs)

Also, you probably still have a valid 98SE license lying around
so there is no need to waste 100's of dollars on XP.

Cheers,

uwe

--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint:  2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F  67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Despise

which OS is best for gaming?

by Despise » Mon, 27 Jan 2003 02:18:48

From my perspective XP was the best $100 (a sawbuck for all us rednecks,
hehe) that I've ever spent in over 20 years and many many  thousands of
dollars PC'ing...(add quite a few more many's)

The only reason I wouldn't say Papy's products fit the above category is
cause I ended up having to do numerous hardware upgrades just for their
games which brought the totals closer to the thousands than hundreds :)

Supporting 9x is like getting ur wisdom teeth pulled without novacaine..  Or
like ... nevermind hehe..

Mitch




> > I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is
there
> > any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home?

> the price tag? You *were* going to pay Billy for it, right? ;-P

> 98SE is still fine for all my *** needs, no sound issues and
> rock stable with GPL (basically all I care about, I use Linux
> for productivity needs)

> Also, you probably still have a valid 98SE license lying around
> so there is no need to waste 100's of dollars on XP.

> Cheers,

> uwe

> --
> mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
> Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
> GPG Fingerprint:  2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F  67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Joachim Trens

which OS is best for gaming?

by Joachim Trens » Mon, 27 Jan 2003 02:35:37

I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower OS,
for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a detailed
discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to frustrate anyone by
talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using.

But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom.

Achim


...

Mike Beaucham

which OS is best for gaming?

by Mike Beaucham » Mon, 27 Jan 2003 04:04:36

DOS 6.2 Runs STUNTS quite smoothly.. I'll agree with that answer.

Mike
http://www.racesimcentral.net/



> reckoned:

> >I'm planning a new *** PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+.

> >Which operating system is best for a *** PC, Win 98SE or XP?

> Dos 6.2

David G Fishe

which OS is best for gaming?

by David G Fishe » Mon, 27 Jan 2003 06:08:15

I agree, XP is the best $100 I've ever spent in computing. It's fantastic.

David G Fisher


> From my perspective XP was the best $100 (a sawbuck for all us rednecks,
> hehe) that I've ever spent in over 20 years and many many  thousands of
> dollars PC'ing...(add quite a few more many's)

> The only reason I wouldn't say Papy's products fit the above category is
> cause I ended up having to do numerous hardware upgrades just for their
> games which brought the totals closer to the thousands than hundreds :)

> Supporting 9x is like getting ur wisdom teeth pulled without novacaine..
Or
> like ... nevermind hehe..

> Mitch




> > > I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is
> there
> > > any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home?

> > the price tag? You *were* going to pay Billy for it, right? ;-P

> > 98SE is still fine for all my *** needs, no sound issues and
> > rock stable with GPL (basically all I care about, I use Linux
> > for productivity needs)

> > Also, you probably still have a valid 98SE license lying around
> > so there is no need to waste 100's of dollars on XP.

> > Cheers,

> > uwe

> > --
> > mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
> > Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
> > GPG Fingerprint:  2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F  67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Remco Moe

which OS is best for gaming?

by Remco Moe » Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:33:57

Heya Tom.


>I'm planning a new *** PC based on an ASUS A7N8X DLX and a AMD 2600+.

>Which operating system is best for a *** PC, Win 98SE or XP?
>I would think 98 SE would consume less resources. If XP is better, is there
>any advantages to running XP pro vs XP home?

I've such a motherboard, and I've choosen Windows XP Pro as OS. Now,
if you play GPL, you might not be happy. First, the onboard sound,
albeit great in other software, has in GPL the same problem as the
Soundblaster Live, i.e. crackling sound. If you decide to place an
Audigy 2, like I did, then you solve the sound problem, but then
you'll discover you can't use the gameport on the soundcard. You can
disable the onboard gameport in the BIOS, but somehow the resources
aren't made available for other gameports.

For me this is a problem, since XP doesn't allow direct access to the
gameport. My problem with the onboard gameport is, is that it spikes
too much. Of course, if you don't play GPL, or don't need a gameport,
XP is a great OS.

Remco

Larr

which OS is best for gaming?

by Larr » Fri, 31 Jan 2003 06:11:24

XP, and XP Home is starting to show it's weak spots with todays products.
Skip it and get Pro.

Larry


Larr

which OS is best for gaming?

by Larr » Fri, 31 Jan 2003 06:13:10

It's been tested to death.  It just don't matter any more.  Any perceived
small performance loss (if it even exists) in XP is by far made up for in
other area's.

Toms Hardware tested this themselves.  XP won.  I don't take a web site
article for gospel, but my experience has matched theirs.

Larry


> I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower OS,
> for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a detailed
> discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to frustrate anyone
by
> talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using.

> But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom.

> Achim



> ...
> > I'd be willing to argue that actually

Dave Henri

which OS is best for gaming?

by Dave Henri » Fri, 31 Jan 2003 06:48:08



> It's been tested to death.  It just don't matter any more.  Any
> perceived small performance loss (if it even exists) in XP is by far
> made up for in other area's.

> Toms Hardware tested this themselves.  XP won.  I don't take a web
> site article for gospel, but my experience has matched theirs.

> Larry



>> I'm not going to try and convince an XP user that he's using a slower
>> OS, for one because I wouldn't want to invest the time required for a
>> detailed discussion, and more important, it isn't my intention to
>> frustrate anyone
> by
>> talking bad about their system or other stuff they're using.

>> But I'll stand by my opinion given to Tom.

>> Achim



>> ...
>> > I'd be willing to argue that actually

  I don't deny XP may have an incremental performance advantage.  BUT.  Is
it $100 to $200 worth of improved performance?  Is the increased
performance worth another $150 for the cost of added RAM that should be
purchased?  
   XP is a good OS, but that is all it is...an OS.  If you are talking
performance upgrades, even a new motherboard might give better results.
   XP has networking advantages, stability advantages, etc but non of that
contributes to faster gameplay.  It does have ONE huge thing in it's favor,
and that is continued support.  Little by little new products will no
longer work with Win9x.  XP will have several more years of operating life.    
   So for those folks who argue win9x or XP is faster, it's such a small
difference it is not even worth arguing about.  What is desirable is
hardware compatiblity, software upgradabilty and shelf life.  I've said
this too many times to count, but if you want to IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE of
your system, get a faster CPU.  Spend your money on something that will
make a real world difference, not on a product that needs benchmarking
numbers to see any real performance upgrade.  
    If you are buying a new system that has XP bundled in, great.  If you
have a real NEED for extra RAM and the networkability of XP, then go for
it.  But if all you are looking for is MORE SPEED, then skip buying XP
until you are either forced to from software incompatibilites or job
imperatives.  
     People make win9x out to be an imminent-crash-any-second type of OS.  
It can be prone to problems...But I've read plenty of XP crashing stories
here as well.  In my book, a crash is a crash, just because one behaves
better than the other AFTER the crash does not make it a Godsend.  I had a
*** ongoing problem with the REAL ONE media player.  but an update to
that seems to have stopped those crashes.  Windows Media Player version 6
would never properly shut down either, I'm hoping v9 will fix that.  
Someday the features of XP will make the choice easy, but I keep comming
back to the cost vs. the gain.  It's too small to be financially feasible
when you are weighing OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.
dave henrie
Goy Larse

which OS is best for gaming?

by Goy Larse » Fri, 31 Jan 2003 07:01:24


> XP, and XP Home is starting to show it's weak spots with todays products.
> Skip it and get Pro.

The difference in Home and PRO version lies mainly in areas most home
users would never use, however there are some administrative tools in
PRO which is not present in the Home version, I've forgot which ones
though

But for the average user there's no difference end the extra money would
be a waste, AFAIK, I'd be happy to read up on the subject if you have
some hard facts to the contrary though :-), my personal experience with
XP lies almost exclusively with the PRO version

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.