I am running a Win98 Duron900 512MB PC133 RAM With a mere ATI Radeon AIW
32MB card. Is N2003 feasible for this or not?
I am also considering upgrding my OS to XP or XP Pro. Will either of these
be better or worse for N2003?
"Douglas BISHOP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VUpdb.4599$[email hidden]...
> I am running a Win98 Duron900 512MB PC133 RAM With a mere ATI Radeon AIW
> 32MB card. Is N2003 feasible for this or not?
>
> I am also considering upgrding my OS to XP or XP Pro. Will either ofthese
> be better or worse for N2003?
>
> Dude, not sure about that Radeon 32MB card...you might want to considerone of the newer models.....otherwise, your system's not much different than
mine, and mine runs N2003 smooth as a baby's butt! I run Win XP
Home.....works great. Like I said, though, consider at least a 64MB vidcard
upgrade!
Bob
>
>
one of the newer models.....otherwise, your system's not much different than
mine, and mine runs N2003 smooth as a baby's butt! I run Win XP
Home.....works great. Like I said, though, consider at least a 64MB vidcard
upgrade!
Bob
If you want it for multiplayer only and you don't mind turning the details
way down you should be able to run it acceptably. But if you want single
player you will need more CPU and if you want to run at a decent detail
level you will need a newer graphics card with more memory.
I doubt that OS will make a noticeable difference in performance, but I have
yet to hear of any gamer who switched to XP who wasn't very very happy with
the switch. Kiss the blue screens goodbye. XP is the most solid piece of
software ever to come from Microsoft.
"Douglas BISHOP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VUpdb.4599$[email hidden]...
> I am running a Win98 Duron900 512MB PC133 RAM With a mere ATI Radeon AIW
> 32MB card. Is N2003 feasible for this or not?
>
> I am also considering upgrding my OS to XP or XP Pro. Will either ofthese
> be better or worse for N2003?
>
>
>
>
Can you run it? Yes. Will you be able to run with lots of detail settings
in a high res, no. Will switching to XP help, shouldnt make any difference
at all, it MAY degrade performance. 800x600 driving resolution, low driving
distance draw ahead, and turn off most better gfx settings in game will
allow you to play at probably 30fps or so avg.
"Douglas BISHOP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:VUpdb.4599$[email hidden]...
> I am running a Win98 Duron900 512MB PC133 RAM With a mere ATI Radeon AIW
> 32MB card. Is N2003 feasible for this or not?
>
> I am also considering upgrding my OS to XP or XP Pro. Will either ofthese
> be better or worse for N2003?
>
>
>
>
I just got a 2.4 intel...gig of FAST ram...GF5200 (128meg) video and it FINALLy
runs at all...but it does run REAL NICE now....
Running XP vs win2k before...can't say yes or no as to any difference is OS...
Kevin (aka tlgtr)
****
"A GOOD friend will come bail you out of jail... but, a TRUE friend will be
sitting next to you saying, "Damn we screwed up!!!!."
same config except athlon 1.2
runs over 30fps @medium detail 1024 x 768
Ati d3d control panel set for performance
same config except athlon 1.2
Ati d3d control panel set for performance
"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> I doubt that OS will make a noticeable difference in performance, but I have
> yet to hear of any gamer who switched to XP who wasn't very very happy with
> the switch. Kiss the blue screens goodbye. XP is the most solid piece of
> software ever to come from Microsoft.
It's definitely the most stable OS (from MS) yet. The only thing that
I hate about it is that you can't use serial port gaming devices, like
my original Act-Labs wheel. The fact that Act-Labs' USB
implementation is hosed is not Microsoft's fault, however.
XP is a resource hog until you trim away all the services you probably
don't need, but which the OS loads by default. Once you put it on a
diet, it runs very well indeed.
I'll never go back, for sure.
