O/S's for Performance gaming

Esaz666 · Jul 5, 2003, 10:33 AM

I've been messing about with all different o/s's.Most of the time i use a tweaked xp system,
ive used 2000, XP, Me ,98se. Im now running 98se with 98lite Micro install. It cut's out alot of bloat
also it uses some files from 95 to unintegrate the windows internet exsplorer.

Im Using cat 3.5's and am now running a very sleek system,ive got the best frame rates ive ever had.
Sometimes 98se doesent allways get thing's right with irq's etc, but with a bit of tweaking it works well.
Iv'e got a powercolor radeon 9700pro with p4 2.4g processor.Everything just seem's to work better now.
im going to install Omega's new cat's today. Most people use XP today.Most game problems i had have all vanished and i have an overall better,smoother update. It's seem's a bit daft to go back to an old o/s.
what o/s's tweaks do you use?.

I wish someone would modify a version of xp . I think Microsoft should bring out a cut down operating system of there own. not much chance,maybe some1 could write there own shell just 4 games.

Im a musician and have allways had 2 messabout with my o/s to get the best from it,cheers

Esa.

digitalwanderer · Jul 5, 2003, 11:29 AM

<sniff>

That just brought a tear to me eye, it was just soooo true and sooooo beautiful!

Win98se is without a doubt still the best gaming OS around after you custom tweak it in. I don't use 98lite anymore since I never really saw that big of an improvement once I had 512Mb in me rig and a Ghz+ CPU, but I still will only do a dual-boot to use XP since I just find 98se so much better in the smoothness/performance department.

XP is improving, but it's still got a long way to go. I saw a kewl custom version of 2K that the guy had streamlined all the best SP updates into all the way thru SP4, but cut out all the bloat and new glitchy stuff they put in. I'm seriously thinking of giving it a go since it sounds like about the best XP/2k gaming environment right now.

marseilles · Jul 7, 2003, 06:30 AM

for game, the tweeked winxp is the best in current MS os, if you need a stable os, I prefer 2000 server +sp3

UberLord · Jul 7, 2003, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
XP is improving, but it's still got a long way to go.

If you play online then you really need Win2K or XP as they have a much much better TCP/IP stack and you get decent mult-tasking for things like firewalls when playing games.

Redstone · Jul 10, 2003, 03:17 AM

I just recently read that the "'nonsupport" date for Win98 has been rolled back AGAIN 6 months to Jan 16 2004, and the new "end of life" date has been pushed back to Jan 16 2005. Makes sense since it is still on more computers world wide than XP. Win98 just won't go away.

I have a copy of XP thats been setting on my desk for a couple of months now waiting to be loaded. I would load it but can't find an Omega drive Cat 2.3 based driver for XP and my Radeon7500 hates anything past 2.3. I should probably ask around over in the drivers section.

EDIT: Found the link. Second chart from the bottom. Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support

eyeguy616 · Jul 10, 2003, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I saw a kewl custom version of 2K that the guy had streamlined all the best SP updates into all the way thru SP4, but cut out all the bloat and new glitchy stuff they put in. I'm seriously thinking of giving it a go since it sounds like about the best XP/2k gaming environment right now.

Might I ask where this can be found?

I use a MEmicro installation on another harddrive for a couple games mainly becuase of strange problems in XP since the mobo upgrade (damn drivers...). I'm gonna be dual-booting here pretty soon, possibly XP with 98SE/MEmicro. I currently use pullout harddrive trays to switch harddrives easily, so I can also switch to or try other OS's at will provided I have them installed on seperate harddrives.
~eyeguy616
PM me if you can't post it

Flash01 · Jul 10, 2003, 11:16 PM

I'm back to W2K, SP3 for my gaming rig. With some work 98 is good, but for extensive gaming it is getting a little long in the tooth. I really tried to give XP a shot, used it for about 3 months. May try it again after the next update.

nieves · Jul 11, 2003, 05:03 AM

Windows Server 2003 tweaked to workstation ver is what Win2K should have been. If you want, it's Win2K gold. Perfect in what regards stability, no bloat, no limits. Boots like a dream, run no matter how many processes with full speed. Excellent memory management, this is the OS to use. Beware, though... it's a lot of work to trim it to workstation needs. But once you do that you have the best MS OS ever.

GUNNIX · Jul 19, 2003, 08:13 PM

I had never used win98 before this year as I went from win95 to winME .... Then I got WinXP and I love it stability but it's so damn bloated. This last months I started with win98 as dualboot with winXP , and now I threw XP away

. Win98 is just faster when u tweak it , do the winlite98pro micro thing, etc. It is fast and stable. The look from win98 is horrible tho , so I installed the alternative, fast and stable shell Aston. ( looks better then XP

)
Oh , my dads/bro's pc had winXP installed , guess what , he likes the aston win98se more as well

away with XP

Altho I can't recommend win98 to non experienced users

By the way uberlord, I do play alot online (i'm leader of #pure in SoF2) and I only notice very smooth gameplay in win98, very good ping , etc. So it's not true that XP is better for online gaming . Souns bizarre anyway.

@nieves: how big is the total windows dir after installation ? just curious

grtz

GuNNiX

Redstone · Jul 19, 2003, 09:21 PM

I finally loaded XP Home last week. I agree, it is very stable but loaded with tons of useless extras. So far, I have trimmed literally 1.5gigs of crap during the optimizing process.

Shrink · Jul 20, 2003, 01:33 PM

Although there should be no reason for there to be any difference, has anyone seen any sites that compare the performance of the default configuration of XP Pro to the performance of the default configuration of XP Home? I did a Google search but couldn't come up with anything. Thanks.

GUNNIX · Jul 20, 2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shrink
Although there should be no reason for there to be any difference, has anyone seen any sites that compare the performance of the default configuration of XP Pro to the performance of the default configuration of XP Home? I did a Google search but couldn't come up with anything. Thanks.

It has same performance so there is no1 who would make a performance comparison

Esaz666 · Sep 28, 2003, 08:11 PM

I have just got Xplite GOLD.

Gonna try it out and see how good it is speed wize.
cant wait to load it up, im buzzin.

dont know if I should try it on XP First or 2003 ?
i'll post with my Ideas about it soon.

cheers.

GUNNIX · Sep 29, 2003, 10:50 AM

Yea I got XP lite too now

. I think it has nice options but it's still version 1.0 (98 lite is 4.7 now) . There's still a lot that they can remove in XP!
My winxp folder got 300mb smaller after removing everything except the fonts. It's a lot faster in booting now , I recon the overall speed got better as well. And offcourse it's more secure now as my windows xp lite won't have some files that some viruses abuse.

krazy1 · Sep 29, 2003, 10:59 AM

I agree with everyone that XP is a little "heavy" for gaming. When I played Asheron's Call 2 I was having all kinds of problems because of the demand that the game puts on your system. So I sat down for a few days and came up with a way to make XP slimmer and much more workable. I have a doc written up on it and I will see if I can get it up on my website. By the time I was ready to start to play a game I had only about 90MB of memory in use out of a gig.......