View Full Version : best gaming OS

03-29-2002, 03:23 PM
with xp sort of close in compatibility to 98, but way faster, i am wondering what everyone thinks about which OS is best for gaming

Grinnin Reaper
03-29-2002, 08:40 PM
Still Love the 98. SPAMIt can be better manipulated and most of the bugs have been worked out. SPAMXP is still to new and the whole manadatory registration still chesses my off. SPAMIt's got potential and if I buy another laptop and it's on there I'll give it a spin. SPAMBut I ain't layin' down none o' my cash for nothin' XP unless it's a new AMD XP processor, know what I mean?

03-30-2002, 11:25 PM
yeah, i am starting to really get PO'd with XP. that's cuz Need For Speed: High Stakes isn't running properly, and i dont want to format my computer for fourth time today. they shouldn't wait to release their first service pack, even though it supposedly going to revamp it in a major sense.

Grinnin Reaper
03-31-2002, 05:46 AM
I've been readin' rumor's let me underline that again rumor's that microshaft is considering a XP Second Edition, cause so many things need reworked but it doesn't justify a whole new OS. SPAMAll I know is that 2K sucks. SPAMI don't care what anyone says. SPAMI was forced to put it on a computer a work on the network. SLOW. SPAMOnly way to describe. SPAMIt better crash less cause it takes forever to reboot. SPAMI ran a test to compare boot times to a Win 98 box. SPAMThe 2000 came up a second before the 98 box finished booting ON IT'S FOURTH RESTART. SPAMI had the 98 box up 3 times and rebooted it and it still almost beat the 2000 box that was still on it's first boot. SPAMThat's just sick in my mind. SPAMAnd yes they were nearly identical computers. SPAMBoth had P-4's with 128 MB of Ram. SPAM2000 just sucks that's all.

03-31-2002, 10:49 AM
OK, dudes, I respect your opinion, but OS for games ? Isn't that weird, I mean you're looking for better OS to play games. Well, first I don't think there is such a thing, because games run the same way all the time independently from OS, the question is if certain OS supports specific game + if it has the best drivers/patches installed (as you couldn't install OpenGL on W2K, to improve gaming quality).

Games are not affected by OS in any other way. It's separate application, that depends on your hardware configuration. All of today's games have lots of special settings, that can improve quality, speed ... The rest is up to HW ;)

It's like these commercials saying some CPU's are better for Internet; cmon get clean & fast connection and smart ISP.

WinXP (& previously WinME) for better gaming, multimedia SPAMand internet experience - what a crap SPAM>:( Just make it not to crash, that's all .

Now about W2K, yep, it loads slower than W98 ( thinking of W2K srv with all the WINS,AD,DNS,DHCP ... it takes 3 mins to start ). But excuse me, W2K is NOS (network OS) and not just OS. Nobody's asking you to reboot every 15 mins, some systems are working around the clock, users just log off. Think of all the network, security, policy, protocols settings. You install more, it loads slowly & slowly. By the way, linux is also loading pretty slow, but boy it works like a charm.
When I installed fresh machines with kick ass configuration, & Intel 10/100 NICs with BIOS, it took ~1.5 minute (!) to load clean W98 only because the damn thing was looking for DHCP server, give it static address and it would save you 40% boot time. Remove the logo, all the DOS crap + startup applications and voila, it takes ~15 sec on average machine to load W98.

For my opinion W98 is best for games because all of games are tested to work properly with W98 and all drivers for common HW. That's all ...


03-31-2002, 01:47 PM
i just want to say this...all the games i have played run very differently on different OS's and 2k runs them the best in every instance if it runs the game ME is about the worst for performance but runs everything, but then againg ME just sux.

04-18-2002, 10:41 AM
win 98 se is the best tweakable OS, and since i only play HL Firearms, i don't even have to install some shitty direct x stuff. i setup win98se from a dir on my hdd, complete setup and drivers insatllation takes bout an hour, 15 minutes for the important progs. HL no reinstall needed cuz sits on partiton f: . use it this way for about a year now, never hat trouble exept for once when i installed dualbooting and tried win XP - bullshit, thrown the f#*@!N OS outta the window, deleted its partition and added the space to my mp3 partition, far better usage for the space - and so i'll stick with 98se for a while ;)

05-20-2002, 09:22 AM
For me, gaming performance is secondary to stability. Windows 98 crashes probably >5x more than Windows 2000 Professional, and Windows XP Professional is about on par with Windows 2000. Granted, a bit of this has to do with what programs are installed, running, and how the computer is used, but in general, Windows 98 sucks for that.

Unfortunately, Windows 98 still has the edge on gaming performance. Although, from what I've heard, my performance gain when moving from Windows 98SE to Windows 2000 Professional is abnormal, usually the performance losses should be minimal.

Windows XP Professional has similar, but slightly better gaming performance than Windows 2000, and assuming the Luna GUI is disabled, similar OS performance.

Savage: I don't think there's any reasonable explanation for how long it was taking you to boot Windows 2000, but that's definately abnormal (unless you were booting Windows 2000 Advanced Server, which likely had several services to begin). I would check to make sure all your hard drive, and IDE settings and drivers were correct.

05-20-2002, 11:48 AM
i think we are onthe same brain wave, Omega

05-22-2002, 05:06 PM
because games run the same way all the time independently from OS...Games are not affected by OS in any other way. It's separate application, that depends on your hardware configuration.

This is completely wrong. SPAMGames and other applications use the OS for everything they do. SPAMIn fact, all they do is send requests to the OS. SPAMThe OS decides the specifics of how to handle that request.

Different OS's handle things like task scheduling (dividing CPU time between processes) and memory management differently. SPAMSo there is definitely a difference in the way an application performs on different OS's. SPAM

Please do not spread such disinformation. SPAMIf you are just taking a guess, let people know that instead of acting as if you know what you are talking about.

05-24-2002, 06:48 PM
There is nothing wrong in what I said, Shanti SPAM8)
You've just figured it whole wrong way ...

I didn't mean games compltely independent from the OS.
Game quality obviously depends on OS's ability to manage HW resources. However no software would help your hardware weakness, because the most important thing for quality gaming is kick ass HW (and DSL connection).
99% of modern OS's programmed to make the good (sure not the best) use of hardware resources, some handle memory alocation better then others, some support more CPU's or RAM ...
but in generaly OS is only the tool to communicate between game (or any oher application) and hardware.

p.s. I'm never taking guesses since never affraid to say I don't know sth and nobody knows everything, you know ...

Thanks for taking care of quality of our rapping

05-27-2002, 11:50 PM
I beg to differ chef, the win2k kernel ( which xp is based off of) kicks the crap outa the DOS kernel in perf. It is on par with linux. and it is stable. now that i have xp myself, i see it kicks the crap outa ME and 98 for games. Everything else is just a given since win2k was designed for business.

so IMHO, xp is by far the best OS for gamin only because win2k isn't compatible with very many games.

Grinnin Reaper
05-28-2002, 05:16 PM
Actually I've had similar but not as drastic experinces with every install. SPAMIn general I see at least twice the boot time for 2000. SPAMXP loads very fast but ya'll forget one critical point,IT TRACKS EVERY INSTALL YOU DO. SPAMI don't like that. SPAMWindows Product Activation my ass. SPAMWhen a good hack comes out for that and the first good service pack comes out we'll talk. SPAMSorry but I don't like doint Microsoft's beta testing for them. SPAM

05-29-2002, 09:18 AM
Savage: A 2x greater load time is probably about right, but you said it was 4x greater in your first post about it. Also, Windows XP Professional does not require product activation. Waiting for a service pack might be understandable, but they have addressed many issues in hotfixes.

Grinnin Reaper
05-29-2002, 10:38 AM
It was 4x in one configuration. SPAMAlmost brand Dell's with 128m of ram and 1.4 ghz processors. SPAMOther times I've seen 2x, I just know that it loads slower. SPAMAlso I was pretty sure the XP Pro install I just did said somethin' about Product Activation. SPAMI hope your right and it doesn't but I still don't like Microsoft's sticky fingers with all the spyware. SPAMDid you know that Windows Media Player does track what DVD's you watch and sends that info back to Microsoft. SPAMIf you want me to dig up the article I can try. SPAMI just like to run what I can trust ain't watchin' me. SPAM98 I know how to remove most of what I see as privacy invasion. SPAMIt just seems a lot harder on XP. SPAMI don't like anyone to know what I'm doin' unless I know they know. SPAMKnow what I Mean??

05-30-2002, 01:59 AM
yeah, know what you mean. after all, ms collects more information than anyone else.

that is what gov'ts are for, dont you think?

12-15-2002, 07:44 AM

This ofcourse IMHO only applies to newer systems. I still recommend 98se for PRE 1 gig machines (yes .. 1 GIG).

XP is very resource intensive and requires a powerhouse to reap the gaming performance other than just stability. Newer hardware is also built w/ XP in mind. <<Good luck finding solid XP compatibility with some older peripherals>>

so .. in short:

new system .. go with Windows XP

older system - Win98se

(WinME sux unless tweaked right ... disable system restore)

12-16-2002, 11:02 AM
This discussion sounds familiar, like the discussion of October 29. Well, somebody posted sumthin like what is the best OS, 2K or XP?

My opinion, XP so far is the best OS for games.

02-19-2003, 08:18 AM
Hmm why cant anyone develop an OS purely dedicated for games? :biggrin:

02-19-2003, 02:44 PM
They did, but I believe it's propritery software integrated into XBOX.

Grinnin Reaper
02-19-2003, 03:21 PM
no shit man. You got that right.

Exprience is the key!
04-05-2003, 06:23 AM
WinMe is best gamin OS, tested win95,win98,win2k,winxp...WinMe is still best gamin Operative System :nod:

04-06-2003, 03:37 PM
Hmm why cant anyone develop an OS purely dedicated for games? :biggrin:

There was also a version of Linux that was dedicated for games. It had features that allowed it to play the majority of Windows games, had Doom or Quake or some other game of that style, and was tweaked specifically for gaming performance. That didn't make it like it should have or even could have if they waited til later to release it, but it was supposed to be a very solid and fast OS for games. One of the other reasons it didn't make it is because the charged somewhere between like 50 and 100 dollars for it.

04-13-2003, 05:50 PM
yeh i dont liek that either. I am running widnows 2k pro myself but i dontlike it that much and i dont know why, i have the feeling it runs a load of junk in the background. I have alot of land and stuff and was wondering would it be a good idea to upgrade to xp? i think it looks a whole lot cooler :P

im also running:
P4 2Ghz
384ddr ram
3D Blaster GeForce 4 Ti 4200 64mb graphics, and
40 gig :wavey:

04-13-2003, 05:52 PM
:/ sorry that says LAN'S not land, lmfao

09-03-2003, 09:58 AM
I've been using windows xp for a month, since my win98se got totally messed up and I decided to give XP a try. Then installed all the needed drivers for gaming and everything (? :)). Well, tried Half-Life (CS!!!) and got message that said my videocard doesn't support OpenGL. It worked on previous OS. I read somewhere that winXP doesn't support OpenGL 'coz microsoft wants everyone to use their directx3d (dunno is it true but still...). After hl tried some games that use directx3d. They were 'bout 50% slower than on win98se!!! Fps was something like ~15 in almoust every game. Conclusion is that XP is really slow on older computers like mine. Is it same with 2k????

Mah mahzine:
amd k6-2 500 MHz
256 Mb RAM
Nvidia GeForce 2 MX/MX 400

09-04-2003, 12:23 AM
bad video drivers.. it does support open gl..

09-04-2003, 11:40 AM
well, recently 98SE screwed up for me, and I decided to go with 2K Pro.

After finally finding updated IDE drivers for my motherboard, my performance is pretty good. HL dosen't work correctly, nor does NSF:HS (Of course nobody ever gave it NT compatablility, hell I had to use a seperate APP to even get the dang thing to install). But I don't get much of a FPS decrease for any other of my games. And 2K has added security (so nobody can find my pr0n! :P)

10-30-2003, 03:33 PM
this is on 1.4 running 512 ram on xp pro os plzzzzzzz help i cant find the open gl drivers

11-12-2003, 01:21 AM
Windows xp has to many problems...hotfixes help but still not good enough...XP is slow laggy and is frustating...Also programs that u have had with 98 or me or 2000 wont all work on XP wich is a big pain...I had XP on my computer and it was very pretty, but slow loading and very very frustating...and those hot fixes are just so retarted...A Operating system should be stable and reliable and windows XP is not yet niether....It has potentual but it has not yet proved to be a great operating system..To many bugs to mady downloads needed and to many program errors occur.Wich makes going back to 98 thru 2000 so exciting cause u wont have so many headaces and close to no slowdows or loading delays like XP will give...AS for gaming it slows down the video cards and strain it wich will lagg ur game noticeably..when i switched back to 98 the gaes play much smoother and much more fun...i think it was released to early and in a rush cause it contains way way to many frustrating problems bugs and errors.....do the right thing use 98 thru 200 and it will make u much happier i know cause i have done it

04-12-2004, 07:24 PM
IMHO Win2k Pro. is the best OS to go for when it comes to gaming.
We all know WinXP is actually based on Win2k's NT kernel with some added features. Now as gamers we all turn off the restore option, we turn off all em services that run in the background (there are a bunch more in default in WINXP then there are in Win2k pro) we wanna use our own WinZip and not the buildin unzipper, we use our own fav. burn app. instead of WinXP's buildin Burn App. The Pro and fanatic gamer immediatly goes to Control Panel - Performance settings and adjusts it to best performance. Right?

Well we boot up our system and what do we have? Win2k with a WinXP bootscreen. And after all those adjustments (not to mention make a separate partition for swapfiles so your System will run smoother and set it to 2.5 x your Ram) we still find that WinXP is a freaking resource eater and needs a chuck load more ram then Win2k lol.

I Vote on Win2k till there's a new Windows version that removes all the unneeded BS.

WinXP imho is Win2k with a Dress on :lol:

04-12-2004, 08:31 PM
best argument i've heard for 2k yet.. *continues to use xp* ;)

05-28-2004, 12:11 AM
Whether it be an old system or a kick ass system *like my gaming system* when it comes to games win98 is way ahead with flying colors win98 put your hardware + its abilities at your finger tips. u wont mistakingly hit winkey and lose ur sound in win98. no other os gets the same results out of my sblive 5.1 platinum like 98.
At any given specs try 98 + any other os with the same game and 98 will run circles around them.
only problem with 98 is accessing large drives (where u'r games r usually stored)this given the limitations of fat32. plus the overhead of accessing/addressing large partitions/disks is usually another factor.

BTW @Devilism dont create a separate partition for your swap file unless its on a disk thats isnt being accessed otherwise whilst ur playing ur game or doing your other stuffs. this will increase the # of read/write commands ur hdd as to execute(slowing the whole process).

05-28-2004, 12:30 AM
I believed you about the your comp owning.. until I saw the 5600.. so.. take your 98 comp and go somewhere else 8) j/k

05-28-2004, 04:56 AM
BTW @Devilism dont create a separate partition for your swap file unless its on a disk thats isnt being accessed otherwise whilst ur playing ur game or doing your other stuffs. this will increase the # of read/write commands ur hdd as to execute(slowing the whole process).

That's pretty obvious ybeddyj.

However it's on a separate drive :biggrin:

Concerning win98.

Imo and as far as I remember using win98, it has a less efficient way of working with resources and swapfiles.

I remember when I used to play LinksLS2000 (GolfGame).
The meter was a lot smoother when I stepped over to win2k and oww boy I started winning more games lol it made me reach the number 1 spot on a ladder with +/- 1500 players who most of em used win98 lol ;)

05-28-2004, 07:29 AM
ill agree a little with everyone. XP is fast, Me totally blows like a vacuum, and 98 was awesome. ive been considering switching back to 98, cause of all the crap i get in XP.

05-28-2004, 09:22 AM
@jason well listen it still kick ass or there about.

BTW i'm planning on changing my mobo to the *MSI Delta iLSR* tell me wat y'all think about it.

05-28-2004, 09:41 AM
well thats a lot better than your older one.. considering this new one is nForce 2.

05-28-2004, 10:23 PM
Why do you want to change boards? I like soyo boards even though i've never owned one..

05-29-2004, 03:18 PM
Well this is my fourth soyo and from experience it seems like soyo boards have a 1yr life span, after that u cant guarantee much functionality.

and my first msi board is still kicking
*msi 694dmaster-s*

06-01-2004, 02:20 AM
Sorry ybeddyj, but at almost any spec., Windows 2000 will run circles around any other MS OS. Windows XP is next because it is 2000 with user friendly crap mixed in. Windows 98 and all the other DOS based OS's could never be as fast because they are based on patches upon patches for something that was originally designed for 2 bits, not 32.

06-02-2004, 08:45 AM
DOS! w00t!

06-02-2004, 04:09 PM
*hurls at dos*

06-02-2004, 06:11 PM
sad... doom, wolfenstein , tie fighter and lost vikings were the shit

06-02-2004, 07:30 PM
deltree C:
prompt owned....

nuff said

06-19-2004, 03:43 PM
i am more of a xp kinda guy

Tech Support X
07-06-2004, 04:51 AM
I was buying Nightfire one time (had Windows Me at the time, now have 2000) And someone else had a game and I overheard them say what OS they had (Windows 95) and I started busting out laughing. This was at Software Etc.

Tech Support X
07-06-2004, 05:39 AM
WinMe is best gamin OS, tested win95,win98,win2k,winxp...WinMe is still best gamin Operative System :nod:

Windows Me did absoluteley NOTHING for me, and plus too many problems, LOTS and LOTS of game lock-ups, not stable enough for my games, and in-OS lock-ups. Hey, gnogtr. I finally got XP, I have to say, much more stable with my games.

07-06-2004, 10:03 AM
When I had ME, I didn't have any more probs than 98, and liked the new features.. but XP kills everything else, including 2k that they have at work.. at least when it's properly tuned.

Tech Support X
07-07-2004, 07:03 AM
When I first got ME, I had to re-install it after I installed it in the first place, because somehow, it didn't get on my hard drive.

07-07-2004, 09:46 AM
maybe you somehow installed it to ram :lol:

Tech Support X
07-07-2004, 09:50 AM
No, there was just the black screen (RAM info, HDD) and then a black screen after that. Nothing.

07-07-2004, 09:52 AM
that's a good feeling...

Tech Support X
07-10-2004, 06:44 PM
Well, I took a look at my hard drive. And to my surprise:

My Documents (DIR)
GameSpy Arcade Setup (DIR)
Program Files (DIR)
temp (DIR)
tmp (DIR)
WUTemp (DIR)


03-15-2005, 10:18 AM
I prefer the XP Pro. I didnt like home, too many system apps running at the same time, most of them useless, and very prone to adware/spyware, which slowed it down incredibly. I liked 98SE, but XP loads faster than my 98SE did, especialy Pro. takes about 10-15 seconds max to load XP Pro. Plus, i have seldom had any type of system failure/crash in my dealings with Pro. Infact, I will only sell Pro with the computers i build.

03-31-2005, 06:01 PM
Ive heard that in the 98 bootup you can skip that stupid logo, how?

What are the tweaks to speeding up 98 and XP that I can do(I'm not too great with computers, due to my parents almost obsession with keeping me off it, but I'm not a total computer moron)

03-31-2005, 07:55 PM
I always wanted to know how to skip the logo too.. but never figured it out...

msconfig is the best and easiest way to tweak

03-31-2005, 10:02 PM
What are some good tweaks to do to it?

07-23-2006, 07:35 PM
So what is the definitive reply?

Does an operating system affect how a games stability or performance?

I read the post on the 1st page and I thought, oh...ok, my bad /thread. But then 3 pages later its still a debate or a preference.

So...what is it?