PDA

View Full Version : Best OS???


Drunken Warrior
10-13-2002, 12:15 AM
In your opinion what do you think is the best OS for performance in gaming :?: Right now XP Pro has my vote, although I haven't tried 2000 yet.
OUTLAWS high ping camper
10-13-2002, 01:13 AM
[quote:2f9315a3b5="whymeeee"]In your opinion what do you think is the best OS for performance in gaming :?: Right now XP Pro has my vote, although I haven't tried 2000 yet.[/quote:2f9315a3b5]

The guy to direct that question towards is Machine. However, he is at a LAN party this weekend, so you'll have to wait for "his" answer. Good Luck.
Slice
10-13-2002, 01:25 AM
XP Pro has mine too. I can't say much for 2000, even though I have a copy of it, I think that it wouldn't be great for gamming because it is geared for networking and server hosting. I have tried Win 98 also, and that blows big time!
Norcon
10-13-2002, 01:41 AM
i use xp myslef
Drunken Warrior
10-13-2002, 02:04 AM
[quote:a282966593="Slice"]XP Pro has mine too. I can't say much for 2000, even though I have a copy of it, I think that it wouldn't be great for gamming because it is geared for networking and server hosting. I have tried Win 98 also, and that blows big time![/quote:a282966593]

I thought Millenium was slower than 98 myself, but that is just my opinion,
XP is still the front runner for me.
Slice
10-13-2002, 02:06 AM
Millenium is a joke!!!!! It is the worst one, 3.1 is better. :P
Drunken Warrior
10-13-2002, 02:15 AM
[quote:9cc43b6c3b="Slice"]Millenium is a joke!!!!! It is the worst one, 3.1 is better. :P[/quote:9cc43b6c3b]

Ditto, ditto, ditto :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Grimmy
10-13-2002, 02:52 AM
I have XP home ed. here and I would say that it is good. Sometime sam freezes my puter though, dumb croteam. Probably due to suck a** netcode!

I would think that 2000 would be about the same, not as good as XP, because XP was built on the 2000 kernal and is just as stable.

I dunno, just my 2 pennies worth.
Drunken Warrior
10-13-2002, 04:22 AM
Too bad someone doesn't develope a mini OS strictly for PC gaming that you could run on a seperate partion. I know that is a tall order but if it gave your games a big boost I'ld sure buy it 8)
SALvation
10-13-2002, 04:31 AM
[quote:bf7a9b2f71="whymeeee"]Too bad someone doesn't develope a mini OS strictly for PC gaming that you could run on a seperate partion. I know that is a tall order but if it gave your games a big boost I'ld sure buy it 8)[/quote:bf7a9b2f71]

Sounds like you want a Dreamcast :D
Drunken Warrior
10-13-2002, 04:42 AM
I know but I like PC gaming more than playing on the TV. Besides this is my thread and I can dream if i want to :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:
G|Star
10-13-2002, 04:47 AM
i would go for XP PRO, i had 2000 for 6 months and it was quite fast and stable but some software doesnt support 2000, because of its nt techoligy.
with XP PRO i never had any problems with gaming so... my vote goes for xp pro
Sirc
10-13-2002, 05:03 AM
[quote:910ea09795="G|Star"]i would go for XP PRO, i had 2000 for 6 months and it was quite fast and stable but some software doesnt support 2000, because of its nt techoligy.
with XP PRO i never had any problems with gaming so... my vote goes for xp pro[/quote:910ea09795]

Win2K is slower (slightly) than any of the other operating systems (with the possible exception of ME which we have already established sucks dead donkey dicks). Win2K is designed for mission critical tasks. We use it at work for developing and running mechanical test systems for materials testing and mechanical component testing because it is very reliable. The reliability costs somewhat in raw speed. I use it to run SS here at home because I frequently develop test software at home. It gets me away from the constant interruptions at work. :D Anyway, while it is a tad slower then 98 and XP, it still runs games very nicely. There are very few games nowadays that will not run on Win2K.