• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Best Microsoft OS for home / game user?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
98se all the way for gaming...

ME is a resource hog. After you boot and get everything up and going (and things stop loading) take a look at your cpu usage... Too much. Compare with 98se... just right 😀

2k is ok for games. The main problem i have with win2k is basically the lack of driver support for the sblive and the poor performance of the ati radeon.

good luck though, keep us posted on what you do. You can always dual boot 🙂
 
I currently work for MS as a lab admin for testing new code for netdocs...

The reason nobody will tell you to wait for XP is that it is the same kernel as W2K...
So most likely it will perform similar.

The daul boot option is easy and if all goes well you can go entirely W2k....
if not, you have the dual boot to play or work.

Good luck
 
Hi there ,
No questions asked Windows 2000 straight away..😎
Windows XP is also cool .. it is the next bet i would bet ...
Be tuned for the final release to come
 
HardwareAddicted,

Regarding your comment about XP, I was kind of hoping you would tell me that XP would be less of a resource drain than w2k, since it's designed for the home user. Is that not true?

Wes Huang
 
There is good advice on offer here.

Win2k all the way...or Dual boot if your really worried.

I run with 128mb of RAM and by no means I'd say it crawls along.

I always have heaps of explorers and icqs and Nap and ftp and things open and I think it works brilliantly.

That's not to say that it can't work faster. Hopefully i'll solve that by throwing in 512mb of cas2 ram!
 
Weshuang: From what I've heard Windows XP will be more of a resource ho than Win2k, not less. What m$ means with "designed for the home user" is most likely that it will be harder to turn off the stuff that slows you down...

😉
 
What kind of games are you going to be playing?? If you play any FPS you should use 98SE or ME. The graphics drivers for 2k aren't that great. 2k is nice because it's very stable as long as everything is setup properly. It also takes a while to boot up. I wouldn't try running it with 128MB of RAM though, minimum of 256.
 
Lord Sandman,

Hope you guys won't laugh at me if I don't know what FPS is. I'm guessing you don't mean Front Page Sports. 🙂

More to the point, I don't really play any of the heavy graphical 1st person shooters, wuch as Half Life. I tend to play what I would have described as less graphics intensive games, like RTS, turn-based strat, and CRPG. However, seems like everyone is incorporating 3d these days...
 
FPS = first person shooter

Win2k may be fine for you then. I don't think it's ever crashed on me because of bugs (it happens when I do things I know I'm not supposed to). The only drawbacks I see for it then would be slow boot time (over a minute) compared to ME or 98SE (10-30 seconds), and I don't think 128MB of RAM is enough for 2K. It will work, but you will get alot of disk swapping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top