Is Win2000 THAT MUCH slower than WinSE???

[Smoke2jj]

Ok I need to install my OS over again and I have the choice of either Win2k or win98Se or winME. Now I want to use win2k for the simple rease that it appears to be very stable and will be similar to XP but everywhere I go everyone says that win98SE is a BIT faster than win2k. Well can anyone be more specific than that? I love to play unreal tounament and if I go to win2k am I going to lose 2 frames, 20 frames? Is it that big of a difference?? This is assumeing that everything is optimized of course with the minimum of crap running in the backgroud. Please Help

 

[zzzz]

It is really not that much slower than win 98. I don't have any comparison chart but I used to dual boot. And with 256 megs of ram win 2k will actually be better.

 

[Smoke2jj]

yup I got 256 meg of ram. I checked some of the previous threads and many people seem to think (senior & diamond members) that with plenty of ram win2k prof. is MUCH mor stable and just as fast. Well that settles it I guess I will go with Win2k and become one of those enlightened fellows happy with a stable os.

 

[GT1999]

Your friends probably have older drivers installed for their video card and other components, don't know what they're talking about - or don't have enough physical RAM to run Windows 2000 efficiently. I cannot tell you that your computer will run with "2" or "20" framers slower in Win2000, but I do know that Anand's latest reviews of video cards has shown that Win2000 can often be faster than Win98SE in games, specifically at lower resolutions.

Win2000 handles your hardware much better than 98SE. With 98, think of the operating system as a program, and in Win2000, the operating system is a structure in which you have complete control over the operating systems functions, components that are connected to it, not to mention that programs that normally would crash under 98 most likely will not in 2000. If they do, your OS will not be taken down with it.

So basically, make sure you have enough RAM. 128 will suffice, but I highly recommend 256; also make sure you have the latest drivers installed for your video card, and of course, to install Service Pack 1, available off of Windows Update.

I hope that answers your questions.

 

[nightowl]

In everyday apps Win2k is faster than Win9x. As for games it depends on the game and the graphics card you have. From what I have seen, if you have a nVidia based card the difference will be slim to none in games because of the mature drivers they have available. As for other chips, 3Dfx is also good and ATi varies from card to card. The Radeon's initally were quite slower in Win2k versus Win9x. Now with the most recent drivers, I believe the performance it pretty much equal. I am not sure about the older ATi cards though.

 

[Smoke2jj]

Thanks night towl and geekish thoughts. You guys are awesome!!

 

[Noriaki]

Go to Anand's front page and click the review button at the top.
Go to the Video section and look for the November 2000 Budget Video card round up, there is a section on Win2k driver performance.

(I'd give you a direct link but for some reason I can't load Anand's front page right now )

The GeForce2 MX (and thus the GTS,Pro and Ultra because they all use the same drivers) Win2k performance loss in negligible, and in some cases Win2k performance is even better. Same story for the Voodoo4 (and thus Voodoo5), ATi however is hurting a bit in Win2k performance.