• 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.

Which OS is better for Gaming: Win98se or Win2000?

N

ndee

Lifer
Just want to know. My rig:

TBird 700
128 MB Generic RAM 🙁
Plextor 12/10/32A CD-RW
Creative 6x DVD Drive
Floppy 😉
Voodoo 3 2000 (latest Drivers for Win2k and Win98se)
DEC 10/100 21140 Networkcard
Hauppauge PCI TV Card
Soundblaster Live! Value
8.4GB IBM 5'400 Harddrive
14.4GB IBM 7'200 Harddrive

Would Win2000 benefit alot of another 256MB RAM when playing games?
That's about it.

Thanx
 
For purely games, then win98. win2k is not designed for gaming

If you dont mind a trade off, a little speed(in games) for more stability, then win2k.

Win2k is a business OS, win98 is a consumer OS

you get what you pay for...
 
win98 as some of the game won't run in win2k. and some need patches
also that not all hardware have w2k driver yet
my voodoo3 3500tv video card is one of them
 
At this stage Windows 98 SE still holds the crown for the best gaming OS. However Windows 2000 keeps getting better and better every day.
 
For those who say 98 is better for gaming,I ask. How do you know this? Have you seen official reviews etc. I only ask because I have both and really don't see any difference in games. For all of us who want optimized systems this is an important question and I would like to act based on facts. Thanks.......
 
I don't think the performance is way better in 98SE, just 98SE is way more compatible at this stage. And performance is mainly due to hardware/software "compatibility". Some games, and some hardware won't work with Win2k as of now.
 
sandan... I read a review of win 2000 when it first came out and they said that its not a gaming OS. I would assume that this article was based on facts.

I tried to run a few games on my friends win2k system, and some wouldn't work at all.
 
every game i wanna play runs perfect on win2k, and twice as stable


UT
Q3
NFS5
Sims
Madden2001
NHL2001
 
I have tested several of my games (UT, Q3, etc ...) using W98, W98SE, WME, and W2K.

From a sheer performance perspective, W98/WME has shown to be able to run games faster than W2K. That doesn't mean that it blows the doors off of W2K, but that is is faster, give or take.

The reason is that developers and manufacturers have spent far more time and money to optimize their code and drives for the W9X/WME series of OSs. It is not so much an issue with W2K, as it is with the drivers that are available. The other issue is that W2Ks security model limits an application's/driver's acces to the hardware, thus impossing a performance hit, however small or large.

What you gain is a much more stable operating system. I am currently running W2K Pro on my system (see my sig below) and it runs like a dream. I am willing to trade off a few FPS in games for the added stability and control that W2K offers. Besides, you might as well get used it and give it a run, since Whistler will simply be more of W2K. Unless you plan on sticking with W9X/WME for a while (yuck).
 
To those that say games by default must perform worse in Win2K than in Win98:


<< In the case of the GeForce2 MX's drivers, we once again could not be any happier regarding Windows 2000 performance. The Windows 2000 scores are identical to the Windows 98SE scores. In fact we have gotten the GeForce2 MX to produce higher scores under Windows 2000, proving once again that this is not an impossible task. >>

Budget Video Card Comparison - November 2000
 
80% of the games I play work on win2k just fine. Even if the FPS are lower, not that much though, not enough to see the difference.

I dual boot though just in case a game don't work in win2k.
 
I've seen GeForce benchmarks where Q3 performs better on a Win2k system than on a Win98/ME system. Is this because of OpenGL being a professional graphics API?
 
Win98 is better for gaming,Win2000 will not run all games,don`t look at benchmarks they mean nothing.Win2000 is getting better but Win98 is still the gaming platform,when you buy new games from a store there are still quite a few that do not have Win2000 as the OS platform on the box,it may run the game but no guarantees.

🙂
 
WinNT4 was not a gaming OS. I was more than happy with it. It did every bit as good as Win98 for me, and didn't crash daily either. Of course I also played Quake, Quake2, Quake3, Tribes, DIablo, Starcraft, etc.. So far I have not been impressed with any game that didn't run in NT (For example, Riven doesn't list NT. As long as you didn't minimize it, ran just fine though).
I'm getting the same performance from NT5 as I did 4.
 
When service pack 2 is released in January win2000 may be better for games.
Right now win 98SE but most of my games run fine on Win2000 and some better.
 
For me it's not about performance: I've extensively used Windows 2000 at work setting up domains and network server applications, as well as at home for the past 4 or so months and it has been great. At home, I've formatted my computer multiple times switching between 98SE and 2000, almost bi-weekly at times. The reason for this is because A) I have a small hard drive and cannot perform a sucessfull dual-boot the way I want to (10GB 7200RPM), and B) Win98SE, slightly faster in certain games, also has better 3D texture quality and smoothness IMHO, especially in Quake3/UT.

Performance wise the two Operating Systems are almost on part with games, but Quake3 looks a bit too dark for my likings, and has more &quot;pixel popping&quot;. I've tried the latest drivers for my TNT2U, as well as using command line options for the console, such as &quot;seta r_intensity 1.4&quot; (default of 1), &quot;seta r_ignorehwgamma 1&quot;, etc, but they still do not provide the brightness I need to accurately use the rail gun; which is my favorite weapon of choice in a deathmatch. 🙂 I'm now using 98SE since I'll be going to the infamous &quot;BadAss LAN Party&quot; in my area in 16 days, 45 guys playing CS, Q3 RA/Instagib, UT, AOE II, and Civ II. 🙂

G|T
 
Strictly speaking Win98 is not meant for games any more than Win2K is. Win98 is cheaper and can run about the same with half as much memory (128 vs 256) so the savings of a couple hundred bucks in software and hardware means it is &quot;better&quot; for gaming for most people.

But, Win2K is simply superior being faster and more stable and having efficient memory useage which is a huge advantage for multiplayer gaming. Many people confuse the fact that it is third party drivers that are responsible for any advantage Win9x might have, and not anything inherent to the OS. Companies are still learning how to write drivers for it and we all know that many of them have a hard enough time with an OS as old as the Win9x series.

From my experience, 3D video drivers aside, Win2K is just peppier and can do A/V encoding 25% faster and I don't see any reason why it would not be faster at almost everything provided it has enough physical memory and all the unneeded default service junk is not running. The main requirement for gaming, again, are those 3D drivers which really only NVIDIA seem to be capable of supplying.

The real reason that Win2K Pro is often called a business OS is not because it has a few more features, but because MS can get away with charging more for it. If Win9x was not still viable then Win2K Pro or a slightly feature crippled derivitive would cost $50 as the entry level OS. But I guess that will happen beginning next year anyway.
 
win98 isnt' an operating system, its a piece of crap. I wouldn't ever install that thing again. Been using win2k since the RTM release came out a year ago and i love it. (DOS lemmings didnt work though, damn, so i had to find the win3.1 version and that worked)
 
Some of the games I have tried don't even work in 2K just as some joysticks, gamepads and etc. don't either. Also I did some benchmarking with 3D Mark and 98SE gives much bettter scores than 2k, that is why I use 98 for gaming.
 
SirFshAlot,
if they created a gaming OS, it would be worse than ME, with many more bells and whistles and an even <sarchasm>COOLER</sarchasm> media player.
 
robisc, those ain't OS problems. If the driver or in some case maybe game developer had the ability to write equivalent drivers it would be the same or better!

SirFshAlot, X-Box will run a basic Win2K OS. I don't really want a gaming only OS because I use my PC for lots of other stuff online. Gaming is just a part of that. It could be handy for a MAME box but the minimum hardware to run Win9x is pretty much free scrap nowadays so it ain't really a problem.
 
Auric, I agree that theoretically it isn't an OS problem, but it is limitation of the OS when those drivers aren't out there for that OS. I mean I love the BeOS but there aren't that many drivers for it or are there games ported for it either, that is the limitation of the OS and blame it on Be, developers or whomever but ultimately the OS is the problem as the end result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top