which OS is the best for gaming?
- Thread starter imported_LandShark
- Start date
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
XP Pro or Home will do just fine, many legacy games do not work with x64 (16bit code laced, like my civ 2
), a few games like Farcry and UT2004 have special err packs(?) that allow extra features under x64.
), a few games like Farcry and UT2004 have special err packs(?) that allow extra features under x64.Pro is a slightly better OS than Home; but it makes zero diffirence for gaming. Unless you know why you want Pro, game on Home.
IMO the only significant feature PRO offers over HOME is the ability to join a domain, which has zero impact on gaming. What other features of pro make it a superior gaming platform?
Home is great for 99% of users out there. Some people think it's just cooler to have PRO, and since it says PRO it must be better.
Well, it's the exact same other than a few features, and if you don't use those features then having PRO means you just spent more than you should have.
I bought Pro, but I love Remote Desktop, and I like to have an FTP server running sometimes. I'll never join a domain though.
in my experience, Pro has always just been way more stable than Home. I mean, if youre going to JUST game, and youre going to be gaming from a fresh boot everytime, then sure it doesnt make a lick of difference. but if you actually use your computer, pro will be the better choice in the long run.
but i agree with canterwood, Windows 2000 Professional all the way.
but i agree with canterwood, Windows 2000 Professional all the way.
I know someone already said this but x64 is getting better and better as nvidia and ati keep updating their drivers.... turns out even with 32 bit games that the 64 bit drivers overcome the extra cpu usage caused by WOW (windows on windows) performance-wise. If you have a good pci sound card like the audigy 2 zs, then you will be even less cpu strained and x64 is an even better choice. Basically only extremely cpu intensive games (anyone know of any, I dont, nothing that will strain a 3700+ on a single vid card anyhow) will run worse on x64 than xp.
The only downside was already mentioned in that x64 refuses to run older games laced with older 16 bit code.
Personally I use 2003 since it can be configured very well and once configured it is very good (for windows anyhow). Also, since nobody on here steals OSs or anything, it is important to note that the price of 2003 has gone down 80% or so and is now competitive with xp.
Finally, with win2k, it is important to upgrade to at least sp3 as it has a significant impact on pultimedia apps. I think it is funny how when win2k was released, marketers said it would be terrible for games, but now it is the standard.
2k is not a good pick over xp though, expecially if you have more than 512 mb of memory then xp or 2003 will do better.
The only downside was already mentioned in that x64 refuses to run older games laced with older 16 bit code.
Personally I use 2003 since it can be configured very well and once configured it is very good (for windows anyhow). Also, since nobody on here steals OSs or anything, it is important to note that the price of 2003 has gone down 80% or so and is now competitive with xp.
Finally, with win2k, it is important to upgrade to at least sp3 as it has a significant impact on pultimedia apps. I think it is funny how when win2k was released, marketers said it would be terrible for games, but now it is the standard.
2k is not a good pick over xp though, expecially if you have more than 512 mb of memory then xp or 2003 will do better.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
That doesn't make any sense, they are the same OS. The difference between XP Pro and XP Home are a couple features, the rest is the same. They have the same stability. In gaming, there is zero difference. Don't know what you mean by fresh boot, I leave mine running just fine.
Windows 2k was unstable compared to XP, no reason to get something older and less capable.
Each to their own, but please don't spout BS like that.
Some people might actually believe you.
2K is perfectly stable and capable in games.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
My friend got BSOD's in it quite often, I had it crash on me often, others had similar issues. I have never gotten a BSOD in XP, nor has my friend. XP is easily more stable than 2k. 2k won't be supported much longer, so there's no reason not to get XP. For gaming specifically, XP Home is the best OS to shoot for.
You're basing your whole outlook on a couple of PC's that you and your friend owned.
Did you ever consider that it might be a badly written driver or piece of software causing your BSOD?
I have to fix people's XP boxes everyday and I can tell you I've seen a substantial ammount of BSOD's from that OS over the years.
Many XP boxes I've worked on are taken down by poorly written drivers, spyware, crap coded software, etc etc, and only yesterday my friend called to say his XP box was Blue Screening!
(Turned out to be a stick of dodgy memory) but I'm not shouting how unstable XP is!
XP and 2K are based on very similar kernels and imo are equally as stable (or unstable) as one another.
I've personally found myself with less issues over the years using 2K than XP, even when gaming.
I've also not had a BSOD on my 2K box for years either, so go figure!
:thumbsup:
I have had more BSODs with XP than 2K on my old K6 PC I'm pretty sure. On my 3 AthlonXP/(KT333/KT400) combos, stability was also worse in XP. On my P4/i865PE, XP has not crashed once and I never had 2K installed on it. On my A64/nForce4 SLI, XP has crashed a couple times and I never had 2K installed on it. The crashes on my A64 were due to Creative Audigy 2 ZS drivers (no surprise). Your experience will vary.
Malak
Lifer
- Dec 4, 2004
- 14,696
- 2
- 0
Between college and my current career, I've worked on everything from 98-Windows 2003. It's not just 2 computers, they were just examples. I have never seen a BSOD in XP. 2000 is an older OS, and therefore no reason to pick it over XP Home. XP is the most stable OS Windows has had. I've done 2k from Pro to AS, had more general issues with that than I've ever had with XP Home or Pro. At work, I've never had a problem on a computer that was related to XP itself, they are mostly user errors if anything.
I have had a friend even crash Linux. There's just no other OS I'd rather use than XP for stable gaming. I would never recommend anything OLDER, that's just retarded.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,756
- 600
- 126
If you're buying a new OS, and its only for gaming, and you have no need to join a domain...XP Home is probably the cheapest route. XP 64 isn't really mature or stable enough yet, IMO. 2000 pro and and XP pro are both more expensive, but plenty capable.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter