Win 2000 with games?

[bungee]

Hi, I was wondering if Win 2000 is compatible with every game. I tought it was the only advantage to have a win 9x: play every games and run every software. I know Win NT4 had a lot of games for exemple that did not run, but what about Win 2k?

<font color=red> I won't sign without my lawyer's presence!

 

[lhgpoobaa]

hahaha!

no operating system exists that can play "EVERY" game.
even win 9x cant play apple IIe games. or playstation games, or gameboygames... etcetcetc

moving on...
win2k works best with new games.
the older the game the more touble i seem to have.
anything over a year and a half old is in that category.
some games work, some dont.
carmageddon 2 doesnt.
might and magic 7 doesnt (does in software mode)
quake2 does, but has to be manually installed

win2k is also not good for old dos games. you cannot boot into a protected dos mode, thus many games will never work.

i put up with the loss of some old classic games becuase it is SOOOOOO stable compared to 98.
no more random bluescreens of death.
useful system utilities that actually let you control stuff
classy hibernate mode. (suspend to Hard disk then poweroff)
no more FAT32 (cept on my backup drive)
did i mention stability stability or stability?
i never realised how many crashes i put up with with 98 dont exist in win2k.

rant over now

My hamster really wants to give you a big kiss, you sexy hunk you!

 

[jc14all]

W2k works with any PC game that is I believe DirectX 6.0 and above. So, of course the newer games will run on this platform. If you have older games you would like to play I recommend a dual boot with Win 9x/Me.

JC-------<*){{{>{~~~~~
Fisher of men

 

[bungee]

How do we do a dual platform? Does it worth it?

<font color=red> I won't sign without my lawyer's presence!

 

[jc14all]

The matter of worth is a personal decision, but some people dual boot Win9x/Me with W2k and later find themselves leaning toward a single platform more than the other (W2k)...This is the casual gamer type. However, the radical gamer will lean more toward Win9x/Me. W2k has some good manual administrative security feathers for your business applications, plus it offers gaming for the newer DirectX games, and crashes less than Win9x/Me. Win9x/Me has its issues with crashes but is very flexible with various game play, but does not offer the security that W2k on NTFS file system offers. I must remind you that there is no perfect OS, so figure out what you are really most interested in Gaming or Tweaking Adminstrative Security w/some newer gaming. Here is a link on dual booting:

http://www.zdnet.com/community/stories/main/0,9057,2662085,00.html

The bottom line is do you have the $$ or do you have the HDD space to dual boot?

JC-------<*){{{>{~~~~~
Fisher of men

 

[bungee]

That link is very interesting. for your question, I have 40 GB and something like 35 free (new computer...) but I'm not sure if I have the money to buy Win 2k: it's lot of money for marginal benefit. It seems more like a pain to have to reboot every time you need to play a game after work and choose your OS every time you boot. You know, you don't have all your stuff at a single place.
That makes me ask why Microsoft doesn't make a OS as stable as Win2K but with polivalency of Win ME?? I'm pretty sure that XP is way not stable as 2000, isn't it? Can someone explain me that?
Thank you!

<font color=red> I won't sign without my lawyer's presence!