Win2000 Vs 98 for video gaming

[Guest]

I was reading about on some message boards and came across a note that said win2000 pro is better for gaming since windows 98 can't effectivly use 512 mb of ram. Now i have 639mb of pc133 sdram. And it made me think. Windows 2000? Or stay with 98. Which will be a better gaming choice?

 

[Toejam31]

With that much RAM? Windows 2000. It stands to reason that if you bought the memory, you might as well be able to use it effectively. Win9x can't ... Win2K can. It's as simple as that.

Win2K will play nearly any modern game, if installed and configured correctly. It might not benchmark quite as fast as Win9x, but the games will play just fine. And the additional stability of the OS will make up for any minor drop in FPS, regardless.

Win98 is slightly faster with games, but not enough to justify keeping it on the hard drive unless you intend to play much older games, IMHO.

Toejam31

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new"><font color=green>Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</font color=green></A>
<font color=red>Second Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new"><font color=green>Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</font color=green></A>
____________________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>

 

[Zlash]

What he said, i haven't had any problems or noticeable slow downs gaming on 2k.

...

 

[OldBear]

Toejam, have you heard when the next service release
for Win2k will be out?

º º <font color=blue>You get what you pay for. All advice here is free.</font color=blue>

 

[Toejam31]

I've heard that the earliest possible release date will be in July. But it might take longer. There will be quite a few <A HREF="http://www.activewin.com/win2000/sp3bugs.shtml" target="_new">bug fixes</A>, from what I can see.

Toejam31

<font color=red>My Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new"><font color=green>Toejam31's Tantalizing Tantric Toy</font color=green></A>
<font color=red>Second Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new"><font color=green>Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</font color=green></A>
____________________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Procrastination on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."</font color=purple>

 

[OldBear]

Thanks. I was sure in hope it would be sooner.

º º <font color=blue>You get what you pay for. All advice here is free.</font color=blue>

 

[OldBear]

That is one long list.

º º <font color=blue>You get what you pay for. All advice here is free.</font color=blue>

 

[Smilin]

I'm not getting pulled into this discussion again!!!!

ok anyway..

Yes, windows 2000 is better for many many reasons.

I think 98 will run just a LITTLE bit faster...but you won't be able to tell without looking at decimal points in some benchmark.

 

[Guest]

I've just installed win2k on this little baby, and Windows 98 beats it at booting up. thats about it. my sandra results have suffered a little, but i haven't noticed any decrease in system performance at all. Applications etc.. are about on par and my computer hasn't crashed for a few days now....

 

[Smilin]

I think you'll find that if you want to w2k can go for MONTHS without crashing. If you want years, you'll have to go to linux I'm afraid