PDA

View Full Version : Gaming performance, Win2K vs WinXP, now


coldmist
03-23-06, 05:57 PM
I'm still running Win2K, and I really don't find anything to draw me to XP.

Video drivers are the same for 2K/XP.

With new games, like FEAR and Quake4, is the performance, after all these years, still close between the two OSes?

supra
03-23-06, 06:04 PM
well to me winxp is basically 2k with eye candy and some extra functions.
So in theory 2k would maybe run better? :P

I run xp cos i like and want the eye candy :)

agentkay
03-23-06, 06:11 PM
Yes I have 2K as well. I like the classic clean look that 2K has, and that I have just 11 processes running after booting the system. ;)

rewt
03-23-06, 08:57 PM
Yes I have 2K as well. I like the classic clean look that 2K has, and that I have just 11 processes running after booting the system. ;)

I can get XP Pro down to 11 process as well. And the classic 2k theme..

Generally though, you'll get the same performance from both operating systems. Unless of course you consider that XP has the ability to take full advantage of SLI.

coldmist
03-23-06, 09:49 PM
Generally though, you'll get the same performance from both operating systems. Unless of course you consider that XP has the ability to take full advantage of SLI.
What is missing, or what is the problem with Win2K and SLI? I haven't heard of any problems with that before.

Pistolgrip
03-24-06, 04:39 AM
Windows XP uses a faster method to enter kernel mode (every API and graphics call goes through kernel mode, 1000's of times a second) compared to Windows 2K, but that might have been addressed in a recent service pack. I know that upto SP3 it didn't. When XP was released it was about 10% faster than 2K, there is no reason why you shouldn't be on XP, its leaner and faster. You can turn off all the fancy GUI crap and it looks and feels just like 2K, except its a bit faster, boots a hell of a lot faster and is generally just better supported.


2000 is designed for businesses.

Xophile
03-24-06, 04:52 AM
Well, not all games are playable on w2k anymore, AOEIII for instance. I know it's possible to make them run through different hacks though...

agentkay
03-24-06, 05:20 AM
Well, not all games are playable on w2k anymore, AOEIII for instance. I know it's possible to make them run through different hacks though...

Hack? You just start the installion with "setup.exe /a" and then you install "msxmlger.msi" incase it isnīt in your system yet. Not a very difficult process and thats a "MS-says-donīt-work-on-2k" game. lol

XP isnīt bad, but considering that I moved to 2k (from Win98SE) around two and a half years ago and was able to run all games at acceptable speeds and stability, I just donīt see any interest in XP, especially with Vista being less than a year away. XP64 would have been interesting if I had bought a 64bit CPU, but Iīll do the major hardware upgrade for Vista. Iīll probably still leave one HDD with the 2k system and use it as a backup, but that depends how good the (2k) drivers will be for the new hardware.

jAkUp
03-24-06, 05:46 AM
AFAIK SLI does not work on Win2K at all, unless there is a hack or something.

sniggle
03-24-06, 07:51 AM
Get nLite (http://www.nliteos.com/) so you can preconfigure XP before installing (remove fancy crap, disable certain services like themes, preinstall updates and whatnot) and then go for it. You won't be sorry.

Ancient
03-24-06, 11:04 AM
A year or so ago, one of the Ars Technica forum members began benchmarking games on 95, 98, ME, 2K, and XP to put the issue to rest once and for all. He ran a number of benchmarks at varying resolutions for a multitude of games. In virtually every instance, XP was faster than all the previous OSes, sometimes significantly so.

If anyone wants to research the results, go to Ars and search for a benchmarking thread by a dude named, iirc, Hat Monster.

Wolfhound
03-28-06, 12:06 PM
In win2k SLI doesnīt work, or I canīt find how to make it work... so Win XP for me