Best OS for gaming right now...

[Canterwood]

Windows 2000 Pro here.

Not originally designed as a gaming OS, but it does a damn fine job.

Always had issues with the mouse in FPS on XP, which was very annoying. :|

 

[lMlHuxley]

xp because xcom and masters of orion 2 still installed and worked prefectly. That is enough for me.

 

[xenos500]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: CTho9305
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: jdogg707
XP Pro

Yeah, because remote desktop and filesystem encryption are so critical for gamers <img src="i/expressions/rolleye.gif" border="0">[/quote]
Yes, but stability and better support for new hardware are [/quote]



He's talking about pro over home.

Pro isnt more stable than Home.
It might have better hardware support, I cant say sure sure it doesnt. I doubt it does, though.

Anyone who pays more money for pro over home and isnt on a domain is retarded.
What, you feel more important if your screen saver says "XP pro" instead of "XP home"?

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: xenos500
He's talking about pro over home.

Pro isnt more stable than Home.
It might have better hardware support, I cant say sure sure it doesnt. I doubt it does, though.

Anyone who pays more money for pro over home and isnt on a domain is retarded.
What, you feel more important if your screen saver says "XP pro" instead of "XP home"?

While I agree with you that Pro is not any more stable than Home, there are a number of legitimate reasons to use Pro in a non-domain environment over Home: Remote Desktop, Enhanced Security, support for multiple processors, etc. Saying that someone who uses XP pro outside of the office is "retarded" is a bit presumptuous, isn't it?

 

[Runamile]

The best way to go is XP, but a lot of times, older games won't run, and the 'compatibility mode' is worthless. Im surprised no one here has mentioned Microsoft Virutal PC. I use it for DOS, freeBSD, Windows 2003 Enterprise, and Windows 1.01(that one is kinda buggy). It creates a completly separate computer with dedicated memory and diskspace. The only drawbacks are the speed(but if you are playing old games, your computer should be more than fast enough) and you have to format and install your OS on the virtual drive before doing anything. But all in all, I have had great success with it.

 

[DesolationWilliams]

windoze longhorn all the way.

 

[Maximilian]

Xp is the best. XP Home and XP PRO are almost the *SAME* pro has a few extra features that dont affect gamers (pile of crap that office people need) and people that have pro have bragging rights over the people with home, big deal that is isnt it.... Also compatibility mode does work somtimes, dunno about you guys but it helped me with C&amp;C 95 and many old popular games have patches for XP anyways so no worries there.

As for the games that are old and they werent so popular so have no XP patches, too bad get with the times

 

[Falloutboy]

could always run a virtual machiene such as virtual PC and load win98 on it. that way you don't have to boot into another OS when you feel nestalgic

 

[halik]

Most of the people here will tell you XP Pro... but they are pulling it outta their asses

Win 2K Pro is probably the best in my head. Both of the system run the nearly identical kernel, however XP has a ton of bloatware added on top of it (the theme engine "Luna" etc). 2k will give you slightly better benchmarks from my experience

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: halik
Most of the people here will tell you XP Pro... but they are pulling it outta their asses

Win 2K Pro is probably the best in my head. Both of the system run the nearly identical kernel, however XP has a ton of bloatware added on top of it (the theme engine "Luna" etc). 2k will give you slightly better benchmarks from my experience

Well, FWIW, on nearly identical hardware, same driver versions for disk/video/network/etc, UT plays slightly faster, less "laggy" on W2K Pro SP2, than on XP Pro SP1. Also the mouse control seems more "precise".

Somewhere I downloaded a registry file that purports to change the mouse acceleration curve parameters back to near where W2K had them set. I don't think I ever tried that to fix things though.

I was honestly surprised to find that W2K was smoother/faster for games (at least the ones that I play), as I had heard that "XP was designed for games", implying that W2K somwhow wasn't. (Yes, I have that horrible new XP UI disabled.)

 

[johnnnny5]

nobody has mentioned this yet... but how bout Multics?

 

[Tbirdkid]

Here is my 2 cent besides what i have already said.... go buy an xbox.

 

[johnnnny5]

unfortunately it doesn't run Multics... which is the best OS in my opinion if you want to play the game, "Space Travel"

 

[DainBrammage]

XP pro.... Win 98se is a dead, albeit respected soldier

 

[LongCoolMother]

i say the best is XP home. not a great deal better than pro, but probably better in enough regards. less processes, less disk space wasted. so yes, xp home is pretty fast for gaming.

 

[fluxquantum]

Originally posted by: Twista
Windows 2000 for me. Win2k runs games better for me atm.

 

[SSibalNom]

Originally posted by: Twista
wth u os noobs! windows 2000 is the best for gaming..JK but Win2k is the best for gaming and thats what i use mainly.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: halik
Most of the people here will tell you XP Pro... but they are pulling it outta their asses

Win 2K Pro is probably the best in my head. Both of the system run the nearly identical kernel, however XP has a ton of bloatware added on top of it (the theme engine "Luna" etc). 2k will give you slightly better benchmarks from my experience

XP Pro or Home.

I'm not pulling it out of my ass either. Funny you should say that and then two sentences later do it yourself.

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: GhettoFob
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: MDE
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: Amused
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: Abos
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: Blayze
XP

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[xcript]

It's obviously Minix.

 

[gsellis]

XP. It is better tuned for graphics with better compatibility for older W95/WME games. As for the comments about W2K, maybe in some instances, but not from my experience. W2K will run on a machine with lesser system resouces, but XP uses them more efficiently if its recommended level is reached. The XP graphics engines are better and more stable.

Home has fewer services running by default, so might give a marginal performance improvement over Pro.

 

[Smilin]

I would agree.

There *may* be a difference between Pro and Home but you're going have to use a benchmark to see it. You certainly won't notice with the naked eye.

 

[GZFant]

XP

I was wondering the same thing and XP wins hands down........well almost

 

[artemedes]

Well I am picky and have tried a few configurations on the same hardware over the last year. I prefer to dual boot win98se and win2kpro. I actually found win2kpro to be better only in that it was more consistent. BF1942 gets laggy occaionally on XP. I have been digging through my old software and playing older games, and many wouldn't work right in either 2kpro or XP pro, so I have a small partition for 98se. Guess what, win98se on my nforce2 motherboard is flippin fast and as stable as I have ever seen 98se. Havn't seen a single blue screen or lockup.

As a side note, I can honestly say that alot of older games may lack some of the graphics and features of hte newer games, but many are much more fun. Take Blizzard for example. I really liked Warcraft 3 when it came out and played it for about 6 months, then just got bored with it. I still love to play an occasional game of starcraft though. I am looking foreward to a new trend that puts "game play" as a higher priority than new fancy graphics. Most newer games look nicer but are actaully less fun to play.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: artemedes
Guess what, win98se on my nforce2 motherboard is flippin fast and as stable as I have ever seen 98se. Havn't seen a single blue screen or lockup.

EXACTLY!, I think those that say otherwise have no idea how fast it is on today's hardware. I ran my system (see my sig) dual-boot with XP for a month a couldn't stand the slow boot up/turn off times with XP

Getting ready to run some benchies with newer games that are memory hogs to see if there's much to that poor mem management thing in 98se. Think I'll put a gig of ram in 98se and see if games play/FPS improves and then install XP and compare.