What is better for oc? W2K or ME?

[chainbolt]

For hardcore overclockers (the nitrogen guys) it seems to be standing principle to use NT or W2K and not ME. See here!

I though it has something to do with the NFTS file systme, but some experts over in the other forum told me "that is BS". Fact is that almost all these guys use W2K or NT. Why?

 

[kvizbar]

NT or 2K is a better stability check because the OS isn't a piece of s**t.

When your system crashes, it's more likely because of overclocking than a crappy operating system.

 

[chainbolt]

<< NT or 2K is a better stability check because the OS isn't a piece of s**t.

When your system crashes, it's more likely because of overclocking than a crappy operating system. >>



That's 100 right, but not the point. Which system remains longer stable, when I oc? I think W2K, but if once
there are corruptions, almost impossible to recover. ME is crashing earlier, but easier to repair.

 

[Davegod75]

w2k is better. It's more stable.

 

[Wingznut]

I don't think either one is affected by overclocking. However, when the cpu is on the brink of crashing the OS, Win2k is more likely to pull itself out of the crash. It's not going to make the cpu more stable, but it makes it easier to recover from a crash and carry on with testing.

 

[jscobie]

well if you are worried about stability, why no try the most stable OS, Linux! I personally dualboot (neccesary for some stuff) 98SE and Redhat 7.1, now i have heard W2K is the best as in stability, but i dont have a way to obtain a copy of the W2K CD.
good luck, but i do notice TomsHardwae uses 98SE, and maybe you should talk to the dude that runs HardOCP, i think he uses 98SE for testing, he might be able to give you reasons.
The only reason to own a copy of ME is for the updated drivers cover more stuff.