Windows 2000 and gaming?

[techwanabe]

I am curriently still running Win 98 on my box and I like to do some casual gaming - mostly stuff like Icewind Dale 2, Never Winter Nights and a few other 3 D games. Since Win 98 isn't the most stable in the world, I'm thinking about moving to Windows 2000 on a FAT32 drive.

Will games perform as good or better than Win 98 on my computer using Windows 2000 on a FAT32 drive? My PC specs are below.

(I tried looking in FAQ and doing searches but the search function didn't find anything on this.)

Thanks

 

[crisp82]

98 should run games fine on that system. Are you experiency instability?

Personally, I would go XP if its gaming reasons. XP runs games better (IMO) then 2000. Just grab a refresh rate fix, correct drivers etc and you're away.

 

[propellerhead]

The few articles I've read online say that XP is more current and compatible with today's games. 2K is basically XP but without the Toys-R-Us interface and the product activation. I'm sure there are benchmarks out there that will show where one OS beats the other, but in the real world, I doubt you would be able to tell the difference.

 

[mrwiseguy]

Win2k and games .... ah ah. If I were you I wouldn't ever try it.

Best thing, have dual os, use win 98 only for games and install all s/w and related stuff in win2k

But if you just want all in one OS, use XP, theres nothing like it (of course linux is, but thats a different story)

 

[techwanabe]

Yeah... I have to reboot every 3 or 4 days because something stops working right. Sure, I could simply re-install Win 98 "yet" another time, but I'm thinking if I'm going to reinstall, I might want something newer.

The reason I hesitate about XP is #1, it's going to cost me, and #2, I hear it runs slower on systems than earlier OS's. I'm taking the Win 2000 Microsoft course right now, and my instructor commented that XP runs slower than earlier OS's.

Besides, if XP is basically Win 2000 with the "gumdrop" look, and product activation - I'm not sure it's worth the expense right now. I have Win 2000 which I could install.

Any comments on FAT32 vs NTFS? I'm figuring I don't want to have to mess with the file security jazz and I've heard there is some performance loss due to the security file system.

 

[RaymondY]

I am currently running Win2K on my primary gaming rig without an problems. I play UT, ghost recon, mohaa, dungeon siege, etc. Game play is excellent and I don't have any stability problems. Think I have had 4 BSOD in over 10+ months.

I would not hesitate the use Win2K OS for your rig. WinXP is slightly fast and has more fluff. Either would be a good OS compared to 98. However I would recommend that u use the NTFS over the FAT32. NTFS is much better than FAT32, this is well documented online.

 

[techwanabe]

Thanks ray,

I'm pretty familiar with NTFS cause I'm a network admin and an MCSE (NT4). I am not knowledgable about NTFS compared to FAT32 performancewise tho. My instructor commented that NTFS would perform a bit slower due to the file security overhead and that makes sense. But if the benchmarks speak otherwise... Of course then there is always having to login to the machine and be admin etc... no big deal I guess.

 

[MedicBob]

I use and have been using 2000 without a problem.

 

[vegetation]

Win2k seems to run modern games just fine. I can see the issue with games made pre 2001, they aren't always compatible but anything recent shouldn't have a problem.

 

[DeViL]

Windows XP has served me well. In gaming and all. It is a very realiable and stable system

 

[TheCorm]

Windows 2000 should be fine for any games run in the past few years, I used to have a Dual boot 98 / 2k and used 98 for games because 2k seemed to mess things up when I was playing online plus 98 is faster (it was just a bare operating system with the games, no rubbish lying about) and was stable enough.

Now I have moved to XP and besides my folder issue I have been very pleased, it starts up and shuts down about 2-3 times faster than 2000.

But You should be pleased with 2000 anyway, and go for NTFS....performence is fine.

Corm

 

[Woodchuck2000]

I've always preferred 2000 over 98 for gaming just because it's so much more stable.
Run XP if you can get it, but I'd rather have 2000 than 98 any day...

 

[dawks]

Your instructor is an idiot. NTFS is faster then Fat32 (In some cases). Fat32 is faster then NTFS (In some other cases). Were talking milliseconds difference.

You wont notice a difference performance wise. You will however notice a difference in fragmentation. NTFS fragments much less. And its more 'stable'. ie, if your system crashes or the power goes out, you dont have to run scandisk.

XP runs just as fast, if not faster then earlier OS's.. Especially if you disable the 'eyecandy'. Such as the shadows under menus..

I use XP on my system, and it runs way smother then 98 or ME ever did. Its much better at handleing its resources. With 98, while doing lots of multitasking, I would get 10-15 pauses. Now I do even more with my system, and it never stops chugging along. (im running a PII 400 with 256ram btw).

2000 would work just as fine as XP, alough I would recomend XP myself. Has more features, and is just a little more mature.

2000 and XP can be just as stable as any version of linux, if you know what your doing, and with good hardware. (stable hardware is key )

 

[Woodchuck2000]

Well said DaZ...
There really is no reason to keep 2K on a machine if you have XP floating around.
I've run XP on a P233 MMX laptop with 96Mb of ram and it was fine for everyday use.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: DaZ
Your instructor is an idiot. NTFS is faster then Fat32 (In some cases). Fat32 is faster then NTFS (In some other cases). Were talking milliseconds difference.

You wont notice a difference performance wise. You will however notice a difference in fragmentation. NTFS fragments much less. And its more 'stable'. ie, if your system crashes or the power goes out, you dont have to run scandisk.

XP runs just as fast, if not faster then earlier OS's.. Especially if you disable the 'eyecandy'. Such as the shadows under menus..

I use XP on my system, and it runs way smother then 98 or ME ever did. Its much better at handleing its resources. With 98, while doing lots of multitasking, I would get 10-15 pauses. Now I do even more with my system, and it never stops chugging along. (im running a PII 400 with 256ram btw).

2000 would work just as fine as XP, alough I would recomend XP myself. Has more features, and is just a little more mature.

2000 and XP can be just as stable as any version of linux, if you know what your doing, and with good hardware. (stable hardware is key )

Thanks Daz,

Interesting comments about fragmenting and NTFS... seems like under Windows NT, there wasn't even the ability to Defrag without 3rd party software - which I've heard wasn't reliable. I have W2K on my system at work and notice that defragging is now on the menu.

Well, I'd consider XP but I don't want to spend the money right now, so I may go ahead and use XP.... we'll see. Regardless, it sounds like either will work fine for gaming.

BTW, I'll mention again games I use: Icewind Dale 1 & 2, Baldurs Gate 1 & 2, Never Winter Nights and a few other 3 D

 

[Sunner]

Just install the compatibility tools from the Win2K CD and you'll be doing just as good with 2K as you would with XP for gaming.

They're in Support\Tools on the CD.

And as DaZ said, NTFS vs FAT32 is a tossup in terms of speed.
In the end, when it really counts, NTFS will be far faster, for example when you have lots and lots of small files in one dir, NTFS will fly compared to FAT32, while FAT32 will at best be marginally faster than NTFS in some cases.

In the end, speed isn't an issue, but NTFS is supperior in every other way.

 

[yazz]

win2k or XP for gaming? anyone who states that XP is better for gaming than win2k is lazy and has not used win2k for a serious amount of time. Win2k will play every current game out in the market. i have yet to see a current game that will refuse to run on win2k?!@ the only difference win2k has from XP is DirectX 9 and Media Player 9. you just have to download DX9 and Media Play9 to be up to date. plus, XP and win2k still need you to download the latest video drivers to play current games. oh yeah, forgot, win2k will need an Intel chipset update (for newer P3 and P4 boards) or a VIA 4in1 driver update. XP will not always run out of the box (it will still run sometimes, but unoptimized and sluggish) if you have a newer motherboard.

FAT32 or NTFS? if you are still running DOS programs you probably still want fat/32. if you think that booting to DOS is going to save you if win2k/xp does not boot you are fooling yourself. it is hard to fix a win2k/xp OS problem with dos commands; you using the CD to boot you into the recovery console is more like it.
just some thoughts...

 

[xirtam]

2000 won't work with several games on my systems (blue-screens every time), but XP and 98 will. And I would say that I've used 2K extensively. I use it on all non-gaming machines.

I know others who have no problems with gaming and 2K. So I don't think it's a universal 2K problem, just more system dependent.

 

[techwanabe]

Originally posted by: xirtam
2000 won't work with several games on my systems (blue-screens every time), but XP and 98 will. And I would say that I've used 2K extensively. I use it on all non-gaming machines.

I know others who have no problems with gaming and 2K. So I don't think it's a universal 2K problem, just more system dependent.

Which games were those?

Yaz and Sunner,

Thanks for the tips and info. I don't want to lay out the $$ for XP right now so I'll go w2k for now. I may need to run those mobo updates since I have a Tualy system.

 

[Anubis]

i gamed on win 2000 just fine. everything from Tribes to Unreal 2003 thay all worked flawlessly. i never had any problims.

but if you have XP install that

 

[Schadenfroh]

all of my games (some dating back to late 80's and very early 90s) ran well under 2k. no problems. however, NFS Porsche unleashed did not work.

 

[vash]

Either OS will be plenty fine for gaming. I game on Win2k and WinXP all the time, neither of them give me troubles. The only reason why my existing machine is running WinXP is that I don't have to install as many drivers when I reinstall the box.

vash

 

[Vonkhan]

I'm using 2000 - played Splinter Cell, Unreal 2, UT 2K3, Ghost Recon, etc. and they all run fine. However, I still prefer 98 for playing games - damn unstable compared to 2000, but games atleast seemed to run faster. With 98, I'd average 2 BSOD a days, with 2000 maybe 1 in 3 months.

 

[BmXStuD]

Well if you want to game and use xp make sure you have more than 256mb ram. If you dont have more than 256mb as soon as you go into a game you will start to hit PAGEFILE hard, than when you leave the game your pc is going to be laggy and only thing you can do is REBOOT. How do i know this b/c it happen to me till i got more than256mb ram. Btw this happen on 2k and xp for me.

 

[smitty99]

As has been covered, the speed differences between NTFS and FAT32 are negligible, and may work out in your favor with a large enough drive.

Win2k should give similar performance to XP once you get DirectX and your drivers up-to-date.

If you have 2k, then there's not much reason to XP unless the advertized features catch your attention. It's expensive, as you know. I have had a few games that want to give me trouble because they check the OS version and if they see NT (which 2000 ad NT are based off of) they refuse to run - there's no technical incompatibility, but they think that any NT == NT 4. There is a compatibility tool that wraps a program in a pseudo-win95/98 environment and gets most of them to work without issue. It's part of the properties pane in WinXP, while you have to hunt for it in 2000 - but it's around somewhere. (I'm an XP user now, otherwise I'd find it for you.)