Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 44934	2004-05-03 22:24:00	Win 2000 better than Win XP ?	Steve_L (763)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
234074	2004-05-04 06:37:00	> Lohsing. Benchmarks are fun to run but they have no > relevence (IMHO) to any measurement of what makes a > good gaming PC. It matters little if a machine > produces a high framerate when any machine over 2ghz > with a 3D card produces more frames than are required > by the human brain to interpret. Disagree completely. For one thing, you are selling yourself short by making a broad statement that I should accept lower performance and framerates just because "any machine over 2ghz... produces more frames than are required by the human brain to interpret" FWIW, you haven't even asked what sort of benchmarks I achieved!! I put the question to you - as a gamer, if you could get an additional 1000 added to your 3DMark03 benchmark through running XP, would you do it? Why spend so much money on your machine if you don't get every last drop of performance out of it when it comes to gaming? > A gaming machine requires grunt, great hardware and a > stable OS that can handle all the requirements. In my > experience thats 2000. I have spent hours and hours > with some XP installs that hate modern copy > protection (rare with 2000 in my experience), What copy protection are you talking about?? You will have to be a bit more specific. I don't know of any "modern copy protection" which causes problems in XP. > bluescreen when a game crashes (I personally have > never blue screened from a game under 2000, the most > I have to do is CTl/Alt/Del and kill the game process > then carry on computing or start the game again) and > crash in a fiery heap with driver installs. Another And I have never had that happen under XP either... the point being? > thing I have found with 2000 is its more efficient > use of system memory when gaming which means you can > run a game better on a 2000 machine with less memory > than a XP machine. I constantly see XP machines choke > with less thn half a gig of ram with graphically > intensive games and advanced AIs. I think that's a pretty broad generalisation you're suggesting there... > There are some good ideas in XP but it strikes me > that XP is in fact 2000ME with all the horror implied > by labelling it ME (ME is regarded worldwide as the > worst widely used consumer OS, in fact I ban ME from > my gaming lans completely). What?? XP is in fact 2000ME?? I think a lot more blame needs to be put back onto the habits of the user, and also the hardware it is used with. Too much blame gets put onto the OS, when other 3rd party apps have been installed which cause performance loss. Lo.	Lohsing (219)
234075	2004-05-04 06:38:00	XP and 2000 are essentially the same OS anyway aren't they? I have looked through a few gamiong forums the past 30 mins and most if not all say XP is the better gaming platform. Here's a review www.computeruser.com One of the final paragraphs sums it up nicely. To switch or not to switch If you've been using Windows 2000 Professional for a year or two and are happy with it (and don't need it do anything it isn't already capable of doing), then you probably don't need to upgrade to Windows XP Professional. Once you take away all the bells and whistles, there isn't much of a difference between the two operating systems. Save your money and buy some more RAM instead. In the end - it is what you want to do with your PC. I conclude therefore that my choice is HOLDEN	Jester (13)
234076	2004-05-04 06:39:00	man, I wish I used 'preview' grrrrrrrrrrrr	Jester (13)
234077	2004-05-04 10:05:00	For an extra 1000 3DMarks?....No. For an extra 10,000 3DMarks?.....Yes Copy protection problems. I am surprised you have not heard. A lot of us are aware ....even Microsoft. support.microsoft.com Do a search in any decent search engine or any Game developer/distributors forums using "Please insert correct CD" and you will discover the extent of modern copy protection problems and the OS. At my lans machines crash occasionally. The XP machines not only bluescreen far more than I would expect from an OS built on the 2000 kernel it also just plain crashes/locks it far more often and the XP machines need full reboots more often to recover. Your experience is obviously different from mine.	John Grieve (367)
234078	2004-05-04 10:08:00	What a mess!! :D Sorry. No idea how that abortion happened. I was using a microsoft link though111???? :D :D	John Grieve (367)
234079	2004-05-04 10:46:00	What? Do you know what I am referring to when I am talking about 1,000 3DMark03's...? That's a huge boost in anyone's language... I think you're mistaking 3DMark03 as 3DMark01... As for copy protection problems... the Microsoft website has a fix for that already? As I have already stated before... blaming the OS is an easy way out... Unless you are talking about identical machines running the same programs, etc... then it will be about as pointless as an AMD vs Intel discussion. There are too many variables to consider and I think you're making too broad a statement when you suggest XP machines bluescreen more, simply because of machines crashing at lans. I've already benchmarked my machine running clean installs of both Win2K and Win XP Pro. In both instances, my XP Pro install benched much higher than the Win2K install... looking at a difference of around 1,000 mark increase in 3DMark03, that equates to approx a 15% increase in performance. Now I don't know about you, but 15% better performance? I'm more than happy with my shift to XP. Cheers anyway, Lo.	Lohsing (219)
234080	2004-05-04 11:35:00	OK, i give up. I've lost the plot. My blind rage @ XP has made me stuff up my sentences and logical thinking. But John seems to be right on track. I agree with everything he has said so far. But for what its worth, my clients PC is brand new, with a new XP install and the only other program installed apart from office was mailwasher. Some installs are good, some are ****. I have never experienced the problems that jester had with 2k, and Lo has never experienced the problems that John has had with XP. But someone is lying... Everyone has had problems with XP. Only some people have had problems with 2000. It's impossible for there to be a physical gain in changing from 2000 to XP when XP is the more resource hungry OS. I think those benchmarks are rigged lo. Remember the nVidia drivers fraud incident?	hamstar (4)
234081	2004-05-04 11:51:00	I must make it clear that I have never had a problem with Win2K... i switched only because I wanted the hyperthreading technology... In fact, I have good memories of Win2K, but let's be realistic, why would i buy a P4 machine, and not use a Hyperthreading OS...? I may as well have gone out to get an AMD in that case... I still think it's a cop out to say the OS is crap. I think the it's how people use their PC's which determines whether or not you have problems with performance, etc. As for a physical gain in changing from 2000 to XP... well... I'm sorry, but across the 3 benchmarks I described, I scored better. I also encoded divx movies faster in XP than in Win2K... I don't have exact times, but I do know it was slightly faster. Look - I don't have a problem with Win2K at all... I just take exception to how people can lay the blame on the OS without considering other more reasonable explanations such as what other apps have been installed, what kind of hardware is involved, etc... As for the benchmarks being rigged... ummm... What would SiSoft Sandra have to gain from providing false benchmarks under different OS's...?? Lo.	Lohsing (219)
234082	2004-05-04 12:09:00	>As for the benchmarks being rigged... ummm... What would SiSoft Sandra have to gain from providing false benchmarks under different OS's...?? A nice big cheque from microsoft...	hamstar (4)
234083	2004-05-04 12:53:00	Apparently Server2003 used as a workstation OS, owns all previous M$ OS's to date. See for yourself (forums.overclockers.co.nz). I think you need membership to get in, so I'll post benchmark results here! In one corner we have WinXP Pro Sp1, Clean Install + Drivers + DX9 + Cat 3.8's display drivers. In the other corner we have Window Server 2003 Ent. Edition, No Patches, Clean Install + Drivers + DX9 + Cat 3.8's. The only changes made to the server were those required to installed Cat's and enable 3d support. The test is 3dMark2001SE, total defaults. (since were concerned about 3d performance its 3dMark). A Picture is worth 1000 Words right. Xp is first up (sal.neoburn.net) Next up Server 2003 (sal.neoburn.net) XP Pro = 11059 3D marks Server 2003 = 13704 3D marks That 2645 3D marks difference = 24% increase in performance. Things like driver issues etc, you can mostly get away with using 2000/XP drivers if there are none available for 2003. By default server2003 is set to optimise for background tasks, but you can change this and optimise for programs. Ok I now expect you to all go off and install Server2003. You can download 180day trial from M$.	PoWa (203)
1 2 3 4 5 6