Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is windows 98 SE still better for gaming

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
January 14, 2002 11:26:14 AM

I am looking at buying an AMD XP system (probably an Asus 266V-e - or Soyo Dragon plus motherboard) with a Gf3 ti200 at a clone shop. Is Windows 98 SE still better for gaming than XP? I like war based and other strategy game, flight simulators and sport simulator. I have a lot of game that says they do not support window NT. XP may be more stable but it may not play all my game title. My previous system had run on Windows 95 OSR 2 so I do not want to spend the extra money for windows XP including extra memory right now. Windows XP supposedly run best with 512 MB of ram whereas Window 98 SE run best with 256 MB. I will buy window XP, when they come with a second release and when the PC2700 memory is readily available from Micron. I plan to start with 256 MB stick of PC 2100 memory and replace it with 512 MB of PC2700 when I eventually run Window XP. I hope to use this motherboard with 166/333 MHz FSB AMD CPU.

More about : windows gaming

January 14, 2002 1:58:08 PM

XP is pretty good at gaming. I haven't found anything that won't run yet. I think 98 might be a tad faster for some games but you won't be able to tell the difference with the naked eye...you'll need a benchmark score.

If you have never run anything based on NT (NT,w2k,XP) you OWE it to yourself to try it. It won't run for years like linux but it will go months without a crash, unlike 95/98/ME which is lucky to go a few days.
January 14, 2002 3:10:19 PM

A few days? Yeah you would be lucky.. lol. I've been running XP for over 6 months now and I'm happy to report that all my games work well with it and I haven't had a single crash. A far cry from 98SE.. (ME especially). Yes, the memory requirements for XP are a little steeper, but you will get by sufficiently with 256MB. Up until Christmas, I was running 256MB... it all depends on your particular game. EverQuest, for example, required 512MB to enable all the new character textures with their newest expansion. For the games you're running, you'll be just fine with 256MB and can upgrade to 512MB at your leisure.
Related resources
January 14, 2002 6:38:04 PM

Quote:
Is Windows 98 SE still better for gaming than XP?

I don't own XP, but if gaming is your thing and your question above is Win98se stll better then WinXP for gaming. I would have to say yes Win98se would kick XP butt up and down the street all day long.

Complicated Nit Picker
January 14, 2002 9:31:36 PM

Quote:

I don't own XP, but if gaming is your thing and your question above is Win98se stll better then WinXP for gaming. I would have to say yes Win98se would kick XP butt up and down the street all day long.

I would have to disagree there. Being a person who has every version of Windows since Win3.1, I know the ups and downs of every OS. Win98SE/Me are not longer the best OSs for gaming. You will be equally served with WinXP. Sure, Win98SE will win benchmarks,but unless you care about the highest benchies possible, WinXP is the way to go. I can make Win98SE crash in under 2 min on any system (lol, try opening over 30-40 IE windows)! I can't say the same under Win2K and WinXP. They are far more crash-proof than Win9x has ever been.

I don't think anyone can argue that the extra couple of FPS isn't worth the 10-20 crashes a day (yes, I do open 30-40 IE windows all the time!) :wink:

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 14, 2002 11:06:04 PM

Quote:
Is windows 98 SE still better for gaming??

What does
Quote:
I can make Win98SE crash in under 2 min on any system (lol, try opening over 30-40 IE windows)!

that have to do with it?


You just said
Quote:
Sure, Win98SE will win benchmarks,but unless you care about the highest benchies possible


And here I am building a another computer to put Win2000 on it for stability, and plan on using Win98se on my other computer to play games.

And your telling me I don't need to do that I can just run WinXP and get the same results I'm getting now with Win98se?
Bull


Complicated Nit Picker
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
January 15, 2002 9:55:51 AM

Hmm... why are you so annoyed jiffy. the guy never said that XP is better than Win98SE. He said that performance wise it's pretty much there and I have to agree. I have both systems and I can't notice any differences in performance.

About the only thing I use Win98SE instead of XP is for the games that I play with my bro using gamepad.

The reason for that is the fact that I there are no XP drivers for the gamepad. If the pad worked on XP I'd be getting rid of Win98SE so fast the HD would get dizzy.

I prefer XP Stability much more than I care for those few lost FPS that I would get on Win98SE.

- Tekumze
January 15, 2002 10:34:15 AM

It must of been (lol try opening 30 IE)
haha
<font color=red>the guy never said that XP is better than Win98SE</font color=red>
<font color=blue>Win98SE/Me are not longer the best OSs for gaming.</font color=blue>
I would beg to differ.
I understand WinXP is a good OS, maybe a few bugs, but still good and look forward to a newer version. But the question was which is the best OS for gaming. And where WinXP shines I don't think it has anything to do with games.To me that is which is faster, smoother and plays all games. As for crashing, sure Win98se can crash,so do the others, but it's not that bad, I don't have a problem with it, I could change settings if it was and I don't lose any important info. if it does. hehe
If someone wants to give up performance go with WinXP. Some say with WinXP there is a price you pay, what do they mean by that?

Complicated Nit Picker
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
January 15, 2002 10:57:23 AM

Well I never noticed any difference in performance on XP and 98. Maybe I don't have the latest games that would make the difference more obvious.

I also didn't notice any games not working on XP. WHen I buy a newer pad or a joystick that the manufacturer cares anough o make XP drivers than 98 is a goner. 98 may work OK for you but I also use my machine for work (Printer Driver Developer) from time to time and I don't fancy an occasional crash. I need my machine as stable as possible.

Ignoring a crash here and there than for Gaming only I think 98 is better... but not by that much. Not by enough of a margin for me to want to have it installed.

- Tekumze
January 15, 2002 11:24:01 AM

I agree, as I said, you'll get better benchmarks with Win98 but you won't get better noticable gaming performance. WinXP was designed to be the future gaming OS, and obviously everyone is going to be supporting Microsoft.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 15, 2002 11:52:54 AM

"I don't own XP but..."

hehe. Then don't offer an opinion.
January 15, 2002 1:30:14 PM

Well if there is a price you pay for running XP, I have yet to notice it. In fact, a lot of my online games actually run better with XP since it's networking is a hell of a lot more efficient than what passes for networking in 98/ME. The system requirements are indeed steeper, but if you have a fast enough machine with enough RAM you'll be very hard pressed to notice them. Stablility is VERY important to me since I play two MMRPGs... nothing worse than having your character die because 98/ME decides to barf...
January 15, 2002 5:47:52 PM

>><font color=red> I also use my machine for work (Printer Driver Developer) from time to time and I don't fancy an occasional crash. I need my machine as stable as possible.</font color=red><<

<font color=blue>What does that have to do with which OS is best for gaming?</font color=blue>

I'm not the only one that posted that Win98 is best for games, or XP played a game like crap. If you guys are going to deny how bad your games run in WinXp, then I'm going to deny my system never crashes.
Lets brake this down and get to the end of this. Take a particular game, if Win98 runs faster and doesn't crash while playing it, then that's the best OS for that game. Now we can take all the games, see what runs faster, plays smoother and compare any crashes to speed difference.

Since the question is which OS is best for games, and that is present. I don't think using the computer for work or how many I.E. you can open at once or how stable your system is doing anything other then games would be relevant.

By the way, the comment about >><font color=blue>What does that have to do with which OS is best for gaming?</font color=blue> << I'm just kidding... O and kidding about the (I don't have nothing better to do) remarks above too.
To each his own.


Complicated Nit Picker
January 15, 2002 6:07:25 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm certainly not denying anything. Having used every MS OS from Win 3.1 on up (if you can call Win 3.1 an OS)... I know how my games are running. A five percent increase in frame rates just ain't enough to convince me to go back to Win 98. Am I going to notice that? Not unless I have an FPS counter up on my screen 24/7. The only thing slowing my games down right now is a slightly dated video card (ATi Radeon 64MB VIVO). If I were to install a Radeon 8500 or GeForce 3, I doubt the difference between 98 and XP would be all that significant.

Stability is an important factor in playing games. Almost as important as FPS. Now Win98 may not crash as often as some people might lead you to believe, but it still crashes more often than XP does on my machine. When I play online, I don't want to lose because of some damned Windows glitch. Stability cannot simply be dismissed... I'll take a machine that never crashes over one that crashes daily yet gives me a whole 5% more performance.
January 15, 2002 6:57:05 PM

Quote:

"I don't own XP but..."

hehe. Then don't offer an opinion.

I never said that. I own retail (read: legal) copies of almost every MS OS.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 15, 2002 7:05:03 PM

Yeah, it was in response to a post a few above yours. My bad.
January 15, 2002 7:41:27 PM

Quote:
I don't own XP but..."

hehe. Then don't offer an opinion.

Please, please one at a time.
You did not start this post. madmickey did and didn't say only user of WinXP reply. Just because I don't own it, doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. Just from the information each of you have posted I can conclude Win98se is faster, and WinXP is more stable and doesn't crash as much as Win98se. But how many people here don't know this all ready? This subject has been drag out before. And how many people and how many times does someone offer a subjection of a hardware or software without even owing it. Maybe more then not.
If the difference is speed over stability, then it's each his own.

Complicated Nit Picker
January 15, 2002 8:28:14 PM

Quote:

am looking at buying an AMD XP system (probably an Asus 266V-e - or Soyo Dragon plus motherboard) with a Gf3 ti200 at a clone shop. Is Windows 98 SE still better for gaming than XP? I like war based and other strategy game, flight simulators and sport simulator. I have a lot of game that says they do not support window NT. XP may be more stable but it may not play all my game title. My previous system had run on Windows 95 OSR 2 so I do not want to spend the extra money for windows XP including extra memory right now. Windows XP supposedly run best with 512 MB of ram whereas Window 98 SE run best with 256 MB. I will buy window XP, when they come with a second release and when the PC2700 memory is readily available from Micron. I plan to start with 256 MB stick of PC 2100 memory and replace it with 512 MB of PC2700 when I eventually run Window XP. I hope to use this motherboard with 166/333 MHz FSB AMD CPU.

That Asus mobo you listed might not run at 333MHz. You need an IWill XP333 to guarantee a 333MHz or 400MHz FSB.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
a b V Motherboard
January 16, 2002 1:17:43 AM

Give it time,more games will come out with better XP support and the XP will have made it past its teething troubles therefore it will succeed 98se as the optimum OS for games
January 16, 2002 1:58:45 AM

But my game is an old one. :frown:
I hope WinXP does do well, and the games get more real looking. I got hook to PC games because of the graphics, so I'm all for it.

Complicated Nit Picker
January 16, 2002 11:40:56 PM

I found that the frame rate of a lot of my games has decreased a little on XP Pro. Not as much as to make the games unplayable and I have a GeForce 2 MX 32MB video card. So if you get a video card as powerful as a GeForce then there shouldn't be any big differences in gaming. Plus, some games that run on Windows 98 don't work at all on XP. Not even the Program Compatability Wizard fixes it.
January 17, 2002 5:35:55 AM

Just spent a day installing and playing games on XP. Everything from the latest FIFA to a Pro Pinball game dating back to DirectX3. I'm trying to screw XP up really, gotta know just how good it is before installing it permanently :smile:

My experience so far is that the O/S is pretty bulletproof. I realise everyone's system is different, and some drivers will be bad, but having a fresh installation with the latest MS updates, I can't fault it.

'98 does have an edge with regard to performance in some games but XP is definitely more robust.

My system isn't cutting edge by any standards (Duron @825mhz, 256mb, Hercules Kyro2 4500) but it plays every game I've thrown at it (running 1024x768), at a decent framerate.

I would guess for any modern system, squeezing a few fps more from your hardware really isn't worth the effort. Win XP gets a thumbs-up from me :smile:
January 17, 2002 12:59:03 PM

Windows XP is a better operating system than windows 98. Period. "but but games but but 5 fps but but..." NO. Windows XP is a better operating system than windows 98. Period.

I'm a gamer, I should know. I play the following (in no particular order)

Quake 1,2,3 and Team Arena
Half Life
Counter Strike
Team Fortress Classic
Sin
Serious Sam
Wolfenstein
Age of Empires 1 & 2
Empire Earth
Starcraft
Warcraft 2
Mech commander 2
Mech Warrior 2,3,4
Alice
Panzer General
Crimson Skies
MS Flight Sim 2001
Tribes 2
Ultimate Ride
Shogo
Unreal
Unreal Tournament
Max Payne
Ghost Recon
Midtown Madness
AquaNox
Nox
Diablo I & II
Baulders Gate I & II
Battlezone I & II
Hexen
Thief I & II
Homeworld

and probably about 20 or so others (I'm not at home in front of my own computer)

I also own the following operating systems (all legit)
Several Dos versions up to 6.22
Win 95B
Win 98
Win 98SE
Win ME
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT Server 4.0
Windows 2000 Pro
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server (not that I actually cluster)
Windows XP
Red Hat Linux 7.2

I know what bugs/crashes are and I know what game performance is. Doubt me not. Windows 9x does not stack up. I would chose 98 for gaming over NT, but NEVER over windows 2000/xp.

It's kinda funny...everyone who says Windows 98 is the greatest don't actually own anything else. The performance difference between XP/2000 and 98 takes a benchmark to see. You cant see it with the naked eye. But the stability doesn't take a benchmark that's for sure. At lan parties it's the 98 guy who's always losing because he crashes a few times during the course of the day while everyone else keeps playing.

And for you people offering opinions without making yourselves informed: STFU.

"Just because I don't own it, doesn't mean I don't know anything about it. " - yes it [-peep-] does.
January 17, 2002 3:03:43 PM

Thank you Smilin, you took the words right out of my mouth. I play most of the same games you do and I have most of the same OSs you do. We seen to have something in common. I also agree that Win2000/XP is the better OS hands down. THERE IS NO QUESTION. Those who like Win98, probably know nothing about the WinNT-based OSs. They're light-years ahead. Better management tools, better stability, better business app performance, better boot up times under WinXP, and the list goes on and on. If you've never used WinNT-based and Win9X-based OSs and compared the two, then you can't say anything here.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 17, 2002 3:26:29 PM

Also, I don't think you will see an "XPse" release. You will either have to buy the Service Pack on CD or download it for free from the Internet.
January 17, 2002 3:58:26 PM

OK guys WinXP is better then Win98 for games.

Better

Now if you don't mind I'm going to move on

Thank you

Complicated Nit Picker
January 17, 2002 5:20:29 PM

And what do you do with all that spare time? :wink:

Nostradamus: "In the year 2002 naked alien women will descend to earth"
January 17, 2002 5:57:41 PM

I actually hold a 8-5 job and still have time to do the above. My "spare" time (I don't consider playing games a spare time activity...I budget time for that) is spent trying to get myself back into programming. Lets face it - I need to learn to write games if I am to achieve lifelong peace.

O yeah, AMD_man... the other thing we have in common.. I use AMD processors. Intel is just now starting to get over that suck they call a processor. I'll reevaluate in a few months when I'm ready to buy though. I don't have any brand loyalties.
January 17, 2002 6:53:39 PM

Quote:

O yeah, AMD_man... the other thing we have in common.. I use AMD processors. Intel is just now starting to get over that suck they call a processor. I'll reevaluate in a few months when I'm ready to buy though. I don't have any brand loyalties.

Agreed, the Northwood is the first half-decent processor made by Intel in a long time. I just want a better FPU too. I have a 1.33GHz Athlon right now and getting a 2.2GHz Northwood would be a downgrade in terms of FPU performance. When will Intel realize that the demand for top FPU performance is growing?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
!