Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

OS 98 still best game OS?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
October 13, 2001 8:12:35 PM

Title says it all. Buying some hardware soon and want to know if I should upgrade my 98 OS too...
Thanks

More about : game

October 14, 2001 12:18:37 AM

No. Win2k is man!

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
October 14, 2001 2:39:58 AM

I haven't used Win2K, but WinXP is better than Win98se. It's all opinion though for now until the os is released and more people speak up.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
Related resources
October 14, 2001 6:51:20 PM

WTF- it's not officially released?? I thought it was!

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
Anonymous
October 14, 2001 9:54:10 PM

XP is not better for games--it's too much of a resource hog.
2k is better, but there tend to be some compatibiltiy problems. Stick with 98SE.

<font color=blue>Jesus saves...</font color=blue><font color=red>and takes half damage!</font color=red>
October 15, 2001 1:58:55 AM

Please be more specific to novice users! XP doesn't hog resources because it has unlimited resources, it hogs RAM which is dirt cheap anyway. It's probably the first OS to make real use of 512MB RAM!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 15, 2001 3:20:11 AM

Nope, Linux was the first OS to make use of 512MB of RAM (And I mean use it...A lot of people whjo run their RAM at fast settings find they cant do that in Linux). And to me, this resource hogging sounds like:
1. Something Microsoft shoulda put in a long time ago.
2. A "feature" (bug...)

If it cost 200 bucks for 512MB, how quickly you would change your tune.



"If you teach a child to read, then he or her will be able to pass a literacy test" - George W.
October 15, 2001 11:44:33 AM

I have to agree with that, Its only recently- since the price of ram dropped, that people now NEED all this ram, I have 256 in mine- and is plenty, have 320 in my 2k box, but thats only because I aqquired a spare 128 from somewhere otherwise that would also have 256. Like you say, if ram suddenly started to cost a lot more, then I would have a bet that very soon after, people would start saying "nooo, you dont need all that ram, 512 is far too much for the average user"
Well, thats my opinion anyway :) 



Next time you wave - use all your fingers
Anonymous
October 16, 2001 5:06:36 PM

We at compaq are still loading win98SE on most computer because it is the most stable and has the most support, me/xp stay away from, w2K is ok for graphics but most games were not design for them
October 16, 2001 5:17:29 PM

Are you on crack? 98 more stable than 2k?? I've been using 2k for almost a year now, and it's way more stable than 98, and I've never had a single problem with a game that wasn't very easily fixed.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 16, 2001 5:31:53 PM

Quote:
Are you on crack?


Did you have to ask? He works for compaq.

Nice <b><font color=green>Lizards</b></font color=green> <b>crunch</b> Trolls cookies....... :smile: Yummy!! :smile:
Anonymous
October 19, 2001 7:31:48 PM

I haven't had problems with most games in Win2k, but I tend to play newer games. If you want to play pre-Win2k games, you will have a hard time finding support and updates that enable them to run well in Win2000. I still have a dual boot setup for when I have (rare) problems.

Win2000 runs most games very well, and in general runs faster and much more stable than 98se.

Save the children :smile:
October 20, 2001 4:16:02 AM

What's this FatBurger. I have 2k, but use 98se for gaming. 2k is for busness and I don't think it has DirectX, at least I didn't see it. I'm not douting you, just beleived 2k was not even a choice for games. I been of crack for awhile now. hehe

defrage is child's play-fdisk
October 20, 2001 4:05:09 PM

RAM is dirt cheap and with the economy now plummeting, I expect RAM prices to only go down.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 21, 2001 2:27:33 AM

I paid $55 for 512DDR(pc-2100) un-buffered @ crucial.com

i run win2k and couldn't be more pleased.



rcf84 can I have your autograph?
October 21, 2001 1:18:01 PM

Yes Win2k has direct x8.
October 21, 2001 6:08:12 PM

Yes, upgrade to Windows XP Home Edition, you won't be sorry.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
October 21, 2001 8:01:36 PM

"Are you on crack?" his name is labplant...

U got a problem?! Then dial 1800-328-7448!
Anonymous
October 21, 2001 9:45:15 PM

LOL.

Anyway, check out Anandtech's Radeon8500 review for a nice comparison between the 3 available MS OSes. You'll notice that 2K does seem marginally faster than 98SE. But if you are building for the future, XP would be the way to go, it will be receiving most of the support from now on. I've been using XP (in classic mode of course ;) )

My 2 cents.
October 22, 2001 7:07:41 PM

Jiffy:
First off, yes, DirectX works great in W2k. I've been using it exclusively for almost a year now, with NO compatability issues that weren't very easily solvable. The only problem I've had in a game was Roller Coaster Tycoon (don't laugh! :) , and that was solved with a small patch off their website. That's the ONLY gaming problem I've had in W2k, and my frame rates are great. I'm talking about 80 average in UT at 1024x768x32, with a Tbird 1.33 and GF2 MX.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 23, 2001 1:19:42 AM

Hey, I love Roller Coaster Tycoon!!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
October 25, 2001 9:59:01 PM

Curious ... are all of the W2K fans in this post referring exclusively to the Professional version? On a similar note, exactly how many versions of W2K are available?

<b>when i first started out i knew nothing ... now i know a million times that much </b>
October 25, 2001 10:28:36 PM

Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server.

If anyone is running a server edition on their gaming box, they deserve to be shot :) 

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
October 27, 2001 2:28:22 AM

AMD MAN
I give up, XP makes use of 512 memmory. How does it make use of it? Are you saying a lot of programes are running, or they take more Ram? What?

defrage is child's play-fdisk
October 29, 2001 9:46:29 AM

Please understand <b>ALL</b> Win9x/Me OS's are dainty little things meant for kids. Grown-ups don't let grown-ups use Win9x.

Cheers,

Ron_Jeremy

If you loan a friend $20 & never see them again, it was worth it.
Anonymous
November 1, 2001 12:09:42 PM

If a game works with w2k, it is much better. However, some older games simply don't work with w2k, for them, 98 is needed. The solution: put them both on your PC, on different partitions. Yes, it costs some space on your HD, but you can use w2k's stability and 98's compatibility, albeit not at the same time.
November 1, 2001 3:53:30 PM

What games haven't worked in W2k for you? I have yet to find one that simply doesn't work, but I'd be interested to.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
November 2, 2001 5:07:07 AM

Rather than have 2 OS's installed I'd rather have XP. I think that's the whole point.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
Anonymous
November 2, 2001 6:48:53 AM

Basically some ancient games, like TIE fighter 95 and Heroes of Might and Magic III.
November 2, 2001 3:51:31 PM

TIE fighter, eh? I'll have to try that one. Haven't played it in a while.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
November 2, 2001 7:59:39 PM

Multiple replies for Fatburger:

I use 2000 Server on my *2nd* gaming box and it runs great (I'm surprised as you). 2000 Professional doesn't support software raid 1 so I gotta run server on one of the boxes.

I have found some EA sports games have a bit of trouble with w2k and certain hardware configs.

As for the original post:
EVEN IN THE COMPANY OF ALL OF YOU I can honestly say I probably run more games than anyone here (I have problems, I know :)  I do it on a w2k professional workstation and have never had any serious trouble. When I LAN party it seems like I spend an hour each time troublshooting all the reboots and crap on my friends 98 boxes.

Performance wise it takes a benchmark to tell the difference between 98 and w2k. You can't tell with the naked eye. Some games are faster on each OS. But Stability...ah stability. I reboot the w2k box about once a week. *I* reboot it...not some shitty OS doing it for me with a bluescreen.

I always hear people praising win98 for games. Those that do have never seriously tried Windows 2000.
November 2, 2001 8:25:29 PM

Quote:
w2k and certain hardware configs.


But not just W2k, at least.

Quote:
When I LAN party it seems like I spend an hour each time troublshooting all the reboots and crap on my friends 98 boxes.


Yes! I hate doing that. Pisses me off.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
November 4, 2001 1:23:23 AM

UT doesn't play very well for me, using Y2K and a Geforce Ultra. Other Question? When I install W2K, I do it to where I can boot from either Windows 98se or 2K, but when I change something in one windows it seems to affect and change the other OS. If I partition my DDR will that fix that?

defrage is child's play-fdisk
Anonymous
November 6, 2001 8:56:02 AM

Better than having a dual boot system, install Win2k on one HDD and Win98/ME on the other, then change over in the bios each time. It doesn't take long and it means the OSes don't know about each other, a bonus when you have to reinstall one (I used to reinstall winME every 3 months or so or it got slow, but now i only use it for games, i don't have to anymore).

I've found that Project IGI has trouble in Win2k but is perfect in WinME. Someone said its because of the NTlike architecture of 2k having a propensity for shoving graphics processing at the CPU rather than the GPU, but i'm not convinced.

However, there's definitely a lack of performance in alot of games. But when you weigh all the factors up (LAN config, stability, etc) Win2k is much better.

I'm considering scrapping my WinME and just using win2k.

<b>If it were up to me, twinings would make coffee</b>
November 6, 2001 11:09:14 AM

Windows XP uses more RAM and it manages the programs that use RAM more efficiently.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
November 7, 2001 12:07:36 AM

I've been solely using XP for games for the last 3-4 months and found it to be great. Memory usage isn't really huge, on boot is uses 60 odd meg which is comparable to my 2K system. I haven't found a game yet that does not run on XP, even old DOS ones.
November 7, 2001 9:48:04 AM

One of those games wouldn't be UT would it? Could you note a couple games, and type of mobo, video card?

defrage is child's play-fdisk
November 8, 2001 10:36:05 PM

UT runs great, as well as other games I run.

My system is:

Duron 850 @ 1000 ( 7.5x133)
Asus A7V133 MB
384Mb Ram
Geforce 2 MX 400 64Mb Video ( Det 22.50 )

Games that I've used:

Q3A, UT, Unreal, Deus Ex, Hitman, RA 2, Diablo II, NOLF, and heaps others, oh, and I've also run Wolf 3D, Doom I and II :) 

All work just as well, if not better than my Win98 Install on the same box.
November 9, 2001 3:28:58 AM

Whoa, slow down. What are you doing running UT on Y2k? :) 
I've run it on W2k for several months with no problems, sorry you're having some.

By partitioning your DDR, do you mean partitioning your HDD? You ALWAYS want to install a dual boot on separate partitions.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
November 9, 2001 10:01:10 AM

What kind of system do you have FatBurger?
Abit KT7A-RAID
1200-133
GForce2Ultra
ATA 100, and Live5.1
I have a couple thing I could use help with. One making sure I partition the right way, and the other why UT doesn't play well on my DDR Mobo.
My Abit board plays UT very well, using 98se, when I try Win2000, not very well at all. If I could boot to either OS, knowing for sure one OS wasn't affecting the other OS, then I could play UT on Win 98, while I work trying to get Win2000 to play. I have Partition Commander, but mess that up, because I couldn't boot. I should have red the book. I manage to partition in fdisk though, one was a primary partition and the second was an extended partition. Separate boots, I had a C: and a D:.I wasn't happy with the way Win98se was working, UT took a few attempts before it installed and it wasn't as smooth. Thought I did a speed test at dslreports and 98 was 500, while Win2ooo was 1100. I'm thinking because one was a primary partition and the other was an extended partition, that maybe I need to have too primary partition, if possible. So thought's here? Also real quick I can take my hardware and move it to my Asus A7M266 DDR Mobo, and it plays UT the worst I've seen. I updated and tweak with very little results. I'm starting to think that my GForce boards don't agree, at least not playing UT. I'm thinking it might be better paired with an ATI card.

defrage is child's play-fdisk
Anonymous
November 12, 2001 7:48:53 PM

Just for comparison, I have run most of the games mentioned here as being problematic in Win2k (HOMM III, UT, etc.) with no probs at all. Install the newest Service Pack (which addresses several compatability issues), latest DirectX, and the latest vid card drivers, and you shouldn't run into many probs.

Reality continues to ruin my life.
November 12, 2001 8:37:50 PM

Abit KT7a-RAID
Tbird 1.2/266@same
Hercules GeForce 2 MX 64meg
512meg of Generic PC133 set at 2-2-2-5/7 (Hyundai chips)
2x Maxtor DiamondMax 60 Plus 30GB drives
Hercules Game Theatre XP (also used Philips Seismic Edge and Live 5.1 in this system)
NetGear FA310tx
Asus 50x CD-ROM
Teac 12/10/32 CD-RW
Hipro 300w PSU
CasEdge case

W2k (SP2) + WinXP

Even pre-SP2, I didn't have any problems. I've NEVER had a problem running a game on this system (frame rates, compatability, whatever) that wasn't fixed within 5 minutes. I have no idea what is causing your problem, but you might want to just skip W2k and move to XP.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
!