Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

w2k and games

Tags:
  • Games
  • Windows
  • Product
Last response: in Windows 2000/NT
Anonymous
November 13, 2000 5:37:10 AM

w2k looks and feels real stable but games dont run on it
So far i have got darkreign 2 to go and i beleive FPshooters work ok but nothing else will run. Office apps go fine. I have installed the Via Agp bus fix nad am about to install service pack 1. Help someone! I would like to use w2k instaead of 98

More about : w2k games

November 13, 2000 7:02:33 AM

Most people choose dual boot because of this. If you want to play games, restart and boot into win98. Yes w2k is more stable, but that's the catch and you can do nothing about. However my friend was able to install like all his games (his a strategy game freak, so expect lower system requirements compared to fps etc), no problem whatsosever. I don't play games ( :eek:  ?) because I find learning to be more interesting (like browsing through this forum reading everyone's post). At least it serves me something useful too :smile: .


Smart guys are not smart; they only see things in different perspective.
1st <b>member</b>!
Anonymous
November 13, 2000 3:01:56 PM

Goto www.ntcompatible.com to check which can play on WIN2K.

I play Quake 3, UT, Diablo II, Age of empires 1 and 2, Starcraft and some Chinese RPG game , all of them go well with Win2K...May be I am Lucky? :) 
Related resources
Anonymous
November 13, 2000 7:36:02 PM

Hey,

So far my install of Win2k Prof, on my Athlon has provided me with enough to run games. There are a few that take a little effort to run but everything runs.

Timothy Stankus
One of the First AMD Athlon Users =)
November 13, 2000 9:04:00 PM

I've just got rid of 98 and gone to 2000. Decided I would just complete all the ones which weren't 2000 friendly. A few games such as GTA2 have updates on their websites which allow it to run on 2000. All games which I have tried since 2000 was released run fine on it apart from rollcage stage 2.
Anonymous
November 14, 2000 6:20:21 AM

what sort of efforts have u gone to make games run
Anonymous
November 14, 2000 6:23:12 AM

believe it or not I mainly play stategy games but it bugs me that w2k is so fickle about games when it is supposed to replace 98
I too believe in learnig but occasionaly it is good to immerse one in a fantasy game
November 14, 2000 7:03:13 AM

I have a friend who plays only stategy games and all of them worked. Maybe it is becuse of your incompatible system config with w2k?


Smart guys are not smart; they only see things in different perspective.
1st <b>member</b>!
November 14, 2000 4:47:26 PM

I have Windows 2000 SP1 running at home on this system:
Athlon 750 w/ 256MB (Asus A7V w/ Latest VIA & Promise drives)
Asus Geforce2 v7700 (latest Asus drivers w/ DX8)
Sound Blaster Live X-Gamer (SP1 WDM drivers)

I have absolutely no troubles running ANY of my games. You should think of SP1 as a requirement if you want to run games on 2K.

Bryan

P.S. All of my games and apps run wickedly fast on 2K, even compared to Win9x
Anonymous
November 14, 2000 5:01:43 PM

Yes ! Games run faster on Win2K except 3D Games, my Age of Empires, Rises of Rome, Age of Empires II, the conquerors, Starcraft all run better on Win2K. Q3, UT and Diablo II would be a bit slower on Win2K. But most important is they never crash. Starcraft on Win98 would crash to desktop when i have 1 human and 7 computer players.

The only bad thing about Win2k is ... they are really RAM Monster, the more RAM you put in the happier they are. For heavy gamer i really recomend 256 Meg min , for 128 Meg Ram some game run very slow. Have fun with WIN2K and you will find that it is a more enjoyable OS :) 
Anonymous
November 14, 2000 6:09:07 PM

Hey,

My system is just about the same and I have no problems either. It would seem that Athlons fair better on Win2k, along with the hardware that comes with it.

Timothy Stankus
One of the First AMD Athlon Users =)
November 15, 2000 6:38:53 AM

Even though Microsoft again and again told people that the w2k platform is for business only, I never like comments like this. They are telling us not to try their super products. That's why I fret about my friends who called me stupid running on w2k because they believe ME is more for them. HA. The only catch for w2k is the hardware compatibility and the price. Even hardware compatibility is minor since most well-known hardwares are compatible with w2k.

Smart guys are not smart; they only see things in different perspective.
1st <b>ENTHUSIAST</b>!
November 15, 2000 1:17:52 PM

I run Win2k for a year now and I only have had problems with "older" games. games like NFS porsche,UT,Quake II&III SoF and so on run like a charm on win2k
what for Graphic card do you have?

:cool: Visit me at <A HREF="http://casemod.tripod.com" target="_new">http://casemod.tripod.com&lt;/A> :cool:
Anonymous
November 15, 2000 4:42:01 PM

You aren't trying very hard if you can't get games to run (or are running OLD games.) There are a few programs that I've tested that will not work at all:
Ultima9 in D3D mode (aparently Glide/3DFX does work)
Bleem (protection scheme prevents software from even loading)
Virtual Game Station (Only works in 9x)
All DOS games that use anything higher than VGA will not work
All DOS games that have sound will not have sound (unless you have SOUNDFX sound card emulator)
All DOS games that use their own memory management routines will die a horrible death (Allegro-DOS, ultima 7-8, Wing Commander 2+)
(side note, there is a U7 engine for Windows/Linux called Exult)

Make sure you install SP1 and the compatiblity fixes.

Also, make sure you have installed working video card drivers, this is VERY important because ALL Windows 2000 display drivers are stripped down versions. (FF8 wouldn't even work untill I installed the beta video drivers from ATI.)
If your video card is too old and doesn't have win2K drivers from it's vendor, you are out of luck, get a new card or computer.

--Kisai
"Hmm, I wonder how many pieces this will end up as when it hits the ground?"
Anonymous
December 28, 2000 3:57:23 AM

Hey...you say that NFS Porsche runs fine? How??? I used to run Win2k server, and it did run after insytalling it under 98. Since then there has been many installs, and new hardware, but in any case, NFS Porsche will not run under Win2k!!! All it does is constantly load until it fills all the memory and swap file and crashes. Please help!!! This is the only thing keeping me from doing away with the crappy 9x windows...

Thanx,
Jazzman

That burning rubber smell means that it's working.
December 30, 2000 2:52:48 AM

im using win2k for 9 months now...and so far every game worked except SOF (i killed it without trying anything cause the game sux anyway)
its true that 128megs of ram are not enough...
UT had very long loading times and was swaping around in first 5mins of a new level (funny when u can hardly move till the game is nearly over)
diablo 2 was kinda unplayable...like about 5FPS, the hd did not stop for a sec
with 255 (-1 thx 2 memory hole) everything seems to work fine on my system:

NMC 7VAX (VIA KX133)
Athlon 750 + GFD @ 900MHz
Elsa Erazor X² (GForce 32mb DDR)
128MB/6ns Mitsubishi
128MB/6ns Hitachi
ram @133MHz,4way int.,CL3 (the hitachi doesnt take CL2)
IBM DTLA 307030
Quantum Fireball P LM 20.5
44X CD Rom
3.5" FDD
3Com 3C905C
AVM FRITZ! Card (ISDN)
Creative SB Live Value
Pinnacle Studio PCTV Pro
Adaptec AHA-1502 scsi(for scanner)
+ a few fans on a 235W PS...i would try a 300W if i had any problems :o )

i would recomend win2k before all other ms OSes
the one thing i hate about it is LAN compatibility to win9X/ME computers...
it takes longer to search network...cant select protocol to use (like standard protokoll in win9X) explorer goes crazy when a mapped net drive goes off and a few other things make me think there are still a few SPs to come *gg*

(i think MS should bundle win2k with a few 100megs of ram :o )
January 1, 2001 12:41:59 AM

Well. I just went thru a battery of tests on my system to see what would and wouldn't work. First off anyone who tells you "amd" can work solid on a win2k system is on drugs. There are always compatibility issues" the precise reason I haven't switched over." Been there done that before.
Anyhow, everything but the core of my computer is up to date try doing the "irq 9" fix that "cxg" gave me. may help you out? may not. But. It is worth a try, I am running a 500p3..."why? You been paying attention to Intel and AMD? thats why I'm still running it"...
with 384 megs of ram... and true to the other statements "ram the hell out of it" Everything improved alot on both 9x and 2k.
If your having problems with any amd system... look dead at the MB . If your overclocking?...quit it... reset it to the defaults as close as you can .and you will see a vast improvment...god knows I live to overclock my system...because im too cheap to get a faster processor..but, soon as I set it back to its original setting it began to work fine and all I was overclocking was by 50mhz since then, not a game crash one...

What I done was simple. I got every patch known to mankind for my system... retooled the innards set the puter to standard pc instead of the aspcia thingy "I forgot what it is called sue me" ...
and went back to the basics...
now everything works good...

Number one thing thou is ..CHECK THAT MOTHERBOARD.

By the way how do I know the AMD doesnt work well?

The 700 athlon at work is still whimpering in the corner.
and its the same as my home system. minus the MB & CPU.
now don't get me wrong I like amd as well. fast little puppy it is.
but I don't know about you all, but, I get upset if my system crashes more than once every few months.
and the word "wintel" still runs thru my head.
If I can ever get the one at work to run smooth and stable.
I'll be more than happy to let you know what I did.
OK?
:) 

Babbled didnt I. Cough..

Also one more thing. I agree with the other guy who said your not trying very hard if you cant even get the newer games to work. you did load them into the computer right?

Even tommy boy loves to play games on this.
so all work and no play?
January 7, 2001 4:50:22 PM

SOF does work on W2k. Installation is a bit tricky. You have to install it as an Administrator, then copy registry entries that it makes to user registry. Then, run the game as a user. After that it works just fine. And to be on topic, I had no problems with games, and I have an older configuration with Celeron 333 and TNT1 graphics card. Only thing that I recommend is lots of RAM. For comfortable game play of newer games I would recommend at least 256 MB.
Anonymous
January 22, 2001 5:21:17 PM

Anyone know how to get Final Fantasy 7 to run???
Anonymous
January 23, 2001 9:59:45 PM

Stick with Win2K. The service pack is a MUST. 90% of the people who ask me about problems they are having with Win2K have not loaded the SP1. Here is my Quake3A system:
PIII 933mhz
ASUS CUSL-2 w/ full 133 bus
ASUS GeFroce 32M GTS DDR
256MB PC133 - 6ns
Sound Blaster Live!
IBM 30G UltraATA 100 / 7200RPM
WAN Connection: 384/Symmetric DSL w/ D-Link Switching and NIC

Now, most of this stuff is pretty new to the market. The rest is considered "high end" and everything works with Win2K. Granted, after the install, it took a couple of hours to load all of the support, drivers, correctly. Horray for the "Device Manager" that NT4 didnt have, also a Win2K perk....!

PingKing2000
Anonymous
January 26, 2001 9:49:23 AM

I had a K6-2 400 With 64MB and ATI Rage Pro 8MB, Then upgraded to Duron 700,128MB and IBM 45GB.
I didn't re-install the OS just changed the MB and UT RAN VERY SLOWLY under ME, I then changed back to K6-2 64MB. UT Ran fine hardly any swapping.
I formated and re-installed 98 & Win2K under the new MB. UT loads in about 2-3 Secs under 98. Moral of the story is atleast from my experience is if you put new hardware eg.HDD (primary), VCard or MB rather re-install. With 98 for games and Win2k for work you can't go wrong, it keeps both registries simpler and faster. Although when it comes to strategy games Win2k is better. Only game I have that doesn't run in Win2k is NFS4:HS.

Eg of my layout.
15GB Fat32 with 98 for games
30GB NTFS for Work and Mp3's (true I can't play my mp3's from 98, but then I just use game music)
Also my friend had a virus which wacked his mp3 tags so I give ReadOnly permission once I've set my tags
Most games will work under Win2K but 3D graphics will be slower. If you have something like a Geforce2 rather take Win2k as the FPS drop will be too small to notice.Another thing a person can't compare the PC at home to their work PC because most companies but brand names which to me are slow and crap and install all sorts of rubbish - Keep your PC clean! My HP PIII 733Mhz with 128MB takes much longer to open apps (EG SQL Server 7,Delphi etc.) then my AMD 700Mhz Duron both on NT BTW.

Regards
January 26, 2001 10:35:29 AM

i don't have much experience with win2k and games since i have only been playunt UT and Q3 since i installed win2k but i have a few general observations. win2k can be a frustrating experience if you are unprepared or don't have patience while working out all the bugs. i posted a few threads about the irq9 and freezing issue. after all is said and done, a bios upgrade solved the problem and as we speak i am at 119+ hours uptime without a restart. as far as games, quake ran pretty good but UT stunk (compared to what i was used to with win9x). i use 3Dmark to see if things are going the way they should be and i was pulling my hair out trying to figure out why my win2k sucked. i read up a bit and figured i would give dx8 and the detonator3 7.17 beta drivers a shot....presto, UT was playing like it used to. the moral of the story...i forgot. basically, win2k is very good. i'm sure some things will not be compatible but anyone considering making the switch should read up on all compatibility issued, patches, bug fixes, performance tips, driver tips, etc... if you are prepared and you know what you are doing (i learn as i go) then the switch to win2k is the best thing you can do.



---everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise MY hand---
Anonymous
February 9, 2001 12:35:44 PM

By my opinion W2K DOES NOT SUPPORT older games. Only fiew of them work w/o sound. Thats bitty, because sometimes i really miss them. Thats why I keep Win98/ME at home and W2K at work.
February 11, 2001 6:27:03 PM

I think the statement that win2k doesn't support older games is bull. The REALLY old DOS-mode ones run just fine. The ones that don't run are the ones from about 96-98, when NT4 was out and games started using above DirectX3. Before 96, games all used directX 3 or below, which NT4 handles just fine, so no problem there. After 98, Windows 2000 was announced, and games started checking for NT4, but not NT5 (which is what win2k returns as its identifier).

Talking specific games, the only ones I've discovered that didn't work on Win2k was the original Command & Conquer: Red Alert, and Grim Fandango...but that game seems like it's poorly written to begin with.

Other than that...no problems at all. Stablest OS I've ever used (well, except DOS where even if you did have to reboot, it took 20 seconds).

Also in reply to the Athlon-bashers...let me say this...VIA is the problem, not AMD. I have an Asus K7M mobo with the AMD Irongate chipset, and it runs stable as ever. I can't OC it because for some reason my Guillemot DDR GeForce doesn't like higher AGP speeds at all. So I think your complaining should be directed at VIA, not AMD.

~Crapple0

"intel inside, idiot outside"