poor gaming performance in windows xp

[Civilized]

I just did a clean install of winxp and my frame rates have dropped 50 frames from where it was when i had windows 2000 pro installed...i thought that xp was supposed to be a good gaming platform....

it was 250 at 640*480
now its 202.8 fps at 640*480

the operating system runs great but the gaming totally blows a wad!! any suggestions or anyone with the same problems?
im running nvidia 21.83
geforce 2 ultra
amd athlon 1.2 @ 1403
512mb pc 2400 corsair
hercules fortissimo II
wd 60gb

 

[kindlr]

It's a performance drop, but if you're playing at that resolution and can actually see a difference between 250 and 200 fps then I'll buy those eyes off you.

Me "I bought a TNT2 M64, the BIOS says its a Vanta"
IOMagic "Theyre the same card"
Me "Um, no"

 

[Crashman]

I've been telling people it sux. It has more system overhead than any previous OS, which means less power for apps.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[AMD_Man]

Performance is a relative term. WinXP includes a lot of productivity improving tools (at least in my opinion) that outweigh the processing overhead performance losses.

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

 

[Raleldor]

I guess I just wish for the ultimate OS, one that actually runs stable, runs securely, doesnt take tons of resources, and can play all of our games.

Until then.. *hugs win98se*

Raleldor<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by raleldor on 11/15/01 10:08 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Crashman]

98SE works remarkably when you have a system made of quality parts, with quality programs, and proper configuration. I've been able to run it for 8 months straight without a shutdown on my wifes last system. I shut mine down to test new hardware on it, but haven't reloaded it since my eXPeriment.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[AMD_Man]

lol, I couldn't care less about games at 640*480 so IMO is the ultimate OS except for the few compatibility problems I'm having. Crashman!!! Stability has very very little to do with hardware. Even OEM systems, that have been thoroughly tested, crash. So I don't agree with your statement that good hardware prevents a system from crashing.

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

 

[AMD_Man]

lol, I couldn't care less about games at 640*480 so IMO is the ultimate OS except for the few compatibility problems I'm having. Crashman!!! Stability has very very little to do with hardware. Even OEM systems, that have been thoroughly tested, crash. So I don't agree with your statement that good hardware prevents a system from crashing.

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

 

[bront]

It's a combination of good hardware, and good software. Bad hardware can cause you to crash more often (For example, some of the older Via chip sets). Also, bad drivers can cause you to crash (old Nvidia and ATI drivers for example). Also, bad software can cause crashes (a large number of first release games and programs). So, you're both right.

Chesnuts roasting on an open CPU
Bill Gates nipping at your wallet

 

[AMD_Man]

True, true, I completely agree with you Bront but my point is Windows 9x/Me is awful once you see the light with Windows 2000/XP. Limited System Resources in Windows 9x makes it impossible to multitask with over 20 windows or so. The huge ever growing useless cache is garbage too. The long start-up (especially in Win98(SE), WinMe fixed this problem) when you have a network card installed sucks. With WinXP Home on my computer now, I can leave it on for days or even weeks and it won't crash or even slow down. Sure, you get less FPS at 640*480 but frankly, who the hell cares, if you run at 640*480 res then you don't need a GeForce2 Ultra, even a GeForce2MX would be overkill!

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