Announcement

**Gurm** · 9 November 1999, 15:55

Ok, it has all the advantages NT has over Win98 - a real file system, enhanced stability, REAL multitasking, polling instead of interrupts, etc. etc.

- Ash

P.S. The new Win2k drivers are REALLY starting to shape up. The ICD kicks.

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

This signature is not Copyright by anyone. Especially not some guy named Steve. Yeah. That's it. Please don't kill me, Holly.

MM · 9 November 1999, 16:13

ICD for G400 for Win2k kicks???

**BuGGz** · 9 November 1999, 16:44

Got me confused even more now GURM.
My understanding was that win2k was useless as far as games go.
What do you mean the ICD really kicks?
and real file system? How do you get more real then folders and files?
and true multitasking? I can have tons of things going on at once with win98, how can u get more true?

Yes I am very new with the NT concept.

How about this, if you use the NT file system, you cant transfer files between win98 and win2k, but they both can read the same files off the cd-rom. So it just goes to make sence that there could be a way to transfer files other then recording a cd.

**Snake-Eyes** · 10 November 1999, 06:50

I just want to make sure I'm reading your posts right, Gurm- you said that the Matrox G400 W2K ICD "Kicks. Ass. Good Stuff." This means the performance is great, and not very buggy, right? As in- it's on par or better than the current Win9x ICD? Example- less buggy, and those gamers in this crowd can run Q2/Q3 better than, or at least as well as in Win98 right now?

Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I was under the impression that the current Matrox drivers are still extremely feature limited and buggy in W2K.

------------------
Ace

**MoleDK** · 10 November 1999, 07:42

I don't like to kill your happiness for NT, but....

I really have no respect for an OS that has to reboot each time you do something or have to close all your programs just to be superuser. (read NT4).

Regarding Windows 2000: You really need to have a powerhouse of a computer to have it run just as fast as Win 9X.

Also (applies to all versions of NT), do you really think that all software will run just out of the box ?

Let's not turn this into a flamewar or a this-os-is-better-than-this-os. I was just giving my opinion.

just my 2 cents..

------------------
Cya,
J.

"Unix can be a cynical Operating System for a person whos mind is limited to a Windows user interface"

System specs:
ASUS P2B-LS, P2-266, 128MB RAM, Matrox Millenium G200 (PD5.25), Nothing O/C.
Running Windows 98SE & Redhat Linux 6.1

**Buuri** · 10 November 1999, 08:09

BuGGz,

My understanding was that win2k was useless as far as games go.

Well, guess why the DirectX 7 is there? For office apps?

MoleDK,
I think you are wrong; W2K is very smooth and flexible on my K6-3/450+192MB. If you got 128+MB of mem, it'll run at least as nice as Win98 not to mention NT4.

_
B

[This message has been edited by Buuri (edited 10 November 1999).]

**Gurm** · 10 November 1999, 10:09

I haven't had a lot of time to test for feature completeness and lack of bugginess. I'm thrilled as all get out to actually be able to run in OpenGL in Win2k. The D3D has been good and stable for some time, it's just missing some "perks", like it has limited bump support, and the anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing aren't working 100%.

I'll post more about the OpenGL ICD later when I've had a chance to test it (upgrading to RC3 as we speak, so...)

- Ash

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

This signature is not Copyright by anyone. Especially not some guy named Steve. Yeah. That's it. Please don't kill me, Holly.

**mj12** · 10 November 1999, 12:12

Gurm...."upgrading to RC3 as we speak?" Say what wilis? RC3 is not out yet and as far I know it will never be released outside of MS....Please explain =) . And for you MR. MoleDK, uggggg. "I really have no respect for an OS that has to reboot each time you do something or have to close all your programs just to be superuser. (read NT4)." You don't have to reboot to switch users. log off log on. And if that is too much of a chore for you then add yourself to the local admin group! And NO you don't have to have a powerhouse of a computer. I am typing this on a pII233 with 64ram and it runs w2k hell of alot faster then w9x.

------------------
Get Paid to Surf the Web! <A HREF="http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=CBM-295
" TARGET=_blank>http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=CBM-295
</A>

**noyanov** · 10 November 1999, 17:06

In my opinion the Win98 makes less checking and so it is more suitable for high-end gamers that request ftps and no more. They do not need multytasking. The only task they need is Q3. Other tasks only balks them. And so they do not need real crash protection. The only Q3 crash is meant for them.
This is extreme case.
I suppose most users want to use this game machine for other tasks. And then you start more one programs you want to have NT crash protection. (E.g. if I copping files from Excel to Word and Excel crashing I want to save Word document instead of lossing it).

And the ace of trumps is that performance of a game depends of the video driver performance and system level performance (OpenGL or DirectX). Now WinNT2000 has better OpenGL (about 1/3 better in clean performance) and lastest DirectX. But drivers unfortunately is weakness of Win2k now. All then are just bettas. Athought for TNT cards there exist release drivers for Win2k.
And Win2k drivers and OpenGL are two weakness of Matrox cards and so Win2k hardly can be recommended for Matrox users now.
Best Wishes, Yury

"But in a future..." (c) Matrox

**Gurm** · 10 November 1999, 17:42

MM:

Kicks. Ass. Good stuff.

Buggz:

Win98, like DOS before it, has a "pseudo" file system. It just puts files on the hard drive. Pretty haphazardly. No file security, no file ownership, just files dumped on a hard drive.

When I say REAL multitasking I mean weighted multitasking. There are a lot of concepts here that aren't simple to explain. Suffice it to say that a real multiuser OS needs to have wiethed tasking. Some tasks (foreground tasks like games) get most of the CPU time, but there can be tasks owned by the sysadmin that get more time. In Win98, tasks pretty much go eenie-meenie-miney-moe. One cycle per eaches (it's a bit more complex but that describes it pretty adequately). In NT they are delegated depending on priority, etc. etc.

As for file transfers, there are several file system types in play here:

FAT
FAT32
NTFS
NTFS5
CDFS

All OS's can read CDFS, if the CD is in ISO9660 format. All Microsoft OS's can read CDFS in Romeaux and Joliet as well. NT can read FAT and NTFS. Win98 can read FAT and FAT32. Win2k can read all of the above, including NTFS5.

COnfused yet?

- Ash

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

This signature is not Copyright by anyone. Especially not some guy named Steve. Yeah. That's it. Please don't kill me, Holly.

**Gurm** · 10 November 1999, 19:44

MJ,

Well ok. I stand corrected, since this build 2176 I just installed isn't, in fact, RC3 yet. I suspect it will be re-released in a day or two and called RC3, with the version number upgraded to 2176.3 or something stupid like that.

- Ash

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

This signature is not Copyright by anyone. Especially not some guy named Steve. Yeah. That's it. Please don't kill me, Holly.

**Snake-Eyes** · 12 November 1999, 08:14

Thanks for the news Gurm. How well W2K runs games (no sh!t- games!) versus the Win9x series (Millenium) will make determine which is my next OS. I really want a more stable OS (98 is an improvement over 95, and Millenium is expected to be even more so), but I must be able to run my games applications, too (I also do image enhancement work and word processing on my home PC, but not to the extent that I game, to be frank).

It would be too cool to be able to run UT and Q3Arena at the same framerate (and w/the same features) in W2K as I get with the W9x series.

------------------
Ace

**paulcs** · 12 November 1999, 08:39

I'm running both Windows 2000 and Windows 98se on the same machine and, currently, without a Matrox board. Let me qualify this by saying the W2K drivers are not official: they are either leaked or a hack. They work, for the most part, and I suspect that's the best anyone is going to do.

In any case, given the above scenario, Windows 2000 is much slower in both Quake2 and 3.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

**everettes** · 12 November 1999, 08:54

Paulcs:

What drivers are you refering to?

The only matrox drivers available are those which Matrox has posted (niether leaked nor hacked).

Did I miss something in one of the threads?

Or, if there are leaked or hacked G400 drivers out there can someone point me too them? Please?

------------------
Reach me on MS Messenger as everettes@hotmail.com
PIII550, Intel SE440BX-2, 2 x 128 Kingston PC100 ECC, 2940U2W, Seagate Cheetah, G400-32 SH, Plextor 8\20, Plextor 40Max, Pioneer 303s, SBLive!, MS FFPro, Altec Lansing ACS-48, Sony CDP 520GS

Announcement

Question for win2K users.

Question for win2K users.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment