Announcement

**Lmg** · 1 April 2000, 19:17

i havnt played rogue spear, sorry cant help you there, but i have played delta force 2 and le mans 24hr, definately looked better they both seemed to run much faster, df2 was definately faster. hidden and dangerous ran fine, well as fine as this game can wargasm would run but wouldnt let me set the game up, and only ran in a box(anyone can help with this id appreciate it). if all you do is play games id stick with 98\95 untill enough games companies totally support 2k at least(backward compatibillity). thats my tuppence anyway

g400 300a@464 bh6 96mb

[This message has been edited by Lmg (edited 02 April 2000).]

**Chucky Cheese** · 2 April 2000, 07:24

Kookstick,

my take on this is that all the newer games coming out will have limited support for win2k, then gaining. my only concern is the directx upgrade path for win2k...look at what they did to nt4 sp(X).

i haven't played that game you mentioned, but QIII, UT and SOF play just fine under win2k...as long as i'm booted up on one processor. as far as faster/smoother, with my setup it seems equal. that's why i removed win98se from my system.

chucky

[This message has been edited by Chucky Cheese (edited 08 April 2000).]

**mickey** · 2 April 2000, 07:28

i wouldnt touch win 2k with a brage pole
whats the point
its only a souped up version of NT
not designed to play games

the only good things at the mo with win2k is the internet connections
more sturdy

stick with win98 sec edit
untill millenium comes out

**ph0rk** · 2 April 2000, 09:35

Don't bother with Windows 2000 if you want to play Rogue Spear. The input lags really bad...

**Kookstick** · 3 April 2000, 05:14

Thanks everyone.just wondering,does win 2k use DX7? I'm assuming it does. Phork- what exactly do you mean "the imput lags really bad" on multiplayer?or single. Thanks

------------------
Asus P2b(1010),P3 500,256 mb pc133,Matrox G400 DH,Asus 50x,Iomega zip,Mitsumi CDR,Ibm 10 gb hd,Sb Live,Win 98

**DarkSyd** · 3 April 2000, 17:16

I can't comment on Rogue Spear...but all of the games I do play work as well or better than under Win98 (UT, Q3, Homeworld). At this point, you'd have to pay me to go back to using Win98. The better Internet code just by itself is worth it (I'm on 56k dialup....).
And yes, it does use DX7.

DS

------------------
Windows2000 Pro, Cel 366@550 (monster FDP32...love it!) on Asus P2b (1011), 128MB PC133, OEM G400/16 (PD5.03), Fujitsu 5.25gb, Maxtor 4.3gb (oooh, check out the all those nifty round cables...), Asus SC200 PCI SCSI card, Pioneer slot load 32X SCSI, Yamaha 4416s burner, MX300, Sycom 300va UPS, Grey Cat, Orange Cat (still MIA)

...currently working on the world's first C64 based parallel computing project

**FaRaN** · 5 April 2000, 16:48

DarkSyd

I agree, especially Homeworld runs much better.

**Zypher** · 6 April 2000, 20:23

Win2k plays 'ok' for me. TurboGL is a no go for most games, and if you dual boot you're ****ed a lot (TGL is placed in exe's dir, so have to rename or move it while playing in W2k) unless you want to have TWO directories, and bother with that. My Halflife dir is well over 1200mb, even with a 30gb HD, its annoying. Less room for ISOs.

Its not faster, by a longshot. Anyone who says so is so full of shit its not even funny. Core eats around 60mb of ram and if you have shitloads of services running (IIS etc) it will easily chomp double.

It has an appreciable overhead compared to Win98, even with Athlon 800 + 256mb I notice it, with Pro or Adv Server.

Ona Celeron 450 + 64mb running Win2k Server it blows chunks for *games*. (read on)

It does come with DX7, but the Quake - engine games (most importantly, Halflife + mods) are a pain in the ass, since TGL doesn't work right/at all and the ICD is damn slow. For the few that have DX options (HL ) their internal support for it pales compared to their support for OGL. However, games on the other end of spectrum (no OGL, or shitty OGL like UT) they play fine, no problems. A tad slower for sure.

Windoze 1900 is best for 1) not a machine you're playing on (great server, even the underpowered celeron is much more reliable with hlds.exe -game cstrike in its startup, if you know what I mean, and since its optimized for backround services) and 2) when you don't pay for it. Oops, I mean when you have the hardware for it. 64 is really too little for mr Celeron, but his scsi drives help some, since it reads swapfile every time I touch it. Just sitting there all day and night long running just HLds.exe its fine, barely touches HDs. Memory doesn't slowly drain away, and I can ignore it for a few days without even blinking. You can sure as hell still bring down W2k though, just load it full of all that crap you see on everyone's Win9x machines where it takes 5 minutes for every stupid whizbang to load on their taskbar and their ctrl-alt-del is several pages long.

If you want to play with W2k, grab a 400mhz+ machine with 128 of ram, unless this is your primary rig. If it is, too bad, don't bother. If you have no idea what you're doing, W2k can easily trick you into ****ing over the otherpart of a dual boot, or you can dumb it up yourself. For example, it practically begs you to change your HD partitions to 'dynamic disks' but if you do, sucks-to-be-you when you try booting Windoze9x. BTW, give W2k its own partition, and be *sure* to make it NTFS. The fat32 support is pretty crappy.

**Kookstick** · 6 April 2000, 21:32

OK, thanks

------------------
Asus P2b(1010),P3 500,256 mb pc133,Matrox G400 DH,Asus 50x,Iomega zip,Mitsumi CDR,Ibm 10 gb hd,Sb Live,Win 98

**APV** · 7 April 2000, 07:35

you guys are missing the point, W2K is not a gaming platform YET but it sure is the best O/S from Microsoft. I have Abit BP6 with dual Celeron 366@550 and I can burn a cd while browsing the web and downloading a huge file and listening to MP3 all at the same time with my IDE Hard drive. try this on Win98 :-) as someone say, you have to pay me to go back to win98, win98 is a gaming platform and that is it. If you are a pure gamer why should you consider W2K, that is not for you anyway.

**Gurm** · 7 April 2000, 08:53

I agree with EVERYONE here. Wow!

If you are only concerned with gaming, of course Win2k isn't for you, at least not with the hardware you probably own.

But if you like to do lots of other stuff, and ALSO play some games, a dual boot or full Win2k install makes a lot of sense.

I can't believe I ever tried to burn CD's under Win98. Ouch.

But yes, the Matrox Win2k drivers need a lot of optimization. Also look for DirectX 8 and/or Service Pack 1 (or 2) to greatly accelerate the graphics (originally planned for Neptune, this mod has been kicked back into Service Pack land last I heard).

- Gurm

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

**ph0rk** · 7 April 2000, 19:08

The right tool for the right job, people.

Win2k for everything it works with, Win98 for the rest.

That's what we have dual-boots for...

**Rags** · 7 April 2000, 21:31

I agree Win2k, even more so once HW support gets solidified, is the best OS I have used. It handles multitasking with much grace. Although, I never had any problems whatsoever with burning CDs in Win98...even while watching a DVD, browsing the net and running SETI in the background.

Rags

**gobrob** · 7 April 2000, 21:44

I second(third,fourth??) the motion that win2k is an awesome os,the memory usage is incredible!!.I'd be running it today except for a few things:No support for my tvmax capture card,no drivers for my acerscan scanner,HP drivers for printer were (WAY!)faster but couln't lower my print quality for everyday printing and(a biggy)my norton antivirus 2000 would not run(unless you add a service pack and do an upgrade from win98;sorry I don't do upgrades).
so do a bit of research and try it,what the heck!
gobrob
oh-my UT and Kingpin ran flawlessly @ same framerates as under win98,didn't try much else before i switched back
kids older games were compatible too i guess

[This message has been edited by gobrob (edited 08 April 2000).]

Announcement

Are games played in win 2000 better or just playable?

Are games played in win 2000 better or just playable?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment