| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Cam
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 39
Location: Melbourne, Australia |
| Win98 or WinXP better for performance? |
|
Pretty much what the title says. I notice the minimum RAM requirement for Morrowind on Win98 is half that of WinXP, so does that mean Win98 is twice as efficient with regards to RAM usage?
Which OS would give better performance? |
Fri May 10, 2002 3:22 am |
|
|
Shifter
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 303
Location: Morrowind |
| Re: Win98 or WinXP better for performance? |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cam
Pretty much what the title says. I notice the minimum RAM requirement for Morrowind on Win98 is half that of WinXP, so does that mean Win98 is twice as efficient with regards to RAM usage?
Which OS would give better performance?
I've seen mixed ideas on this. I've seen someone say he was on Win98 and switched to WinXP and it massively improved his performance. Then again I've heard that NTFS runs the game slower than FAT32 (NTFS is WinXP, FAT32 is Win98..unless you format and setup your WinXP to FAT32 LIke I did)
_________________
Shifter |
|
Fri May 10, 2002 3:46 am |
|
|
Breakapart
Village Leader
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 84
|
Ouch tough question...
XP has more overhaed than 98...but on 1G+ machines it's minor, on older machines though you may notice it.
Win98 has HORRIBLE memory management, so if you like to play games for hours and hours, XP would be a better choice.
If you multi-task alot when not gaming, this would also lean towards XP.
Once you get XP tweaked,-(shut down not needed services, your preferences) XP could be neck-in-neck with 98 in overhead power usage.
At this point in time with Win2000-(my current favorite) and XP released i wouldn't wish Win98 on my worst enemy.-IMHO |
|
Fri May 10, 2002 4:17 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible for someone to give some steps to performing game performance in xp or a good site which covers it. Thanks. |
|
Fri May 10, 2002 4:23 am |
|
|
dschrier
Village Dweller
Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 12
|
www.tweak3d.net has some good tweak guides on win2k and XP I think. If the guides for xp don't exist the win2k ones should apply in some areas. |
|
Fri May 10, 2002 4:32 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Overall I haves seen more complaints of instability from people with WinXP, but that may just reflect a greater number of people with that OS. I also saw that one post that got quite a performance boost with XP, but also one that solved his CTD problem by switching to Win98. So its really hard to say, probably depends on other things (how well-tended is your system) more than on the choice of OS itself. The only OS that seems to have massive problems is Win 2k server, and they are obviosly working on patches there (source: GoneGold forums). |
|
Fri May 10, 2002 6:52 am |
|
|
GhanBuriGhan
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 208
|
The last post was by me, sorry.  |
|
Fri May 10, 2002 6:57 am |
|
|
Cam
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 39
Location: Melbourne, Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by Breakapart
Ouch tough question...
XP has more overhaed than 98...but on 1G+ machines it's minor, on older machines though you may notice it.
Well, I'm running a Celeron 800, but I think I'm going to upgrade to a P4/1.6 soon.
quote:
Originally posted by Breakapart
Win98 has HORRIBLE memory management, so if you like to play games for hours and hours, XP would be a better choice.
I do play for hours, but I guess I can deal with the occasional reboot. I've got XP here, but I don't have the RAM to meet its minimum requirements for Morrowind.
quote:
Originally posted by Breakapart
If you multi-task alot when not gaming, this would also lean towards XP.
Nah, not at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Breakapart
Once you get XP tweaked,-(shut down not needed services, your preferences) XP could be neck-in-neck with 98 in overhead power usage.
If it's neck-in-neck, I'd stick with 98. |
|
Fri May 10, 2002 1:21 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
