PDA

View Full Version : Windows XP + Neocron = <3



phunqe
06-08-03, 13:09
So... At some point during christmas I installed XP for some reason. I usually run Windows 2000.
What I noticed was a less laggy Neocron. I didn't take much notice however, since the purpose of the installation was something else.
The other day I decided to take the XP step and leave Windows 2000. The fps gain in NC is fantastic. I get like 30 fps more on average and at an op fight yesterday it didn't lag at all(!?!). Ok, not so many people, but I've lagged with less before.
I don't know what it is, but games seem to like XP better :p

So, any of you running Windows 2000 and have some lag - try XP :)

Make sure you have a lot of RAM though. I would suggest at least 512Mb.

:D

\\Fényx//
06-08-03, 13:12
Originally posted by phunqe
Make sure you have a lot of ram though. I would suggest at least 512Mb RAM

:D

XP3000+ CPU
2gb DDR2700 :)
WinXP SP1
FX5600 gf4

i get around 55 FPS in your average OPP fight now, unless i have like 10 ppl on me with CS's etc then it drops to about 20.

around 120 fps normally and in P1 and i can get it upto around 200 at certain places.

jernau
06-08-03, 13:15
I imagine the increase was just from having a cleaner system. XP is much, much slower than 2K in every regard.

phunqe
06-08-03, 13:18
Originally posted by jernau
I imagine the increase was just from having a cleaner system. XP is much, much slower than 2K in every regard.

I doubt that. I reinstall my system like every 2 weeks 8| :)

EDIT: And everytime I've installed XP before, I've had the performance gain, no matter how fresh or old the win2000 installation was :)

\\Fényx//
06-08-03, 13:22
Originally posted by phunqe
I doubt that. I reinstall my system like every 2 weeks 8| :)

EDIT: And everytime I've installed XP before, I've had the performance gain, no matter how fresh or old the win2000 installation was :)

its just a bitch that theres about 100000 megs of security updates and service packs for XP o_O

phunqe
06-08-03, 13:25
Originally posted by \\Fényx//
its just a bitch that theres about 100000 megs of security updates and service packs for XP o_O

Yeah, the new SP2 takes care of much of them when reinstalling however :)

Rith
06-08-03, 13:26
Originally posted by jernau
I imagine the increase was just from having a cleaner system. XP is much, much slower than 2K in every regard.

Hmm...

I run XP Media Centre, Win2K and Win3K

XP is by far the better platform for end user applications.

Win3K is by far the better platform for server applications

Win2K is legacy...

Shockwave
06-08-03, 13:39
Considering MS generally name their OS's by their approximate year of release, how did you get an OS from 1000 years in the future, Rith? ;)

Shock.
Pedant.

X452
06-08-03, 13:41
anyone runing NC on the alpha of longhorn?

has anyone actualy tried longhorn yet?

Rith
06-08-03, 13:42
Originally posted by Shockwave
Considering MS generally name their OS's by their approximate year of release, how did you get an OS from 1000 years in the future, Rith? :)

Shock.

LOL, M$ name their products based on whatever their marketing guys tell them:

W3K is the moniker for .NET Server 2003

XanX
06-08-03, 13:46
The problem with NC is its CPU biased, better cpu = better framerate.

I know a friend of mine who switched to a gf2 and got the same framerate if not better, and that was from a gf4ti4600 :O

This also shows when moving from 2k to XP, cus XP has better memory management and a faster all round kernal :P

jernau
06-08-03, 14:03
Originally posted by Rith
Hmm...

I run XP Media Centre, Win2K and Win3K

XP is by far the better platform for end user applications.

Win3K is by far the better platform for server applications

Win2K is legacy...

XP is the buggiest piece of shite I've ever run - In any config on any platform.

2000 is the best OS Microsloth ever made, hands down. Many times faster than XP in every test I've ever run and infinitely more stable.

2K3 - still assesing it so the jury is out.


FYI - MS clearly know XP blows as they keep having to back down on making things XP only - DX9, MP9, Hyperthreading, etc because no business is willing to risk it. Legacy is not bad if it works.

evs
06-08-03, 14:28
XP is the buggiest piece of shite I've ever run - In any config on any platform.

2000 is the best OS Microsloth ever made, hands down. Many times faster than XP in every test I've ever run and infinitely more stable.

2K3 - still assesing it so the jury is out.


O_o

Archeus
06-08-03, 14:35
Mentioned in a different thread.

XP locks your FPS to the refresh rate of your monitor. you need a tweak tool to stop it doing this.

Omnituens
06-08-03, 14:36
i noticed a huge FPS loss in all programs when i lost my 2K disk and had to install XP.

however, with more RAM, maybe XP is better

but why but more RAM when with your present RAM and OS it works?

\\Fényx//
06-08-03, 14:38
Originally posted by Omnituens
i noticed a huge FPS loss in all programs when i lost my 2K disk and had to install XP.

however, with more RAM, maybe XP is better

but why but more RAM when with your present RAM and OS it works?


because RAM makes the world go around O_o

kurai
06-08-03, 14:39
Originally posted by jernau
XP is the buggiest piece of shite I've ever run - In any config on any platform.

2000 is the best OS Microsloth ever made, hands down. Many times faster than XP in every test I've ever run and infinitely more stable.

2K3 - still assesing it so the jury is out.


FYI - MS clearly know XP blows as they keep having to back down on making things XP only - DX9, MP9, Hyperthreading, etc because no business is willing to risk it. Legacy is not bad if it works. *shrug*
I've seen an awful lot of installations, in large numbers, on every Microsoft platform (including Xenix :D) since MS-DOS 3.3

XP has been the least problematical so far by a noticable margin.
Independent helpdesk ticket surveys agree.

I remember this same old argument when Win95 appeared and the marketroids tried to force Win3.x out.
(Repeat the above sentence replacing Win3/Win95 with any combination of MS OS and it's successor. [Well - except NT 3.1 - that was a total dog from the day it launched to the day it died :D ])

jernau
06-08-03, 14:53
Originally posted by evs
O_o

I assume by that you disagree.

I would point out that it's part of my job to constantly assess things like this. I have test rigs to allow detailed comparative tests under all manner of circumstnces. XP has yet to outperform 2000 on any test except boot-times even when given a massive hardware advantage.

When I say "File handling is for shit in XP" you could read that as "In a 48hour continuous read/write test it underperforms Win 2K by on average 40%" or you could believe some guy who's brother "knows compooters".

evs
06-08-03, 14:57
heh im part of a team of 60 who run the biggest win2k network in europe (in fact its one of M$'s crownin glories these days)
150,000 ws n growing

2K = good, but even i wouldnt say its much better than xp... esp regarding incidents.....

jernau
06-08-03, 15:06
Originally posted by kurai
*shrug*
I've seen an awful lot of installations, in large numbers, on every Microsoft platform (including Xenix :D) since MS-DOS 3.3

XP has been the least problematical so far by a noticable margin.
Independent helpdesk ticket surveys agree.

I remember this same old argument when Win95 appeared and the marketroids tried to force Win3.x out.
(Repeat the above sentence replacing Win3/Win95 with any combination of MS OS and it's successor. [Well - except NT 3.1 - that was a total dog from the day it launched to the day it died :D ])

Helpdesk tickets are a different game to performance.

XP is actually much less stable than 2K but it catches itself more often. I suspect a lot of the mollycoddling nonsense is why it runs like a pig on stilts. A good setup of 2K is more stable and faster than XP. A bad setup of XP might look less dead than 2K even though it isn't (qv - the billions of errors that ramp explorer.exe to 99% in XP)

I've had similar experience over a similar time-frame (going back to SCO Xenix) and I know what you mean but I have (until recently) always been an exponent of new=better. I haven't seen a single product out of MS since Win 2000 and SQL 2000 that I would recommend running either personally or professionally.

jernau
06-08-03, 15:11
Originally posted by evs
heh im part of a team of 60 who run the biggest win2k network in europe (in fact its one of M$'s crownin glories these days)
150,000 ws n growing

2K = good, but even i wouldnt say its much better than xp... esp regarding incidents.....

OK, that's a BFO network. I take it you're not upgrading it anytime soon though.

Like I say - user-proofing is a different problem. XP does a nice job of wrapping people in cotton wool and blindfolding them. If that's your aim though I'd run a thin-client solution.

phunqe
06-08-03, 15:17
I still think win2k is better than XP however.
But I clearly get better game performance with XP, comparing two fresh installations with latest detonator drivers.
Maybe it's my hardware?

P4 2.0Ghz
512Mb RAMBUS
LeadTek Geforce 3 TDH

XanX
06-08-03, 17:44
Unless ur running older kit, xp is better on my rig than 2k ever was/is. And in terms of stability, the same thing goes really. If its older kit, it has been unstable, but the newer the kit gets, the better the drivers mature.

I've beena stout follower of ME for ages and have only ,since NC, changed over to XP. But the amount of people that told me ME was unstable.......pfft I had that rig sweet, and it ran for days. XP is even better, cus the shell is more stable than the old ME one.

jernau
06-08-03, 17:46
Originally posted by XanX
Unless ur running older kit, xp is better on my rig than 2k ever was/is. And in terms of stability, the same thing goes really. If its older kit, it has been unstable, but the newer the kit gets, the better the drivers mature.

I've beena stout follower of ME for ages and have only ,since NC, changed over to XP. But the amount of people that told me ME was unstable.......pfft I had that rig sweet, and it ran for days. XP is even better, cus the shell is more stable than the old ME one.

ME 8| :rolleyes: :lol:

Lord Cypher
06-08-03, 17:49
My current system:

AMD Athlon 3200+ "Barton" Core
1024MB XMS Corsair PC3200 RAM
60 GB Harddrive (for XP, and other programs)
120 GB Harddrive (Storage, movies, por..er games, yea games)
128MB GeForce FX 5600

Neocron works perfectly well, getting about 40 - 50 FPS in the Wastelands and down to 30 at OP Fights.

BTW in the Display control panel, turn on 'Wait for Vertical Sync'

XanX
06-08-03, 17:55
Only m and a friend of mine could ME running stable as a mofo, its just that nc runs shit on all systems bar XP, must be the fault tolerence :p

PaulVinten
06-08-03, 17:57
Originally posted by Archeus
Mentioned in a different thread.

XP locks your FPS to the refresh rate of your monitor. you need a tweak tool to stop it doing this.

LOL why would you WANT to do that? If the monitor is only able to show 60 FPS, why bother having your GFX card doing 80? why not let it under run a bit, or whack the detail up a bit? jesus, some people.


And as for XP being unstable, WTF?! I've only had like three maybe 4 non recoverable crashes.
and thats in like a year and a half of having my computer on pretty much all day

Lord Cypher
06-08-03, 18:00
Originally posted by PaulVinten
LOL why would you WANT to do that? If the monitor is only able to show 60 FPS, why bother having your GFX card doing 80? why not let it under run a bit, or whack the detail up a bit? jesus, some people.


And as for XP being unstable, WTF?! I've only had like three maybe 4 non recoverable crashes.
and thats in like a year and a half of having my computer on pretty much all day

Ever since I started using XP, ive had maybe 2 or 3 major crashes (that wasn't my fault). Other times it was me modifying windows files, etc ..

Kendo Averly
06-08-03, 18:03
its just a bitch that theres about 100000 megs of security updates and service packs for XP

That sounds more like Windows 2000, and there's no SP2 for windows XP, yet.

Elric
06-08-03, 18:06
Originally posted by Kendo Averly
That sounds more like Windows 2000, and there's no SP2 for windows XP, yet.

Probably refferring to the SP1 Update rather than an actual SP2.

-[dw]-Nightwing
06-08-03, 18:12
I run XP since release of it, and never had big problems with it. I run NC on a XP system and tested it on my wifes computer with 2000 The performance is better on the XP-System say what ya want about it.

My desktop today is running the 60st day 24h a day without any crash or reboot. XP is stable and is fast. Sure for pure networking and businnes 2000 and 2003 is the better solution. But if I build up a Network and thats my profession you can bet I will tell the new owner USE LINUX. Thats for businness and Networking the best way.

2000 and 2003 is expensive and u need for one Network Command at least 4 or 5 Click with Linux u type in the root only one line and the same command works.

@Jernau perhaps u shouldnt ask your brother and find out yourselve whats the best "Gaming - OS" For Everyone in the world you can find the best system but only 10 % has to use 2000 cause its not the system for them.

\\Fényx//
06-08-03, 18:15
Originally posted by Kendo Averly
That sounds more like Windows 2000, and there's no SP2 for windows XP, yet.

SP for IE6
SP for mwp
SP for SP1 <=O_o
plus i think they have some other ones

jernau
06-08-03, 19:46
Originally posted by -[dw]-Nightwing
@Jernau perhaps u shouldnt ask your brother and find out yourselve whats the best "Gaming - OS" For Everyone in the world you can find the best system but only 10 % has to use 2000 cause its not the system for them.

I think you missed my point, which is that I have reams and reams of solid evidence of the copious flaws and weaknesses of XP and I give no time or credence to circumstantial reports from people without the experience or qualifications to know of what they speak.

I am aware that a lot of people on here have similar experience and knowledge to myself so I am not aiming the comment at anyone in particular simply stating what I know and why.

Tregard
06-08-03, 20:31
Originally posted by jernau
I think you missed my point, which is that I have reams and reams of solid evidence of the copious flaws and weaknesses of XP and I give no time or credence to circumstantial reports from people without the experience or qualifications to know of what they speak.

I am aware that a lot of people on here have similar experience and knowledge to myself so I am not aiming the comment at anyone in particular simply stating what I know and why.

I considered going to XP....till I found a reliable article that showed that there is a 20% chance of getting an unrecoverable system during upgrade :eek:

When it can be shown that I won't lose what is on my system during a simple upgrade, I will *NOT* be using XP unless it's on a new preinstalled PC.

[edit - typo]