View Full Version : What operating system do you play neocron on?
I have been told by several people that in their experience, they get less FRE's on win98 then winxp.
This poll is to satisfy my curiosity as to what is the most used OS for playing NC on.
ZoneVortex
16-03-04, 07:00
Win xp
However, I used to run it on win98
let me tell you this:
I would FRE every 20-30 minutes. NO joke. Except on win98 when I'd FRE rather than being kind enough to "FRE" for me, the game would close, my comp would lock up, fuck up, die, and i'd have to restart
UNBEARABLE
so i got xp and i FRE maybe once a day on average
Win XP
Linux(is it possible?)
This game is unstable enough as it is, even if I was actively using my Gentoo partitions I wouldn't bother trying to get it working in WineX.
Lifewaster
16-03-04, 08:29
Originally posted by ZoneVortex
However, I used to run it on win98
let me tell you this:
I would FRE every 20-30 minutes. NO joke. Except on win98 when I'd FRE rather than being kind enough to "FRE" for me, the game would close, my comp would lock up, fuck up, die, and i'd have to restart
UNBEARABLE
I had the exact same problem in Win 98 after I installed an ATI card upgrade.
So I upgraded to Win 2000 and its fine now.
Win 98 SE were my stablist NC playing days - just a shame about the damn memory limit. As well as having loads of problems with various things when I changed to XP Pro, I also lost a shit load of FPS =(
I would also love Neocron to run natively alongside UT2004 on my linux install - save me keep rebooting to Windoze.
Athon Solo
2k, i don't like wasting hundreds of thousands of cpu cycles for nothing, absolutely nothing.
Psyco Groupie
16-03-04, 10:31
Winxp sp1, all skinning disabled :angel:
metalangel
16-03-04, 11:42
Win2k. Best OS I've used in a lonnnnng time, I have to reboot my PC maybe once a week at most.
win2k is teh r0x
all other windows are crap
It's still surprising how many people prefer 2k over XP... Obviously they dont know much about XP and think it's a kiddy-OS or something... Your feeling that 2k is uber, is nothing more than that: a feeling.
There's absolutly no reason to run 2k in stead of XP. XP bloated? Yes, it is... It comes with a lot of services and software enabled/installed you dont need. BUT if you're half the wizz you say you are (coz 2k is "the win!!!oneone") it wouldn't take you more than 30 minutes to get it tuned. And make it even look/handle better (more pro) than 2k... At least... I can.. ;)
XP IS faster than 2k = FACT!
I recently tried 2k again. Why? Because I *THOUGHT* I wasn't using any of XP "nifty" features and I too want my OS as clean as possible.
However, I was instantly disappointed with the lack of speed of the os (on a 3ghz p4 with HT, 9800XT and 10.000 RPM drive). Responsivenes *looks* fine at start, but try doing something more complicated with it (Photoshop 'n stuff). Or with a lot of resident apps installed (unfortunatly I need 'm :() it becomes hell.
The bad support for spanned drives and other computer management features were also a big con.
XP IS better with games than 2k = FACT!
Just compare game-benchemarks, game-crashes, etc... let alone games that wont even run under 2k..
The freaking *ONLY* reason to use 2k over XP is that is uses a little less mem (clean/tuned install: 2k=50mb XP=70mb). But that's just marginal and you'll only notice THAT if you've got 256mb RAM or less.
AND i'd like to mention that support/upgrades/patches for XP are better... 2k is going to be fased out. Not yet, but support for XP will continue *at least* until Longhorn....
I've been using/testing every MS OS from it's beta fases (Hell.. I even got the 2k beta's from mr. gates himself!) and I'm constantly trying to get the max out of it, so i know what I'm talking about.
If you dont believe me, talk to other people who know what they're talking about.... I'm not saying that 2k is a BAD os, I just get the feeling that people stay with 2k coz they're ignorant. And lines like "2k is tha r0x" confirms that feeling even more.
And now for my e-penis talk (ignore this, it's just for the ppl who like to rant back): my XP outperforms your 2k anytime. I'll bet my entire PC on it...
Jesterthegreat
16-03-04, 16:20
home - Win XP Pro Corperate Edition
LAN center - Win 98
Win2K is by far the most efficient and stable OS.
I like pretty colors, and "wasting hundreds of thousands of cpu cycles for nothing, absolutely nothing." :D
So WinXP it is. hahahha
Psyco Groupie
16-03-04, 16:24
rofl .. hands up who uses ME so we can laugh at you
Jesterthegreat
16-03-04, 16:26
Originally posted by Psyco Groupie
rofl .. hands up who uses ME so we can laugh at you
used to be stuck with it on family PC... but... got my own, then stuck XP Pro on the family one when no one was looking :lol:
:edit: i voted XP btw lol
Original monk
16-03-04, 16:27
win2000pro here on my barebone and highest desktop, also on laptop
winXP pro NL on my lesser desktoppc
so actually win 2000 pro =)
XP here too.
Little to no FRE's too, so I don't think it's all that much related to the OS you use.
metalangel
16-03-04, 17:06
Err... the only other version of 2000 you're likely to run is Server, so mentioning 'Pro' isn't really necessary...
Originally posted by g0rt
2k, i don't like wasting hundreds of thousands of cpu cycles for nothing, absolutely nothing. Hehe. So what, 500,000 cpu cycles? And a 2.0 Ghz proc does 2,000,000,000 cycles per second...
Thats .025%. Yipes!
;)
I use win XP, running Neo in Windowed mode unles I log my tank for some BD killing, in which case I go full screen.
2000 winnarz coz I'm a pro.
Originally posted by Agent L
2000 winnarz coz I'm a pro.
... and yet another one ....
Err... the only other version of 2000 you're likely to run is Server, so mentioning 'Pro' isn't really necessary...
well since I happen to run Win2k Server also ....
NS_CHROME54
16-03-04, 19:26
win2k
As much as Win 2k seems fine, I cant agree that any program my school chose to be its Operating System is going to be good. For exam paper they chose that awful paper that is more blotty than blotting paper for gods sake...
Win XP all teh way.
Whoever asked,
Yeah, I use WinME.
But you know what? I rarely have any shit problems like the rest of you do. I also am using a PC built about 2-3 years ago.
You can go sex a drom for all I care =P You know you want to. :p
<<<>>>~~~ *** WiNdOwZ 2000 4LYFE *** ~~~<<<>>>
Originally posted by Strych9
Hehe. So what, 500,000 cpu cycles? And a 2.0 Ghz proc does 2,000,000,000 cycles per second...
Thats .025%. Yipes!
;)
I use win XP, running Neo in Windowed mode unles I log my tank for some BD killing, in which case I go full screen.
Not all of us care enough about our windows machines to have a 2gig cpu in them :p
JK all jokes aside my windows machine doesn't get as much love as my servers do, and XP really bogs it down bad....with that said, XP doesn't have a single feature over windows 2000 that I would ever use. Not a SINGLE one. It actually has a bunch of crap that I hate, like the new media player for example.
I tried it incase it might help with FRE's in Neocron, but no...same amount in 2k as xp.
Originally posted by g0rt
Not all of us care enough about our windows machines to have a 2gig cpu in them :p
JK all jokes aside my windows machine doesn't get as much love as my servers do, and XP really bogs it down bad....with that said, XP doesn't have a single feature over windows 2000 that I would ever use. Not a SINGLE one. It actually has a bunch of crap that I hate, like the new media player for example.
I tried it incase it might help with FRE's in Neocron, but no...same amount in 2k as xp. True that, XP doesnt really offer too much. Its funny, in the Microsoft training on SQL Server I had recently, they talk about Win 2k and Win 2k3, but never XP. LOL
Funny thing is I run WinXP in the "Classic" mode which makes it look and function like Win2k. :)
used be 2k, now Xp Pro,
i used to be a 2k > xp kinda guy, but have firmly changed my mind now, 3 days of learning xp and tweaking and it now runs twice the speed 2k ever did.
When I moved from 98 to 2000 I had more FRE's with 2000. However the result was I could restart NC in 2000, where as in 98 a reboot was often called for.
Running 98SE and hardly ever FRE.
That said, I'll upgrade to a new computer and Win XP in about 3 weeks.
XP pro SP1
Interesting results O_o
Originally posted by Strych9
Its funny, in the Microsoft training on SQL Server I had recently, they talk about Win 2k and Win 2k3, but never XP. LOL
That's because there is no XP Server to run SQL Server on.
I use 2k on my laptop and XP on my desktop. Both run NC just fine and have an equal number of FREs.
I used to use Windows 2000 but I've since upgraded to Windows XP Pro. IMO XP Pro is the better overall OS, but if you want "minimalist", go for 2000.
--Stryfe
Originally posted by subsys
used be 2k, now Xp Pro,
i used to be a 2k > xp kinda guy, but have firmly changed my mind now, 3 days of learning xp and tweaking and it now runs twice the speed 2k ever did.
aaaahhh.. yes... i'm not the onlyone who "sees" it... :)
(tired of my XP propaganda yet?)
Originally posted by BramTops
It's still surprising how many people prefer 2k over XP... Obviously they dont know much about XP and think it's a kiddy-OS or something... Your feeling that 2k is uber, is nothing more than that: a feeling.
There's absolutly no reason to run 2k in stead of XP. XP bloated? Yes, it is... It comes with a lot of services and software enabled/installed you dont need. BUT if you're half the wizz you say you are (coz 2k is "the win!!!oneone") it wouldn't take you more than 30 minutes to get it tuned. And make it even look/handle better (more pro) than 2k... At least... I can.. ;)
XP IS faster than 2k = FACT!
I recently tried 2k again. Why? Because I *THOUGHT* I wasn't using any of XP "nifty" features and I too want my OS as clean as possible.
However, I was instantly disappointed with the lack of speed of the os (on a 3ghz p4 with HT, 9800XT and 10.000 RPM drive). Responsivenes *looks* fine at start, but try doing something more complicated with it (Photoshop 'n stuff). Or with a lot of resident apps installed (unfortunatly I need 'm :() it becomes hell.
The bad support for spanned drives and other computer management features were also a big con.
XP IS better with games than 2k = FACT!
Just compare game-benchemarks, game-crashes, etc... let alone games that wont even run under 2k..
The freaking *ONLY* reason to use 2k over XP is that is uses a little less mem (clean/tuned install: 2k=50mb XP=70mb). But that's just marginal and you'll only notice THAT if you've got 256mb RAM or less.
AND i'd like to mention that support/upgrades/patches for XP are better... 2k is going to be fased out. Not yet, but support for XP will continue *at least* until Longhorn....
I've been using/testing every MS OS from it's beta fases (Hell.. I even got the 2k beta's from mr. gates himself!) and I'm constantly trying to get the max out of it, so i know what I'm talking about.
If you dont believe me, talk to other people who know what they're talking about.... I'm not saying that 2k is a BAD os, I just get the feeling that people stay with 2k coz they're ignorant. And lines like "2k is tha r0x" confirms that feeling even more.
And now for my e-penis talk (ignore this, it's just for the ppl who like to rant back): my XP outperforms your 2k anytime. I'll bet my entire PC on it...
Finally, someone intelligent. :P
I used Windows 2000 before XP as well. Is my OS bloated? Well, all of Windows can be considered bloated, but my XP (as it is right now) is probably less bloated than 2000 out of the box. To the people that state XP is overly bloated: Learn how to configure your operating system or else you can't complain!
There are so many websites that detail the many tweaks you can perform on Windows XP to make it run better.
Out of the box, sure Windows 2000 is probably better in some areas than XP. But after configuration/tweaking there is nothing better about 2000. I too am sick of hearing this 2000 > XP propaganda just because people don't tweak their systems.
Don't even get me started on the relative hunks of crap that 95/98/98SE/ME are...
XP > 2000 > 98SE > ME > 95
Anyways, as mentioned before, I use Windows XP.
Windows XP coz I am teh ub3r OS tweaker !!
*goes to learn something about OSs*
Well I use XP, but I don't have a clue of how to tweak much of it.
:p
Originally posted by Sleawer
*goes to learn something about OSs*
Basic stuff:
step 1: START -> RUN -> services.msc
and disable the stuff you dont need (like theming.. ;))
step 2: turn all fast-user switching crap off
step 3: disable/uninstall all MS installed stuff with "add/remove components" and "set program acces and defaults" (requires SP1)
step 4: go to bed.. like i'm doing now and get back here later.. ;)
Lets consider my options:
1) use windows 2000, which runs flawlessly, doesn't have a single downfall for waht I do on a windows machine, and needs very little "tweaking" to run exactly how i like it
2) use winxp, spend 2 weeks "tweaking" it all perfect so it runs as well as 2k, looks like 2k and runs allt he same apps that my 2k box runs....
makes alot of sense :rolleyes:
im not anti-xp, if you like it by all means use it....but some of us get absolutely NOTHING out of it, so theres no point in using it...the biggest mock is people who use XP and tweak/customize it to be just like 2k...wtf? lol such a waste of time..
lol Brams I'm a lost case, no clue what all of that mean or where is it.
I will leave things as they are before risking to kill anything that actually I shouldn't :p
/edit: well g0rt, if 2k doesn't need tweaking at all to perform like XP... I'm really considering switching to 2k.
Perhaps if you know what to tweak XP might be cool, but if you are lazy or don't want to risk doing a mess in your computer 2k sounds really good.
hehe.
Win98SE 8|
And guess how much I crash/freeze/FRE/sync? Once per 8 hour session. So blah on yew XP nutz. :p
My 98SE install weighs in at 300MB, and mem usage on a fresh boot is about 40MB. I stripped the fucker down to the bare essentials. Nothing crashes with any kind of regularity on my machine so I'm happy. The only thing that will get me to upgrade is when games have a min req of more than 512MB ram. Then I'll go XP.
Nevermind.
*goes to sleep*
:p
XP IS faster than 2k = FACT!
XP IS better with games than 2k = FACT!
I'd agree with that
but I'll vote on 2k for stability and "cleanness", and that's a real factor with my nc experience. a couple of times I've tried to do some things on XP and run into all sorts of problems, try it on 2k - bingo, no crashes.
that's not to say with certain configs that 2k won't fatal out the wazoo, that can happen anytime
but yes, XP is a bit newer and faster, it's gotten much more dev-love and sex than 2k lately, hell with all the crazy windowsworm and security crap microsoft hasn't even released any security patches for 2k -- it's just not a priority anymore, I would say unfortunately
eventually I'll have to switch to XP
whoever wrote that is a moron
slower computers run 2k faster then xp and there is NOTHING you can do about it, nothing
In my experience;
Windows 2k
This runs faster and is FAR more stable on my system than XP.
Plus, the layout for Windows 2k is far superior to XP.
IIRC, there is a British company working to alter the GUI for Longhorn to set it out like Win2000 :D
BramTops, take your XP shite somewhere else. Its OK for most users, but some of us find 2K alot better.
'nuff said.
2k > xp
i think it all comes down to your system
my windows box simply is NOT powerfull enough for XP....and it doesn't matter to me because XP offers absolutely nothing that I want over 2k...so its not even a contest in my view, ill never use XP.
I won't even bother replying to some of these posts. As long as you're happy with 2000, I'm happier with XP. Two weeks of configuration? Please. :lol:
There were many things added to XP that do give benefits over 2000. Making XP look and feel like 2000 isn't laughable because you still have those same benefits that were added. I'm really the one laughing here. Believe what you want, I'll walk away contented no matter what OS you use.
At least you don't argue over which is better between XP/2000 and 95/98/ME...
only time i would concider using a XP-ish OS is on a 64-bit system
I switched from 98-2k right away, and then when XP came out, I moved to XP. however, I have done extensive testing between the various OS's to see what give me the best performance, stability ETC. win98 won out performance-wise untill DX9 came about then I got about the same scores, 2k trailing a few thousands points in 3dmark. Stability wise, 2k and xp are about the same for me (2k bluescreened just a littlebit more under DX9 tho) but I had some difficulties getting some of my other games to function correctly under 2k. I know how to tweak 2k (I'm MCP in it), but it just didn't cut it for what I use my machine for; gaming.
I don't really see a reason to use 2k anymore, so I stick with XP, it's stable and performs for me.
and I FRE about once a day.
Originally posted by Rob01m
There were many things added to XP that do give benefits over 2000.
like what? bloatware media player? cd-burning through explorer when third party programs are 900 times better anyway? tons of noob options to make control panel look like a mac?
theres nothing, nothing at all except a bunch of noob crap that helps my grandmother use her computer better :rolleyes: kudos to that
Gotterdammerung
17-03-04, 05:37
please keep things in check. it's just a thread about operating systems, lets not find constructive ways to bash people. Some of you can't afford an edit
Originally posted by g0rt
like what? bloatware media player? cd-burning through explorer when third party programs are 900 times better anyway? tons of noob options to make control panel look like a mac?
theres nothing, nothing at all except a bunch of noob crap that helps my grandmother use her computer better :rolleyes: kudos to that
Intergration of DirectX and streamlining of APIs to better communicate with hardware for one. not to mention of course an updated NTFS that has shown (outside of just microsoft propaganda) a noticable increase in speed, an updated and more efficient MMC set...
There's actually alot more than just "bloatware mediaplayer" and making the system look like a mac. I dunno about you, but my grandmother doesn't even know what the MMC is, so I doubt she's using it.
Win2K all the way.
Sorry bramtops but you are wrong.
I ran extensive tests (both automated and user-based) for my last company on XP both at release and again after SP1. It was slower and less stable in almost every regard on every system. It also took more grief by far to make it work acceptably. Those systems had to be fast and reliable for both our graphics artists and our coders, they also had to handle HUGE files generated by our video production unit. Representatives from all those departments said they would have refused an XP roll-out after trying it.
The only thing XP appears to do faster on some systems is boot. IMO that's why some people say it's faster.
I've heard some positive things about it's laptop support but we didn't test them so I can't say.
Originally posted by greploco
it's gotten much more dev-love and sex than 2k lately, hell with all the crazy windowsworm and security crap microsoft hasn't even released any security patches for 2k -- it's just not a priority anymore, I would say unfortunately
That's simply not true. I can't think of a single patch that wasn't released for 2K and XP in parallel. Also, MS have made huge efforts to keep 2K alive because of the large install-base in business. Many technologies previously marked for XP/2k3 were remarked 2K/XP/2k3 because business customers wouldn't upgrade to XP/2003.
ZoneVortex
17-03-04, 08:34
I don't think we can say anyone's right or wrong...
Maybe person X's hardware and drivers does indeed put out more performance with win2k than it would on xp
and maybe its ther other way around for person Z due to THEIR hardware and shit
i remember this exact same thing happening with 2k was introduced after win 98...
some people stuck with 98 cuz they said it was better, many went with 2k cause they like it for other reasons....whatever it'll always happen
edit:
besides, look at the poll. one can clearly conclude that winxp is FAR better than win2k because MANY more people appear to use it! just look at the graph! :rolleyes:
j/k! LOLz wtf...going to bed i'm going FUCKING INsANE
Originally posted by Mattimeo
Intergration of DirectX and streamlining of APIs to better communicate with hardware for one. not to mention of course an updated NTFS that has shown (outside of just microsoft propaganda) a noticable increase in speed, an updated and more efficient MMC set...
There's actually alot more than just "bloatware mediaplayer" and making the system look like a mac. I dunno about you, but my grandmother doesn't even know what the MMC is, so I doubt she's using it.
more efficient MMC set? how so its basically a copyoff of windows 2k? directx integration only helps in certain hardware setups, to be specific....new hardware. doesn't make a hoot of difference on my machine or other machines with my type of hardware. ntfs is a mock on itself im not even gonna touch that one.
my grandmother knows how to search through her hard drives now because of the n00bish xp start menu and its cpu-wasting explorer features, that can be turned off to clone 2k :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sleawer
Windows XP coz I am teh ub3r OS tweaker !!
*goes to learn something about OSs*
Well I use XP, but I don't have a clue of how to tweak much of it.
:p
If you go to the start then run menu and type msconfig.
you can remove alot of excess bagage that WinXp loads that will messup alot of games.
When msconfig open's the new window go to startup and then you can either disable everything (this affects no critical programs running) however check to make sure your LAN is not affected I am running a Lynksys wireless and had to make sure it was enabled here. Its nice to be able to pick and choose exactly what I want to load. You will be amazed at the crap thats running that you don't really even need or use but it all slows down your system!
I already control that part of running processes on my system (if that's what you mean), I do it by regedit and checking what is exactly running as backgroud processes. .
What I never tweaked before is the 'services' window, some of those things are used, others I don't know what are them, and others seem useless but I could not say for sure. That's why I don't want to touch it.
To be honest, I don't think is wise telling persons to tweak their computer if they don't know 'exactly' what are they doing. It can be with good intentions, but you never know what each person use and what don't.
In that sense then I feel that 2k might be better for what I'm hearing, you don't have to mess with anything or with very little. So it is not only a matter of the hardware installed, but also depends on the person using the OS and his knowledge about it.
Just my thoughts.
Originally posted by Sleawer
...but also depends on the person using the OS and his knowledge about it. Not trying to pimp myself, but that is why I can still use 98. I know it inside and out and I regularly get uptimes of a week or more. :)
I am thinking of taking a course at the local college when I get XP. I don't want to spend a year learning it all on my own again. It's the 512MB ram limit that's making me upgrade, nothing else.
Windows XP over here. I've never had a blue screen that wasn't my own fault. (bad hardware/drivers)
It's rare for me when Neocron crashes more then once a day.
You 2k>XP people say the only thing that XP offers above 2k is n00b shit. Well, apparently you've never looked beyond the n00b shit. You say people like us use XP, then configure it to look like 2k. You are correct, we want it to LOOK like 2k, because we are not n00bs. But XP is far more then simply a new look. One of those things that are new in XP is Hyper Threading support. This technology safes me a lot of time. Windows 2000 has never even heard of it.
Windows 2k might run better on your five-year-old machine, but once you get a decent computer, you'll see XP is 2k but only better.
Who is this Linux person, and why does it work for him ?? o_O
Why cant some people just admin they ....
http://www.eaglered.net/iNFiNiTY/2004-03-06%20Daantje/image062.jpg
:D
I'm outta here... was just trying to help ;)
Originally posted by g0rt
more efficient MMC set? how so its basically a copyoff of windows 2k? directx integration only helps in certain hardware setups, to be specific....new hardware. doesn't make a hoot of difference on my machine or other machines with my type of hardware. ntfs is a mock on itself im not even gonna touch that one.
my grandmother knows how to search through her hard drives now because of the n00bish xp start menu and its cpu-wasting explorer features, that can be turned off to clone 2k :rolleyes:
Actually, g0rt, the intergration helps in ANYTHING directX related. The more closely that programs can work with directX (and through it to the hardware) the better performance you will see. I got over a 2000 point boost in 3dmark just moving from 2k to XP, that was with a Geforce 3. NTFS is still better than FAT :rolleyes: and making it faster than 2ks is STILL an improvement. and the MMC set in XP has quite a few new snapins that are quite useful.
ohnoz! they put in features to also make it easier to use for people that may not know what they are doing! how could they ever do that!
Regardless of "waste" they may put in the background, the numbers I care about (benchmarks and FPS) they went up, thats all I need.
But, of course, any of this information will be waved off by close-minded individuals.
Originally posted by Maarten
Windows XP over here. I've never had a blue screen that wasn't my own fault. (bad hardware/drivers)
It's rare for me when Neocron crashes more then once a day.
You 2k>XP people say the only thing that XP offers above 2k is n00b shit. Well, apparently you've never looked beyond the n00b shit. You say people like us use XP, then configure it to look like 2k. You are correct, we want it to LOOK like 2k, because we are not n00bs. But XP is far more then simply a new look. One of those things that are new in XP is Hyper Threading support. This technology safes me a lot of time. Windows 2000 has never even heard of it.
Windows 2k might run better on your five-year-old machine, but once you get a decent computer, you'll see XP is 2k but only better.
2K has HT support. :rolleyes:
At all those who say "I upgraded and it was better" - Had you just re-installed the existing OS you would probably have had the same result. Clean installs are always faster.
Originally posted by jernau
2K has HT support. :rolleyes:
At all those who say "I upgraded and it was better" - Had you just re-installed the existing OS you would probably have had the same result. Clean installs are always faster.
All my benchs are done on clean installs, on the same hardware. at least, the DX9b benches I did were (I think my HDD hated me that day)
2K has HT support. :rolleyes:
Then why does Microsoft recommend you turn off HT if you are running Windows 2000? Someone from Intel told me that in person.
If you turn HT on when you are running 2000, the OS will recognize the system as a dual proc system and will treat it that way. But because it really is only one physical processor, things will only be slower then with HT disabled. That's why they recommend to turn HT off with 2k.
Originally posted by Mattimeo
All my benchs are done on clean installs, on the same hardware. at least, the DX9b benches I did were (I think my HDD hated me that day)
Not aimed at you specifically ;).
wrt NTFS5 - what's the point adding 1-2% at the kernel level when explorer is such a total dog at the top level. In fact the biggest problem with XP is it's explorer, it would regularly and consistently lock solid on several of the tests we ran. Even when it completed them it was slower in every file/networking test on every hardware config.
Originally posted by Maarten
Then why does Microsoft recommend you turn off HT if you are running Windows 2000? Someone from Intel told me that in person.
If you turn HT on when you are running 2000, the OS will recognize the system as a dual proc system and will treat it that way. But because it really is only one physical processor, things will only be slower then with HT disabled. That's why they recommend to turn HT off with 2k.
I have no idea who told you that but it's nonsense. Not long ago I set-up a whole stack of SQL and Oracle servers on Compaq Proliants, all with HT and all with 2K. It made a huge difference to performance.
There was a time when MS said 2K would not get HT because they wanted people to "upgrade" but as no-one did they added it to 2K and it works fine. My guess is whoever you spoke to was passing on out of date info.
Jesterthegreat
17-03-04, 16:28
Originally posted by Glok
Not trying to pimp myself, but that is why I can still use 98. I know it inside and out and I regularly get uptimes of a week or more. :)
pfft... i run Win XP Pro and all i have done is changed the theme back to normal windows (and the startmenu too). no tweaking.
i have uptimes of 1 week minimum EVERYTIME i use my pc (baring installs / driver installs / etc where restart is forced)
Original monk
17-03-04, 16:36
i use 2000pro and xp pro
i prefer 2000 pro
why ? not that much jingle & jangles as xp has ...
fast, slow, dual this, dual that, benchmarcks this and that or i dunno what all
i dont care ... 2000 is the easiest :P ya can yust trow it on every computer and it works perfectly :) and it doesnt take alot of space ...
thing i dont like is winME ... never had so much trouble in my life with making my small netwerk, neocron, crashes etc ... winME is always fucked up lol.
98SE i also have ... very basic .. no problems with it :) but for them modern games i still prefer win2000 pro
-> i dont know shit about what "technical" advantages, pro's contra's etc. these OS's have ... so i yust posted what i experienced untill now with em ... and then win2000pro comes out the 1st place :)
owyeah and at work here we all use win2000 pro
edit: but as i said dont be mad at me cause im a big NIB when it comes to those things hehe
Originally posted by jernau
Not aimed at you specifically ;).
wrt NTFS5 - what's the point adding 1-2% at the kernel level when explorer is such a total dog at the top level. In fact the biggest problem with XP is it's explorer, it would regularly and consistently lock solid on several of the tests we ran. Even when it completed them it was slower in every file/networking test on every hardware config.
I definatly need to look into that, if it's true I can't spout that NTFS on XP is better. if anything I like being accurate...
any sites showing a bench like this? Or how was your test done so I can see for myself?
Originally posted by Jesterthegreat
pfft... i run Win XP Pro and all i have done is changed the theme back to normal windows (and the startmenu too). no tweaking.
i have uptimes of 1 week minimum EVERYTIME i use my pc (baring installs / driver installs / etc where restart is forced) What's your point and what's with the 'pffft'? If ya gonna quote me, have a point plz. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by BramTops
... and yet another one ....
Yesssss...
But I do admit it was religious/attitude/etc reasons that influenced my decision : D And I use MediaPlayer 6.
Death to all skinners !
One question : why xp pro is cheaper than 2k ? : P
299$ for XP (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/pricingretail.asp)
319$ for 2k (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/howtobuy/pricing/default.asp)
It is teh oldskool l33tn3ss that costs 20$ ! :P
Originally posted by Mattimeo
I definatly need to look into that, if it's true I can't spout that NTFS on XP is better. if anything I like being accurate...
any sites showing a bench like this? Or how was your test done so I can see for myself?
I'm not keen on commercial benchmarks as I personally wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw the brown envelopes they all take from "interested parties".
We ran tests by setting up a variety of different tasks and timing them (crude but more realistic and relevant). Wrt data access the main things we had to test for were the extremes. The video team would generate 20+Gb files regularly whereas the the coders could generate half a million 1k files. As you know these are very different problems. We tested local copies and over the network, then both again under CPU, network and drive load (eg. network copies running full duplex both ways).
For CPU and memory tests we used 3DS Max to render some of the more complex models we had made over the years. This included a complete Challenger tank, down to the last screw thread that is used for training the maintenance engineers and a similar model of a Frigate's fire control systems used for fluid-modelling. We also used some meaty C++ compiles and SQL load testers for stability testing.
All of this was done on a range of systems from a P2-266 up to a dual zeon.
Originally posted by jernau
I'm not keen on commercial benchmarks as I personally wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw the brown envelopes they all take from "interested parties".
We ran tests by setting up a variety of different tasks and timing them (crude but more realistic and relevant). Wrt data access the main things we had to test for were the extremes. The video team would generate 20+Gb files regularly whereas the the coders could generate half a million 1k files. As you know these are very different problems. We tested local copies and over the network, then both again under CPU, network and drive load (eg. network copies running full duplex both ways).
For CPU and memory tests we used 3DS Max to render some of the more complex models we had made over the years. This included a complete Challenger tank, down to the last screw thread that is used for training the maintenance engineers and a similar model of a Frigate's fire control systems used for fluid-modelling. We also used some meaty C++ compiles and SQL load testers for stability testing.
All of this was done on a range of systems from a P2-266 up to a dual zeon.
I don't usually trust commercial benches either, but if I can get a few of them that show the same thing with different intrests behind them, they add a bit of weight to an arguement. You tests definatly sound solid. i'll have to see if i can rig a test together to see this for myself. Did you have software measuring access/read/write time for the harddrives?
for now I concede on the NTFS issue, seeing as how I don't have personal experiance on the issue ;) i still hold that APIs especially with DirectX are more efficient under XP.
I have to reboot into XP Corporate everytime I want to play Neocron... Actually, it's the only reason I still have an XP partition.
Originally posted by Mattimeo
I don't usually trust commercial benches either, but if I can get a few of them that show the same thing with different intrests behind them, they add a bit of weight to an arguement. You tests definatly sound solid. i'll have to see if i can rig a test together to see this for myself. Did you have software measuring access/read/write time for the harddrives?
for now I concede on the NTFS issue, seeing as how I don't have personal experiance on the issue ;) i still hold that APIs especially with DirectX are more efficient under XP.
We ran sysmon mainly to ensure there weren't HW or other issues causing problems but nothing else. Most 3rd party apps either add stuff to drivers or use resources themselves.
DX was in 2K from the start as well so even if XP and DX9 have some sneaky optimisations that advantage will go as soon as the next version arrives. Considering that the big DX9 games are still not available I'm not really concerned. I don't use WMP >6.4 or it's codecs if I can avoid it so that doesn't bother me.
Psyco Groupie
17-03-04, 17:45
hahaha 5 ME users ... :angel:
Oh yeah, forgot to say before;
to enable Compatibilty mode in Win 2k, put this in the Start > Run box
regsvr32 %systemroot%\apppatch\slayerui.dll
there you can now have Win 95/98 compatibilty :D
i think you need SP4 first though
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.