Nihilistic
Close the world, txEn eht nepO
I play alot of games, i wanna know if 98 or XP is better operating system for games, i found that XP loaded stuff faster, but i still like 98, some help please
XP or 98?
- Thread starter Nihilistic
- Start date
Justintime
Something
XP, alot of older games can work in compatiability mode, and you benefit from the NT stability.
systembuilder
Folding@home
Justintime said:
XP.. and that depends on your system,your games may run slower if you dont have the hardware, you will have to find out yourself, if you can get a copy from a friend i would give it a shot.
that way if xp dont run well on your comp your not out any bucks
Justintime
Something
98 is a fast OS yes, but primitve and when it goes, takes everything out, XP is more than decent with 256MB+ RAM and is much nicer and can be made faster when classic view etc. is switched on.
It still spies on you, and by far 98 is still the fastest OS to play games on. Or if you really wanna get hardcore, 95 is even better, but only 95 OSR2 and up supports FAT32, so unless he wants to live on no larger than 2 gig partitions and no bigger than an 8 gig hard drive, 95 is less of a possibility.
As far as we know, Nihilistic doesn't give a shit if he has to reboot it every day, he has just asked which is the better OS for games.
If he were to ask which is the better OS for watching eye candy slide halfway across the screen and take up 200% cpu time every time you mouse over a link in a web page, err *cough* a folder on your hard drive, I'm sure we'd all agree that XP fulfills that desire, or if he were to want to know which is the better OS for letting Microsoft know what you're doing on the net at every moment, or the better OS for a computer illiterate jackass who wouldn't tell an ass in the ground from an ass in their hole... you get my point.
As you can probably tell, I strongly dislike XP and generally am against turning my entire computer into a web page as 95 OSR2.5 and every OS after that has tried to do. Fortunately it's at least easy to return most of them to some form resembling the classic 95 interface, but it's too bad it's still loading Internet Explorer, err *cough* an Operating System Component™ every time you want to browse through your hard drive.
As far as we know, Nihilistic doesn't give a shit if he has to reboot it every day, he has just asked which is the better OS for games.
If he were to ask which is the better OS for watching eye candy slide halfway across the screen and take up 200% cpu time every time you mouse over a link in a web page, err *cough* a folder on your hard drive, I'm sure we'd all agree that XP fulfills that desire, or if he were to want to know which is the better OS for letting Microsoft know what you're doing on the net at every moment, or the better OS for a computer illiterate jackass who wouldn't tell an ass in the ground from an ass in their hole... you get my point.
As you can probably tell, I strongly dislike XP and generally am against turning my entire computer into a web page as 95 OSR2.5 and every OS after that has tried to do. Fortunately it's at least easy to return most of them to some form resembling the classic 95 interface, but it's too bad it's still loading Internet Explorer, err *cough* an Operating System Component™ every time you want to browse through your hard drive.
This line makes me wonder...
If you think about it, Microsoft touting XP as the biggest upgrade to the interface since the transition from 3.x to 95 is a bit of an overexaggeration.
3.x was a pile of windows thrown on top of each other that you had to sort through to get to your programs, often needing a dozen clicks to get to any given program while you're in the middle of another one. 95 reduced the access points to a collection of easy-to-navigate and self-explanatory menus that required no more than 2 clicks at ANY time, no matter how many others you were running.
For instance, in order to open Write/Wordpad
3.1: Minimize all programs manually, then doubleclick the Program Manager. Doubleclick Accessories. Doubleclick the Write icon. At least a half a dozen clicks here,then however many clicks that you have programs opened.
95: Click Start. Point to Programs. Point to Accessories. Click wordpad. Much less clicking involved.
XP: Click Start. Find out whether you should point to "All Programs" or look for it in the jumble of icons thrown at you. Once you don't find it in the jumble of icons, go to All Programs. Look for it in Accessories, finding out that it's not there, then call up your local computer guru and ask him why you can't find Wordpad. Run through the process you just went through, and then finally find out what happened, that Windows hid it under an arrow because it hasn't been used in so long.
It seems to me that 95's interface is a load simpler than XP's, due to its straightforwardness.
You might argue that the personalized menus can be disabled, and the start menu can be reverted to the classic style with the list of folders without the jumble of other icons, and I can't disagree. I do both of them often as one of the first things I do when installing XP. But the average user wouldn't know that they need to do that, nor would they know how.
Out of the box, XP is a confusing collection of icons thrown at you with very little organization much like 3.1 was.
Justintime
Something
you ever used XP? its a great OS, did'nt like it at first, but warmed to it, and i get the same fps with games in 98SE and some like quake 3 are even a few fps faster, 189fps 98SE 194fps XP with XP dets 29.4, same machine 
Justintime
Something
a13antichrist
Moderator from Hell
fury said:
That would be computer-illiterate..
S
s4
Guest
I prefer Win 95 myself but have found it to be unstable. However, I only have version 2.1. XP drags and drags in my Athlon 600, and I really hate it dispite having a lot of ram.
If you just want to run games, stick with Win98.
If you just want to run games, stick with Win98.
As new machines here at work have been coming in, they have all been pre loaded with XP Pro. Most of the people who are getting these machines had NT 4.0 if it was a desktop (some win2k) and 95 or 98 if they had a laptop. I would say about 90% of the users love XP compared to either 9x or NT. The other 10% are chronic complainers anyway. Those who had win2k really don't care, but enjoy the eye candy.
Here we are dealing with novice/intermediate users, who far out number us power users.
Personally, I love Win2k. XP Pro hasn't given me any trouble yet. Yet.
I'm ignorant as to how XP spies on us while on the internet...
richie field
[email protected]
[email protected]
Here we are dealing with novice/intermediate users, who far out number us power users.
Personally, I love Win2k. XP Pro hasn't given me any trouble yet. Yet.
I'm ignorant as to how XP spies on us while on the internet...
richie field
[email protected]
[email protected]
S
s4
Guest
I've read something on that but can't remember where I saw it.