Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :


Latest News


- Outdoor Life: Panasonic Puts 3G Wireless Into Rugged Notebooks
- Averatec Launches Lightweight Turion 64 X2 Laptop
- Acer Fires Up Two New Ferrari Notebooks
- Belkin Debuts Docking Station for ExpressCard-Equipped Notebooks
- Logitech 5.1 Speaker System Puts Your Ears At Eye Level
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review
- Unreal Tournament 2004 Review

Buyer's Guides

- September High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- October Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs


  • Motherboards

    - Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 Motherboard Review
    - DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 Ultra-D Motherboard Review

  • Video Cards

    - Gigabyte GeForce 7600 GT 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7900GT TOP 256MB Review
    - ASUS EN7600GT Silent 256MB Review
    - Biostar GeForce 7900 GT 256MB Review





  • SharkyForums.Com - Print: Why do gamers use windows 2000?

    Why do gamers use windows 2000?
    By cocokrisp September 20, 2000, 04:01 PM

    This is one of those things I have never understood. Why do gamers use Windows 2000? We all know that it us just NT 5.0 (with a few extras that accually allow you to play games). Seriously, Windows Me shows much better performance in games and it costs much less.

    By icom1 September 20, 2000, 04:09 PM

    I have 2 computers on is a pIII 733 and the other is an athlon 650..

    The reason is that windows 2000 is more stable than win me.

    Another reason is that if and when they stop producing 9x upgrades, people with nt machines want to make sure they know how the games work, and which ones work with NT systems.

    Currently I find that 98% of games loaded on NT work....

    By Grizzly September 20, 2000, 07:57 PM

    Aye. Win2000 is *much* more stable of an operating system than WinME. It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't had the pleasure of using an NT based OS before, but once you do, you'll honestly gag at the thought of ever going back to a Win9X OS. Win2000 is rather demanding resources wise. I found a remarkable difference between 128MB and 256MB of RAM. Not in Q3 fps or anything silly like that, but in actual desktop navigation, and general usage. I'm a web designer, so I like to have 5-6 applications opened at any given time. Photoshop, IE (sometimes 2-3 instances), notepad, ICQ, WinAmp. I found in Win2k, 128MB was kinda hurtin' at times like these. 256MB handles it like a raped ape...and comes back for more. It's a superb OS, if you have the hardware to back it up.

    By monarch September 20, 2000, 10:08 PM

    nt kernel

    By Grizzly September 21, 2000, 12:25 AM

    Rofl! Was that an answer to his question? A simple "Nt kernal." hehe, you said it man...all hail NT!

    By doindeocin September 21, 2000, 01:01 AM

    i use the 2k because it has the kernal and it hasn't ever crashed on me yet. i have 98se and it bluescreens a few times a month. win me will probably do the same.

    By Arcadian September 21, 2000, 01:21 AM

    quote:Originally posted by Grizzly:
    Aye. Win2000 is *much* more stable of an operating system than WinME. It's hard to explain to someone who hasn't had the pleasure of using an NT based OS before, but once you do, you'll honestly gag at the thought of ever going back to a Win9X OS. Win2000 is rather demanding resources wise. I found a remarkable difference between 128MB and 256MB of RAM. Not in Q3 fps or anything silly like that, but in actual desktop navigation, and general usage. I'm a web designer, so I like to have 5-6 applications opened at any given time. Photoshop, IE (sometimes 2-3 instances), notepad, ICQ, WinAmp. I found in Win2k, 128MB was kinda hurtin' at times like these. 256MB handles it like a raped ape...and comes back for more. It's a [b]superb OS, if you have the hardware to back it up.

    [/B]

    Oh, I whole heartedly agree, Grizzly! Now that I am used to Win2k, I will never go back .

    By Grizzly September 21, 2000, 07:28 AM

    Hehehe, am I right or am I right!? Win2000 will instil a sense of respect for Microsoft which you've never had before. As a Win9X user, you learn to hate Microsoft..as a Win2k user, you learn to love them Simple as that.

    By Sol September 21, 2000, 08:52 AM

    I switched from win98SE to win2k a few weeks ago. I was worried about the performance of games, but after seeing how stable win2k is I wont ever go back to win98. I am willing to take a minor performance hit for the win2k stability.

    By 100%TotallyNude September 21, 2000, 09:52 AM

    I kinda feel left out. We don't have stability issues with Linux. The only thing we can complain about is the lack of software out there.

    By spanky2k September 21, 2000, 09:58 AM

    Win2k is simply great and is far, *far* better than 98 but it lags in games. Ok, so when the 9x range is *finally* killed off then you'll want Windows 2004 or whatever it'll be by then. When it comes down to it, if you want to use a computer (as in use, not abuse) then install Win2k and then if you want to get that extra speed in games, why don't you just shove on 98 as well and just put the drivers for it and the games on it. That way not only will you have less things running that might (or will) crash your machine and also it will be faster than if you only used 98 because office dlls and extra active controls aren't loaded cos you'll do your work in 2k.

    By zombor September 21, 2000, 01:12 PM

    heh, i cant say much for playing games in win2k(my opengl drivers arent installed for some reason), but man, if i can, i always boot into win2k. It loads 2x a fast, never crashes due to an os issue(program glitches have tho), and i forgot what the BSoD was. When i get my opengl workin, the only reason to booting into 98 is to use my programs like office2000 that i cant install into 2k because i dont have the installs. Hail 2000!

    By gaffo September 21, 2000, 08:49 PM

    grizzly-love M$?! i had nt-4.0 and yes its stable (finally after 5-years!), but still 20 percent slower than linux,os/2, and beOS (so in my book still crap (relitively speaking-great wrt win-9x!(anything better than that crap))- so no NT/2000 is what should have been out in the early 90's (and was by everyone except M$). I should not HAVE to have 256 megs to run 10 programs simultaniusly! - esp. when i've done this under linux on a freakin winchip and 64 megs with same performance!. my rant.

    By Archon September 21, 2000, 10:17 PM

    Ahhh Linux this Linux that. When they get the game support and extras that Windows has then ill consider IT MORE THAN JUST SOFTWARE FOR LOW GRADE SERVERS. Of corse it flies on faster machines just as much as a 386 but uhhh who ever has a 386 Server? Give me the IP to a HL server that is a 386 with 8 megs of RAM and i will play on it. And have a grand ol time.
    Yea linux is great but not for the uses that windows has. They are 2 totaly different OS's and you cant mock windows 2000 "cause it should have 256mb RAM to operate at its maximal potential" The 99% of us are fine with that so please crawl back into your Linux Cave and try to beg for support for games and hardware. And when Red Hat puts out its own gamming console will we have to spend a Week Searching the Web to Find controller support for the games?!?!

    By Lance September 22, 2000, 01:13 AM

    256MB, you people suck. I can't afford to get a motherboard I need to get the potential out of my GeForce2 (which I only was able to get from Birthday money from EVERYONE). Once I do manage to scrape up enough money for the motherboard, then I'll have to invest in some good 133 ram, and now it seems 256MB of 133 good ram. And all so I can enjoy my GeForce2 (birthday card)!

    By pyramid September 22, 2000, 06:39 AM

    If you can then it's nice to have a Dual Boot with Win2k and your favorite Win9x OS then you put your games on Win9x and anything that matters (your productivity apps) on Win2k. This is great if you are a FPS whore like me. Win2k plays many games, but it's still not quite as snappy as the Win9x OS's for gaming.

    By Rick_James9 September 22, 2000, 12:28 PM

    AMD Win 2000 Hack
    Posted by Vangie "Aurora" Beal: September 22nd

    AMDZone sends word that Microsoft has a registry hack up that can help people who are having 3D stability problems with Athlon/Duron systems running Windows 2000 and using a Geforce or G400 video card. The hack can be found here. It is uncertain if this hack will also work for Geforce 2 and G450 cards. If the registry hack is too much work for you, AMD now has a registry patch up to make the whole process much easier.

    http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q270/7/15.ASP
    http://www.amd.com/products/cpg/athlon-duron/amd_win2k_patch.html

    By mpitts September 22, 2000, 03:02 PM

    quote:Originally posted by Arcadian:
    Oh, I whole heartedly agree, Grizzly! Now that I am used to Win2k, I will never go back .

    Same here.. I had run Win2K for a little while and when we got our MSDN version of the final WinMe code, I installed it.. Ugh.. I was back at Win2K in two days.

    WinMe feels very lightweight. Win2K has a much more sturdy feel to it. It is, IMO, the best OS MS has ever put out.


    By mpitts September 22, 2000, 03:03 PM

    quote:Originally posted by 100%TotallyNude:
    I kinda feel left out. We don't have stability issues with Linux. The only thing we can complain about is the lack of software out there.

    Which is one of the main reasons I stick with Windows. I like Linux, but it is not an everyday OS for me.

    What is the point of having a great stable OS if there is nothing to run on it?

    By RAMEN!! September 23, 2000, 04:05 AM

    quote:Originally posted by cocokrisp:
    This is one of those things I have never understood. Why do gamers use Windows 2000? We all know that it us just NT 5.0 (with a few extras that accually allow you to play games). Seriously, Windows Me shows much better performance in games and it costs much less.

    Win 2k is as solid as a rock, I don't know why people use it to play games but people sure as hell use it for work. windows me may have the performance but not the statability windows 2k (pshhhht code name NT5.0, over)

    By Grizzly September 24, 2000, 07:59 PM

    I understand you where you Linux fans are coming from. Linus *is* better, there's no argument there. It's more efficient...and yes...admittidly...256MB of RAM is quite a hell of alot to run an OS and 10+ programs simultaneously. But the real memory hog of Win2k are it's background services. These can easily be disabled, and free up quite a bit of system resources. Right now I have 20+ system services running, probably eating up about 30MB of RAM total. You're absolutely right, these things are pretty superfluous, but heh...I like the package deal Win2k is turning into the world's leading...and most supported OS on the market. If you're gonna release software these days, you wouldn't even *consider* making it incompatible with NT. Unless of course you wanted to lose a large portion of your target audience.

    I think I'm rambling...hehe.
    In short, Linux is great, but what everyone else said on this thread, is pretty much my feeling on the situation. I like game / driver / software support. To me, that's worth it's filesize in gold.

    By gammaray51 September 24, 2000, 09:23 PM

    Linux is realtively new. As it becomes more widespread developers will see a need to port software to it. What a lot of people dont realize is that linux is looked at as a server os, used for backend workstations for networks and webservers. There are games for it. Unreal has been ported to linux, and It runs nicely. As time progressive and people start looking to alternitive os's more software will appear

    By gaffo September 24, 2000, 10:27 PM

    i agree - i know many people don't think linux will get anywhere, but i think the critical mass number (about 2-percent=apple users) for desktop use is enough to guanantee growth (i pray), i think BeOS is still 50/50 wrt survival, but linux has potential to swamp even NT if growth continues as it has for last 5-years (would prob. take 10-15 years - but possible). And with KDE 2.0 the linux destop is equal to all other OS's (even better wrt Koncourer(sp) ability to integrate web browser/ftp/image viewer/file manager all transperently). looks good, will be finalized by nov/dec, currently in final beta ver. 5. for news -- www.dot.kde.org

    By gaffo September 24, 2000, 10:30 PM

    wrong url sorry ---- http//dot.kde.org just started up last week.


    Contact Us | www.SharkyForums.com

    Copyright 1999, 2000 internet.com Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


    Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46




    HardwareCentral
    Compare products, prices, and stores at Hardware Central!


    Copyright 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities