![[RIP]Zeus](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/69/69225.jpg?1478204720){kind=avatar}
[RIP]Zeus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 2,590
what title says 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Is windows mce 2005 better than XPpro for gaming?
- Thread starter [RIP]Zeus
- Start date
Better? No.
~same? Yes.
edit: Actually I take that back. If your scheduled record of "The Daily Show" kicks off in the middle of a game of CS, it's not going to improve your frame rate at all. Quite the opposite, recording is given quite high priority by the OS. So I'd have to say that a normal XP install would be the better choice.
~same? Yes.
edit: Actually I take that back. If your scheduled record of "The Daily Show" kicks off in the middle of a game of CS, it's not going to improve your frame rate at all. Quite the opposite, recording is given quite high priority by the OS. So I'd have to say that a normal XP install would be the better choice.
[RIP]Zeus
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 2,590
heheh don't worry about confusing me...i have a MSDN at work and it had windows mce 2005 and was just wondering if it was better than xppro in gaming
thnx for the reply's everyone
thnx for the reply's everyone
HHunt speaks truth.
Now, XP Home is probably the best flavor to play games on, simply because it has less resource overhead than both MCE and Professional. However, the difference is so negligible that you would only see the difference in testing. It may not even be the difference between one or two frames per second (though it could be, depending on the setup).
Now, XP Home is probably the best flavor to play games on, simply because it has less resource overhead than both MCE and Professional. However, the difference is so negligible that you would only see the difference in testing. It may not even be the difference between one or two frames per second (though it could be, depending on the setup).
I'm specifically talking about the additional data stream going to the hard disk. Might not impact it a whole bunch, but it certainly isn't going to improve things.Ranma_Sao said:With a hardware encoding card, haven't noticed a real slow down. However with the all in wonder, damn that affected gameplay.
aerithchylde
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 127
Another thing to consider is that the video card manufacturers make a seperate driver for MCE which could effect your gaming experience. My feeling is that if gaming is your thing, XP Home or Pro, if you want to watch and record tv programs, and occasionally play games go with MCE. It all comes down to what tasks you use the most. I would still say Pro over MCE for gaming.
True, but you're supposed to have a different hard disk then the one the O/S is running on to record too. (If you follow the MCE building guides, preferably SATA, and preferbly fast.) Again, YMMV but doesn't seem to effect this box at all in games. (Of course the dual procs also help.[MS] said:
)I'm using Enterprise Server 2k3 on my Asus W1n and I've tried HL2 on it and I found that I gained almost 10fps compared to XP Pro. I don't know if that gain will be repeated with any other game but with regards to pure responsiveness of the OS I see a marked improvement. Perhaps it is due to the extensive configuration options available but I'm not sure. Regardless, I'm not complaining.
I'm currently using MCE 2005 on my main machine. It's the same damn thing as XP Pro, so it will perform the same. The onl change, as someone said, is if your scheduled recordings kick off during gameplay, you'll know right away. Other than that, it IS the same OS.
Oh, and the idea of suggesting Server 2003 is better for gaming, shows a complete lack of understanding in terms of what makes a server OS and a workstation OS different. Also, the idea of tweaking Server 2003 to make it a workstation is ridiculous as well, because those tweak guides basically turn it into XP Pro, so why not just use XP Pro?
Oh, and the idea of suggesting Server 2003 is better for gaming, shows a complete lack of understanding in terms of what makes a server OS and a workstation OS different. Also, the idea of tweaking Server 2003 to make it a workstation is ridiculous as well, because those tweak guides basically turn it into XP Pro, so why not just use XP Pro?
djnes said:
I would suggest giving yourself a little leeway until we have benchmarked this. it is yet another iteration of the NT base, and MS might have changed something that benefits both gaming and serving.
As for ridiculous ... There might be situations where you want to use 2003, and you want to play games. If the changes you make to play games are not an impedement to the other use(s) you have for it, I'd say paying for XP and setting up a dualboot would be the more ridiculous option.
You've got to be kidding me here. Screw dualboot... how many copies of server 2003 that people here are using for gaming do you think are legit? Very few. New legit copies of server 2003 are more expensive than 2003. And I'd love to run a benchmark. Let me know what needs to be done and I'll run one on my machine (in the sig). I plan on nuking the machine as soon as xp 64 comes out anyway.HHunt said:
2003 for gaming? Yeah, and a hammer can install a screw faster than a screwdriver.
XP/64 for gaming? Ehh...maybe like going from Vanilla ice cream to Vanilla Bean ice cream. Don't expect a tidal-flood of 64-bit games to hit store shelves anytime soon. And about the ATI and Nvidia 64-bit driver release schedule...consider everything beta for about another year or so and you won't be disappointed.
How many of us have 2003 at home legitimately? A whole lot of us. Unless someone is talkin' e-babytalk (you know, "leetspeak") it's probably best to assume better of them.
XP/64 for gaming? Ehh...maybe like going from Vanilla ice cream to Vanilla Bean ice cream. Don't expect a tidal-flood of 64-bit games to hit store shelves anytime soon. And about the ATI and Nvidia 64-bit driver release schedule...consider everything beta for about another year or so and you won't be disappointed.
How many of us have 2003 at home legitimately? A whole lot of us. Unless someone is talkin' e-babytalk (you know, "leetspeak") it's probably best to assume better of them.
I myself have a legit copy of 2003 at home. I wouldn't dream of using it for a gaming system though, because it's not intended for that. If I wanted it to be a gaming system, I'd tweak it to make it more like XP. So the question is, why do all that when you can just install XP from the start? It's pure an simple common sense. And if your talking about legality, a copy of XP is a hell of a lot cheaper for 99% of the people than Server 2003. This is one more example where logistics fly out the window on here.
But anyhoo, we're discussing MCE 2005 vs XP Pro, remember? In which case I have benchmarked, and the performance is basically identical because, if your not running the MCE application, your using XP Pro SP2. Same OS.
But anyhoo, we're discussing MCE 2005 vs XP Pro, remember? In which case I have benchmarked, and the performance is basically identical because, if your not running the MCE application, your using XP Pro SP2. Same OS.
It's a moot point at this exact point in time, but, with the proper drivers, XP 64 bit should be a little bit faster. However, the real advantage will be when applications are 64 bit as well. The downside is, that's not going to happen anytime real soon.ashmedai said: