Windows XP is faster than I thought

B

bob

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 13, 2002
Messages
2,971
I Always had Dual windows boot computer. Windows 98 on a small hard drive, Windows XP home on the larger one. I always thought of windows 98 as being a faster operating system, but it inst true when it comes to networking and gaming.

In '98, my computer scored about 8900 in 3dmark 2001.
In XP, My computer scored 19859 in 3dmark 2001

and in networking, '98 was always a turtle when copying stuff off peoples computers at lan-parties. In xp, i can get hours of southpark or the simpsons within minutes... Or load down the network by about 70-80% in taskmanager.
 
bob said:
I Always had Dual windows boot computer. Windows 98 on a small hard drive, Windows XP home on the larger one. I always thought of windows 98 as being a faster operating system, but it inst true when it comes to networking and gaming.

In '98, my computer scored about 8900 in 3dmark 2001.
In XP, My computer scored 19859 in 3dmark 2001

and in networking, '98 was always a turtle when copying stuff off peoples computers at lan-parties. In xp, i can get hours of southpark or the simpsons within minutes... Or load down the network by about 70-80% in taskmanager.
Click to expand...

You just realized this now? 98 was NEVER ment for gaming.
 
ComputerBox34 said:
You just realized this now? 98 was NEVER ment for gaming.
Click to expand...

It most definitely was meant for gaming at the time. What else was available for gamers? NT 4.0? No way in hell. I think something is a little fishy with those numbers...like the cause is something other than just the OS. I would certainly expect XP to come out with a faster score than 98, but it shouldn't be that large of a gap.
 
djnes said:
It most definitely was meant for gaming at the time. What else was available for gamers? NT 4.0? No way in hell. I think something is a little fishy with those numbers...like the cause is something other than just the OS. I would certainly expect XP to come out with a faster score than 98, but it shouldn't be that large of a gap.
Click to expand...
Ditto. At the outset, even Win2K couldn't touch 98 for gaming, with poor driver support and such.

Likewise, the score discrepancy should be roughly 20% -- not 200% -- for two properly configured OSs. Something else is responsible.
 
lomn75 said:
Ditto. At the outset, even Win2K couldn't touch 98 for gaming, with poor driver support and such.

Likewise, the score discrepancy should be roughly 20% -- not 200% -- for two properly configured OSs. Something else is responsible.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Win98 can be pretty quick, actually.
Speed is the one thing that can be said for Fat32. I suppose it depends largely on how the machine is configured. Still, XP is a more modern way of doing things, so an increase in performance is only to be expected.
 
Simply put, XP blows 2k and 98 SE away.

Win98 is dead, let her go, her time is over. :cool:
 
98SE was great for legacy support--of course I say legacy with the perspective of hindsight (games like original Warcraft or FF7). Additionally, if you were running it tweaked...man running it on 256MB RAM was quite a thing 4 years ago. It booted fast, so XP's faster booting wasn't THAT significant when I upgraded. Then again, i'm not complaining if I can shave another 5-10seconds off boot (what XP does, especially with a clean Prefetch folder).
 
2K is dead?

Why, because it is 4 years old, now?

In the immortal words of some movie...

"Show me the benchmarks!"
 
lomn75 said:
Ditto. At the outset, even Win2K couldn't touch 98 for gaming, with poor driver support and such.

Likewise, the score discrepancy should be roughly 20% -- not 200% -- for two properly configured OSs. Something else is responsible.
Click to expand...
2K was a massive rebuild from NT, it's hardly fair to compare it in the begining to anything else. Kinda like comparing 16 bit to 32 bit IDE driver switch, in the begining, they sucked, over time, you'd be a fool not to run them. 2K was designed with gaming in mind, one of the larger add-ons from NT to 2K was DirectX.

Agreed that something else is causing the discrepancy, it's too large for just the OS.
 
Phoenix86 said:
2K was a massive rebuild from NT, it's hardly fair to compare it in the begining to anything else.
Click to expand...
I agree... just trying to point out the fallacy of "win98 != teh gaming."
 
Phoenix86 said:
2K was a massive rebuild from NT, it's hardly fair to compare it in the begining to anything else. Kinda like comparing 16 bit to 32 bit IDE driver switch, in the begining, they sucked, over time, you'd be a fool not to run them. 2K was designed with gaming in mind, one of the larger add-ons from NT to 2K was DirectX.

Agreed that something else is causing the discrepancy, it's too large for just the OS.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. XP was more designed for gaming then 2K. A game didn't work wasn't worthy to block 2K, but was worthy to block XP shipping.

Fat32 is NOT faster then NTFS on large drives. On small drives it's almost a wash, but fat32 is "faster".
 
Ranma_Sao said:
Not exactly. XP was more designed for gaming then 2K. A game didn't work wasn't worthy to block 2K, but was worthy to block XP shipping.

Fat32 is NOT faster then NTFS on large drives. On small drives it's almost a wash, but fat32 is "faster".
Click to expand...
Well, XP may be more designed for games, I was just saying it was on the list for 2K. Features like DirectX exist on that OS vs NT, which was never designed for games (but ran some of them quite well :) ).

IDE drivers, not file system, fat32 wasn't even out then. Think 486s. ;)
Point was, it's never fair to compare immature drivers...
 
It is a valid point that XP is more optimized to the "entertainment" side of things, rather than the "business" side of things. However, the two kernels are SOOOO similar, that with the addition of Dx and decent 2K drivers, gaming is very much a valid option.

Hell, I run 2K on my main rig (opposite a Gentoo install), and it games solid, stable, quick, and good. Of course, YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top