3dfx Archive - Win2000 vs. WinXP

Micha

Senior Member

Offline

Got milk?

Posts: 317
Gender: male

Win2000 vs. WinXP
02.01.04 at 20:54:31

I'm on re-installing my system, but I'm not sure which OS wil perform better:
WinXP+SP1 with Amigamerlin3 or Win2000+SP4 with Original drivers ???

Amigamerlin does'nt seem to perform better than originals on Win2k anyway..but i expect a speed-up with a/m on winxp...?
can anybody help me here? oh well, which os is better for my cpu etc., regarding core features etc. ?

>>adding<<
and what about these glide drivers in amigamerlin driver? ut runs a little bit slower with them compared to originals..

Back to top

« Last Edit: 02.01.04 at 21:01:07 by Micha »

AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05

IP Logged

Blazkowicz Full Member Offline Posts: 132 france Gender:	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #1 - 02.01.04 at 22:25:42 I hate windows XPee it's heavier, loads lots of crap such as msn messenger, wants to be activated ; the blue interface is awful I like win2000 so much better. XP won't do anything more than 2000
Back to top	IP Logged

Enrico Guest	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #2 - 03.01.04 at 08:38:32 Hi! Use XP-Antispy. About the blue interface: simply turn it off Cu Enrico
Back to top	IP Logged

Micha

Senior Member

Offline

Got milk?

Posts: 317
Gender: male

Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP
Reply #3 - 03.01.04 at 11:01:55

Quote:

I hate windows XPee
it's heavier, loads lots of crap such as msn messenger, wants to be activated ; the blue interface is awful

I like win2000 so much better. XP won't do anything more than 2000

right

i like win2k more, too...but i came to a system which would simply run better with an actual os...
i also don't like that i have to deactivate all these graphical 'gimmicks'..
so i'm not sure if xp is not more useful than 2k.. ???

Back to top

AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05

IP Logged

Micha Senior Member Offline Got milk? Posts: 317 Gender:	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #4 - 04.01.04 at 14:32:23 ok, thanks to via kt133a chipset, there's no go with winxp...damn, damn, damn!!! anyway, win2k also recognizes features like sse on my palomino. oh ya, what's the thing with the render 2 pixel per clock feature in amigamerlin3? it's (by default) enabled in glide/opengl and disabled in direct3d ???
Back to top	AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05 IP Logged

paulpsomiadis God Member Offline -=3Dfx still rox!=- Posts: 2011 Newcastle U.K. Gender:	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #5 - 04.01.04 at 15:17:21 All you need can be found HERE : - http://www.3dfxzone.it/dir/3dfx/bestsettings/am30xp.htm Nuff Said! 8)
Back to top	-=To MOD or not to MOD, that is a DUMB question - just MOD it!=-&&&&+May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk.+ IP Logged

Micha Senior Member Offline Got milk? Posts: 317 Gender:	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #6 - 04.01.04 at 17:50:00 yeah, read it already...but i'm sure smoother alpha blending looks better than sharper...at least in 16bit colors.
Back to top	AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05 IP Logged

Andrew Boiu Senior Member Offline LDE-BDreams Posts: 267 LDE-BDreams Gender:	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #7 - 05.01.04 at 08:30:48 Take as an example Quake3. It is no use in using smoother Alpha Blending, makes the things too blurry. Also, it makes for some strange "greeny" smoke...
Back to top	« Last Edit: 05.01.04 at 08:31:11 by Andrew Boiu » IP Logged

Andrew Boiu

Senior Member

Offline

LDE-BDreams

Posts: 267
LDE-BDreams
Gender: male

Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP
Reply #8 - 05.01.04 at 08:33:48

Getting back to Win2000 vs XP, i would rather choose the Windows that is not in this list, Win98SE. Even against 2000, this Win uses by far less memory and cpu, and if configured correctly, can be just as good as 2000. Although between the above mentioned two, I would definitevly choose 2000, unless you are in needed of a somehow improved NTFS and Compression.

Back to top

IP Logged

Micha

Senior Member

Offline

Got milk?

Posts: 317
Gender: male

Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP
Reply #9 - 05.01.04 at 09:38:49

Quote:

Getting back to Win2000 vs XP, i would rather choose the Windows that is not in this list, Win98SE. Even against 2000, this Win uses by far less memory and cpu, and if configured correctly, can be just as good as 2000.

I'd never fall back to win98se --> 512mb ram would not be supported (due there's an upper support limit in win9x at 384mb, only games would make use of more ram), bad usb support, bad sse & 3dnow! support etc...
therefore i've the choice between win2k, winxp and winme..well, winme sucks, too (same bad ram support as win98se). Grin

at last: win9x is kind of too unprofessional to me, 'cause i get no real system tools (like the administration tools in win2k/xp).

Back to top

« Last Edit: 05.01.04 at 09:42:45 by Micha »

AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05

IP Logged

janskjaer Ex Member	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #10 - 05.01.04 at 11:21:54 I would also choose Win2000, although I have got XP on the machine now and haven't had any problems (YET!) But for all round stability and compatibility, I think the majority would tell you to choose 2000. TIP: I would also use the latest Service Pack, which is 4.
Back to top	IP Logged

Micha Senior Member Offline Got milk? Posts: 317 Gender:	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #11 - 05.01.04 at 19:28:46 Quote: TIP: I would also use the latest Service Pack, which is 4. read my system specs concerning drivers, what about this: amigamerlin3.0xp, original glide .DLLs, v.control, wickedgl, mesafx
Back to top	AMD Athlon XP Thorton 2400+/2GHz (256KB L2, FSB DDR266MHz) @ Barton 2800+/2.083GHz (512KB L2, FSB DDR333MHz), HIS Radeon 9800Pro, Kingston 768MB PC2700 DDR-RAM (CL 2-3-3-7), Asus A7V8X-X, Creative Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Seagate 160GB 7200rpm ATA100 HDD, be quiet! 400Watt PSU, Windows XP Pro MCE05 IP Logged

janskjaer Ex Member	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #12 - 05.01.04 at 20:09:40 Quote: read my system specs Hehe! Oh yeah! Can't see the woods for the trees! Think I need these ==> 8)
Back to top	IP Logged

Andrew Boiu

Senior Member

Offline

LDE-BDreams

Posts: 267
LDE-BDreams
Gender: male

Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP
Reply #13 - 06.01.04 at 09:22:55

Quote:

I'd never fall back to win98se --> 512mb ram would not be supported (due there's an upper support limit in win9x at 384mb, only games would make use of more ram), bad usb support, bad sse & 3dnow! support etc...
therefore i've the choice between win2k, winxp and winme..well, winme sucks, too (same bad ram support as win98se). Grin

at last: win9x is kind of too unprofessional to me, 'cause i get no real system tools (like the administration tools in win2k/xp).

First of all, Win98SE does work very well with 512 Mb of RAM. I've tested this before, and there are no problems.
5 things:
1) Win 2000 use more than 64Mb (also using a swap with 20Mb at least) after booting, Win98 can run with no swap at all, and leave you as much memory as you need.
2)Also, you can't choose in Win 2000 or XP how much memory is used for disk cache, and the swap is...
3)Many video cams, and printers, and other USB stuff like that work perfectly under Win98 SE.
4)If you are so keen in beliving about the huge benefit of Win 2k/XP and 3DNow!/SSE, why you get the same time for those actions that trully rely on them (Video processing and 3DMark 2001 SE)?
5)Most of the time, you don't really need your computer as a server or a workstation at home, and even inside a company there are software sollutions available for Win98 that do just as well as those on Win2k. Not including that overall, the price tag is lower for Win98+these tools than Win2k... Only for new computers it is worth, as you anyway get Win2k/XP installed shipped with it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: 06.01.04 at 09:23:26 by Andrew Boiu »

IP Logged

Blazkowicz Full Member Offline Posts: 132 france Gender:	Re: Win2000 vs. WinXP Reply #14 - 06.01.04 at 09:53:30 Quote: D at last: win9x is kind of too unprofessional to me, 'cause i get no real system tools (like the administration tools in win2k/xp). well, at least there's MS-DOS. win 2k/XP can't even boot in console mode. there's a "recovery console" if you have a floppy to wate, but it won't let you even run programs, so it's useless..
Back to top	IP Logged

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login