XP versus 98SE and games

[R. Asby Dragon]

after all these years that 98SE is

just as stable
easier to administer
FAR more streamlined
Just as secure if not MORE SO for the single-user environment (i.e. home
computer, not work or public terminal)
Still better for gaming, especially with older boxen
Big plus: Files M$ wants to hide from you are more easily accessible (can
you say "Dosshell"?), unless you install XP to a FAT32 partition.

98SE/ME is far from dead. There's a whole previous generation of user base
still pluggin' away on it.

Feel free to disagree, not like anyone needs any encouragement ;-); however,
this is not flamebait, but observations based upon years of practical
experience.
Standard disclaimer: I use and love to hate all current M$ OSes
indiscriminately and absolutely, and I'm learning to love to hate Linux and
OS-X more and more as time goes by in order to resolve issues of love/hate
dependencies with Microsoft.

Too bad there's no way of "easily" using the old "Memphis" beta
builds of W98 before some idiot marketdroid decided to "integrate
(??)" IE4 into the OS . Think about Build 1541 time.. That had to
have been the FASTEST/LEANEST /MEANEST windows 9x OS known to man.
(and it would actually run on a low end 486).

I cheated a little a few weeks ago; at first all I wanted was to
just "snag" the old Memphis "logo.sys" bootup screen for "old times
sake" and put it on my machine for "bragging rights". ( my Memphis
Tshirt fellapart/rotted? years ago)

I cheated the date back in BIOS; installed build 1562; got it to
work with a ATI Rage 128 on 95 drivers on my K6/III+at 550 and saw
kickass framerates on Serious Sam and Max Payne.... in DX5 .

bumped to early 98 drivers; even better . I got it up to DX8 ; some
goofies (expected). Crashed totally on anything past; but I didn't
think I'd get this far.

 

[R. Asby Dragon]

It is too bad MSI, my second computer motherboards's

manufacturer, does not support 98 or I would use it there too. It
is just not very stable.

?? Which MSI board ?? I'm running a K7N2 (pre delta-plainjane)
M6570 flashed up to 400 FSB support and it's rock-solid on 98SE/XP
Pro/ whatever *nix I play with .

I'm even overclocking; the board happily thinks my Barton 2500 is a
3200@ 400 FSB . My SCSI card doesn't like that; but it works fine @
370 FSB.

Vid is a ATI built 9700 pro 128 (early prepro/PR release)
Memory is cheap but decent 2x256 @333 running at CAS2 (!!) at 400
FSB

MSI may not say they support 98; but that's probably "legalspeak".
I've even stuffed in an ancient drive with WFW3.11/DRDOS 6 and
played "driver hell"; but you've never seen a Solitare "win" move
faster than you can blink ....

You've got some other problem most likely..
1) Bad memory
2)Poor cooling
3) Crappy power supply
4) Something set wrong in BIOS
5) Some board that's flakey (I don't consider my 2940UW SCSI card
flakey; it's just the slowest card in the system when "pushed
hard" )

It's possible you do have a bad mobo; sh*t happens.

 

[Neil Harrington]

This is a great topic. Yes this is to be expected. If you are forced
to use an older system and gaming is your main concern, go 98SE. That
is what I use. Even if the benchmarks do not show it, the fact is
98SE is THE premeir gaming system. It is too bad MSI, my second
computer motherboards's manufacturer, does not support 98 or I would
use it there too. [ . . . ]

Eh? Most of the computers I've built over the last year or so have been on
MSI motherboards. While I haven't run Win98SE on every one of them, those
that I have have had no problems with that OS. Where does it say MSI "does
not support 98"?

 

[spent]

Sadly, although this looked promising at first it hasn't worked out.
I've been getting weird explorer errors and games crashing out on me.

Removed the extra stick and all is well again.
512Mb stick back on the shelf for now.

Steve
= = = = =

Mart

Does this really allow the machine to use the full 1Gb, or does it just fool
it by telling it only to cache the first 512Mb ?

Mind you, I'm not sure I care - made the change and my virus scanner still
loads on boot up.
Hey, I can open a DOS prompt without being told that "There is not enough
memory available to run this program." in my 1Gb RAM machine.

I'd been through the MS knowledgebase before and found this
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
and tried to fix it using msconfig but it didn't seem to help.

At least the extra stick is gathering dust in the box now instead of on the
shelf.

Cheers Mart!

Steve
= = = = =

Yeah it'll work for everything, just install it and
forget the problem was even there.

Ok, that is the most awesome Windows98 tip I have heard in years.
This will work for everything? No problem with games? DOS perhaps.

Thanxs for the tip!!!

jacobdrj

"Mart" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Now that you've mentioned it how does Win 2000 stack up for gaming against
98SE & XP?
I'm currently using 98SE with 512Mb and a 9800 pro.
I have another 512 stick I'm itching to use but can't under 98SE.
I have the possibility of changing to 2000 though.

Add the following line to SYSTEM.INI under the [VCache] section:

MaxFileCache=524288

and that second 512mb stick will be fine in Win98SE

Mart
-----

 

[JAD]

Try Cacheman its works great for me....sorry if that's been
suggested. I don't know many gamers that run 1gig+ ram without it, is
why I mentioned it.

http://www.outertech.com/?_charisma_page=index&PHPSESSID=b7a2a1c8cb3dd0f2f477f7d855dfe3fb

Mart

Does this really allow the machine to use the full 1Gb, or does it just fool
it by telling it only to cache the first 512Mb ?

Mind you, I'm not sure I care - made the change and my virus scanner still
loads on boot up.
Hey, I can open a DOS prompt without being told that "There is not enough
memory available to run this program." in my 1Gb RAM machine.

I'd been through the MS knowledgebase before and found this
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
and tried to fix it using msconfig but it didn't seem to help.

At least the extra stick is gathering dust in the box now instead of on the
shelf.

Cheers Mart!

Steve
= = = = =

Yeah it'll work for everything, just install it and
forget the problem was even there.

Ok, that is the most awesome Windows98 tip I have heard in years.
This will work for everything? No problem with games? DOS perhaps.

Thanxs for the tip!!!

jacobdrj

"Mart" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Now that you've mentioned it how does Win 2000 stack up for

gaming
against

98SE & XP?
I'm currently using 98SE with 512Mb and a 9800 pro.
I have another 512 stick I'm itching to use but can't under 98SE.
I have the possibility of changing to 2000 though.

Add the following line to SYSTEM.INI under the [VCache] section:

MaxFileCache=524288

and that second 512mb stick will be fine in Win98SE

Mart
-----

 

[J. Clarke]

I knew there was a reason I killfiled "darthy".

<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp>

Download the AMD64 version of Windows XP and give it a try.

Both of my computers are based on Intel processors and I haven't
personally owned an AMD processor of any sort since 1999, but I have to
agree that AMD seems to be getting the short end of the stick with
regards to getting a 64-bit version of Windows XP on the store shelves.
I also have a feeling that if Intel would have come out with an x86
compatible processor before AMD that Microsoft would have been much
quicker and hard-working about getting the 64-bit version of Windows XP
fully finished and out in stores.

AMD has come up with a solid 64-bit offering and I shouldn't be
surprised if Microsoft is stalling for the benefit of Intel. They don't
call 'em Wintel for nothin'. But at least Athlon 64 users can take
solace in the fact their their processors are really fast in the current
32-bit version of Windows.

Uh, Microsoft was working with Intel on the 64 bit Windows before XP shipped
and long before the first samples of the 64-bit AMD chips were available
and the 64-bit Windows has been available for those chips for several
years. The gestation period for the AMD version doesn't seem to be any
longer than the Intel version.

Further, given that Microsoft is currently giving away the AMD-64 version of
Windows with a 1-year time bomb while you have to pay big bucks to get the
Intel version, I can't see any reasonable basis for a claim that Microsoft
is trying to harm AMD.

 

[spent]

Thanks for the suggestion.

Looks like a useful little program but . . .
Tried it, tried both profiles for fixing memory problems with RAM > 512Mb
but the game I'm playing at the moment - Homeworld 2 - wasn't fooled for
long.

It did last longer than before but still crashed out within a few minutes.
It plays fine with 512Mb so I'll wait until I change the OS before adding
the extra stick.

Cheers
Steve

Try Cacheman its works great for me....sorry if that's been
suggested. I don't know many gamers that run 1gig+ ram without it, is
why I mentioned it.

http://www.outertech.com/?_charisma_page=index&PHPSESSID=b7a2a1c8cb3dd0f2f477f7d855dfe3fb

Mart

Does this really allow the machine to use the full 1Gb, or does it just fool
it by telling it only to cache the first 512Mb ?

Mind you, I'm not sure I care - made the change and my virus scanner still
loads on boot up.
Hey, I can open a DOS prompt without being told that "There is not enough
memory available to run this program." in my 1Gb RAM machine.

I'd been through the MS knowledgebase before and found this
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;253912
and tried to fix it using msconfig but it didn't seem to help.

At least the extra stick is gathering dust in the box now instead of on the
shelf.

Cheers Mart!

Steve
= = = = =

Yeah it'll work for everything, just install it and
forget the problem was even there.

Ok, that is the most awesome Windows98 tip I have heard in years.
This will work for everything? No problem with games? DOS perhaps.

Thanxs for the tip!!!

jacobdrj

Now that you've mentioned it how does Win 2000 stack up for gaming
against
98SE & XP?
I'm currently using 98SE with 512Mb and a 9800 pro.
I have another 512 stick I'm itching to use but can't under 98SE.
I have the possibility of changing to 2000 though.

Add the following line to SYSTEM.INI under the [VCache] section:

MaxFileCache=524288

and that second 512mb stick will be fine in Win98SE

Mart

 

[Darthy]

This is a great topic. Yes this is to be expected. If you are forced
to use an older system and gaming is your main concern, go 98SE. That
is what I use. Even if the benchmarks do not show it, the fact is
98SE is THE premeir gaming system. It is too bad MSI, my second
computer motherboards's manufacturer, does not support 98 or I would
use it there too. It is just not very stable. If your system is fast
enough, there will not be enough of a difference to notice.

Win98 has many advantages over WinXP.

1 - Simpler System
2 - Lower cost (Dont need to PRO version for networking with more than
4 of your buddies)

3 - Far easier to restore / upgrade (Due to lack of the bullshit "WPA"
- hardware activation BS) Example: Made a Backup onto 1 HD, tried to
restore on another HD... system refuses to boot. etc etc

4 - Win98 is more "repairable" - Yes, WinXP is more Crash-Proof... but
when it screws up, it SCREWS UP BAD.... dead, clean install etc.

Many GAME Centers use Win98 for the above reason.

But WinXP is required for newer systems.... why?

1 - DRIVERS! The manufactures are not updating or doing sloppy work
on Win98 driver.... which mean MORE INSTABILITIES!

2 - Win98 doesn't know how to PUSH Modern CPUs (AMD XP1500 and up /
P4s)... For example: Two exact systems: But 1 has an AMD XP 2000,
the other an AMD XP2500... WinXp on the AMD 2000 was FASTER than the
Win98 on the AMD2500.

3 - 64bit CPUs

4 - PCI Express

5 - DirectX 10...

I am not a fan of WInXP.. Its kinda neat, but Win98 is becoming
unusable with todays hardware and hardware.

Rule (mine)

CPU less than 1000Mhz, less than 256mb of RAM = Win98.

 

[John Russell]

I am not a fan of WInXP.. Its kinda neat, but Win98 is becoming

unusable with todays hardware and hardware.

It's also true that older win98 games become unusably fast on modern
equipment, be it Native win98 or in compatibility mode on XP. Your best bet
in the end is too keep an old slower PC and run win98se on that. I regret
losing Dos audio support on current hardware as many old DOS games don't run
well as a Dos box in windows, but then again they would run even faster and
be impossible to control!

 

[J. Clarke]

It's also true that older win98 games become unusably fast on modern
equipment, be it Native win98 or in compatibility mode on XP. Your best
bet in the end is too keep an old slower PC and run win98se on that. I
regret losing Dos audio support on current hardware as many old DOS games
don't run well as a Dos box in windows, but then again they would run even
faster and be impossible to control!

You might want to try installing Win98 on your XP machine under VirtualPC
(the official Microsoft Way) or VMWare. Might give you enough of a
performance hit to make them playable again. I don't recall what audio
hardware VirtualPC and VMWare emulate, but they might give the DOS audio
back as well if the games aren't so old that they require something
pre-Sound Blaster.

 

[Andrew]

It's also true that older win98 games become unusably fast on modern
equipment, be it Native win98 or in compatibility mode on XP. Your best bet
in the end is too keep an old slower PC and run win98se on that. I regret
losing Dos audio support on current hardware as many old DOS games don't run
well as a Dos box in windows, but then again they would run even faster and
be impossible to control!

I haven't tried it, but Dosbox is supposed to be very good.