Rant About Win2k

[nonzero 0]

I wonder why my friend's system (Dell PIII 450Mhz with a TNT2Ultra (5.22 Det2)) can play any game on the market well (with decent framerates at 1024*768*32) while my system sucks ass at gaming.

I have a Dual Celeron 450 (i.e. OC'ed 300a) with 128MB RAM and a GeForce2 (5.32 Det2). In theory my system should be much more powerful (due to the vid card at the very least). However, most games crash, freeze or run like a led brick. Why? I think it is due to Windows 2000. Win2k still does not work well for gaming. It sucks. It is unstable as hell. It gives the user strange visual annomolies. The DirectX layer is low-performance and low-reliablity. While Win9x (which is supposed to be lower-reliablity than Win2k) is perfect. Will Mircosoft ever fix Win2k's DirectX support so that it will run games well, I am sick of every multimedia app on the planet, i.e. games and DVD, crashing my system.

[INFERNO2000 0]

Most games tend to have problems with Dual processors. Don't blame the OS immediately. I'm running better in W2K than I EVER did in Win98. Games run smoother, and don't crash my computer.

 

Maybe you should look at your configurations instead of bashing the OS. you probably haven't tweaked it properly.

 

------------------

PIII 500 (Pre CuMine)

393(listed)MB RAM

GeForce DDR (Annihilator Pro)

Sonic Impact S90

Win2K Advanced Server

Logitech Itouch Elite

Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer

Everglide (HL Giganta)

Logitech Quickcam Home

etc. etc. etc.

[DosFreak 2]

"Win2k still does not work well for gaming."

 

True but that is not Microsoft's fault.

 

"It sucks."

 

Sucks at what? Gaming? Yes. But like I said before that's not Microsoft's fault.

 

 

"It is unstable as hell."

 

Never been to Hell. I'm sure some parts of it may be stable some not. I guess it depends on what punishment you have. Seriously the only reason it would be unstable is if you had bad drivers. Who's fault is that? Now if they are WHQL then ask blame Microsoft.

 

"It gives the user strange visual annomolies."

 

Dum-de-dum-dum-dum. DRIVER PROBLEM

 

 

"The DirectX layer is low-performance and low-reliablity."

 

Nope. Sorry. DirectX is fine. DRIVER problem.

 

 

"While Win9x (which is supposed to be lower-reliablity than Win2k) is perfect."

 

HA!.

 

 

"Will Mircosoft ever fix Win2k's DirectX support so that it will run games well."

 

No. Nothing wrong with Directx. They will of course release DX8 and other DX releases but your problems are driver problems.

 

 

"I am sick of every multimedia app on the planet, i.e. games and DVD, crashing my system."

 

Well here a couple of tips:

 

1. Blame the company that made your stuff. NOT MICROSOFT.

2. Get the proper hardware that is certified to run in NT5.

3. Know what your doing.

4. Check out what is compatible with 2000 and what is not before you rush into things.

5. Stop ranting on boards and learn your stuff.

[DosFreak 2]

I will finish by saying that I am a gamer and I only have Windows 2000 loaded on my machine at home. Just about every new game I buy works in 2000 and the ones that don't work I don't care about.

[nonzero 0]

Sorry for the rant, I suppose it made me sound like a Lamer. I am just sick of games crashing on Win2k. Perhaps if I set the processor affinity of games' respective processess in TaskMan they would think that they are running on a uniprocessor system. As for the drivers, I am using Nvidia's leaked 5.32 Detonator2 drivers, they might not be very stable. Also my Abit BP6 mobo is not known for stability.

I raised my CPU voltage up to 2.05V per CPU, I will see if that helps.

Win2k in general has been very stable for me, with the exception of games and DVD.

One game that has especially irritated me is Deu[censored], it is quite buggy and runs like ice unless you have a 3DFX card. The patch that was supposed to increase speed just causes the game to crash.

[BladeRunner 0]

I'm with you DosFreak.

I made the full move over to Win2000 from a dual boot configuration about two months ago and haven't looked back.

If the game doesn't run under Win2k (And most do I should add) then it was a game I wasn't worried about.

If that user is having so many problems then maybe he should consider Windows ME, it's designed to be a 'little easier to use' than 'big boys Windows' :-P

 

------------------

PIII 650 Coppermine, ABit BE6-II, 384MB PC100 RAM (Samsung), Matrox G400MAX, SB Live! Value, Intel 10/100 NIC, Adaptec 2940UW, IBM 7200 ATA66 22GB HD, IBM 7200 ATA66 20GB HD, Pioneer 32x/6x SCSI DVD, Yamaha 4416 SCSI CD-RW, Iomega Zip 100 SCSI Internal, Iiyama Vision Master Pro 410.

Windows 2000 Only

[Me 0]

its your hardware, not win2k. namely the bp6. if you have the 1.1 rev of the bp6, there is a known power instablity problem. also keep in mind that w/ dual cpus, the bx chipset gets much hotter and it may actually be your mobo crashing. if u havent already apply some goop on the greenie and add a fan to it.

[Mondain98 0]

I'd like to address a few things here:

 

NetZero: the problems you are having are probably driver related. That, and I hope you added the second CPU before you installed Win2k, otherwise the HAL isnt using the second CPU at all (unless win2k is somehow different than winnt in that regard).

 

"The DirectX layer is low-performance and low-reliablity"

 

Performance is subjective, but I would bet money it's more stable than the DX on Win9x.

 

You have already raised issues about the stability of nvndia 5.32 drivers (which I use with no prob on win2k) and your mobo. Seems less and less likely the problem lies in Win2k itself, but your poor implementation of it. I would definitely look into power and cooling problems.

 

 

Bladerunner: "If the game doesn't run under Win2k (And most do I should add) then it was a game I wasn't worried about."

 

That's the best line I have heard so far, hope you dont mind if I borrow it now and then Ultima IX worked flawless in Win2k, and thats all I cared about. Hell, most people couldnt even get it to run in Win98..

 

"If that user is having so many problems then maybe he should consider Windows ME, it's designed to be a 'little easier to use' than 'big boys Windows' :-P"

 

Another hilarious line, and so ****ing true.

[Greggy 0]

nonzero:

 

One of my systems is dual 366 Celerons at 550MHz on an Abit BP6 (rev 1.0 motherboard) and a 32Mb WinFast GeForce2 GTS. I am running Windows 2000 Pro (ACPI Multiprocessor PC) with no problems at all with games such as Q3A, UT, HL & Counterstrike etc etc. OpenGL and D3D are perfect.

But this was not always the case- until I found out that the BP6 NEEDS to be set to 1x AGP (using a utility like Powerstrip) the system used to freeze/crash constantly.

 

Also, revision 1.1 boards may have a voltage problem which aslo creates SMP headaches. Make sure your PSU is at least 250 Watts and try the 1x AGP trick and see how you go!

[Gambler FEX online 0]

Listen, games nowadays almost always use SSE and 3D!Now for their T&L commands. You have a Celeron, which do not have SSE nor 3D!Now. Which means, your framerate in worst cases will be 40% lower than another system with SSE and same CPU speed.

 

The geforce2 helps, with its onboard T&L hardware, but ONLY for games that support it, which is only _one_ that I have seen so far.

 

In the future this will change, but for now, no SSE no speed.

[nonzero 0]

I have a BP6 1.0 board, so the VTT voltage issue should not apply to me. I have a 300 watt PS, so power is not an issue. Yes, I do have the Multiprocessor HAL installed (I do not use any kind of Power Managment). Hmm, the chipset overheating. Well I could install an old 486 fan on it that I have lying around. As for AGP 1x, I will give it a try. I have a LeadTek GeForce2 and the nvidia 5.32 drivers, they should be relatively stable.

As for Windows ME, it does not support SMP, so why the hell would I want to run it.