AMD-64 and...

>> ...proven in A-B comparisons on identical hardware.
>
> Yep, a lot of incorrect information has been published about that topic.

They were my own comparisons on my own hardware. Are you calling me a liar
or am I incompetant? Feel free to point out in what ways Win2K is faster.

I agree 100% Damien. Ive experimented on many machines and XP is far
superior for not only gaming but just about everything else as well.

Mitch


"Damien Smith" > wrote in message >
> They were my own comparisons on my own hardware. Are you calling me a
> liar or am I incompetant? Feel free to point out in what ways Win2K is
> faster.
>
>

Damien Smith wrote:
....
> They were my own comparisons on my own hardware. Are you calling me a liar
> or am I incompetant? Feel free to point out in what ways Win2K is faster.

I am not calling you anything, that's not my style, and not the purpose of my
postings.

Have a look at the games tests this review:

http://www.firingsquad.com/games/winxpperf/page3.asp

Achim

"Joachim Trensz" wrote...
>> <snip>
> I am not calling you anything, that's not my style, and not
> the purpose of my postings.
>
> Have a look at the games tests this review:
>
> http://www.firingsquad.com/games/winxpperf/page3.asp


A DX7 performance comparison might slightly favour older OSs and 3DMark also
favours the most efficient graphics driver rather than the most efficient
OS.

My personal experience is that XP, even without performance modifications,
certainly isn't any slower than Win98se on this machine.

Jan.
=---

Jan Verschueren wrote:
....
> A DX7 performance comparison might slightly favour older OSs and 3DMark also
> favours the most efficient graphics driver rather than the most efficient
> OS.
>
> My personal experience is that XP, even without performance modifications,
> certainly isn't any slower than Win98se on this machine.

I'm sure 98 is beginning to look a bit dated in modern games and especially
business applications.

Achim

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 23:06:20 +0100, Joachim Trensz wrote:
> I'm sure 98 is beginning to look a bit dated in modern games and especially
> business applications.
>

But who'd be using windows for business applications? ;-)

cheers, uwe

ps: made the switch to xp pro yesterday and did some tweaking
according to blackviper.com. So far it's quite snappy, and
miraculously my poly rates in f1c have increased a bit, too!


--
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe Schürkamp wrote:
....
> But who'd be using windows for business applications? ;-)
>
> cheers, uwe
>
> ps: made the switch to xp pro yesterday and did some tweaking
> according to blackviper.com. So far it's quite snappy, and
> miraculously my poly rates in f1c have increased a bit, too!

Suse 9.1 here. Still, I've always been a happy camper with Windows.
From 3.1 through to W2k Windows has been stable and reliable for me.

The blackviper stuff is really good. Make sure not to disable the printer
spooler though. Printers may not install with that disabled (happened to me a
while ago).

Achim

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:52:20 +0100, Joachim Trensz wrote:
>
> The blackviper stuff is really good. Make sure not to disable the printer
> spooler though. Printers may not install with that disabled (happened to me a
> while ago).

Thanks for the note, Achim, but who'd want to connect printers to
gaming rigs? ;-)

Cheers, uwe

ps: xp pro is ok so far, I probably won't be looking back once I get
my higher spec pots.

--
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Uwe Schürkamp wrote:
....
> ps: xp pro is ok so far, I probably won't be looking back once I get
> my higher spec pots.

Good

Achim

In article >,
PAM says...
> > The w2ksp4 bit sounds interesting though, I'll give it a go
> > first.
> >
> > All the best & thanks for your comments,
>
> The only possible advantage Win2K SP4 has over XP SP2 is the lack of an
> activation scheme. XP is far snappier than Win2K (or even 98) once you've
> tweaked it.....
>
>
>

ANY version of windows is snappier once you've tweaked it.