[jdulmage]

Yeah, so I get this e-mail from Ryan Hart, I have no clue who this lamer is, but he is a member of this forum..

Here's what he has to say..

Hello,
I just wanted to comment on your response on the message board pertaining having Win2k run games better than WinMe. I would just like to say that you better keep your mouth shut before you speak. I've ran benchmarks etc, for Nvidia for the past 5 years and Win 2k reduces all game performance by 33%. I just thought I would let you know so you don't make a fool out of yourself in the future,

Thanks,
Ryan


AND

We've tested over just under 400 different machines with different configurations. It's just a known fact.


Does this guy have a life or what to test out 400 different machines (obviously he is lying)

reduced by 33 %?? I don't ****ing think so.

Have fun flaming this guy, he is in the forum somewhere.

[Down8]

Well, you definitely better keep your mouth shut, he may send the Thought Police after you.

I think 33% is an extreme exaggeration. I would believe like 10%, or maybe even 15%, but 33% is ludicrous, why would all the gamers over on [H] be runing Win2K if the difference between it and Win9x was that great? I've even seen numbers that put 2K ahead of ME.

-bZj

[whoisurdaddy]

Hmm...I don't know how he came up with 33% decrease in performance in Win2k. I don't have data to back me up but I can tell WinME is not as fast as Win2k. I play Counter-Strike all the time and I am getting 75 fps (w/ Vsync on and 99 FPS when Vsync off) all the time in Win2k and in WinME that frame rate flatuates from 75 to 40s (Vsync on). I also play Quake 3 and AOE II and they both run really smooth. When I play AOE II multiplayer game, my friends ask me to server the game because they think the game runs smoother when I serve the game (I was the only one with Win2k and they all got Win98SE and WinME).

[This message has been edited by whoisurdaddy (edited 28 January 2001).]

[EddiE314]

This guy gives new meaning to "Lamer".
---------
He probably ran his benchmarks on a P166, 64mb ram, with a static pagefile of 96mb and a TNT1 16mb card. 400 machines!!!!HAHA!!!
4 Machines maybe....and I stress "MAYBE".

[pimpin_228]

he must be running a slow beater cause w2k is the best os for my computer,it beats 98 at start up and program loading.

[DeadCats]

A slow beater? Hey, I'm running one of those: a 333Mhz P2, albeit w/192MB RAM.

How does Win2K do? Just fine, thanks. Much, much better than Win9x.

[HarU]

Well, first off, i will say that WinMe runs everything faster on my machine at home than win2k. Startup, Applications, Games, Benchmarks, unfortunately, EVERYTHING....and i stress UNFORTUNATELY.

I hate WinMe. The stability is absolute horse sh*t. The only thing it has is compatibility and a little more speed. For my gaming, i use WinMe. But, i also have a Win2k box for business use, and it kicks *** . The stability, the security, and for me, the convenience is soooooo much better. WinMe is nowhere near 33% faster though. It may beat out my win2k box by a max of about 10 fps in quake3 and maybe 200-500 marks in 3dmark. But, it does run all my games flawlessly.

I hope so much that win2k becomes more compatible with games, because the second it does, i will throw winMe out the window.

But, for now, WinME it is. I like having that feeling that if i want to pull out an old game just for fun, i know it will run flawlessly on ME. I don't know what my point here is......i guess it is that WinMe is still a better OS for gaming. As much as i hate it, it is better. But, for the people who may not have the money to get 2 machines (one ME and one 2k), i recommend using what you like best. The speed difference is hardly significant enough, unless you are a real "nit-picky" person that counts up every fps down to the decimal. Anyway, bottom line is.....Damn Jdul, this guy is really lame....LOL.....

[pimpin_228]

I meant a real slow beater cause I'm running
a 400 he must be running a 166 or close to that

[pimpin_228]

Now it's a 750