|
|
|
|
|
by sn41
1965 days ago
|
|
Windows 2000 was much more stable being based on a different NT-based kernel. Which meant you couldn't play many Windows games on Win2K - I remember that Quake 3 was the only game which would run without issues. Other games either required some configuration, or simply wouldn't run. |
|
The interesting thing about Quake 3 was that it's engine supported SMP which Windows 9x obviously wouldn't so Quake 3 must have been designed with workstation-class desktops in mind (I guess that makes some sense when you think that some of Id's earlier games were written on NeXT hardware and then ported to PCs).
At the time I ran an Abit BP6, it had dual Celeron IIs overclocked from 500MHz to > 700MHz. I think I got them as high as 900MHz once but the system as hugely unstable. I also had a bunch of BIOS optimisations for gaming too. It was an awesome motherboard in an era long before dual core processors were a thing. And surprisingly games actually ran better on Windows 2000 than they would if I'd dual boot into Windows 95. My suspicion was that while most games were still single threaded, NT would schedule the heavy process on one CPU while running all the background OS tasks on the other CPU. Thus giving the game a little extra overhead that wouldn't have been there on Windows 95 due to everything running on the same CPU.
I do miss that computer. It lasted far longer than Moores law should have allowed and it was probably the last computer I've owned where I could boast about understanding pretty much everything about it from the ground up (the chipsets, BIOS options, pins on the motherboard, bootloaders, software loaded, etc...every system since has been just that little bit too complicated that there's been some chip inside or background process that I've not understood).