SegaXtreme

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

WINDOWS upgrade form 98se to???

Equinoxe - Dec 12, 2001

< Prev

Next>

		IceDigger		Dec 15, 2001
			bleem usually can't run in any OS, so I recommend you look around for a decent emu instead. I think epsxe works in XP.

		JCTango		Dec 15, 2001
			does it work as well Arakon? Oh and can you have a system with windows XP and windows 98? (Edited by JCTango at 4:42 am on Dec. 15, 2001)

		Cloud121		Dec 15, 2001
			ePSXe is the best emu out there for the PSX at the moment. WAY better than Bleem! is what I hear.

		ExCyber		Dec 15, 2001
			Yes, the ePSXe team has done a great job getting a solid core put together - combined with the tons of plugin work done by Pete Bernert and others, it makes for a superior experience . R-Type Delta (a game which Bleem! has repeatedly screwed up, at least on the Japanese version) looks absolutely killer on it - unfortunately it's not quite fast enough to be really playable on my system. Incidentally, as I recall Bleem! did not do a very good job on Symphony of the Night. IIRC lots of stuff came out wrong in hardware-accelerated mode, and software mode ran too slowly (though that's more likely the fault of my blazing fast K6-2 than anything else).

		Nadius		Dec 15, 2001
			CSotN on ePSXe runs rather well okay on my pc, although it's not quite as fun, the XA sound jerks alot, i've tried several plugins and settings, the video is killer though, but the memory card ain't working, the game freezes when looking for it... i hope it's not the disc, among the few curses i have, is my sidewinder won't reach my couch, i need a usb hub, for that, and well as i said it's just not as fun... i'll just have to wait for my brother to come home this season, with his PSX. I remember a review of SCD's Popful Mail, being similar to Castlevania SotN, am i right? I need a good 2-D sidescroller adventure fix, I've beaten the crap out of Super Metroid too many times. Can anyone suggest any games to get? by the way, I'm running ePSXe on a XP Pro, 450 PIII 288 MB, Rage Fury 128 not pro 32 Mb, SB Live (Edited by Nadius at 12:58 pm on Dec. 15, 2001)

		mal		Jan 27, 2003
			I'm soon to be inheriting a PC as my brother upgrades to a new machine and I've got the option of having it running either 2000 or XP. Considering that some of the points put forward over a year ago may no longer be valid, which do you think would be the better OS for me? I'm running 98se at the moment. Any help is appreciated.

		mtxblau		Jan 27, 2003
			Stability - Win2000. I've been running it for a year, no reformatting, anything, and it still boots as fast as it did when I first installed it (24 seconds). My uptimes are usually measured in months. XP is good, however, it still has quite a bit of work to get it to be what MS envisioned it (a 98 + 2000 hybrid). Having said that, I still like it quite a bit, but finding and uninstalling all the junk that comes with XP may take days.

		Myname		Jan 27, 2003
			I really didn't like XP at first, but I've definately grown to like it over time. Hasn't crashed on me in a year since I bought it. Only problems I've had is that it doesn't like resolutions under 800x600, so if you've got any programs under that (Gens for example) they'll probably run kind of in a box, with black borders around the edges. MTXBlau is right about getting rid of the stuff you don't want with XP though, I'm still stumbling across and uninstalling components now. Not too much of a big deal though.

gameboy900

Jan 27, 2003

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by Myname@Jan. 27 2003, 10:21 am



I really didn't like XP at first, but I've definately grown to like it over time. Hasn't crashed on me in a year since I bought it. Only problems I've had is that it doesn't like resolutions under 800x600, so if you've got any programs under that (Gens for example) they'll probably run kind of in a box, with black borders around the edges. 



MTXBlau is right about getting rid of the stuff you don't want with XP though, I'm still stumbling across and uninstalling components now. Not too much of a big deal though.

That black box isn't XP's fault. Your monitor isn't adjusted properly for the resolutions you run those things at. All CRT monitors (well newer ones from the last few years). can only store a few resolution/refresh rate settings that you use. And if it encounters a new resolution/refresh rate it uses default settings which usually means that you get less screen space used. This happens in all os's and such. And yes refresh rate does change this as well.

As for XP. I've been running it without any problems. (The only crash I had was caused by having my MB setup wrong and freezing when the pc was shuting down. A simple driver disable in XP fixed that.)

As for game XP has better options than Win2K. You can get it to make a program think it's running in one of the previous Win9x os's just in case it bitches.

I recommend at least a modern pc for it otherwise stick to win2k or win98se. You can't expect a 486 to run winxp do you? And yes new or at least name brand hardware helps. Those cheap brands are what cause most problems.

		Myname		Jan 27, 2003
			Well yeah, I was used to have a laptop with an LCD screen that just resized all resolutions perfectly so I guess I was spoiled before I got this system. It's still true that XP has a few issues with lower resolutions, even if you tinker with the refresh rate. Many low res programs will flicker on any refresh rate, hardly noticable unless you use a lot of them.

gameboy900

Jan 27, 2003

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by Myname@Jan. 27 2003, 2:08 pm



Well yeah, I was used to have a laptop with an LCD screen that just resized all resolutions perfectly so I guess I was spoiled before I got this system. It's still true that XP has a few issues with lower resolutions, even if you tinker with the refresh rate. Many low res programs will flicker on any refresh rate, hardly noticable unless you use a lot of them.

Well the lower resolutions problem is as much the fault of the vid card makers and their drivers as it is winxp. Also some monitors can be so optimized for high refresh rates and resolutions they start to go blah with the older low res stuff. Then again why the hell would you use winxp on a system that needs a low resolution? The lower resolutions are really only added to vid cards for backwards compatability. I seriously doubt that any vid card maker gives half a shit these days about making their cards work well with anything below 1024x768. Seeing as that is what most people use (or higher).

		Myname		Jan 27, 2003
			Alright. I was just pointing out something that Mal might want to take into consideration if he's getting a new system. Sheesh..

		Taelon		Jan 27, 2003
			For what it's worth.... I still manage with a Compaq PC based on an AMD K6-3 400MHz which I bought over 3 years ago. (Go ahead, laugh.) Last year I "upgraded" from Compaq's pre-installed Windows plus a thousand useless apps to a full reformat and reinstall of 98SE (at that point chosen over the alternative of going XP Pro) using the wonderful, wonderful, wonderful 98 Lite installer... which I had fully registered (one of my best investments ever). Now that I've re-tweaked everything in 98SE to my personal preferences, I enjoy stability and speed that's normally unheard of in a 9x OS. There's no IE, no ODBC32 database crap, no Task Scheduler or Dr. Watson, no , no nuffin'. Just the basic OS, a clean install of DirectX 8.1 and all my favorite apps. It's no coincidence my computer now runs 24/7 on DC++ and Folding@home..., with me occasionally firing up Mozilla, or CD-burning software, or various utils, and not a single crash in weeks.

		mtxblau		Jan 27, 2003
			I've used 98lite also, it's pretty amazing. One should note that Netscape runs flawlessly when IE isn't around. However, there's just some niceties that Win2K and XP offer that 98 doesn't have.

		Falstaf		Jan 27, 2003
			For PC users, Win2000pro gets my vote for rock solid performance. If your an Apple user, then OS X.2 is your meat! (unix rules!) I have both. Win2kpro has run for 11 mo. w/o a crash and ditto for OS X.2, if you have the resources, i.e. a G4 w/at least 256mb of ram. It's a thing of beauty.

		gamefoo21		Jan 27, 2003
			isn't that the 60hz thing with Xp you can dwnld fixes to that everywhere and yes once you get Xp config'd right it works like a charm. oh and don't enable Ht under 2k it actually slows it down a lil. speeds up Xp though hmm got to wonder.

		Curtis		Jan 27, 2003
			Mal - go with XP. Before too long, MS will stop supporting 2000 with things like DirectX upgrades. I've come across no serious compatibility problems with XP - you can even play most old DOS games with the help of VDMSound... (works with 2k as well). You also get useful utilities like the god-send that System Restore is, and higher compatibility with newer hardware devices.

		gamefoo21		Jan 27, 2003
			oh and an addon to my post. i agree with curtis its only 2 more years till 2000 is considered a win95. annnd i was trying to run a really old win95 game that wasn't proggied for nt at all. and it screamed my Dx wasn't right. oh well i mean it was a shotty shareware game and i was running dx 9.

		Cloud121		Jan 27, 2003
			Or... how about you just be smart and go for a damn Mac! That way you can actually get a comp that works! You ever think of that? Sorry about my little ass sounding remarks, but after the torture that is WinME, I've had enough of Windows! Macs Rule!

		mal		Jan 27, 2003
			Yeah, I've got a mac. A 200MHz 604e 9500, but it doesn't quite stand up to a pIII 800Mhz, which I'm getting for free. Thanks for the input guys, it gives me much to think about.

< Prev

Next>