Something that helped me with 2003

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubb/Forum1/HTML/003370.html

 

Interesting and thanx for posting the link.

I have yet to lay eyes or hands on 2003 but the comment about speed is one I've certainly heard more than once. Any idea what lets it run that much faster than XP on similar hardware?

 

I don't have any clue. I'm sure you could find an article. I have noticed an incredible increase in speed.

specs:

Windows Server 2003
2.52 GHz
256 MB RAM
30 Gig HDD
Geforce FX 5600 256 MB

After going through all that trouble from the link, and trust me, it was trouble, I finally got Quake III to run. I've ran it on 2000, XP, and now, 2003. I can't find any benchmark software for it yet, but from what I've seen, 2003 in incredible with games. The FPS are amazing. If someone could give me a link to test FPS for Quake III, I'll let you know how good it runs. Next will be Unreal Tournament 2003, but one of my CDs has a deep scratch As soon as I get it fixed, I'll see if it can handle everything at the max, 2000 and XP lagged just a little with everything maxed. I have high hopes for 2003.

 

I'm pretty sure there's either an in-game settings option or a command-line option to show the frames per second for Quake III. Try www.planetquake.com - there might be some info on it.

Samir Talwar

 

I got it tested, found some console commmands. It changes are extreme sometimes for no reason what so ever. It was hung at 90 fps, but I set the max to 500, and it got between 250-300 fps at 1024x768, at 800x600 it didn't run much better, actually a little worse at time eh, when I get UT2003 on here, I'll have to see that

 

Lee,
the following site helped me "turn" everything back on in W2K3.

http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/advanced.htm

As mentioned in previous posts, yes there is a marked increase in speed with W2K3. I'm not a gamer but in general operation it is faster than XP. It remains to be seen how real this increase is though. I suspect a certain amount can be attributed to W2K3 being a clean install and therefore will run a little faster than a "used" XP install. Some tests on fresh installs of both OS's need to be performed on identical hardware.

Although, as I'm dual booting on the same machine, and XP is as clean as I can get it (with 4 registry cleaners etc) there is something going on. I suspect MS have tweaked and probably removed some of the "consumer" overheads present in XP. After all XP is v5.1 and W2K3 is v5.2.