Which better for games R2 or seven

Forums Operating Systems Windows Server 2008 R2 Miscellaneous Which better for games R2 or seven

Viewing 24 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #43936

      Yes, I know that Sever 2008 r2 isnt a gaming OS, but r2 is more configurable, runs fewer services,has lesser bloatware etc… And also I hear that Superfetch can decrease performance for games and other memory intensive applications.

      What are your opinionsexperiences on this?

    • #50146

      If an app needs more ram the cache will be cleared for it. I dont think so that superfetch takes performance

    • #59965
      Anonymous

      If an app needs more ram the cache will be cleared for it. I dont think so that superfetch takes performance

    • #59966
      Anonymous

      @mage7 wrote:

      Yes, I know that Sever 2008 r2 isnt a gaming OS, but r2 is more configurable, runs fewer services,has lesser bloatware etc… And also I hear that Superfetch can decrease performance for games and other memory intensive applications.

      What are your opinionsexperiences on this?

      I’ve been running this as my gaming OS for quite some time and everything that works with vista or windows 7 seems to run on this. Its hard to say wether the performance is any different between vista/w7/2008r2. Not much of a difference, you get same compatibility patches between W7 and 2008 R2, but your missing some game features from the 2008 R2.

      Id say go with Windows 7 unless you like configuring a lot.

    • #50147

      @mage7 wrote:

      Yes, I know that Sever 2008 r2 isnt a gaming OS, but r2 is more configurable, runs fewer services,has lesser bloatware etc… And also I hear that Superfetch can decrease performance for games and other memory intensive applications.

      What are your opinionsexperiences on this?

      I’ve been running this as my gaming OS for quite some time and everything that works with vista or windows 7 seems to run on this. Its hard to say wether the performance is any different between vista/w7/2008r2. Not much of a difference, you get same compatibility patches between W7 and 2008 R2, but your missing some game features from the 2008 R2.

      Id say go with Windows 7 unless you like configuring a lot.

    • #59967
      Anonymous

      @Remiel wrote:

      If an app needs more ram the cache will be cleared for it. I dont think so that superfetch takes performance

      Well i dont think lack of memory is the problem.More like superfetch prefetches the wrong files causing crazy harddisk activity which slows system performance. google “superfetch” and “world of warcraft” to see what I mean.Superfetch does confuse me sometimes. If free memory is available why page already open applications.I hate my comp freezing up when i click on minimized applications and boot ups are a pain too. Anyway i hope to see how the experience changes with no superfetch in r2.

      @Lehto wrote:

      I’ve been running this as my gaming OS for quite some time and everything that works with vista or windows 7 seems to run on this. Its hard to say wether the performance is any different between vista/w7/2008r2. Not much of a difference, you get same compatibility patches between W7 and 2008 R2, but your missing some game features from the 2008 R2.

      Id say go with Windows 7 unless you like configuring a lot.

      I am not too afraid of tinkering so i guess will be giving r2 a shot. Besides i got r2 for free (dreamspark) and i am not prepared to spend a ransom for 7(or get a pirated copy). If it doesnt work out i’ll return to vista or switch to ubuntu or something.
      Thanks for the info.

    • #50148

      @Remiel wrote:

      If an app needs more ram the cache will be cleared for it. I dont think so that superfetch takes performance

      Well i dont think lack of memory is the problem.More like superfetch prefetches the wrong files causing crazy harddisk activity which slows system performance. google “superfetch” and “world of warcraft” to see what I mean.Superfetch does confuse me sometimes. If free memory is available why page already open applications.I hate my comp freezing up when i click on minimized applications and boot ups are a pain too. Anyway i hope to see how the experience changes with no superfetch in r2.

      @Lehto wrote:

      I’ve been running this as my gaming OS for quite some time and everything that works with vista or windows 7 seems to run on this. Its hard to say wether the performance is any different between vista/w7/2008r2. Not much of a difference, you get same compatibility patches between W7 and 2008 R2, but your missing some game features from the 2008 R2.

      Id say go with Windows 7 unless you like configuring a lot.

      I am not too afraid of tinkering so i guess will be giving r2 a shot. Besides i got r2 for free (dreamspark) and i am not prepared to spend a ransom for 7(or get a pirated copy). If it doesnt work out i’ll return to vista or switch to ubuntu or something.
      Thanks for the info.

    • #50149

      When R2 is setup to be a desktop OS, there is no difference in gaming performance between 7.

      If anything, 7 would be better optimized for gaming.

      Superfetch by design will intefer with more complex games, so if you play a lot of games, disable it.

      Simple.

    • #59968
      Anonymous

      When R2 is setup to be a desktop OS, there is no difference in gaming performance between 7.

      If anything, 7 would be better optimized for gaming.

      Superfetch by design will intefer with more complex games, so if you play a lot of games, disable it.

      Simple.

    • #50150

      @JingoFresh wrote:

      When R2 is setup to be a desktop OS, there is no difference in gaming performance between 7.

      Well, some games (e.g. Bioshock) still have problems running on Server 2008 R2 because some parts of Games Explorer are still not fully ported (don’t work), etc…
      Well, I’m working on it and hope I’ll find solution for this problem soon…

    • #59969
      Anonymous

      @JingoFresh wrote:

      When R2 is setup to be a desktop OS, there is no difference in gaming performance between 7.

      Well, some games (e.g. Bioshock) still have problems running on Server 2008 R2 because some parts of Games Explorer are still not fully ported (don’t work), etc…
      Well, I’m working on it and hope I’ll find solution for this problem soon…

    • #50151

      I’m running Bioshock on R2 without a problem.

      I just set compatibility mode to Vista.

    • #59970
      Anonymous

      I’m running Bioshock on R2 without a problem.

      I just set compatibility mode to Vista.

    • #50152

      Bioshock was generally unstable on my R1 system and in R2 it ran just fine. It was optimised for nvidia cards. ATI cards have fun with that game and all the nice bugs i had on my friend’s pc.

      I have an 8800GT so it works nice.

      Now borderlands is so smooth on my R1 system and other people are constantly complaining about crashes on windows seven and I laugh at them.

    • #59971
      Anonymous

      Bioshock was generally unstable on my R1 system and in R2 it ran just fine. It was optimised for nvidia cards. ATI cards have fun with that game and all the nice bugs i had on my friend’s pc.

      I have an 8800GT so it works nice.

      Now borderlands is so smooth on my R1 system and other people are constantly complaining about crashes on windows seven and I laugh at them.

    • #50153

      I run SLI with Quad systems and R2 give me more power/ FPS in all the tests i conducted versus W7 Ultimate, better memory, CPU management..

      I do a lot of Flight Sim and combat sim. Same with Server 2003 vs XP same with Server 2008 vs Vista..

    • #59972
      Anonymous

      I run SLI with Quad systems and R2 give me more power/ FPS in all the tests i conducted versus W7 Ultimate, better memory, CPU management..

      I do a lot of Flight Sim and combat sim. Same with Server 2003 vs XP same with Server 2008 vs Vista..

    • #50154

      I’ll actually argue against 2008 having fewer services. Instead I’ll say it has more reliable services that run correctly. I actually have seen nearly the same amount of Services between a Windows 7 Enterprise and Windows Server 2008 R2.

      Overall for gaming, hands down I’ll say 2008 R2. It’s got far better processor and memory management services and games don’t have to compete with a lot of background software for resources.

      It’s not perfect though and some games often will fail to run, but it is better overall.

    • #59973
      Anonymous

      I’ll actually argue against 2008 having fewer services. Instead I’ll say it has more reliable services that run correctly. I actually have seen nearly the same amount of Services between a Windows 7 Enterprise and Windows Server 2008 R2.

      Overall for gaming, hands down I’ll say 2008 R2. It’s got far better processor and memory management services and games don’t have to compete with a lot of background software for resources.

      It’s not perfect though and some games often will fail to run, but it is better overall.

    • #50155

      In my experience Windows 7 is slightly more compatible.

      However, most games work in Server 2008 R2 without issue, and I haven’t noticed any game related performance differences between the two OSes.

    • #59974
      Anonymous

      In my experience Windows 7 is slightly more compatible.

      However, most games work in Server 2008 R2 without issue, and I haven’t noticed any game related performance differences between the two OSes.

    • #59975
      Anonymous

      There are two main issues with running games on R2 vs. 7:

      1) OS version checks – some programs (games included) explicitly check for the OS version of type (server vs workstation), and might not recognise R2 as a valid OS. This is usually easily worked around with the application compatibility settings.

      2) missing components – some games rely on components like Games Explorer. Bioshock was one such game, if I recall correctly. An installer for GE is available in another topic.

      Then there’s the old games that simply refuse to install or work on a modern OS, for a number of reasons, but they won’t work on 7 either. And again, this is usually resolved using the compatibility settings.

    • #50156

      There are two main issues with running games on R2 vs. 7:

      1) OS version checks – some programs (games included) explicitly check for the OS version of type (server vs workstation), and might not recognise R2 as a valid OS. This is usually easily worked around with the application compatibility settings.

      2) missing components – some games rely on components like Games Explorer. Bioshock was one such game, if I recall correctly. An installer for GE is available in another topic.

      Then there’s the old games that simply refuse to install or work on a modern OS, for a number of reasons, but they won’t work on 7 either. And again, this is usually resolved using the compatibility settings.

    • #59976
      Anonymous

      @Indrek wrote:

      Then there’s the old games that simply refuse to install or work on a modern OS, for a number of reasons, but they won’t work on 7 either.

      Yep.

      @Indrek wrote:

      And again, this is usually resolved using the compatibility settings.

      I have upwards of a dozen games that won’t run correctly in any NT 6.x OS, regardless of compatibility settings.

      Games older than about 2001 I usually end up running in VMware (with 3d acceleration enabled, if necessary), unless they are DOS games, in which case I use DOSBox.

      I have a small collection of games from 97-99 that will not run in anything besides Windows 95/98, yet still require 3D acceleration (Heavy Gear 2 is a prime example). I had to build a separate system for these.

    • #50157

      @Indrek wrote:

      Then there’s the old games that simply refuse to install or work on a modern OS, for a number of reasons, but they won’t work on 7 either.

      Yep.

      @Indrek wrote:

      And again, this is usually resolved using the compatibility settings.

      I have upwards of a dozen games that won’t run correctly in any NT 6.x OS, regardless of compatibility settings.

      Games older than about 2001 I usually end up running in VMware (with 3d acceleration enabled, if necessary), unless they are DOS games, in which case I use DOSBox.

      I have a small collection of games from 97-99 that will not run in anything besides Windows 95/98, yet still require 3D acceleration (Heavy Gear 2 is a prime example). I had to build a separate system for these.

Viewing 24 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.