Maka84 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 (edited) G'day.I have several OS's available, but im having some difficulties deciding on what i should go for. What i'm looking for is maximum performance and minimum installed size and therefore i will be using nlite and such to strip it down and only keep what i'll be using. I want the fastest, cleanest and the smallest. -I will primarily be using it for gaming, music/videos & web browsing.-It's a high-end computer. (64bit)Which windows OS would you suggest? Edited January 14, 2007 by Maka84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prx984 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I'd suggest a really nLitened copy of XP Professional SP2. I'm using it on my laptop (PII 366, 128MB ram) and it just flies. Just go through nLite with XP, and remove as much as you want to make a really speedy OS that can install in less than 10 minutes.As always, use VMware or VPC. They're both free, and they're both great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitroshift Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 As prx984 suggested, go for xp nlited. Although you have a 64-bit architecture, very few games take advantage of it. For info on how to nlite your xp copy, see this post: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=28005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maka84 Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 Thanks, i'll be going with an old preset of mine if i decide to go with XP32.. it'll strip the iso down to about 60-70mb or so..I was just thinkin' that perhaps win2k or win2k3 could be stripped even more.Any views on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prx984 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 Well, with Windows XP, I beleive the minimum you can get it down to (while retaining networking capabilities) is just under 100MB. I got Windows 2000 down to 60MB and it still worked with network (but I needed to get my hands on a lot of drivers).The best thing to do is play around with nLite and VPC for a while. I did that, and I know what the limits are for my personal preferences now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 well i would say xp x64, but if you have intel, then all i can say is the last thing i heard is that intel sucks at x64. but amd is amazing at it. ill have to look that up but ive got to go right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maka84 Posted January 14, 2007 Author Share Posted January 14, 2007 well i would say xp x64, but if you have intel, then all i can say is the last thing i heard is that intel sucks at x64. but amd is amazing at it. ill have to look that up but ive got to go right now.Yeah.. i'm on a AMD64 FX-62.. perhaps XP64 would perform better even though it takes up more space then XP32? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Posted January 14, 2007 Share Posted January 14, 2007 I want the fastest, cleanest and the smallest. -I will primarily be using it for gaming, music/videos & web browsing.If you have a high-end system than that should take care of your performance. You don't need a "small" OS to play games with high-end hardware. Just make sure that when you play games that you have everything else closed. If you're going to use nLite, I'd suggest only removing Drivers and Languages, then integrate your own device drivers. That will cut your XP down by more than 50% without affecting any functionality. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripken204 Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 definetly use x64 then. i nlited the hell out of mine and it runs just amazing.jeremy-a high end system definetly does help, but x64 is another jump forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 (edited) jeremy-a high end system definetly does help, but x64 is another jump forward.A jump forward, eh? How many applications and games today are coded to fully support x64, I wonder...Sure the potential leap is there, but if there's nothing/very little supporting it, why so much emphasis?AMD's 64-Bit Games List Edited January 15, 2007 by Jeremy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now