best overclocking windows

[swinger]

does it really matter which version of windows you are using when you overclock? are some easier, or does it not matter at all?:smokin:

[rugbydude]

All overclocking is done in the bios so it doesn't matter:thumb:

[Suicide]

If your talking about testing your stability... Toss a Unix operating system onto the machine, then compile say oh I udnno, that operating systems' kernel using the best optimizations (gcc -O3 -O6 usually does the trick) and if you can make it through the entire compile without make/gcc freaking on you giving you signals (sig11 for example :))... Then you're good to go :) It's a lot faster than booting windows and testing stability there... and a lot more reliable :D

[Darthtanion]

Actually the version of Windows you use can make a difference in overclocking. I have had many attempts make it past the system POST and then freeze up totally when it tries to load up Windows. Knock the FSB back a little and it'll boot like a champ.

Win98SE has had the reputation of being one of the most friendly for the overclocker, but you will lose out on all the added functionality of the WinXP operating system. I stick to the XP version myself since the total speed difference seems to be minimal in my systems.

[rugbydude]

I apologise it seems i was wrong. I have never noticed a difference while overclocking on different os's but thats just me:thumb:

[Suicide]

Actually the version of Windows you use can make a difference in overclocking. I have had many attempts make it past the system POST and then freeze up totally when it tries to load up Windows. Knock the FSB back a little and it'll boot like a champ.

Win98SE has had the reputation of being one of the most friendly for the overclocker, but you will lose out on all the added functionality of the WinXP operating system. I stick to the XP version myself since the total speed difference seems to be minimal in my systems.

That's true and not true in the same respect :) Sure Under the Win9x kernel, (kernal for ya dos types heh) anyway... Under Win9x you will see Windows be less picky about bad hardware ("bad hardware" being well, just that, bad hardware, or hardware that is stressed due to overclocking) because of the OS model it's based around. It's a real time operating system, which has its ups and it's downs. Compared to protected runtime mode operating systems, real time os's are a lot more friendly to the overclocker, but also a lot more unstable as it's hard to find the exact stable speed of your processor... You may not get a bluescreen in 98 if you would in xp say running 3dmark, but i'd rather know of the instability to the system, even a minor one while i'm overclocking (the version of windows has NOTHING to do with the success or failure of your overclock, it's just the means to show you the end results). So, for overclocking, I'd recommend a Windows OS based on the OS/2 errr NT :flames: kernel (winnt, win2k, winxp)... Or a Unix based operating system if you are into that kinda thing :) (I got freebsd installed on a little 4 gig i move to machine to machine just compiling it's kernel for testing system stability heh... works well, if she don't crash, i know the system is stable).

Anyway, just thought I'd clear the air on that subject :)

[Morgan_Lander]

Win9x isn't as picky about hardware as the NT OS's. This is one of those good/bad things. You'll know if something's whacked a lot sooner under XP than you would 98.