|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
September 4th 03, 03:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Performance question Win98se vs win2000 vs XP pro
We are upgrading the workstation that acts as a server to 3.0 GHz processor
and have the option to run win2000 or XP. Thoughts either way? Also, we have 3 machines that are 650mz - but run win98se and crash regularly. Would WIN2000 or XP load and run on those machines slower than win98? (they all have 256mg ram) Stability would be nice. Gemstone Talent www.GemTal.com 
|
|
#2
September 4th 03, 04:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think they may run a bit slow with XP. Win2K might be OK. XP is a real
memory HOG. I would want at least a 1 Ghz Processor for WinXP. Before you use WinXP OR W2K make sure all your hardware is on the Microsoft Hardware Compatibility List (HCL). wrote in message ... We are upgrading the workstation that acts as a server to 3.0 GHz processor and have the option to run win2000 or XP. Thoughts either way? Also, we have 3 machines that are 650mz - but run win98se and crash regularly. Would WIN2000 or XP load and run on those machines slower than win98? (they all have 256mg ram) Stability would be nice. Gemstone Talent www.GemTal.com
|
|
#3
September 4th 03, 05:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
September 4th 03, 09:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... We are upgrading the workstation that acts as a server to 3.0 GHz processor and have the option to run win2000 or XP. Thoughts either way? Also, we have 3 machines that are 650mz - but run win98se and crash regularly. Would WIN2000 or XP load and run on those machines slower than win98? (they all have 256mg ram) Stability would be nice. I find Win2k more stable and much more suited to office environment than WinXP. Bear in mind that Win2k Pro when acting as a server is limited to 10 simultaneous connections, i.e. clients. Win9X has no such limitation. I have a client where all workstations are 550MHz K6/2 machines with 128MB RAM running Win2k Pro and while they take a bit longer to boot up they are completely stable and perfectly adequate for word processing, email and accounting duties. Some even run CorelDraw used to design stamps.
|
|
#5
September 4th 03, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've got XP running on a bunch of 400Mhz and 450Mhz Dell machines. I
make sure that they all have at least 256MB of RAM. They aren't the speediest machines ever, but they do the job just fine. wrote in message ... We are upgrading the workstation that acts as a server to 3.0 GHz processor and have the option to run win2000 or XP. Thoughts either way? Also, we have 3 machines that are 650mz - but run win98se and crash regularly. Would WIN2000 or XP load and run on those machines slower than win98? (they all have 256mg ram) Stability would be nice. Gemstone Talent www.GemTal.com
|
|
#7
September 5th 03, 07:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Walsh wrote:
A WinNT based OS will crash because of a bad driver, (also from bad memory, motherboard, etc.) The good news is in my experience the BSOD will identify the offending driver. A buggy program will cause the program to crash but will not take down the OS as in Win9x. Yep, that's what I said so if he has buggy drivers/software he'll still have crashes.. Stacey wrote: wrote: We are upgrading the workstation that acts as a server to 3.0 GHz processor and have the option to run win2000 or XP. Thoughts either way? Also, we have 3 machines that are 650mz - but run win98se and crash regularly. Would WIN2000 or XP load and run on those machines slower than win98? (they all have 256mg ram) Stability would be nice. Lots of win98 crashes are caused by driver conflicts and/or software bugs. As far as the newer OS's being more "stable" it's more they don't =take down the house= but still require a reboot when the software/driver takes it down. But in an office environment XP will run Ok on them with 256 meg, just will cost ya! Also some of your old software/hardware might not like XP. Might be cheaper (or close to it) to buy new machines. -- Stacey -- Stacey
|
|
#8
September 7th 03, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I noticed a few hear running 256 megs of ram with their systems. I would
suggest if you are using 2k or XP to use at least 512MB ram. I think with my win2k machine I got most services I needed enabled and the rest disabled and I ended up with about 70 megs of memory usage. I have used WinXP for about 1 month now on my new p4 machine and am pleased with it on 1GB ram and a p4 2.6GHz at 800MHz FSB. However, I believe the win2k OS is way more excellent than XP. I have used XP for a few years and it has ran everything very well. Games, programs, etc. I only went to XP cause of the Hyper threading in the P4. If it wasn't for that, I'd go back to 2k. Use Advanced Server if you can get it. Otherwise, Professional is an excellent choice.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
