Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is XP so much slower than win98se

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
October 13, 2002 12:41:01 AM

I had winxp running on my 1.4ghz t-bird system (512mb) a while ago, and later reformatted and went back to win98se, but I have a question that I never figured out.

I have a lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet with a complex chart with 10 data series of about 15000 cells each. When you click the sheet to view the chart in win98 the system halts everything its doing for about 3 seconds and then the chart displays. The cpu utilization goes to 100% during this 3 seconds. With winxp the same thing takes 65 seconds. I do not remember if utilzation went to 100% during that time or not. I just thought I would ask if anyone knew why this happens, and if there was a workaround. I tried setting the application priority to the highest setting and it did not make a difference. Maybe winxp doesn't allow an app to hog the whole machine at one time or something?

John A

More about : slower win98se

October 13, 2002 2:44:30 AM

id say the program is not entirely compatible with xp

how do you shoot the devil in the back? what happens if you miss? -verbal
October 19, 2002 7:07:27 PM

I have an SL75DRV5, XP 1900+, 512 MB DDR and XP is not only more stable than 98 or ME but a lot faster too. When the XP-processors were made they were manufactured to support special XP instructions (as far as I know) which no other OS supports. this is why new games run faster in XP than in 98/ME. Older games and programs may run faster in 98/ME because they might not be fully compatible with XP.

That is at least what I know, if wrong please correct me.

From the Seas we come to the Seas we return.
Related resources
October 20, 2002 10:31:51 PM

It does not seem to me that the app is not compatible with winxp but that winxp is not compatible with the app. In this case the program needs a lot of system resource for a few seconds but it looks like xp is doling it out in tiny bits. I say this because with win98 everything on the machine comes to a halt as this app takes up 100% of the system for 2 or 3 seconds, but with XP the background tasks (of which XP has way more of than 98) continue running.

John A
October 21, 2002 7:44:42 AM

True that WinXP has more going on in the background at times, but it's also because XP's task manager allows you to see pretty much everything that is running... foreground and background where 98/ME hides most of it.

What version of Lotus are you running? Lotus isn't fully compatible with XP because it wasn't designed with an OS like XP in mind. (I'm guessing you have an older version of Lotus). Try running the program in compatibility mode in XP to see if performance improves. XP does things a lot differently that 98/ME did.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
October 22, 2002 9:42:35 AM

Hah! I guess it depends on who's talking, ms or lotus.

It's generally the os that defines what other software must conform to. It's like saying the employer is not compatible with the employee, usually the employee must concede to the employer. Now, if a lot of the employees (software) complain, well the employer may have to change. Obviously, a new os won't be a success if doesn't the majority support old apps. M$ has it's one suite of software that other's must compete with as well, which puts the pressure on the third parties to provide the solution.

Quality is better than name brand, even regarding beloved AMD.
October 22, 2002 11:31:34 AM

yeah, and if you contacted m$, theyd just advise u to use excel....
what version of lotus? older versions do have probs with xp


If they squeeze olives to get olive oil, how do they get baby oil?
October 23, 2002 11:47:41 AM

It is Lotus Millenium edition. Version 9.09. If anyone has any information that a newer version performs better I would love to hear it. Up until 6 months ago I was routinely downloading the trial version of their current versions and this issue had gotten no better, but then I gave up and went back to 98se. It is a prohibitive problem but one that would not affect many users unless they had a chart with some 100,000 data points to be plotted.

John A
!