Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

will win98se lower my athlon XPs performance?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 9, 2002 11:19:19 PM

is it true that athlon XPs get better performance under windownsXP than under win98se? I will be ordering a system using a ATHLON XP (1700+) and an ATI radion 8500 64 ddr ram. the radion recives terrible performance in win XP, so i wont get it. if i get win98se will i be lowering my CPU's performance? maby this system just dosent go together. the reson i done use a Nvidia card is that they are WAY overpriced in canada. if i import them i will have to pay import tax. a MSI ti200 costs the same as a radion 8500.
March 9, 2002 11:32:41 PM

Quote:

is it true that athlon XPs get better performance under windownsXP than under win98se?

No


Quote:

the radion recives terrible performance in win XP, so i wont get it.

No, the performance is equal.


Quote:

if i get win98se will i be lowering my CPU's performance?

No, you won't.

Quote:

the reson i done use a Nvidia card is that they are WAY overpriced in canada.

Agreed, nVidia cards are always a good 50-75 dollars Canadian more expensive here in Canada than if purchased in the US.

Quote:

a MSI ti200 costs the same as a radion 8500.

And performs significantly worse. However, you can get a GF3Ti200 cheaper at Future Shop.




AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 9, 2002 11:37:00 PM

No, it is only to advertise that AXPs are better on WinXP. Would you beleive me if I said the Pentium 4 flies like a speeding bullet in WinXP? Didn't think so.
Although personally WinXP is more sluggish, so you should look at AXP 2000s to ensure the best of it... IMO my 1600+ just doesn't cut it...or maybe my drive is just too filled....

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
Related resources
March 9, 2002 11:42:48 PM

Eden, if Windows XP is running slowly for you it wont be because of your processor, a 1600+ is way more than you need to just run your operating system. It's more likly to be that you don't have enough RAM, or that your hard drive isn't fast enough.

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
March 9, 2002 11:46:49 PM

Agreed. My 1.33GHz Athlon is more than enough to run WinXP perfectly smoothly assuming I have enough RAM.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2002 12:00:01 AM

on all the benchmarks on this sight the radion has recieved lower FPS usibg win XP. thats why i say it is bad under winXP.
March 10, 2002 12:02:22 AM

You're looking at very very very old benchmarks. With the latest drivers, the Radeon 8500 is up to 50% faster (especially under Windows XP).

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 10, 2002 3:07:54 AM

Yeah I thought so, I guess I need more HDD space and more than 256MB RAM to use this as a gaming machine... My god, shut downs and quitting games to desktop are really pain long sometimes.
Until today, I've yet to experience my CPU's strengh, as if I cannot feel I have an AthlonXP and for once feel the performance... I don't wanna turn to Win98, XP is just too sweet and stable, and has everything I need!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2002 3:48:45 AM

98SE still gives slightly to moderately better gaming performance on MOST systems. The only reason people like XP is that it's more stable, especially if you have a fast, unstable computer like most guys who promote VIA chipsets do. I can get away with 98SE because I have a stable computer to begin with.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
March 10, 2002 5:53:54 AM

win98se is faster, cpu wise at least. I'd only get winXP if you really need the features, or if you have 512mb of ram or more (win98 memory manager sucks).

<i>My life wasn't complete untill I tried sse-2 optimized pong</i>
March 10, 2002 8:22:18 AM

Its your ram eden.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 10, 2002 8:56:16 AM

i always thought that win98 was best for benchmarks etc cos it was faster than all over versions of windows...
i used to use 2000 and that did cut the performance down by quite a bit...


if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
March 10, 2002 9:50:08 AM

98 is slightly faster than xp, but with xp you gain, support, stability and a ton of other useful features.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 10, 2002 5:34:01 PM

any version of windows would be fine for benchmarks, as long as you were comparing the benchmarks with other tests done with the same version of windows.

<i>My life wasn't complete untill I tried sse-2 optimized pong</i>
March 11, 2002 2:49:48 PM

Hey! Why is everybody slagging on having small amounts of RAM! I have just 128 DDR and my 1800XP+ is doing just fine in WinXP thank you very much! And I do video capping and encoding simultaneously while download tons on IRC, etc, etc, etc... (... ok ok... while that is all true... I still do have RAM envy and want more... I just don't want to pay hundreds and hundreds to get it... :|

I think a badly fragmented hard drive and/or tons of tons of programs loading on start-up can slow a system down faster than anything else.

Now... as far as the WinXP vs 98 debate goes... I think the best argument for 98 is that it has been around long enough that everything has been 'fixed' for the most part. The drivers are mature, the OS is patched up, etc. However, there is no doubt that Win2k and WinXP are FAR superior kernals that are much more efficient on system resources, much more stable, etc, etc... I personally would NEVER go back to Win98 after having tasted the joys of Win2k. I currently run WinXP because it is basically Win2k with some neat new features that I wanted to make use of, and I also like to be knowledgeable about as many computer related things as possible through real-life experience.

I used to be someone who would get comfortable with something and not want it to change (ie. I hated the idea of getting away from a DOS based system to Windows 3.1.... I preferred Word Perfect for DOS over MS Word because I learned it first... etc.) Well... I am still that way but I force myself to push on to the newer things because living in the past is no way to live at all... especially in a world where technology changes so fast.
March 12, 2002 6:22:13 AM

128 megs.


When you close an app, and you have to wait 30 seconds, while the swapfile grinds, do you think thats normal?

And dont tell me it dosent happen, because even with 256 megs of ram, I had to wait 10 seconds for my game to close due to the swapfile cleaning up.

And I have an ibm 60 gig, with a set(had) swapfil size and it was defragged.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 12, 2002 6:43:30 AM

128Mb is not enough for most people.

If you are prepared to wait for stuff, great. But, why would you want to spend (and I'll use today's prices so excuse me) over $130 on a fast cpu and then go cheap on the extra $20 to have 256 instead of 128Mb memory?

If I may use a mechanical comparison - it is like buying a 5lb club hammer, then holding it right at the neck. You may as well have bought a clawhammer (no intended cpu tie in there).

Go on, be a devil and blow the extra $35 and stick another 128Mb in there - you'll be surprised at the difference. Heck, try and borrow some off someone and see what difference it makes.

-* <font color=red> !! S O L D !! </font color=red> *-
To the gentleman in the pink Tutu
March 12, 2002 6:50:03 AM

eden is being sarcastic

windows xp is better if you have 256+ memory, worse if you dont. if you ever use windows xp you will never go back to windows 98, and if your computer is quiet you will probably never turn your computer off
March 12, 2002 10:58:13 AM

Sacrastic about what?
I said I love WindowsXP, and recently have been able to get a nice computing experience, but a little slow. Old bulky games like Deus Ex have problems shutting down to desktop, take time. I am guessing the lack of technology, possibly T&L. Since new games like Commache 4 exit to desktop as fast as blinking, I can see something wrong with old ones, not all.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 12, 2002 12:14:44 PM

Eden, the exiting to desktop is a ram thing.


If a game takes up more than the amount of ram needed for it AND windows, then when you start the game, the computer unloads many of windows's requirements to the disk, this frees up enough memory to run the game fully.(which is why everything runs smooth even with only 256 megs of ram), however, when you close the game, windows unloads all the data from ram and then has to read all of the windows data back into ram from the swapfile, and while thats hapening you notice it.

If the game is small enough not to require windows to vacate the systems memory to hdd when it runs, then closing it will be a snap and instant.

I had 256 megs of ram, and everytime I would close allied assault, I would have to wait 10 seconds ish to get back to my desktop(maybe less it felt like it).


But when I added 512 so I have 768, the apps close INSTANTLY, so more ram will alleviate your issue my friend.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 12, 2002 1:43:01 PM

im running it on my p2 233, 160 megs of ram, seems fine browsing the internet and playing a few small games.

i went to the tomshardware forums and all i got was this lousy signature.
March 12, 2002 2:36:17 PM

Quote:
fine browsing the internet and playing a few small games

Exactly. Stick to applications with a very small memory use, and it'll all be peachy. Try running anything that is memory intensive (in any version of Windows) without the RAM to support it, and you'll find yourself waiting and waiting and waiting.

Not that waiting is bad. I mean I remember running applications on my Tandy with an 80088 processor and 640KB of RAM. Compared to that, anything that I do today is speedy no matter how slow people say it is. Heh heh. Speed is all relative.

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 12, 2002 2:47:31 PM

Quote:
However, there is no doubt that Win2k and WinXP are FAR superior kernals that are much more efficient on system resources, much more stable, etc, etc... I personally would NEVER go back to Win98 after having tasted the joys of Win2k.

Understatement of the century in my opinion. I've been running Windows 2000 at work and it's considerably more stable than Windows 98SE ever could be. Plus it does handle resources amazingly better. MS did a good job there.

All considered, I still don't get why Win2K gets such a bad reputation, but yet many people who rag on 2K will actually support XP. The drivers aren't Microsoft's fault, and by now most drivers are stable in Win2K. (Especially those from quality name-brand companies.) Besides, to my knowledge a WinXP machine would have the same driver issues as any Win2K machine.

Plus Win2K uses considerably less memory than WinXP does. And in Win2K I don't have to put up with useless eye-candy. So I'll take Win2K over WinXP any day of the week. And my next home-use PC will probably be a Win2K/Linux dual-boot.

My current home-use PC is still Win98SE though because it has some monumnetally old hardware in it, for which some companies don't even support anymore. So getting Win2K drivers for some of my hardware is impossible. That makes the move to Win2K at home pretty silly for me right now.

While we are on the subject of OSs though, can anyone give compelling technical reasons (eye candy doesn't count) for using XP over 2K?

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 12, 2002 3:33:55 PM

Quote:

When you close an app, and you have to wait 30 seconds, while the swapfile grinds, do you think thats normal?


I don't experience that 99% of the time.. if I did I would have upgraded by now! *IF* I was playing the most cutting edge games right now I probably would get that on exiting them - but it doesn't happen most of the time when playing Unreal Tournament (sometimes I do get 5 or so seconds of swap file cleanup when I close it... but playing it is fine...)

I stated clearly that I do primary non-stop downloading of large files through IRC, video capturing (about 8-10gigs for a 1 hour show written non-stop to the hard drive) and video encoding (compressing those huge capture files down to nice tidy divx files). I do the capturing AND encoding simultaneously! The cpu is pressed to the max, but my 128 ram holds it's own (somehow). Also, I normally would have a Windows Explorer window open, a couple IE browsers, a couple IRC sessions, a couple instances of virtual dub (doing the capping and encoding), an ftp program, and of course programs like ICQ, MSN Messenger, and other little system utilities that sit in the system tray.

My one downfall due to the ram is that after I do something particularly intensive (a game, or a couple hours of encoding), although my system is perfectly fine at that point in time... my gut just tells me I should reboot to refresh everything before I start doing anything important and stressful again - just to be safe. But that isn't because I actually have issues, it's just a defensive mindset caused by my past experiences with crappier OS's (win95/98).

As far as my 'knowledge' of what 256mb or more could do for me... I HAVE run my system with 256 and 384.... :)  So I *DO* know the difference... and Yes, I did like it better that way! But 128 does NOT cripple my system - thank goodness!

The reason I haven't upgraded currently is:
a) I bought the 256 to test if a crashing problem I had was memory related - I didn't plan on keeping it because of the brand... I just got it from a place that had a return policy :) 
b) the 256 stick worked wonderfully and fixed my problem, so I took back the 128 to the place I got my system and swapped it... the new 128 stick was fine
c) I had to build a system for my sister on a budget.. ram prices had risen a bit and so I decided to throw the 256 stick in to their system since I knew it was good - and it would be cheaper than ram currently on the market.
d) Now I wait to buy more ram for my system as the price keeps going UP! I only have 2 slots for RAM... so I want to make my next purchase a 512 stick of DDR (preferably Crucial). However, Crucial now sells for $350+ or so Canadian for a 512 stick!

Since I don't have any major issues with my current performance (save one.. which I will state in my next post)... I'm waiting for RAM prices to dip... whenever that may be... no rush...

I would NOT recommend getting a new system without at least 256 ram however. It is undoubtedly much better and will provide benefits in many ways. 128 is bare minimum and only tolerable by people who know it is working fine for the tasks they are doing - but is NOT viable for a system you expect to use with the hottest, newest software/games.

PS - In response to the post saying to pony up the $35 to get the extra 128... that would be about $80+ here in Canada with the going ddr ram prices + tax.
March 12, 2002 3:47:06 PM

Quote:

While we are on the subject of OSs though, can anyone give compelling technical reasons (eye candy doesn't count) for using XP over 2K?


The reasons I moved to it and stayed were:
1) To see it, feel it, touch it, and know it. Knowledge is good :) 
2) It is basically 2k with some additional features, functionality, patches, etc. For the most part it just makes everything a bit 'easier'
3) The mutliple-user functionality: All users are listed on a splash screen and you click on the icon representing yourself to log in. So far this has just given a pretty interface to the user login dialog box from NT/2k... the new and wonderful feature is that you can leave programs running, and switch to another user!! This allows for multiple people to log in at the SAME time on the SAME machine! You can set up your account with all of your personal visual settings, bookmarks, programs, (MSN, ICQ, etc. are good ones for this feature)... and then other users can do the same... If you are online and your sister/wife/whatever wants to check their email or surf for 30 minutes.. you can just 'Switch User' and they do their thing while your programs keep running... when they are done, you just switch back to yourself and pick up where you left off. You can also password protect your account (obviously) and it kicks back to that splash screen after 10 minutes by default I believe so any user can just walk up to the computer and click on their name and voila....
3) Uhhh... the Teletubbies rule... and therefore I want my computer to look like Teletubbyland... :o 

.. did I just say that? Yikes... MS must have some kind of brainwashing mechanism in XP....
March 12, 2002 3:51:13 PM

Now finally for my one ram related issue where I think 128 seriously doesn't cut it in WinXP.

For the above mentioned mutli-user functionality I have encountered an issue where my machine will lock up and crash if I try to 'log out' of an account when in 2 or more accounts.

I can 'Switch Users' between accounts without any issues, and I can wait for an account to timeout back to the splash screen and then enter another user account... but if I choose to 'log off' an account... it almost certainly will hang.

My guess is that this is due to my 128 ram. I think running muliple user account logins at once with their associated programs, etc. is highly taxing on the ram, and logging out must involve too much cleanup and such so as to crash the computer?

My fingers are long-winded today.. sorry
March 12, 2002 5:37:07 PM

Interesting reasons, but none are exactly compelling technical reasons.

1) I could see, feel, and touch a pile of moose droppings, but that doesn't mean doing so is something that I would enjoy. ;) 

2) From what I have heard, it makes hardware configuration a lot harder whenever XP doesn't set everything up correctly automatically. And you say it has additional features, functionality, and patches, yet you provide only two: Multi-user enhancement and appearance. Personally, I think XP's appearance is a point against it.

3) I'm the only person using my machines. Ever. To me, the multi-user features are just a waste of my memory and hard drive space to support. One day in the distant future, if I ever decide to have kids, I may have a different opinion. However, as of right now my wife and I each have our own computers at home, and I have my own computer at work. So multi-user support is meaningless to me.

4) I'm surprised that no one has as of yet made a Q3/HL/UT/etc. expansion that allows you to gun down the Teletubbies. If someone has, please provide a link. ;) 

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 12, 2002 6:22:06 PM

Ok... my posts had gotten long enough that I didn't want to keep typing like a madman supporting WinXP... which as everyone already knows... is 90% win2k...

Examples of "additional features, functionality, and patches" are better read directly from the Microsoft website I guess. But, I will point out that simple things (for us), but things that the average computer user has no clue about are included... such as VIA 4in1 patches.

As far as the appearance goes, you can make it look and function just like Win2k... so if you love your win2k... you don't really have to leave it (but I do like the clean desktop look at feel of XP now that I am used to it).

Basically... for us technically knowledgeable folks... changing from win2k is not necessary. But, why stay with Win2k if you are at a point where you are starting from a fresh install and have the option (for free) to go to WinXP? I don't think it's worth upgrading from a perfectly stable win2k install that works for you... and not worth forking out the cash for XP just to upgrade your current win2k system. But from a pure choice point of view to start on a new system... I would choose XP simply because it is Win2k with a bit extra. It is the OS that will be primary supported and developed for moving forward, etc...

Oh yeah... and the authentication scheme sucks big 'stuff'... that makes me just want to go Linux and ditch Microsoft.

For the average user WinXP wins hands down for it's ease of use and user friendliness. For knowledgeable users... if you get past your initial gag reflex and are assimilated by the Teletubbies (resistance is futile).... you will have no qualms with WinXP performance wise compared to 2k I think. (and you can always change the way it looks)

Quote:

1) I could see, feel, and touch a pile of moose droppings, but that doesn't mean doing so is something that I would enjoy. ;) 


And you missed the point there... seeing, feeling and touching XP in this case is good because I make my living in the computer field. I am looked to by my companies, friends and family for computer advice and support, etc. How much of guru will you be if you stubbornly stick with your Windows 3.1 (which you think is perfectly fine thank you very much) while the world passes you by?
March 12, 2002 7:46:21 PM

Quote:
And you missed the point there... seeing, feeling and touching XP in this case is good because I make my living in the computer field. I am looked to by my companies, friends and family for computer advice and support, etc. How much of guru will you be if you stubbornly stick with your Windows 3.1 (which you think is perfectly fine thank you very much) while the world passes you by?

I was just being silly. A <b>lot</b> of pros have that opinion though. I expect that MS sales of Win2K are going to remain strong long after XP is old news just because of this.

I've got the same problem as you, being looked up to for advice and support and all. So far though, I haven't been able to get past the gag reflex involved with just installing/registering XP to even install it on a toy system. Maybe one day I will, but you can bet that if I do, it will be using creative means of bypassing MS's servers. I mean I change hardware often enough that the whole concept of invalidating my license for making so many changes is enough to keep me from desiring to make that move.

For that reason alone, if I had XP on my machine at work, I'd probably quit my job or go insane. I'd definately have to have MS on speed-dial, that's for sure. ;)  Heh heh.

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 12, 2002 8:00:38 PM

Yes but here's another thing:
My friend has Win98SE, a K6-2 500MHZ and 256SDRAM. Ok?
Now he plays Deus Ex on a rotty GeforceDDR where frame rate is absolute crap, even at medium settings. He plays a bit, exits. Bam back to desktop ready to work.
How do you explain that? Win98?
IMO it has somewhat some relation to technology itself.
That would explain why my CPU heats up and therefore the Volcano 7 has incredible noise when playing Deus Ex compared to new games, which I conclude has to do with the fact the new games use T&L of the card, which removes the CPU strain and therefore CPU does less work and heats less. If I am not right on this, bring me a donkey and I'll kiss his butt...

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 12, 2002 8:04:54 PM

Unfortunately you're wrong. He can jump right back to the desktop because he has Windows 98 and you have Windows XP. Windows XP uses a lot more RAM than WinXP. Besides, my conputer hardly ever heats up at all. My idle and load temps are about the same, and my Volcano 7 doesn't significantly raise in RPM.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 12, 2002 8:05:46 PM

Quote:

I expect that MS sales of Win2K are going to remain strong long after XP is old news just because of this.


That is very possible. Simply the fact that companies are likely to be moving to Win2k as their new platform as opposed to the WinXP 'home' OS. Upgrading costs big $$ so MS will be selling 2k licenses for many years to come until they have their next major business OS on the market. A perfect example of this is my current employer. I'm stuck using WinNT, but at least an upgrade project to Win2k is underway and I should be switched over by July (thank goodness!!!!!)

As far as that Microsoft registration thing... I agree 100% that it keeps people away. The 'creative means' to avoid the registration features already exists... I think getting a copy of the Professional version is enough to not have to worry about registration. Of course that would have to be a legal copy for your work computer....
March 13, 2002 1:08:36 AM

Oh well the last paragraph about T&L in old games, is seperate from the main topic about the exit to desktop so you can rephrase if you meant otherwise!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 13, 2002 6:01:58 AM

I agree. I have a stable system (with VIA if ya can believe that) and I will never get rid of my WIN98SE untill I see something worth while to use.

Crap, all the good ones are already taken.
March 13, 2002 6:14:08 AM

Quote:
Since I don't have any major issues with my current performance (save one.. which I will state in my next post)... I'm waiting for RAM prices to dip... whenever that may be... no rush...


Ram prices are NOT going back down, they were at an all time low and the ram makers were selling the chips at less than the cost to produce them, leading to near closures of many of the dramurai.

The prices will continue to rise to pre drought levels and hover, so buy now before the price goes up again!!!


"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 13, 2002 6:16:09 AM

Quote:
2) From what I have heard, it makes hardware configuration a lot harder whenever XP doesn't set everything up correctly automatically. And you say it has additional features, functionality, and patches, yet you provide only two: Multi-user enhancement and appearance. Personally, I think XP's appearance is a point against it.


You can set it to default(thus removing the facny negatives), also xp has cleartype which 2k dosent have.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 13, 2002 6:18:16 AM

Quote:
Now he plays Deus Ex on a rotty GeforceDDR where frame rate is absolute crap, even at medium settings. He plays a bit, exits. Bam back to desktop ready to work.
How do you explain that? Win98?


Win98 uses less sytem ram than xp, simple as that.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
March 13, 2002 1:20:00 PM

What is cleartype?

Just curious.. and I'm too lazy to look it up elsewhere... heh
March 13, 2002 2:12:18 PM

Windows XP includes an enhanced text anti-aliasing technique called ClearType. Enabling it makes text look rounder and smoother.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
March 13, 2002 5:05:05 PM

it's your drive ... it's too slow ... my computer with an axp 1600+ on winxp is screaming. I have the latest maxtor drive wit it's 7ms average seek time according to the latest sisoft sandra benchmark. this maxtor has the fluid dynamic bearings or whatever, point is it's quiet.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
March 13, 2002 5:45:39 PM

Funky. I've never had a problem reading text though, so I'm not sure if I have any real use for Clear Type. [shrug] Well, maybe I'll do XP one day. That day is looking to be considerably distant in the future though. I think poor Cel would keel over dead if I tried XP at home. And there is no way I'm putting it on my machine at work until I find a way to disable the hardware changes disables my OS licence 'feature'.

<pre>If you let others think for you, you're the
only one to blame when things go wrong.</pre><p>
March 13, 2002 7:35:49 PM

Quote:
While we are on the subject of OSs though, can anyone give compelling technical reasons (eye candy doesn't count) for using XP over 2K?

Remote desktop. This feature rules and will be included in the .NET server releases. Now I have my dual P3, RAID 5 machine at work on the 100Mbs LAN safely hidden behind its firewall / proxy and can easily access the files / programs when ever I want, from where ever I want. This gives me the accessibility/ reliability/ security (MS? security?) I need. Awsome feature, the only reason to install the hacked upgrade from 2K - oh although my 3D Mark 2001 sucked on 2001.
March 13, 2002 7:42:55 PM

Windows Update is much easier, though not as useful on dialup.

Compatability mode is very nice, as is driver rollback.

Integrated zip is very nice, as you can search for and find a file inside a zip archive.

The web service for file extensions lets you discover and download the appropriate program for using files of unkown types. Very useful.

More stable than W2k, and lots of little features (like measuring uptime) that I don't feel like explaining.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
March 13, 2002 7:46:00 PM

I currently have a 15GB Maxtor 7200rpm drive.
So I should look for drives with low ms, right?
Yes they are silent though, I can't hear it in any way!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
March 13, 2002 8:17:29 PM

I never look for seek times for IDE drives. When I bought my hard drives, I saw 5 different seek times listed. And that was only from the place I bought them from.

Just look at benchmarks, that's my advice.

With SCSI hard drives, the seek time is more meaningful.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
Don't step in the sarcasm!
March 13, 2002 8:48:53 PM

Well thats the general idea. The average acces time in ms isn't everything. The buffer size and RPM's can make an impact on performance as well as the technology the drive is using.

15GB is fairly huge .... but if you have it filled up or always looking for space then ya a new drive is justifiable in my own opinion.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
March 14, 2002 1:01:37 AM

The most important measurement in harddrive performance is in fact the seek time. This really affects the amount of delay between when you click on something and when you see something happen. If it needs to be loaded off the hard drive, then it will popup twice as fast on a hard drive with half the seek time. Hard drive bandwidth really only starts to matter when you are reading and writing a massive amount of data very quickly from huge non-fragmented files.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
March 14, 2002 2:15:32 AM

<font color=red>98SE still gives slightly to moderately better gaming performance on MOST systems. The only reason people like XP is that it's more stable, especially if you have a fast, unstable computer like most guys who promote VIA chipsets do. I can get away with 98SE because I have a stable computer to begin with.</font color=red>

I'm running XP1800 w a KT133A, very very very stable, it has not crashed, or hiccup since I put it together about three weeks ago. Also, I am using win98se. I agree with you I think most people like XP because of the stability, but, boy do I get my head bashed in if I say 98 is faster. I see your still in once piece. Being a respected member, you must be correct :wink: .
March 14, 2002 2:22:32 AM

LOL wow the only differnice with my system and yours is Mine a Pro. I agree with you about win 98. I have no lock ups or anything.
a b à CPUs
March 14, 2002 2:49:17 AM

It has always been possible to build a solid VIA chipset system, by skill or luck, but not worthwhile for me (skill takes too much time, and I'm a little short on luck).

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
!