Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

This is probably a stupid question, but....

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 28, 2002 2:50:59 AM

I heard somewhere that Athlon XPs run faster and more efficiently under Windows XP than other operating systems because they were designed for WinXP. True or not?

More about : stupid question

April 28, 2002 5:59:24 AM

This is called marketing. Both Intel and AMD worked with Microsoft.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
April 28, 2002 7:10:22 AM

One wonders why intel didnt get on the XP naming bandwagon... everyone else has LOL

Despite appearances im not Phsysic. I may need your system specifications to solve your problem!
Related resources
April 28, 2002 1:18:45 PM

Quote:
One wonders why intel didnt get on the XP naming bandwagon... everyone else has LOL

It would've cost Intel too much money to revamp their marketing on their P4s, but AMD had a new proc waiting for a name.
April 28, 2002 1:23:12 PM

Is it so hard to rename the P4, the P4 XP?

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 28, 2002 1:30:07 PM

No, I guess not but Intel is a big company, they can survive without the XP hype and all.
April 28, 2002 1:51:56 PM

So yes? No? I just installed a version of XP(Yes I know it's illegal cuz i don't own it, but screw microsoft for charging that much) because I wanted to try something. When I rip a movie in win2000 i only get like 23 frames per second, but in XP it's up to like 26 or 27. So I guess it's true? Or I just have really weird luck. Either way, I don't really plan on keeping XP on. It's not cool. Win2000 is much better IMO.
April 28, 2002 2:20:20 PM

Quote:
I don't really plan on keeping XP on. It's not cool. Win2000 is much better IMO.


Xp is faster but you think 2k is better?


Strange, since there is little difference between 2k and xp except that xp gets more support and has several more features over 2k, but to each their own I suppose.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 28, 2002 2:22:57 PM

Well, since it's an illegal version, I say get rid of it ASAP!

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 28, 2002 2:35:10 PM

well if i live in the US , Canada , ... yes , but not if u live in a place where the xp costs as much as half as the average employee salary !

Any mystery devised by mortal mind can be solved therewith
April 28, 2002 2:42:54 PM

Yeah. I dunno. XP just gave me a lot of driver issues and stuff like that. It's faster yes, but I also don't have a legit copy of it, so knowing my luck I'd somehow get busted for it and that's not cool at all. I'm not sure if the copy i downloaded off an ftp site is an actual copy that prevents the protection stuff or not, so I don't really wanna take that chance. Given time, I do feel that XP will be better than 2000, but it's still sorta buggy for me, and win2k isn't. That and the protection issue are my only 2 justifications for going back to win2k.
April 28, 2002 6:54:50 PM

It depends on your hardware. If you have sketchy components, a lot of generic stuff, you might have to spend some time hunting down drivers. I've been there and done that.

With my system I don't have to install any drivers, but I of course install the new detonators.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
April 28, 2002 6:56:42 PM

I also think evaluating an illegal and possibly unreliable version of XP is just a waste of your time.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
April 28, 2002 7:40:15 PM

Yeah lol, last summer, my bro bought over 10 games for 5$ each in Beirut!

But I no longer put illegal OS copies. I bought my own WinXP Home, and am glad to, because I am guaranteed full operation and support for any problem, including by my own local shop.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 28, 2002 7:55:39 PM

I actually like XP a lot.

It's the only OS that works out of the box ... meaning it detects everything no drivers are needed to be installed to have it work right.

And there ARE tweaks to make it run even faster.

You can take off the stupid XP skin and stuff and make it look like windows 2000. ... you can even make things win2k compatible and it'll work fine.

XP is greta in my opinion .. once SP1 comes out it should be even better as it will fix a bunch of major/minor bugs.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 28, 2002 8:01:45 PM

So far, I haven't seen any "major" WinXP bugs.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 28, 2002 8:19:10 PM

I have found one very annoying interface bug though. The arrow that appears when there are hidden system tray icons sometimes disappears leaving some of the icons hidden without access.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 28, 2002 9:43:28 PM

Yes, that's one of them. The other is the media player and it's inability to sort and play random playlists. They're fixing the later SP1. I'm sure they'll fix the first one too. I think that's related to stupid programs like icq though.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
April 28, 2002 10:39:55 PM

stupid you are, stupid you'll stay.


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...<font color=red>
April 28, 2002 10:42:36 PM

Quote:
Strange, since there is little difference between 2k and xp except that xp gets more support and has several more features over 2k, but to each their own I suppose.

is that actually true? I ask because I'm considering getting xp and I currently own 2k. One reason, I think, to not get xp is because of all the privacy issues I keep reading articles about.

<b>Studies have shown that most people prefer the taste of AMD to the taste of Intel</b>
April 28, 2002 10:46:23 PM

Quote:
I also think evaluating an illegal and possibly unreliable version of XP is just a waste of your time.

I agree. If there's any software on a person's computer that one should make absolutely sure is bought and paid for and gets all the support that comes with paying for it, it's whatever Microsoft's latest OS is. I always have a period of a couple months after a new OS install where I'm on the phone with those guys every couple weeks until I finally understand where things go wrong THIS TIME and how to fix it.

<b>Studies have shown that most people prefer the taste of AMD to the taste of Intel</b>
April 29, 2002 1:23:22 AM

Forgive my late ignorance, but what exactly is very beneficial of Service Packs?
I do hope that they find something that improves further WinXP's performance speed and stuff, fix some long shutdown bugs, put some sense into Creative' ass mind and do drivers that FIX the devldr not closing at shut down bug...

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 29, 2002 1:31:16 AM

I've heard a lot about bugs in XP...and well, I think it's funny how Microsoft released this particular version. It was barely beta tested upon it's release (compared to previous releases). I'm not paying for an OS that still has so many bugs, as that's like paying Microsoft to be a beta tester! But, if a multiboot of Win2K pro, DOS, and 98se weren't my current setups, I would probably go for XP...but I have all I need right now. If there's something that has problems in one, I can run it in another.

I would like to throw Linux in there...but I'm gonna wait until I get setup with some hotswap drives, as it was mighty quarky on my other OS hard drives. Maybe they'll teach me how in my new classes...

DIM POST, STUPID
POST = INPUT $X
STUPID = PEEK 420, 255
IF POST >= STUPID, THEN GOTO H3LL
April 29, 2002 1:38:50 AM

Quote:
is that actually true? I ask because I'm considering getting xp and I currently own 2k. One reason, I think, to not get xp is because of all the privacy issues I keep reading articles about.


If you own 2k I cant justify the extra cost for xp, they are too similar.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 29, 2002 1:43:00 AM

I personally love WinXP's new interface. Refreshing, colorful, more user inviting, less serious.
Sure it's costly on performance, especially low RAM systems, but once you have 512MB, on a system above 1.4GHZ, you're definitly not losing anything.
About everything in WinXP is a jump forward, with awesome results, more safety. Only thing I hate, is DOS in it. I can't play Doom 2 like before, rather have to use ZDoom which switches my SB Live's music to new age MIDI, not old-style Doom 2.
Also why do people say it doesn't have DOS, when clearly there's a Command Prompt program in Start? What do they call that? Even CHKDSK when used in the Run command, opens a DOS window!

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 29, 2002 1:49:13 AM

I just installed 2k on a friends computer, having JOYFULLY nuked partitioned and formatted winME out of existance.

duron800, kt133, 128mb ram, 20gb hdd.

worked flawlessly, first go.


Despite appearances im not Phsysic. I may need your system specifications to solve your problem!
April 29, 2002 2:16:09 AM

The service pack will just be minor fixes as well as all the windows update files. I don't really think microsoft needs to do much more than that. I suppose they could put newer drivers on there, like detonators for example, but what else?

The OS is as good as they get. I like it. People complaining about bugs and such have most likely not used it.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
April 29, 2002 2:20:13 AM

Quote:
I'm not paying for an OS that still has so many bugs, as that's like paying Microsoft to be a beta tester! But, if a multiboot of Win2K pro, DOS, and 98se weren't my current setups, I would probably go for XP...but I have all I need right now. If there's something that has problems in one, I can run it in another.


You can move on with your life now. You can easily single boot now. At the very least, only use 2K. Why in the world you have to triple boot is beyond me. What bugs are you talking about?

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
April 29, 2002 2:40:11 AM

Well...the main reason I have those is I was happy with 98se, but needed to study 2kpro and DOS to test out of some college classes [needed a refresher on the specifics, even though I am quite fluent in using them]...and I like it, so I keep it. There are a few things that can be done with one and not the other. And as for bugs, I only know what I've heard and read...I don't have XP.

Does that flexability scare you dhlucke? Computers are most my life ya goon. Work with computers, school on computers, a lot of play on them. The only time for anything else is on the weekends...thank god when it's Friday.

DIM POST, STUPID
POST = INPUT $X
STUPID = PEEK 420, 255
IF POST >= STUPID, THEN GOTO H3LL
April 29, 2002 3:05:08 AM

Thanks for the kind words.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
April 29, 2002 3:10:58 AM

Hell ya, only old game I still enjoy. Classic, yet entertaining. Can't wait for Doom 3.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 29, 2002 7:07:44 AM

nothing runs faster in winXP..



<i>My life wasn't complete untill I tried sse-2 optimized pong</i>
April 29, 2002 9:42:15 AM

Quote:
Also why do people say it doesn't have DOS, when clearly there's a Command Prompt program in Start? What do they call that? Even CHKDSK when used in the Run command, opens a DOS window!

It's not actual DOS. It's basically a way to perform functions in windows through a familiar interface, but you're still operating in windows. For Win95, for instance, DOS was actually the root os, and windows95 ran over it (even MS tried to say it didn't.) The only difference was that no DOS drivers were included, so you couldn't run DOS progs. According to MS it was because "With Windows 95, you'll never NEED DOS! Windows will have all the functionality you need!" Yeah... except being able to use my DOS progs... Most people either downloaded drivers designed to run in the weird funky DOS or installed an older better DOS (6.1, etc...) under Win95. However, Win2k and XP don't have that DOS anymore. The command prompt is more like a nostalgic emulator than anything else. Try it sometime. Go in there and try to switch to another drive by just typing "D:/" like you used to be able to.

<b>Studies have shown that most people prefer the taste of AMD to the taste of Intel</b>
April 29, 2002 9:45:29 AM

If it follows Win2k's example, The Service Pack will probably also include security patches and make the OS more stable. Admittedly, though, I have no idea how stable or not stable XP is, so perhaps that's not necessary.

<b>Studies have shown that most people prefer the taste of AMD to the taste of Intel</b>
April 29, 2002 9:50:17 AM

Quote:
It was barely beta tested upon it's release (compared to previous releases). I'm not paying for an OS that still has so many bugs, as that's like paying Microsoft to be a beta tester!

What makes you say that? I remember there being leaked Betas of that OS floating around irc channels for over a year before it came out. Further, it's not REALLY like paying to be a beta tester. That's just the rallying cry of the impatient. Beta Testers get much buggier software in advance knowing that they are, in fact, risking the livelihood of their computer. Further, there's no tech support for Beta Testers since they're encountering the problem first. Someone will always have some problem that no one could predict with the initial release of a product. Honestly, I personally don't buy anything first gen. Wait until the dust settles. A lot of WinME owners would be a lot happier if they'd done so.

<b>Studies have shown that most people prefer the taste of AMD to the taste of Intel</b>
April 29, 2002 12:02:02 PM

Yeah, I mean even the RC versions including Beta of WinXP, had been reported as fully stable! If anything, MS did a powerful job in this HOME OS.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 29, 2002 12:03:04 PM

Most people will agree though, that Win2K is still more stable than WinXP, with the latter coming in a very close second. Possibly because you don't put as much junk on it as a home user would with WinXP, but who knows?

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
April 29, 2002 12:23:20 PM

Hmm, I was a paying beta tester! I paid $10 to beta test WinXP 6 months before it was released.

Even then, it was stable! Too bad it expired. :frown: I'm using WinXP Home now which I bought for $30 or $40, I can't remember.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 29, 2002 1:01:20 PM

Further, there's no tech support for Beta Testers since they're encountering the problem first. Someone will always have some problem that no one could predict with the initial release of a product. Honestly, I personally don't buy anything first gen. Wait until the dust settles. A lot of WinME owners would be a lot happier if they'd done so.

-----------
Well, axwe, the beta testers are generally in direct communication with the programmers, being much better than tech support, as that is why they are testing: to inform production of what needs to be addresses prior to release. And I agree on the first gen thing...seems like gen2 is always "Fixed bugs on..."

And it always seems to work out that the major bugs in the initial releases apply to me.

doh!

DIM POST, STUPID
POST = INPUT $X
STUPID = PEEK 420, 255
IF POST >= STUPID, THEN GOTO H3LL
April 29, 2002 1:29:07 PM

Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, and Millennium run on a true real mode DOS core. In all of those operating systems you have the option of booting into *DOS* and skipping the GUI altogether. In any of these, you can type "win" from DOS to start up Windows. Most people choose to just go into the GUI directly. However, because of this real mode core, Microsoft was able to offer a pretty functional DOS shell within the GUI itself, almost as robust as the true real mode version but with better performance because it can use some of the 32-bit functionality within Windows. It takes whatever drivers and TSRs you loaded in config.sys and autoexec.bat and keeps them in the 640K of the DOS shell as well. That's why many programs, like Doom 2, can be fooled into thinking that the DOS shell was actually real DOS. It allows direct access to hardware interrupts, DMA channels, and memory addresses so sound cards can work flawlessly for the most part. I run most of my DOS games inside a Windows Millennium DOS shell, but occasionally I have to boot up into the real mode DOS within Millennium to play a particularly picky game.

However, NT, 2000, and XP emulate DOS. They are all based on the same core that dates back to NT 3.51 or something, which came out around 1993. This family of OSes is unable to offer direct access to the interrupts and DMA channels that the sound card needs, so it won't work unless fooled by third party hacks like VDMS. Try VDMS, I heard it works pretty well.

Ritesh
April 29, 2002 1:36:11 PM

I'm using XP Pro and have been encountering some unsigned driver issues. Also, when I try to install the driver for my AIW 7500 remote, I crash. Stick with 2K and let others deal with the headaches.
April 29, 2002 3:36:36 PM

The only downsides I've every heard about XP (short of hardware requirements, which are understandable) are second- or third-hand things. Lots of people saying "Well, I heard that...", but not really anybody saying "I had this problem that...". Sounds kind of familiar, but I'm not quite sure- oh, that's right. That's what all the 98 users said when everyone was upgrading to 2k.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 29, 2002 4:25:00 PM

That's why hearsay is not allowed in court, it's unreliable information. :tongue:

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
April 29, 2002 4:32:31 PM

Unsigned drivers aren't a problem, just accept the dialog box and install anyways. That's just microsoft doing their thing.

If you're having problems with your 7500, ask in the graphics card section for some help.

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2002 4:37:01 PM

For whats it worth.. I have no issues at all with XP so far.. been running it since it came out, never reinstalled it even once. My only "issue" is that I formatted my disk with FAT32 to allow for a dual boot win98 for a while (which I got rid off), and Im considering reinstalling to get the full NTFS advantages. But one can hardly blame XP for that. Besides that, everything works as advertised. the only app that sometimes crashes, is IE6, and even that is very rare, and doesnt require me to reboot. All my hardware works, with the exception of a *very* old primax parallel port scanner, but that didnt work under win2k either (no drivers). The interface can be argued over, if you dont like, switch it to win2K style GUI. All the other bells and whistels are welcome imho, like the update notifications and such... I like XP, cant help it.

One last remark: 512Mb *does* help significantly compared to 256Mb. A lot if you play games, and always run msn messenger, icq, a firewall, seti@home, MBM and an antivirus, like most of you probably do. Switching from one user to another goes very quick then. With 256 Mb it took forever. Loading times of Return To Castle Wolfenstein are also cut in half.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 29, 2002 4:43:36 PM

Will XP be more stable than W2000, and this more stable than W98SE and so on if I'm using K6-2 CPU? I suppose that with K7 this is something resolved, but with older procesors ...

I just asking because I have some problems with my K6-2 PC, and I was thinking about upgrading from W98SE to W2000. Is it the right solution? Or I should take another actions before to resolt these problems?

Thanks in advance!
April 29, 2002 4:46:57 PM

2k or XP should be more stable than 98 no matter what hardware you're using. But it sounds like you're in need of a hardware upgrade as well :tongue:

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
!