Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

W2K == -250MHz? *ouch*

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • W2K == -250MHz? *ouch*

    Check out this CNet article: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1551163.html

    Intel is saying that you need 250MHz of more CPU power to get roughly the equivalent performance in W2K as in NT4 or W9X. *ouch* So if I just overclocked my Athlon to 850, if I also "upgrade" to W2K, does it make it effectively an Athlon 600? Holy cow what a waste!

    Also check out this other CNet article for the extra licensing costs if you actually want to network with W2K: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1553352.html

    No thanks. I'm trying to tune my PC for gaming. Where do you want to go today? Let's downgrade you by 250 MHz, eh?

  • #2
    Don´t believe all you read. I don´t have win2k (yet) but it suposedly loads faster and feels faster than 9x. Much more stable defenitly. Even Matrox win2k beta drivers are coming close in performance to the win9x ones.

    -250 Mhz? Nah... don´t think so. It´s more Intel dirty marketing trying to convince PII450 users to upgrade to the shiny new coppermine 700 with a i820 mobo + rdram too

    Comment


    • #3
      When I installed a larger hard drive on my wife's Micron Transport XKE laptop, I installed Win 2000 RC2 on it for a try. It's just a 233MHz Pentium with 96MB RAM and it worked very well.

      Aside from processor size they ought to be reminding folks about the amount of space needed for the op system alone. From 700MB to 1GB depending on config.



      [This message has been edited by SCompRacer (edited 22 February 2000).]
      MSI K7D Master L, Water Cooled, All SCSI
      Modded XP2000's @ 1800 (12.5 x 144 FSB)
      512MB regular Crucial PC2100
      Matrox P
      X15 36-LP Cheetahs In RAID 0
      LianLiPC70

      Comment


      • #4
        That´s because Intel doesn´t manufacture hard-drives

        Comment


        • #5
          Read your own post Thundrchez! What it means is that Win2k runs applications faster, but has a higher overhead (more system things going on in the background). Therefore, a fast system (>250 MHz) is required before the quicker running of applications can cancel out the effect of the higher system overhead. Therefore, with your Athlon 850, you would get a quite large increase in speed over Win9x or NT with Win2k. It's much faster than NT with my dual P3-500s. The line you misunderstood was "equivalent performance". Definitely wanna go with Win2k when good drivers are available for all of your devices.

          Jon
          My baby...

          QDI Brilliant IV - Bios 2.0 Beta (Win2000 updates - email me if you want it!)
          2 Pentium III 500 MHz
          256 MB PC-100 SDRAM
          Matrox Millenium G200 8 MB SGRAM - Bios 2.6-20
          2 Creative Labs 3D Blaster Voodoo2 12 MB (SLI...)
          Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live!
          Klipsch ProMedia v.2-400
          Quantum Viking 4.5 GB UW SCSI (weak...)
          Creative Labs PC-DVD Encore 2X
          Iomega 1GB Jazz

          All running on Win2000...

          Comment


          • #6
            noackjr, where does that article say that W2K runs applications faster? You have a quote of a Microsoft W2K product manager spinmeister saying that it runs faster than w9x and nt4. I don't trust microsoft spinmeisters that do not provide the sources for their statistics.

            Rather, in that article, Intel, Gartner Group, and Competetive Systems Analysts all agree that you need a good CPU upgrade to get comprable performance. Dell is starting to ship a normal joe user computer with dual cpus to help w2k along. (read about that here http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1548999.html ).

            Why can't w2k be a fast low overhead operating system? Why is there so much bloat in it? Is optimized software programming a thing of the past?

            (No, I have not overclocked my Athlon to 850 MHz. I was just doing a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the spread. That 250MHz spread takes you from the top of the line premium price cpu running at 850MHz giving you only the performance of the bottom of the line 600MHz.)

            Comment


            • #7
              I gotta P3 450 at 600 and win2k loads apps faster and seems smoother than win 98r2..Im thinkin games will run well when I get all the driver issues settled..I run both os'es every day and It just doesnt feel slower no way.. Matt

              ------------------
              Abit BF6, P3 450 AT 620, G400 32meg Dh ,Promise fasttrack striping 2 Quantum ka 18gig's + 2 10gig IBM's ,Sb-live platinum ,Cambridge Fps2000 speakers ,Onstream 30gig tape ,Sony cdrw ,toshiba dvd, Lotsa fans,cables ,noise....

              Abit BF6, P3 secc 700E AT 1001,alpha cooler,256 megs Micron 7.5ns pc133 ram, G400 32meg Dh ,Promise fasttrack striping 2 Quantum ka 18gig's + 2 10gig IBM's ,Sb-live platinum ,Cambridge Fps2000 speakers ,Onstream 30gig tape ,Sony cdrw ,toshiba dvd, Lotsa fans,cables ,noise....

              Comment


              • #8
                With dual PIII 500's, it runs like a dream, and it apparently handles SMP much better than NT 4. I installed it on a single processor, Celeron 525-based system, and I find it a bit clunkier. It only has 128 Mb of RAM, however, and that's an issue.

                Paul
                paulcs@flashcom.net

                Comment


                • #9
                  Let me clarify something:
                  Yes, it has more overhead. No, an Athlon at 850 under Win2k will not run like Athlon 600 running under Win9x or NT. Think of the 250 MHz thing to be kinda the "activation energy" for Win2k (I should also quote a minimum amount of RAM too - greater than 64 is vital and 128 or more works well). Above this amount Win2k will equal or outperform Win9x or NT in most cases. Check out http://www.zdnet.com/zdhubs/stories/...426073,00.html for some benchmarking with varying memory amounts and partitioning. By the way, before I got a Bios upgrade for my motherboard I was running on just a single P3-500 and it was faster for me than in Win9x. The ultimate point here is they weren't trying to say that Win2k knocked off 250 MHz of your processing power, but that systems with processors at or below that speed would run faster in Win9x or NT.

                  Well, your comment on bloated operating systems is valid. Microsoft has made most things in Win2k more efficient. However, they've added a lot to it that was not in Win9x or NT. If you have >250 MHz and >64 MB I believe you would be pleasantly surprised by it. And if your system exceeds these specs by a lot, then you will love it. It is more stable than Win9x or NT and it handles memory much better than them as well.

                  If you have any other questions about Win2k, I'm sure everyone in this forum including me would be more than willing to try and answer them. However, if you want to rant about MS products take it to the Soapbox.

                  Jon
                  My baby...

                  QDI Brilliant IV - Bios 2.0 Beta (Win2000 updates - email me if you want it!)
                  2 Pentium III 500 MHz
                  256 MB PC-100 SDRAM
                  Matrox Millenium G200 8 MB SGRAM - Bios 2.6-20
                  2 Creative Labs 3D Blaster Voodoo2 12 MB (SLI...)
                  Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live!
                  Klipsch ProMedia v.2-400
                  Quantum Viking 4.5 GB UW SCSI (weak...)
                  Creative Labs PC-DVD Encore 2X
                  Iomega 1GB Jazz

                  All running on Win2000...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Win2000 is to me what win98 should have been. I've been using it personally at home and at work for over a month. At home I have : cel 300a@450 128mb ram, g400 , at work cel 400, 128mb ram, tnt2. Software I use at both locations is: adobe photoshop 4,5,5.5
                    adobe illustrator 8, adobe dimensions 3, macromedia dream team (flash 3,4, dreamweaver 2,3,fireworks 2,3) office 2000.

                    At home (and at work occasionally) I play, half-life, quake3, unrealtournament, tribes, homeworld.)

                    All the software is noticably faster loading, more responsive wile in use (less thrash induced hangs ala NT4) and there are no longer the annoying problems of GDI low mem whwn running illustrator and fireworks.

                    THe hardware is by no means powerful by todays standards, but by removing the constant crashing of win98 while still retaining the performance win2000 gets waxling's two thumbs up award

                    [This message has been edited by waxling (edited 23 February 2000).]

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X