Performance question Win98se vs win2000 vs XP pro

  • Thread starter Thread starter gtm1REMOVETOREPLY
  • Start date Start date
G

gtm1REMOVETOREPLY

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
 
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).
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Mike said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I said so if he has buggy drivers/software he'll still have
crashes..
 
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.
 
Back
Top