If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
Maxim S. Shatskih wrote:
LOL. WinXP is like a slug compared to 9x, you have performance quite backwards. On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB, where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue. Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there is no reason to shun it. I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware, which runs fine on modern OSes. In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk. I understand how you are looking at this Maxim. It isn't that simple though. I've never used MS Virtual PC so I can't say anything about that. But, I do use System Commander. I need to run Win98 on one PC because of software that will not run on NT, 2000 or XP. I have tried putting Win98 and another OS on that PC and that causes problems. The software I use on 98 has problems with another OS using System Commander. I'm not an expert on the problem but I'll try to explain what I know of it. The software has layer problems unless everything runs a certain way. When I add another OS, many problems start. The software really doesn't mesh well when I add another OS with System Commander. I don't know if I'd have the same problems with MS Virtual PC. It's worth a try though. The drive isn't USB, although it could be. I am using it with a firewire card. Christine -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
kony wrote:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:14:25 +0300, "Maxim S. Shatskih" wrote: LOL. WinXP is like a slug compared to 9x, you have performance quite backwards. On adequate hardware (256MB RAM and up), XP is faster. Yes, 9x can run on 64MB, where XP cannot, but on adequate hardware it is not an issue. Nope. The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's still slower on brand new systems. You are correct that memory is an issue, but one can in fact put 256MB on a fairly old system (something just new enough to cache the entire amount) and still see the problem. Any way you look at it, doing same task and having to juggle around 256MB of code just takes longer on ALL systems. Win9x can't cut it, but for some it can and for those there is no reason to shun it. I see the person who has absolutely stupid issues with the commodity hardware, which runs fine on modern OSes. Perhaps. The decision can be taken on a case by case basis. Remeber it is not a question of "what OS to buy today", rather one with Win98 is presumed to already have it, probably even have it running on any given system. The remaining issue is only whether it suits their needs which it may NOT do, but for some it does. In such a situation, I can really recommend the OS upgrade, and running the legacy app with a legacy Win9x OS in Virtual PC sandbox. This seems to be the easiest way of solving her problems with the USB harddisk. Easy? $100 minimum expense, maybe more (like upgrading hardware not supported with XP drivers, possible memory needs). Several hours installing OS, drivers, user preferences, apps, transferring data, testing the legacy app, etc. Relatively speaking, there are certainly harder things in life but so far as PCs go, that's not the easiest way to do anything. Those are good points Kony. Also, there are other factors. The software I need to use will only work with Win98. My younger brother uses the same software and there are other issues there too. That's a long story. In brief, he can't go to XP for other reasons besides. I don't get to visit him often but I know the issues he has. Also, if the patches hold up, maybe that's all that will be needed. But, I do want to partition and get the PCI controller card to be safe. Christine |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
Thanks for the suggestion Maxim. That's an idea worth trying. But, why
do you suggest MS Virtual PC instead of System Commander 8 by Vcom? MS Virtual PC is more comparable to VMWare (direct competitor), while System Commander is IIRC the "boot manager", which allows you to choose among one of the OSes to boot. VPC and VMWare are virtual machines - they allow you to run Win98 in a window under WinXP. It's good that MS Virtual PC has a 45 day trial period. In the long run, is it worth the price? Good product, and improves each version. For some tasks like Windows NT kernel-mode debugging, VMWare is better, but VPC is good and fast. You can try it and decide whether it deserves payment. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
better use of large amounts of hardware. So it runs more slowly than
9x on small systems, but it runs faster than 9x on large systems. This is my experience too. On smaller RAM size, 9x is faster due to lesser amount of always-loaded OS components. On larger RAM size, NT family is faster due to better cache management. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
Those are good points Kony. Also, there are other factors. The software
I need to use will only work with Win98. What is the software? Is it some old game with very "interesting" soundcard requirements? -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
that. But, I do use System Commander. I need to run Win98 on one PC
No, VPC is another thing. It will allow you to run Win9x in a window under Win2000 or WinXP. The drive isn't USB, although it could be. I am using it with a firewire card. Such devices usually have both USB and firewire connector. In my measurements, 1394 is a bit faster - 27 MB/s vs. 20. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:20:28 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote: kony writes: Nope. The obviousness of XP being slower is more easily revealed on old hardware, because taking 2-3X as long means larger fractions of a second wait in turn, but even so it's still slower on brand new systems. Not necessarily. Like all operating systems in the NT family, XP has a higher minimum hardware requirement. That requirement is for the purpose of keeping it fast enough, because MS KNOWS it runs slower. They could have easily written for the requirement, "Pentium 1, 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for the purposes of speed issuse. However, it also makes much better use of large amounts of hardware. So it runs more slowly than 9x on small systems, but it runs faster than 9x on large systems. No. Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"? It runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even with all the eyecandy and much of the default services disabled. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
No. Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"? It
runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even I did this. Slow, very slow on heavy file operations like subtree copy. Surely I compare XP on FAT and Win98 on FAT - NTFS is slow, this is a known fact. -- Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP StorageCraft Corporation http://www.storagecraft.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
kony writes:
That requirement is for the purpose of keeping it fast enough, because MS KNOWS it runs slower. There's no conspiracy here. Windows NT and its successors represent a far more complex (and technically superior) operating system than the modified MS-DOS environment of Windows 9x. The architecture is superior and the code is written better, and so the NT-based operating systems perform better on large configurations. However, the greater complexity of the OS also imposes a larger minimum hardware requirement. This is why NT was slow to catch on initially: hardware platforms at the time of its introduction were just barely sufficient to run it (although today they would be considered very small). Today's hardware can run NT and its successors easily. Later versions of the operating system have fallen victim to software bloat, as all software does, but the above remains true. They could have easily written for the requirement, "Pentium 1, 128MB of memory, and 4GB HDD", but they did not, rather specifying faster cpu (and corresponding motherboard busses, etc) for the purposes of speed issuse. NT will indeed run on that configuration. XP won't because that's not enough disk space, as I recall. XP should run on a first-generation Pentium in 128 MB, though--NT sure did, and XP is just a bloated version of NT. No. Have you ever ran 9x on so-called "large systems"? Yes, I have, and it runs faster than it runs on small systems. Unfortunately it doesn't know what to do with all that hardware, and it is easily crippled by heavy workloads that have no effect at all on NT-based systems running on the same hardware. MS-DOS runs even faster than 9x on large systems, but it's also even more useless. Both operating systems waste hardware on large configurations. If you want to make optimal use of a large configuration, you must run something based on NT: NT, 200x, or XP. Or you can run UNIX. It runs like greased lightning, faster than XP even with all the eyecandy and much of the default services disabled. Try it with 100 applications running at 50 MB each and see how well it runs. And watch to see how long it runs before it crashes. You'll find that 9x is a poor choice for large machines running under heavy loads. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Loses data when PC shuts down
Maxim S. Shatskih writes:
I did this. Slow, very slow on heavy file operations like subtree copy. Windows 9x doesn't support NTFS, which is vastly superior to FAT. Surely I compare XP on FAT and Win98 on FAT - NTFS is slow, this is a known fact. NTFS runs well on extremely large systems. FAT runs poorly or not at all. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hard Drive Partitioning | JayD | Storage (alternative) | 29 | September 17th 05 02:02 PM |
Be a Smart Worker - Projects Available - Data Entry | Data Network Forum | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | November 13th 04 07:31 AM |
my new mobo o/c's great | rockerrock | Overclocking AMD Processors | 9 | June 30th 04 08:17 PM |
Sata and Data Corruption | Robert Neville | Storage (alternative) | 27 | May 8th 04 06:20 PM |
help with motherboard choice | S.Boardman | Overclocking AMD Processors | 30 | October 20th 03 10:23 PM |