puntoMX Posted November 10, 2007 Share Posted November 10, 2007 I could be outdated, but before 32bit apps ran almost twice as fast on a 32bit OS like NT then on a 16bit OS like 95/98(SE)/ME... This was on a Pentium pro about 12 years ago (on 95)... Correct me if I’m wrong please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenoitRen Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 You are wrong. Win9x is not 16-bit, it's 32-bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
computerwizkid Posted November 11, 2007 Share Posted November 11, 2007 You're both wrong.Windows 9x is a 16/32 bit OS since it still has DOS roots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenoitRen Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 DOS is just the bootstrap. After that it's all 32-bit. Even DOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 So, I was wondering how it’s possible that Windows 98 now is a "complete 32bit OS? Even 2000 has 16bit parts but the kernel is 32bits...This is why I say Windows 98 has a partly 16 and 32bit core but Windows 2000 32bit... This is why drivers don’t work on 98 and do work on NT/2000 (a part of it, and the OS layers).Windows 98 (codenamed Memphis) is a graphical operating system released on June 25, 1998 by Microsoft and the successor to Windows 95. Like its predecessor, it is a hybrid 16-bit/32-bit monolithic product based on MS-DOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atmosphere XG Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I'll agree that Windows XP is faster than Windows 2000 on a strong computer. However, on a computer offering 500 MHZ or less, Windows 2000 exceeds XP's performance.Actually, that's true with almost anything under 1.8 Ghz.Also, Intels seem to be better with Windows XP than AMDs, at least earlier ones.I've experienced the same thing as well in regards to old AMD computers. Can't say the what's the story with AMD today. However, when the K6 was classed as AMD's top of the line processor it offered a lousy performance on Windows XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puntoMX Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 The lousy performance was solved with SP1 of XP . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJARRRPCGP Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 I'll agree that Windows XP is faster than Windows 2000 on a strong computer. However, on a computer offering 500 MHZ or less, Windows 2000 exceeds XP's performance.Actually, that's true with almost anything under 1.8 Ghz.Also, Intels seem to be better with Windows XP than AMDs, at least earlier ones.I've experienced the same thing as well in regards to old AMD computers. Can't say the what's the story with AMD today. However, when the K6 was classed as AMD's top of the line processor it offered a lousy performance on Windows XP.Even as late as socket A, they're appears to be a bigger performance gap between Windows 2000 and Windows XP than with an Intel, at least with a Pentium 4 and Intel 845E chipset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscardog Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 (edited) So, I was wondering how it’s possible that Windows 98 now is a "complete 32bit OS? Even 2000 has 16bit parts but the kernel is 32bits...This is why I say Windows 98 has a partly 16 and 32bit core but Windows 2000 32bit... This is why drivers don’t work on 98 and do work on NT/2000 (a part of it, and the OS layers).Windows 98 (codenamed Memphis) is a graphical operating system released on June 25, 1998 by Microsoft and the successor to Windows 95. Like its predecessor, it is a hybrid 16-bit/32-bit monolithic product based on MS-DOS.Win98 has a 32 bit kernel that thunks when needed to 16bit for dos/16bit compatibilty, and has some 16 bit system files programmed in assembly for performance advantages. Winnt is a hybrid kernel based around the same objectives of Mach, having a kernel structure similar to a microkernel, but implemented as a monolithic kernel.Your win2k/xp wdm driver files will work fine on our win98se systems once the infs are modified and any missing imports in ntkernel.vxd stubbed. I guess it has not happened as of yet because some of us still use older hardware (while my old tbird keeps chugging along I am quite happy) or are not all device driver writers, but it will happen given time Edited November 14, 2007 by oscardog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil_666 Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 Windows 2000 all the way! Service pack 4 :-) Stable Make sure you have all the drivers first though! mainly your eithernet/modem drivers!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niknak Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Windows 2000 is a good OS. I have run it on a 266 pentium without problems and it runs on the latest and greatest. The only reason it runs slow is the usual build up of c**p that builds up from explorer.MS say they will cease support in Jan 08 so get while you can and grab all related downloads before Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelsenellenelvian Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I have been doing ALOT of work with win200 and win98 lately on systems almost identical to yours!I really, really suggest win2000 for your setup especially with the unnoficial SP5 and even some addons. I made some and posted them in the addons section over at wincert.net just for windows 2000.Windows 2000 is MUCH more stable than 98 plus you can nLite the sh_t outta it and make it even more stable and quicker.Link for sp5 http://tracker.ryanvm.net/detail?id=59 (sorry but its only on torrent now.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galahs Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 How well does Win2000 support Dual Core systems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelsenellenelvian Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Very well apparently:http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.com/news...cle.php/3548536 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponch Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Link for sp5 http://tracker.ryanvm.net/detail?id=59 (sorry but its only on torrent now.)It's still available as direct download from MajorGeek (237Mb!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now