Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
sparky4

The performance of certain programs in Windows Me

Recommended Posts

some programs tend to be slow in porformance on windows me

Thease programs are the ones tested on NT based systems but not very well on Windows 9× based systems

therefore they are slow

Is there any way to improve this situation?

The programs run on Windows Me just poorly because they use alot of CPU usage

some can get so bad that the program stops responding even if you did nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The programs run on Windows Me just poorly because they use a lot of CPU usage

some can get so bad that the program stops responding even if you did nothing

How do you know that it wasn't Windows ME at fault? Windows ME (Out of the box) does cause programs to become unstable often, leading to crashes. I used it before, and programs that worked fine on Windows 98 do crash... and lag.

These programs are the ones tested on NT based systems but not very well on Windows 9× based systems

If the program does not support Windows 9x natively, then you are running them at your own risk. Potential side-effects of doing so include instability, crashes and other undesirable behavior.

The programs run on Windows Me just poorly because they use alot of CPU usage

As stated above, this may be one of those side-effects, or may just be caused by Windows ME. Program performance on Windows 9x in general is almost on par with performance on Windows XP, if not faster (But really depends on the program you're running, and the hardware you're running them on. IOW Program performance would not really be faster if you computer is very "modern").

But this is only possible when Windows 9x IS supported by the program.

Is there any way to improve this situation?

It really depends on why the program crashed. Do try KernelEx though... but it may not solve your problem.

Edited by sp193

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The programs i am mentioning do not crash Windows Me.

the other programs running respond just fine.

ex. explorer.exe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The programs i am mentioning do not crash Windows Me.

You haven't mentioned any specific program. Perhaps you could be starting by saying which programs you have issues with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that if the program has a sound output the sound never laggs....

but the video output is the lagging component

ex. youtube and niconico douga videos can lag, but their sound never dose.

My video card is modern compared to the rest of my system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The programs i am mentioning do not crash Windows Me.

You haven't mentioned any specific program. Perhaps you could be starting by saying which programs you have issues with.

MikuMikuDance.exe is a great example

It is very slow play back

another Example is Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, The game engine runs on windows Me and the sound dose not lag.

The video is very laggy, SO laggy infact the other cars lagg :wacko:

I see that the lag is frame skipping.

another Example is GIMP 2.6.6

Yes, I have KernelEx but the program

is extremely slow. Too slow for me to use....

Edited by sparky4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your quoting programs that aren't made too run on windows me but sorta do.. of course they won't work fully 100 percent right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest trying the old 77.72 drivers instead. A lot of folks seem to report more success with those drivers. Alternatively, you might want to try the 82.69 drivers located at:

http://www.msfn.org/board/nvidia-drivers-82-69-t97140.html

On the other hand, the FX series is well known for its significant problems regarding performance. You might have to put up with it, if these drivers don't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I noticed that if the program has a sound output the sound never laggs....

but the video output is the lagging component

ex. youtube and niconico douga videos can lag, but their sound never dose.

My video card is modern compared to the rest of my system

It also lags on my system, almost to the point of a system crash (This is on Win98SE, and on both Firefox 1.5/2.0 and IE6). It seems to be a resource leak by Flash 9 in Windows 9x according to some other thread here. However, this lag is less severe on other operating systems like Windows XP/Debian 5.0.

Hence this is not counted as a performance problem as the official Adobe Flash player 9.0 seems to be unstable on ALL Win9x versions (Despite the fact that it's meant to run on it).

another Example is GIMP 2.6.6

Yes, I have KernelEx but the program

is extremely slow. Too slow for me to use....

It also lags badly on my system, even if I do not use Windows ME now (I am using Windows 98SE).

another Example is Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, The game engine runs on windows Me and the sound dose not lag.

The video is very laggy, SO laggy infact the other cars lagg wacko.gif

I see that the lag is frame skipping.

I am not very familiar with those games, but if has an option to set the graphics renderer, set it to Direct3D (aka D3D/Directdraw) or OpenGL, but NOT "software". Also, try reducing your resolution in the game, and turn off Antialiasing, if it's enabled. Also, try to force the game to use Pixel Shader 1.1/1.4 instead of 2.0 if possible. This should improve performance with GeForce 5 FX cards.

I'd suggest trying the old 77.72 drivers instead. A lot of folks seem to report more success with those drivers. Alternatively, you might want to try the 82.69 drivers located at:

http://www.msfn.org/board/nvidia-drivers-82-69-t97140.html

On the other hand, the FX series is well known for its significant problems regarding performance. You might have to put up with it, if these drivers don't fix it.

I once thought that the 82.69 drivers would offer better performance and stability (Windows 98 sometimes crashes with it comes out of standby) with my GeForce FX5200, but the people at that thread said that there were no improvements for my model in that driver set, and that I was better off using the official 81.98 driver.

And yes, the GeForce 5 FX series is very weak in Pixel Shader operations (It's performance is very poor). Over-clocking won't fix this because it's a poor hardware design problem.

The 77.72 driver might offer better performance? Hmm... I may want to try that, but does it have more bugs than 81.98? I already have enough troubles with my buggy 81.98 driver, and introducing some more is just uncalled for.

BTW What is your PC's specifications? Performance is also hindered by old hardware and improperly installed or generic drivers. For example, installing the Intel Chipset drivers if you have an Intel based chipset really improved performance for me.

Also, when I looked at the CPU usage of certain programs on WinXP, the CPU is always at 100%. So this shows that the "high CPU" usage you noticed may be because of old hardware, not unoptimized drivers that were installed (Windows 9x, including ME, need to have proper drivers from their manufacturers installed, or the "generic" drivers from Microsoft would slow the entire system down(Especially graphics card and Chipset drivers). Did you do tests on the same PC, but on different OSes?

My PC's specifications:

CPU: 1.0 GHz Intel Pentium 3

HDD: Hitachi Deskstar 200GB ATA-133 (Operating at ATA-100 transfer mode)

Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-6OXM7E (Version 1.0)

RAM: 2x256MB PC-133 Kingston Valueram sticks (Already the maximum for this mainboard, which is low thanks to the Intel 815 chipset's design flaw)

Graphics Card: Nvidia Geforce FX5200

OS: MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 98SE(With Windows 95 shell), Windows XP Home and Debian 5.0 "Lenny"

CD-ROM: SONY CD-ROM CDU571-Q (Apparently a 16x CD-ROM drive)

Edited by sp193

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 77.72 drivers are more reliable than the latest official ones. Those drivers introduced a ton of lovely bugs for 98 users that were not present in 77.72.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...