Speed of XP vs 98 ?

[Zxian]

Dude that says Xp is far superior is wack.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umm... I'll say that XP is superior anyday.

Windows98 still uses shared memory. This means that the following code would bring down the entire computer:

while(1)
{ 
    *( (char *) random() ) = 62;
 }

If you don't understand C/C++, the code basically picks a random byte of memory and assigns the value 62 to it... forever, until the program is killed or the computer crashes. Chances are you'd never be able to react quickly enough to stop it though.

The driver support in Win98 is horrible as well... ever tried using a simple USB flash drive in Win98? The "plug-and-play" device requires drivers...

And finally... try leaving your Win98 machine running for more than a week... it'll slow to a crawl in no time flat.

If you're saying that Win98 is better than XP because scanning with Spybot is quicker in 98, then you've seriously gotta read up on how things work!

[atomizer]

the oldest box i ran XP on was a P3 800 (intel desktop board) with something just over 700 MB of RAM. i also ran 98 on it for quite some time. i really can't recall which was faster out of the box, but with my usual tweaking (and long before i knew about nLite), XP seemed much more responsive. i'm now running XP on an AMD athlon 64 3200+ with a gig of RAM on 2 WD, 10K RPM drives in a RAID 0 array and, uh, it SINGS! as a matter of fact, it's so fast (how fast is it?), i'm tellin' ya it's SO FAST, that it gets board while i'm typing and goes into hibernation between every word LOL

[jasinwa]

There is no other word for them. ntfs format crap....And when I delete something, its deleted !

I agree somewhat.....I really like 98se and with the tweaks I've done all seems pretty smooth. I maybe have 1 lockup a week or so and I test A LOT of SW on it!

FYI for XP, I have been able to totally turn off the file thing that when you delete a file, it returns...there's info out there how to do it but I had to then boot to 98SE and replace the file in a few locations....so on that notebook I have, never recopies a delted file!! Yeah!!!

I also formatted the hd with fat32, not ntfs.....(maybe that's whay it's slower in xp, but I can't understand why such a difference, still).

[jasinwa]

The driver support in Win98 is horrible as well... ever tried using a simple USB flash drive in Win98? The "plug-and-play" device requires drivers...

yea, I have and I have native usb support. Maximus decim has a great 98se update that give it the support like in ME...it's out on this forum in the 98SE section....but it only works for storage/flash type drives....I still need to use a scanner drive for my scanner.

[jasinwa]

PLEASE NOT another Windows98 is faster than XP, yes, but it is outdated flame war, we already had one:

Hi Jaclaz,

AsI hope you can see in my initial post, I was not trying a "98se is faster than xp" post...I was simply asking why 98se ran programs faster (I tested a few but spybot and the like were really revealing in the speed difference).

I still don't underdtand it - my system is not that old so I was surprised!

[wizardofwindows]

maybe its faster cause its scanning 1/5 the files of xp .

[atomizer]

maybe its faster cause its scanning 1/5 the files of xp .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ah, yes! and so nLite enters the stage!

[jasinwa]

I have shut off a lot of services already, removed proggies like messenger, etc..

As noted I have xp and 98se on 2 different drives.....but the xp drive is pretty bare. The 98SE is an 80G and has lots of other proggies (the drive has maybe 6 Gig used)....so I think files are even

[jaclaz]

Hi Jaclaz,

AsI hope you can see in my initial post, I was not trying a "98se is faster than xp" post...I was simply asking why 98se ran programs faster (I tested a few but spybot and the like were really revealing in the speed difference).

I still don't underdtand it - my system is not that old so I was surprised!

Yep, I understand what you were asking, my remark was only aimed to avoid the kind of posts that nonetheless were made after it.

I'll try to give you the best possible explanations I can (not necessarily complete):

1) Windows 98 SE requirements:

http://www.computerhope.com/win98.htm

2) Windows XP requirements:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upg...ng/sysreqs.mspx

(the above are the MINIMUM requirements to barely boot an OS, don't even think to run ANY resource hungry application on that hardware)

Processor speed:

486 DX2/66 vs. Pentium 233 the ratio is ROUGHLY 1:5

(486 has far less capabilities than a Pentium)

Memory:

24Mb vs. 128 Mb the ratio is ROUGHLY 1:5

Occupied drive space:

300 Mb vs. 1500 Mb the ratio is ROUGHLY 1:5

So, if things were "linear", on the same minimal hardware, i.e. a Pentium I 233 Mhz with 128 Mbytes of memory, Windows XP should be ROUGHLY 5 times slower than Windows 98, in overall performance.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) things are not "linear", and other components like hard disks, their controllers, motherboards, etc., have evolved.

Windows XP (and I know I will be flamed for this) is actually FAR slower than 98 in some (very basics) tasks, i.e. booting up.

On the other hand, it can do things that with Windows 98 you cannot even think of.

DOS (and Windows 9x/ME) talk "directly" to hardware, whilst NT/2K/XP/2003 have an intermedate step, the "HAL" or Hardware Abstraction Layer in between.

This effectively slows the connection between OS and hardware, but gives you some distinct advantages, like a FAR more stable system.

Microsoft is perfectly aware of this and XP has been "tuned" as to give a better responsiveness to user's commands, thus "masking" partially the difference in speed.

To this you must add that programs designed for XP have optimized code for newer processors, as they don't have to mantain "backwards" compatibility.

(on the Linux side of the world, just compare the speed between a "general" distro and one like Gentoo optimized for i686 only)

So the overall "impression" of speed (or responsiveness) is NOT 1:5 as expected.

Nonetheless, expecially when direct or semi-direct access to hardware is needed, the difference in speed can be noticed.

jaclaz

[Zxian]

^^^

This is one smart, smart man... learn from him.

And, no you shouldnt' get flamed for saying that XP boots slower than 98. It's true. Anyone who says otherwise should take another test with proper drivers installed on both OSes.

The stability of XP far outweighs the cost of a little speed.

[Cartel]

Now that I have reformated and did my 98se back-up, WITHOUT the unoficial service pack, its better.

I dont know what it is but when I do that instal, I start losing stuff.

My system properties used to say "amd 2400+..........etc.

After the update it only said the ram:640

That sucked. I find if I do the min. swap file and the disk cache on medium, it rocks. Its actually like a well oiled machine while xp seemed like its controlled by onstar.

I really like being able to spot a scARY FILE TOO. Xp has a gig and a half of dll's alone........goodluck.

I think 98se was ahead of its time

PS: 31 seconds on spybot search & destroy 1.4 on the full file search 27478 bot checks

Edited June 29, 2005 by Cartel

[Zxian]

Now that I have reformated and did my 98se back-up, WITHOUT the unoficial service pack, its better.

I dont know what it is but when I do that instal, I start losing stuff.

My system properties used to say "amd 2400+..........etc.

After the update it only said the ram:640

That sucked. I find if I do the min. swap file and the disk cache on medium, it rocks. Its actually like a well oiled machine while xp seemed like its controlled by onstar.

I really like being able to spot a scARY FILE TOO. Xp has a gig and a half of dll's alone........goodluck.

I think 98se was ahead of its time

PS: 31 seconds on spybot search & destroy 1.4  on the full file search    27478 bot checks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you've set the swap file to minimum, you'll have one hell of a time getting Photoshop, Outlook, your web browser, and Dreamweaver running... all at the same time.

You actually - manually - find any "scary" files on your computer? You must have a lot of free time on your hands.

And with nLite, I've got a fully working computer with a mere 400MB in the Windows directory. I know others have done better, but this is what I needed for everything I use.

Who cares if the scan only takes 31s.... how often do you scan your comptuer? With a proper anti-virus and SpywareBlaster, you shouldn't be needing to scan your computer that often. If you do and it picks up stuff everytime, then you've got more problems than you can shake a stick at. I haven't scanned my XP install for viruses or spyware in months. It's running rock solid, as it has for a while now.

Not to mention that if I wanted to... I could very easily kick the Spybot scan out of memory in Win98... something that's (pretty much) impossible to do in XP.

[jasinwa]

thx for the explanation Jaclaz....it helped some.

Zxian - it's not the actual speed of the scan (for me)...it was the curiousity of the diff in speed....but the scan speed (with other tests) points out to me that XP runs slower than 98, which was VERY disappointing....not only a little slower, but quite a bit slower it seems....

[Zxian]

thx for the explanation Jaclaz....it helped some.

Zxian - it's not the actual speed of the scan (for me)...it was the curiousity of the diff in speed....but the scan speed (with other tests) points out to me that XP runs slower than 98, which was VERY disappointing....not only a little slower, but quite a bit slower it seems....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, on the surface XP does run slower than 98, but do you understand why and the reasoning for it?

IMO, the benefits outweigh the costs. I'd rather have a rock solid system that runs a bit slower than one that runs really fast, but crashes... and I loose my work.

[Blam-O!]

IMO, the benefits outweigh the costs. I'd rather have a rock solid system that runs a bit slower than one that runs really fast, but crashes... and I loose my work.

Enough said I totally agree with you!