![]() |
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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi
I recently spent three months using a small machine (256MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU, 20GB HDD) running on WinME. Due largely to the excellent help I received from this group, I managed to get the WinME box running very smartly. To such an extent that I believed it was actually faster doing some things than my home-based WinXP machine (1GB RAM, 2.53 Ghz CPU, 240GB on two HDDs). Now that I'm back home, I can indeed confirm this: the WinME box is FASTER! In shutdown, WinME takes 12 seconds against 32 for the WinXP machine. Starting up (same number of start-up apps on both machines) the 72 seconds required by the WinME box is better than the 87 seconds needed by WinXP. Additionally, although I made no attempt to measure the times, it does seem that apps such as Word, Excel and OE do show up just that little bit faster on the WinME machine. I already posted this on the WinXP (general) NG and was referred to various MS articles with comments such as: "For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience [with WinXP] equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me) running on the same hardware" "Windows XP is the best-performing Windows operating system ever created" What am I to believe? Either my WinXP machine is so messed up that I am not seeing the benefits of the more modern OS or (to paraphrase Mark Twain) rumours of WinXPs superiority have been greatly exaggerated. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Mike M escreveu: Can you spell "bloat"? :-) Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could. Are there any consequences emanating from this admission? If you are concerned about the hardware requirements to get a decent speed out of XP compared to Win Me just think for a moment as to what you would need when running Vista. Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as (or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine? Many of the articles written by MS in 2001-2002 stress that WinXP will perform better (from which I deduce FASTER) than previous OSs on machines with the SAME HARDWARE. Are you saying this is not true in practice? Paul -- Mike Maltby PaulFXH wrote: Hi I recently spent three months using a small machine (256MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU, 20GB HDD) running on WinME. Due largely to the excellent help I received from this group, I managed to get the WinME box running very smartly. To such an extent that I believed it was actually faster doing some things than my home-based WinXP machine (1GB RAM, 2.53 Ghz CPU, 240GB on two HDDs). Now that I'm back home, I can indeed confirm this: the WinME box is FASTER! In shutdown, WinME takes 12 seconds against 32 for the WinXP machine. Starting up (same number of start-up apps on both machines) the 72 seconds required by the WinME box is better than the 87 seconds needed by WinXP. Additionally, although I made no attempt to measure the times, it does seem that apps such as Word, Excel and OE do show up just that little bit faster on the WinME machine. I already posted this on the WinXP (general) NG and was referred to various MS articles with comments such as: "For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience [with WinXP] equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me) running on the same hardware" "Windows XP is the best-performing Windows operating system ever created" What am I to believe? Either my WinXP machine is so messed up that I am not seeing the benefits of the more modern OS or (to paraphrase Mark Twain) rumours of WinXPs superiority have been greatly exaggerated. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could.
Are there any consequences emanating from this admission? Other than needing more disk space and a fast processor to do the same thing? No, g Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as (or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine? That rather depends on what you wish to do. One can make an XP PC fly by stripping out all of the services that you don't require and similar tinkering but just look at their respective footprint and you will see part of the problem. Are you saying this is not true in practice? Copy writers rarely use the product they are marketing. -- Mike Maltby PaulFXH wrote: Mike M escreveu: Can you spell "bloat"? :-) Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could. Are there any consequences emanating from this admission? If you are concerned about the hardware requirements to get a decent speed out of XP compared to Win Me just think for a moment as to what you would need when running Vista. Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as (or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine? Many of the articles written by MS in 2001-2002 stress that WinXP will perform better (from which I deduce FASTER) than previous OSs on machines with the SAME HARDWARE. Are you saying this is not true in practice? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Good thread, interesting points.
I dual boot a win98SE/XP Pro. AMD 1.33g Epox Mobo 512Ram. I reckon win98se is generally faster on my setup. Word is opened in a flash, so is Excel & Access, but on XP it is not so 'flash'. Same with most things I have loaded on both O/S's; The only real difference I have noticed between the two, is xp seems to have a 'smoothness' about it, something maybe others mis-read as being faster. Gekko "Mike M" wrote in message ... Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could. Are there any consequences emanating from this admission? Other than needing more disk space and a fast processor to do the same thing? No, g Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as (or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine? That rather depends on what you wish to do. One can make an XP PC fly by stripping out all of the services that you don't require and similar tinkering but just look at their respective footprint and you will see part of the problem. Are you saying this is not true in practice? Copy writers rarely use the product they are marketing. -- Mike Maltby PaulFXH wrote: Mike M escreveu: Can you spell "bloat"? :-) Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could. Are there any consequences emanating from this admission? If you are concerned about the hardware requirements to get a decent speed out of XP compared to Win Me just think for a moment as to what you would need when running Vista. Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as (or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine? Many of the articles written by MS in 2001-2002 stress that WinXP will perform better (from which I deduce FASTER) than previous OSs on machines with the SAME HARDWARE. Are you saying this is not true in practice? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Gekko escreveu: Good thread, interesting points. I dual boot a win98SE/XP Pro. AMD 1.33g Epox Mobo 512Ram. I reckon win98se is generally faster on my setup. Word is opened in a flash, so is Excel & Access, but on XP it is not so 'flash'. Same with most things I have loaded on both O/S's; The only real difference I have noticed between the two, is xp seems to have a 'smoothness' about it, something maybe others mis-read as being faster. Gekko I've posted this (or similar) on the WinXP.General NG also. Interestingly, between the two NGs, absolutely nobody has replied to say that WinXP can indeed actually be faster than WinME (or the other Win9x OSs). Does this mean that the eulogistic prognostications (sorry, but it just came out like that) with regard to PERFORMANCE (not stability) with which MS announced the launching of WinXP were indeed exaggerations? Now, to avoid misinterpretations, there's an awful lot to like in WinXP (stability being an obvious plus) but I just wish it was as zippy as the WinME machine I used earlier this year. Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What you seem however to be forgetting in your comparison are the
1,000,001 things that can be done on an XP system that cannot be done on a machine running 9x. The list really is endless. Further 9x systems can barely multi-task before running out of resources, can't handle the majority of modern hardware including big hard disks and certainly not modern dual-core cpus. So yes, if you just want to load and run a small Excel spreadsheet using Office 97 then yes run Win98 or 98SE and it will be quick but if you want to do real work then you will have to move to using XP or W2K3. -- Mike Maltby PaulFXH wrote: I've posted this (or similar) on the WinXP.General NG also. Interestingly, between the two NGs, absolutely nobody has replied to say that WinXP can indeed actually be faster than WinME (or the other Win9x OSs). Does this mean that the eulogistic prognostications (sorry, but it just came out like that) with regard to PERFORMANCE (not stability) with which MS announced the launching of WinXP were indeed exaggerations? Now, to avoid misinterpretations, there's an awful lot to like in WinXP (stability being an obvious plus) but I just wish it was as zippy as the WinME machine I used earlier this year. Paul |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Mike M escreveu: What you seem however to be forgetting in your comparison are the 1,000,001 things that can be done on an XP system that cannot be done on a machine running 9x. The list really is endless. Further 9x systems can barely multi-task before running out of resources, can't handle the majority of modern hardware including big hard disks and certainly not modern dual-core cpus. So yes, if you just want to load and run a small Excel spreadsheet using Office 97 then yes run Win98 or 98SE and it will be quick but if you want to do real work then you will have to move to using XP or W2K3. Hi Mike Thanks for your comments. Just to emphasize that the point I am raising here has little if anything to do with a sense of disappointment with WinXP (which I have happily used for more than 4 years) but with the pleasant surprise I experienced with the WinME OS recently. While I take your point about the many benefits of WinXP, I really believe that many (if not a majority) of computer users would be better off sticking with Win9x/ME given that they are never going to be involved in "real" work as you define it. Too, I find that the claims made about WinXP's performance (in comparison to earlier OSs) are, frankly, misleading. As an example, this article (2001) http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx says that: "Microsoft® Windows® XP offers excellent overall performance-which includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly responsive applications." This has not been my experience for the type of work I normally engage in (although I am fully aware of the other limitations of earlier OSs). Paul -- Mike Maltby |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
but with the pleasant surprise I
experienced with the WinME OS recently. I totally understand where you are coming from. I really believe that many (if not a majority) of computer users would be better off sticking with Win9x/ME But only if they are using older hardware. There simply aren't the drivers for Win 98SE or Win Me for much modern hardware. Try doing some video editing on a modern fast box and compare that with Win Me, the new machines win hands down. Video editing is no longer the specialist niche it once was, even I do it, and it can sometimes take many hours to render videos even when running on my dual core AMD64 4200. I dread to think how long some of those jobs would have taken on my Win Me box. Not that I can check since Win Me won't install on that box which in addition to a dual core processor has raid0 and raid5 disk arrays with the raid5 array presenting as a 600GB volume, something Win Me simply can't handle with its FAT32 filing system. Win 9x can't handle the amount of memory. However if just browsing, e-mailing and writing documents in Word or working with relatively small spreadsheets then Win 9x is adequate for many users. So yes, Win 98/Me isn't badly suited for older systems with older hardware but given the life of a computer many of the computers sold with Win Me pre-installed are approaching the end of their lives and Win 9x isn't suitable to be installed on their modern replacements. Also for those replacing their systems in 2007 are more likely to find their new box has Vista installed as XP will be on its way out. For example XP SP1 goes out of support in October this year although support for XP SP2 will continue for some time due to it being a business OS unless an XP SP3 is released after Vista. "Microsoft® Windows® XP offers excellent overall performance-which includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly responsive applications." Which it does here. So much so that none of my main machines are even capable of running Win Me. -- Mike Maltby PaulFXH wrote: Thanks for your comments. Just to emphasize that the point I am raising here has little if anything to do with a sense of disappointment with WinXP (which I have happily used for more than 4 years) but with the pleasant surprise I experienced with the WinME OS recently. While I take your point about the many benefits of WinXP, I really believe that many (if not a majority) of computer users would be better off sticking with Win9x/ME given that they are never going to be involved in "real" work as you define it. Too, I find that the claims made about WinXP's performance (in comparison to earlier OSs) are, frankly, misleading. As an example, this article (2001) http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx says that: "Microsoft® Windows® XP offers excellent overall performance-which includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly responsive applications." This has not been my experience for the type of work I normally engage in (although I am fully aware of the other limitations of earlier OSs). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "PaulFXH" wrote in message ups.com... Mike M escreveu: What you seem however to be forgetting in your comparison are the 1,000,001 things that can be done on an XP system that cannot be done on a machine running 9x. The list really is endless. Further 9x systems can barely multi-task before running out of resources, can't handle the majority of modern hardware including big hard disks and certainly not modern dual-core cpus. So yes, if you just want to load and run a small Excel spreadsheet using Office 97 then yes run Win98 or 98SE and it will be quick but if you want to do real work then you will have to move to using XP or W2K3. Hi Mike Thanks for your comments. Just to emphasize that the point I am raising here has little if anything to do with a sense of disappointment with WinXP (which I have happily used for more than 4 years) but with the pleasant surprise I experienced with the WinME OS recently. While I take your point about the many benefits of WinXP, I really believe that many (if not a majority) of computer users would be better off sticking with Win9x/ME given that they are never going to be involved in "real" work as you define it. Too, I find that the claims made about WinXP's performance (in comparison to earlier OSs) are, frankly, misleading. As an example, this article (2001) http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx ..says that: .."Microsoft® Windows® XP offers excellent overall performance-which ..includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly ..responsive applications." ..This has not been my experience for the type of work I normally engage ..in (although I am fully aware of the other limitations of earlier OSs). ==================================== The boot and resume times claims are generally true - for a clean system such as used in a Work environment. XP tends to do its housekeeping chores on shutdown,rather than startup, so that the boot time is kept to actually loading the stuff that's supposed to load, rather than keeping house in that way that happens in WIn9x. This reduces the boot time - especially when added to the background defrag and prefetch abilities of XP. Note that the speed claims are limited to those times - not to the actual application running times ![]() -- Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WinME to connect to Win98?? | lotteadah | Networking | 4 | February 7th 06 11:46 AM |
WinME Reinstall: Seek Advice on advisability doing this | BrianZ | General | 23 | January 31st 06 11:25 PM |
Finding CD KEY from WinME CD :was help with logo.sys | Sugien | General | 114 | November 28th 05 10:16 PM |
873009 Update will not install [correction=> 837009] | PA Bear | General | 72 | February 2nd 05 02:01 PM |
WinME can't read CD filesystem; DVDs are OK | Spam Averse | General | 0 | November 24th 04 01:20 PM |