On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Art wrote:
> >Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a
> >Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus?
>
> Does anyone know why a bunch of list messages have been resent? I've just
> seen several duplicates. :-7
>
> BTW I just used a PC today which had 96MB of RAM and a Pentium 200MMX running
> Win2K. It was a little slow doing some things, but quite usable. I certainly
> wouldn't be editing large images with it though. So anyway, as I mentioned
> earlier, Win2K doesn't care what the front side (memory) bus speed is.
ok, so that we can stop this thing... as noted before Win2K doesn't care
much about the memory at all. Only that you have some of it. How much?
Well.. When the Win2K came out, there was a test in one computer magazine
where they tested Win98 against Win2K on a same machine with both 64Mb and
128Mb memories. Can you guess which was faster? After reading all what you
have written, I bet you can't!
They used the Ziff-Davies benchmarks for the test. These are standard
benchmarks used everywhere. I also remeber that they tried Photoshop among
the more informal testings, but I don't remember which version it was and
what was the results. But for the large ZD test (which many different
softwares) the results where such that as suspected both Win2K and Win98
were faster with 128Mb memory than what they were with 64Mb memory. And
Win2K was much faster than Win98 when the systems had 128Mb memory. Not a
surprise. But the most amazing fact was that Win2K was also faster than
Win98 when the machine was equipped with only 64Mb memory. The conclusion
was clear. Win2K was faster no matter how much memory you have.
I can personally say that old WinNT 4.0 in from a different planet when
compared to old Win 95 on my machine which has only 96Mb of memory. They
are from different planet. And what I've seen Win98 isn't much better than
Win95 was. You should see the difference in virtual memory handling. While
it is painfully plain when Win95 does something with the virtual memory
(the computer stops) I don't notice anything when running the same program
(photoshop) with the same files on the NT. I honestly don't understand why
somebody would not upgrade their OS from
95/98/98SE/ME/what-ever-decendant-from-95-and-DOS to Win2K (or even WinNT
4.0 - if they don't need color management or games) if they have the
chance for it. The stability is not the only thing you gain.
Best regards,
Hugo.
************************************************************
** Hugo Gävert **
** hugo@cc.hut.fi **
************************************************************
