Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,aus.computers (
More info?)
I am sure that I have seen something on the net about a compatibility issue
between 98 and XP machines that are networked. I hada look at the MS
knowledge base but a google search with xp 98 slow network brought up a
wealth of sites with a large number of suggestions for fixes. It appears
connectivity problems between 98 and XP are common, but it also appears they
can be solved.
Kevin
<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:420b7f1d.7724352@nntp.charter.net...
> It's difficult to provide definitive reasons why the two computers perform
> the
> way they do without knowing something about the network itself.
> Altogether too
> many problems can occur from misconfigured or malfunctioning network
> equipment.
>
> I recently replaced a pair of older P3 systems running Windows 98 with a
> couple
> of P4s running XP Pro. The old P3s ran like a slug when accessing a
> shared
> Quickbooks data base on a Windows 2000 server. The P4s run much faster.
> Why?
> Faster processor? Yes. More system memory? Yes. Faster local hard
> drive?
> Yes. Other? Damned if I know. The XP Pro systems log in a lot faster,
> mostly
> because their desktops are not yet cluttered with icons and they are not
> as
> loaded down with memory-resident bloatware. File copying to and from the
> server
> takes about the same amount of time. Go figure... Ben Myers
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:05:38 GMT, ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com (Phred)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <lv0l01dae4lilm6mvsv471bbg1oejrl3id@4ax.com>, William P.N.
>>Smith wrote:
>>>dgrnyc@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
>>>>K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive.
>>>
>>>Kinda marginal, but it ought to work. Depends on your definition of
>>>"acceptable", but it should be better than Win98...
>>
>>Until recently I was using a system in another place that was pretty
>>similar to the OP's, but it had an Intel processor (233 MHz IIRC) and
>>a 3 GB HDD (which was usually pretty full
![Smile :) :)](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif)
.
>>
>>It was usable for the sort of stuff I do routinely, but was
>>v..e...r...y s..l....o......w to do a network logon, which was
>>rather a PITA at times as it often took 10 or 12 minutes!
>>
>>The "new" machine has a much faster processor, 512 MB RAM, and a
>>"huge" 20 GB HDD. (All that space!
![Smile :) :)](/data/assets/smilies/smile.gif)
But it's running XP Pro.
>>
>>It logs on quickly (< 1 minute typically) but to my surprise it's
>>actually v..e...r...y s..l....o.......w copying files to a network
>>drive and deleting files on the network. *Much* slower than the old
>>machine in fact. So I put this down to some sort of housework that XP
>>is doing that 2K Pro didn't bother itself with(?).
>>
>>On balance, I prefer the fast logon and can tolerate the slow file
>>management now that it's expected and I can plan around it.
>>
>>Cheers, Phred.
>>
>>--
>>ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>>
>