Tom's new Power Box

[pvsurfer]

Tom:

Like the Ferrari Maranello, Porsche 911 Turbo, Lamborghini Diablo, or Dodge Viper, the "guts" of your new Power Box are impressive, but an exotic car and a Power Box PC need a body and case, respectively. So I couldn't help but wonder which case you chose for your new Power Box...

One other comment. Although not clearly specified, I assume that you used Win98 for the benchmark tests. Don't you think that your new Power Box, and its competitors, deserve a Power O/S, like Win2K ???

 

[Ncogneto]

Good grief, where have you been the case was vapor chills box for 650 dollars, and 98Se is still a better gaming platform than 2k.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

 

[Ncogneto]

http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/01q1/010219/images/aufmacher.jpg

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

 

[IntelConvert]

I guess pvsurfer wasn't the only one to miss-interpret that. I didn't pick-up on the Vapor Chill being a box, I thought it was some outrageously priced HSF solution! :redface:

 

[stable]

Hmm... I'd have to say Windows 98 S/E is a better EVERYTHING platform than W2K... but that's just my opinion. Then of course if you are going to get a dual CPU system, you have to choose either Linux, NT 4.0 or W2K. I won't suggest any of them in particular as I fear that I would lose all of my tail feathers getting caught in a fire fight between the different groups of OS supporters and OS "haters".

Steve Benoit

Stable Technologies
'The way IT should be!'

 

[pvsurfer]

Steve: Well one "good grief" deserves another. I couldn't disagree more (for the very reason of your user-name)! Perhaps it has to do with one's use of a PC (I multi-task a lot), but when I ran Win98, my system would either lock-up or I'd get unrecoverable (fatal) errors at least twice a week. Based on the many articles that I read on the subject, I went to Win2K, (at the same time doubling RAM from 128MB to 256MB), and I've never had any such problems since!

Ncogneto: I plead ignorance, but I would have expected a picture of that Ferrari/Lamborghini of cases!

 

[stable]

What's your configuration/chipset?

I think that for quite a while there were some serious problems with Windows 98 S/E on "some" systems. Most of these problems have been worked out (the hard way, but with Microsoft, is there any other?)

We have a user base of about 15% Windows NT 4.0, 10% Windows 2000, 65% Windows 98 S/E and the rest using different flavors of Linux or Novell. Believe it or not, the Linux users seem to be the happiest out of all of them, which kills me as generally, it is freeware (or darn close to it).

I would agree that for some users doing HEAVY multi-tasking, a NT/Windows 2000 based solution could be better. However, we actually have fewer problems with NT 4.0 (even without PnP) than we do with Windows 2000. The lack of timeliness for Service Packs for Windows 2000 is really beginning to irritate our user base, especially given the introduction of so many new technologies for sound, disk I/O, and video.

Again, I would qualify this by saying that finding a stable configuration is not always a 'straight up' proposition. The chipset, processor(s), devices, application software and interface requirements or user preference all have say in the issue of selecting an operating system. Unless using a dual-CPU system, my personal preference is still Windows 98 S/E, strictly because we have spent a huge amount of time developing solutions to make them stable and fast. I’m not saying that Windows 98 S/E is perfect, (perfection is an oxymoron at Microsoft as it is counter productive to how they make a profit) but it seems to provide most small business and personal use computers with the tools they need for reliable and FAST operations. While we have done similar development work with Windows ME, NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 as well, there are still limitations and/or bugs within each of these OS’s that prevent us from going as far as we would like. With that in mind, that was the basis for my comments.

If things are running to their full potential and stable for you with Windows 2000, I say great! Stay with it! I wish I could say that for my other customers with their configurations, because if I could, I would move them over in a heartbeat. If for no other reason, we would love to do that so we would NOT have to support six different O/S platforms.

Steve Benoit
P.S. See! This is what happens when you say that you like one operating system over another! LOL

Stable Technologies
'The way IT should be!'

 

[IntelConvert]

Steve: You say "my personal preference is still Windows 98 S/E, strictly because we have spent a huge amount of time developing solutions to make them stable and fast". Well, based on my experience, I have got to go along with pvsurfer's preference for Win2K, but I can't help but wonder why you would not endorse WinME over Win98SE? After all, ME is really Win98TE (Third Edition) and reportedly a safer and more reliable O/S than 98SE (not to mention its newer "bells and whistles").

 

[pvsurfer]

"If things are running to their full potential and stable for you with Windows 2000, I say great! Stay with it!"

From a stability viewpoint, Win2K is BY FAR the very best version of Windows I have ever used (including 3.1, 95 and 98)!

From a perfomance viewpoint, it is far from running at full potential. To the contrary, it has been disappointing to me and many others (judging from the many articles and forum threads on the subject in AcesHardware, AnandTech, and TomsHardware). Via's latest 4 in 1 drivers and the latest BIOS updates have helped to a certain extent, but Win2K probably will not properly support ATA66/ATA100 (and 4xAGP) until SP2 is available. Then, I would expect substantial performance gains!

 

[stable]

Windows ME runs slower than 98 and is still unstable for many of our environments. While some THINK it is Windows 98 T/E (Third Edition), it really isn't. It is a very different product. With the enhancements enabled, on average the product runs about 20-30 slower than Windows 98 S/E and is no where near as stable. With all enhancements OFF, the product is still 3-5% slower than Windows 98 S/E and still not as Stable for us as Windows 98 S/E. Sorry, I really wish I could say different, but at this time, I just can't go by anything but our experience.

By the way... PV, What is your configuration?

Thanks
Steve Benoit

Stable Technologies
'The way IT should be!'

 

[Guest]

I do hate WinME. It's slow as hell, I don't like waiting 3 minutes before watching a video.

It has crashed in my computer more often than with any version of Win98.

And if you like the look of WinME, Win2k looks quite similar.

SEARCH FIRST, THEN POST

 

[Guest]

There's been some posts by Bubba and others regarding why in certain cases Me does run slower. For example, the _RESTORE directory. But I have found it to be very stable and it does have better driver support.

Now regarding it running slow, I haven't found that it was noticeably slower than 98. However, it didn't seem to run noticeably faster either. But there was a situation very recently where my system was indeed running very slow. I killed all the tasks (except explorer) and it was still running slow. I never found out what process (other than explorer) was consuming all the cpu. A reboot cleared the situation and everything was back to normal.

All in all though, I think Me or more stable than 98 and obviously both are great for games. But as was mentioned earlier for real stability there's w2k, nt4, Linux.

 

[JustPlainJef]

WinME offers no support for Dos4GW(?) games, and while I don't play it too often, I just couldn't live without WarcraftII. I have not seen it to be any more or less stable, but it is a personal preferance based on personal (self and others close by) incidents. Plus, I have gotten into the habit of turning off my PC when it isn't in use, and I haven't had many problems. So for not seeing much different in ME, I have no reason to upgrade from SE.

What's a signature? Oh, those words that show up after all my comments? I don't need one of those!

 

[pvsurfer]

Steve: You asked about my system configuration. Actually, I have 2 PCs (his and hers). Both systems are "rock-stable" running Win2K, and with the exception of the mobo and cpu, the components of both systems (HD, Video card/monitor, etc.) are the same brands and models.

The PC that hasn't lived up to PERFORMANCE expectation (re Win2K) has an A7V board with a 1GHz T-bird and 256MB PC133 CAS2. After updating all drivers, etc., it runs better now than it did before, but still can't run with our other system!

Our other system has a CUSL2 with a 866MHz P3 and 256MB CAS2. It has not only met my performance expectations running Win2K, it clearly outperforms the AMD system*.

* This is based on side-by-side executions of the very same tasks (spreadsheet crunching, relational database searches, and image-editing/filters).

 

[blah]

I have to agree with pvsurfer bout AMD<->Intel stuff.

What about stable's thing, it is completely different. Are you running Windows ME in day-by-day basis? I do. I am finally can go to work with a peace in my mind about my 4 year old "moto racer” would not screw up 98 "S/E" box. Sick of reinstalling it every week. With ME just "system restore", 2 minutes, I am done.

I am sick of IE in 98se locking up all the time; with Windows ME I did not have that problem in 6 month. It crashes sometimes, but it is mostly my fault. I am pushing 10 buttons at once, so it gets confused, but it is the same for every OS out there. As far as speed, I am running UT and SOF much smoother in ME than 98se (95 is a champ still). So you guy are talking nonsense here. ME is much much better system than 9x as far as I have experienced all of them.


K7 + KT7A + MX300 + VooDoo3000 =
P3 + CUSL2-C + MX300 + Asus7700 =

 

[dhlucke]

i had to uninstall WinME. My modem and my hp-writer wouldn't work with it. About 1 month later I noticed that the uninstall was incomplete leaving pieces of the OS everywhere in my Win98 SE causing problems. I had to reformat my harddrive to get going again....

It was a lot slower. The only thing that was faster was startup...

 

[Guest]

ME sucks but I would kill for that "BOX".
Especially anyone who bought a P4.

 

[pvsurfer]

"I have to agree with pvsurfer bout AMD<->Intel stuff."

Before anybody construes that in a generalized manner and starts yet another pointless AMD-Intel war, I want to reiterrate what I am experiencing with my AMD and Intel systems.

Its important to understand that when both systems were (originally) running Win98, the AMD was the faster system. I switched to Win2K because I got good and tired of (Win98's) crashes and unrecoverable errors (IN BOTH SYSTEMS).

All that I am saying in my prior post is that while Win2K has been FAR more stable than Win98, my PC with the 1Gig Athlon and VIA chipset just doesn't perform as well (WITH Win2K) as my PC with the 866Mhz P3 and i815 chipset[PERIOD].

 

[Guest]

That Process you are taling about is winmgmt. Its a new feature that basically optimizes programs and defrags in the background, but sometimes it doesnt have the sense to realize you are working (its supposed to run when the system isnt busy) Usually if it sticks you rebooting fixes it but it can get annoying sometimes. (Games in a dos window come to mind; it doesnt seem to realize your working in DOS)

<i>Nascar racing is one of the few sports where spectators routinely die</i>

 

[wapaaga]

the only time that i have herd that win me is more stable is when you strat with a fresh hard drive or in other words not upgraded form windows 98

 

[Guest]

So would you see winmgmt from the task list? Or is it an invisible process?

 

[Guest]

Yes it does come down to personal preference. There are a lot of things I don't like about Win Me such as some of the explorer settings, and Window view settings or the new "search" as opposed to the "find".

One thing that is nice about Win Me is that it detects new drivers for you hardware. I've already had it detect new drivers for my network card, and my display card.