Winxp vs Win2k

[Goobee]

Which one runs the cli client better? (ie: faster)

[shifted]

If there is any difference, it's probably nil. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, and Windows XP is NT 5.1. They're basically the same OS, just one loooks prettier to some people.

If you're really concerned about speed, ditch windows and install linux, then disable all the unneeded services, and that will get your machine faster.

[wirthi]

I'd personally prefer win2k; I guess the new features of winxp take their time to compute.

If you are not using your machine most of the time, there should be no noticable difference between different windows installations, while on linux the client usually is some percent faster.

[FoBoT]

i believe winXP runs DF slower than any other Windows OS

i just don't have the benchmarks to prove it

yet

i will be doing some extensive OS benchmarking in march, i expect to prove that running DF on windows results in

win9x > w2k > winXP

but it isn't a huge difference, i think about 5% between them

[wirthi]

Yea, that's what I would expect too. It's very hard to improve the pure CPU speed by a new version of windows, but the new versions tend to use impoved technology that use a lot of computing power (anti-aliased fonts, "active desktop", shadow of the mouse cursor, and many more).

Use DOS (without Windows) to get a fast M$ Operating System, that's another 2-3% faster than win9x :)

[shifted]

Originally posted by wirthi
Use DOS (without Windows) to get a fast M$ Operating System, that's another 2-3% faster than win9x :)

Only if your application cannot benefit from being 32-bit; however, most mathematically-based research apps work better with more available bits. Dos is 16-bit only. Also, you'll need to enable some kind of disk cache for dos, or disk access will be several times slower.

Really, if you're going to go to the extreme of dos, then why not install linux, and make /bin/init a symbolic link to your executable? then you have *nothing* running, and will get the full cpu, 32-bits and all.

[Goobee]

Originally posted by wirthi
Use DOS (without Windows) to get a fast M$ Operating System, that's another 2-3% faster than win9x :)

That would be ideal but even though the cli version runs in a DOS box, I believe it's a 32bit application. (I could be wrong)

In any case, I have 2 boxes on XP and 3 on Win2k and they all seem to crank out approximately the same wu's. I guess I'll leave 'em as is for the time being.

[wirthi]

Originally posted by shifted
Only if your application cannot benefit from being 32-bit; however, most mathematically-based research apps work better with more available bits. Dos is 16-bit only. Also, you'll need to enable some kind of disk cache for dos, or disk access will be several times slower.

Really, if you're going to go to the extreme of dos, then why not install linux, and make /bin/init a symbolic link to your executable? then you have *nothing* running, and will get the full cpu, 32-bits and all.
I guess you'r right about that. I just remember distributed.net RC5-64 ran serveral kkeys/s faster using DOS than Windows; I don't know about DF thoug.

Linux is of course faster, but if I remove Windows and install Linux at my families' PCs, they'll freak out :)

[shifted]

Originally posted by wirthi
Linux is of course faster, but if I remove Windows and install Linux at my families' PCs, they'll freak out :)

Just tell them it's an upgrade! lol... seriously, i didn't know this wasn't an option for you. ah well.

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by Goobee
That would be ideal but even though the cli version runs in a DOS box, I believe it's a 32bit application. (I could be wrong) Yes, it is 32-bit. It runs in a DOS box because when it was set up in the IDE, whoever wrote it checked the "console Win32 app" radio button, rather than the "GUI Win32 app" one.

[Paratima]

Originally posted by bwkaz
whoever wrote it checked the "console Win32 app" radio button, rather than the "GUI Win32 app" one. Good work! :p

[cygnussphere]

[i]
In any case, I have 2 boxes on XP and 3 on Win2k and they all seem to crank out approximately the same wu's. I guess I'll leave 'em as is for the time being. [/B]

Goobee-Would you post your benchmarks for the XP machines
Please:D


this is what Im getting
------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed Folding Windows dfGUI v1.9 Benchmark

Sample Size : 26450 structures over 9357 seconds.
Protein Size: 129AA

Structures Per Second: 2.83
Structures Per Minute: 169.7
Structures Per Hour : 10183
Structures Per Day : 244389

OS : Windows XP MHz: 1993
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.00GHz
------------------------------------------------------------

[Brian the Roman]

I was running df for quite a while on Win ME and then switched to XP on the same machine. I found a significant speed increase on going to XP. I didn't do any bechmarks for ME but my impression is that I was getting around 40% more done on DF under XP.

ms

[wirthi]

40%? WinME ist not _that_ bad. Are you sure there was no protein change in the meantime, and that you didn't use additional features on the XP client (like the "-rt" switch) ?

[runestar]

I believe there was a post a whiles back with someone having troubles with DF running really slow in the background with WinME (ugh). I recently tried it on a machine with WinME. I unloaded all the general stuff in memory like keyboard utils, mouse drivers, etc.

I found some really odd things.

1. Even with the idle priority at lowest and the priority at -5, it ran signficantly (visibly slower) in the background.

2. At times when I ran in full-screen, it was actually SLOWER than a window. When I would switch back to a window it would speed back up. The only thing I managed to do was let it run a little whiles in window mode and switch it over to full-screen and it would seemed to run normally then on (I wasn't about to sit there several hours to see if it slowed down).

3. Now 40% seems a little high, but its possible. I found that unloading the various device drivers as previously mentioned seemed to have a signficant impact on DF running. Aside from the memory freed, I wouldn't know why it makes such a difference, aside from Microsoft.


Now as for Win98 vs W2K... if you are loading W2K on an older machine, it is going to be signficantly slower. W2K is NOT friendly to older systems like W9X. A long time ago at a previous workplace, we had a 486 machine that needed the OS rebuilt. Just for kicks we loaded up Win95 on it. Even with 4MB of RAM it ran better than Windows 3.1 had been.

Windows 2000 shines on fast (and I don't mean you have to have the latest ultra-gaming rig either) systems. There is mention of these various extra features, but the funny thing is that it was not mentioned that these features are on available back on 98SE, and they are OPTIONAL. I don't believe they are on by default. Windows 2000 on a relatively fast machine should see an improvment as it takes full advantage of the latest technology improvements since 98 was created. Win98SE was not a new OS but rather a collection of bug fixes and some feature enhancements.

Windows ME just sucks... Microsoft stated that it was an interim release to Windows 2000. Why do you think there were so many upgrade offer to 2000/XP? WinME is a hodge-podge of Win9X and WinNT.

As for XP, I haven't experimented much with that. The main reason I hear that people haven't switched over from W2K is that WinXP just hasn't had enough time to mature and work out all the various issues, especially security-wise. It does offer a lot more in the way of features of customizing your system and remote access and maintenance. For those doing tech support, that can be a huge plus being more easily able to remotely access a misbehaving machine. Admittingly, it can seem like just more water under the bridge, but there are ways to turn off these extra features. Unfortunately, MS seems more keen on throwing in extra features than making it easier to turn them off.


So the deal is, if you're on 98SE with an old machine, stick with it. 2000/XP are not meant to run with it. And by god, whatever you do, don't put on Windows ME because that is so full of holes you could pass a locomitive through it...

If you have a relatively fast system, go with 2000/XP. Just make sure to do a clean install and not an "upgrade." When you do an upgrade over the old OS, you drag a lot of the old junk with you. The reviews are mixed on older games with 2000 and XP. Some people have better luck with one than the other.

Best,

RuneStar½
The SETI TechDesk
http://egroups.com/group/SETI_techdesk
~Your source for SETI and Astronomy news and resources~

[runestar]

[i]There are 10 types of people.
Those who understand binary and those who do not. [/B]

Cute... but do you have a T-Shirt with that on it? Then you be in the 11 group of people, those who understand it and have a T-Shirt with that quote. =)

RS½

[shifted]

Originally posted by runestar½
Cute... but do you have a T-Shirt with that on it? Then you be in the 11 group of people, those who understand it and have a T-Shirt with that quote. =)

RS½

For reference, that t-shirt has been for sale here (http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/frustrations/5aa9/) [thinkgeek.com] for a long time.

[runestar]

I didn't ask if it was on sale... I asked if you HAVE one. ;) I wonder though, if you had one and then you lost it... does that make you 100 then?

RS½

[shifted]

Originally posted by runestar½
I didn't ask if it was on sale... I asked if you HAVE one. ;) I wonder though, if you had one and then you lost it... does that make you 100 then?

RS½

No, i'm not 100. I was born 10100 years ago :P

[runestar]

10000 years?? You're not old...you're ancient. You know the commericial deals you could cut with food companies for advertising spokesman? ;)

RS½

[shifted]

Originally posted by runestar½
10000 years?? You're not old...you're ancient. You know the commericial deals you could cut with food companies for advertising spokesman? ;)

RS½

Yep!

Just remember 6 x 9 = 42 in base thirteen! I think we should all switch to base thirteen in memory of Adams.

[Paratima]

Originally posted by runestar½
The main reason I hear that people haven't switched over from W2K is that WinXP just hasn't had enough time to mature and work out all the various issues, especially security-wise. What is it about the name "Windows" that anyone would equate with security? :p

[runestar]

Some yeras ago I read an article about NT. The only thing I really remember about that article was the security rating given to NT... which was "A" ...

Okay, now that I got you ready to go about ranting about Microsoft Security...

That was a system NOT connected to any networks. If you connected it up to any network, it drops down to "C"...

This is pretty silly considering that NT was designed for business and networking... Of course MS doesn't mention the "C" rating and they didn't mention the "A" rating very long...
I guess someone in the legal department at MS realized the potential lawsuits and told the marketing guys to cool it. ;)

RS½

[shifted]

NT = Nice Try