[RC5] Performance difference Win2k/Win98/ME

Gerald Richter glassman1 at neonshadow.net
Tue Oct 9 11:42:24 EDT 2001


Yes. Win2k (and XP) steal cycles for the system kernel, and due to poor 
coding the count is fairly high.. Optimal performance on nearly any 
hardware is in linux, which puts windows to shame.. Just for the record 
though, dnetc on my PII400 and Celery366 chips performs better under 
win2k then under 98se... I refuse to give ME the honor of touching one 
of my computers.. And I haven't had the money to spare for a modern AMD 
system yet...

-Gerald

TD - Sales International Holland B.V. wrote:

> Hey there,
> 
> I have no idea what the hell Win2K is upto but it sure sucks! :-)
> I ran on the same machine Win98/ME they both score around 3,5 mkeys/s on 
> Athlon 1GHz, if I install Win2K on the same machine doing nothing within 
> windows this machine will only crunch a lousy 2.6mkeys/s whilst task manager 
> says that there are NO other processes using CPU time. dnetc has 99%. Is this 
> a client issue or is Win2K secretly stealing CPU cycles which can't be seen 
> in the task manager?
> 
> Can anyone explain this?
> 
> Regards
> --
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list