[RC5] Performance difference Win2k/Win98/ME

TD - Sales International Holland B.V. td at salesint.com
Wed Oct 10 13:06:44 EDT 2001


Gotta agree with u on the linux, although it might be in the coding of the 
client, but on a multiboot system at home my dnetc get 2% more keys outta 
linux than it does out of win98 while linux has more services running

regards


On Tuesday 09 October 2001 19:42, you wrote:
> 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
--
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