Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

Is it me, or is it slow?

Running beta 2 (should have RC1 on in a few hours), and its taken about 3hrs to copy a 7.5Gb file from the server to the Vista machine (same thing under XP is less than 10m)  

I know its beta, and probably still running a lot of debug code, but thats ridiculous. Is RC1 any quicker?

[Martin_1962]

Since when has Windows got quicker. XP seems no faster on a P4 than 98 on my 4 year old 2nd PC at work

[TheBoy]

I would never expect XP to be faster than 98. Nobody should ever, ever, ever have used Win9x.  XP did have performance advantages over its proper predecessor, W2k.

I expect it to be slower - things like Aero are going to take their toll - but disk performance is abysmal...

[Martin_1962]

Why should W9x have not been used then?

I am the only person who turns off all animation, fade effects and anything which ponces about before drawing what I want - my pet hate is animated menus

[TheBoy]

Win 9x was a kludge. Never 32 bit. Awful system, no security, too easily compromised. People using such systems on the Internet were causing huge problems, as these systems are difficult to keep uncompromised. Software firewalls added to the problem by giving a false sense of security.

Now that they are all out of support with Microsoft, hopefully nobody now is that irresponsible to run such systems  

[Martin_1962]

98 is great with DOS apps, multitask with them, we used to have some great systems

Win98 W/S with Netware 4.2 SP4 (and TURBODIS) servers running Advantage Database Server with Clipper 5.3B applications in VGA graphics mode

[TheBoy]

Nope, 9x is/was/always will be unusable. Only suitable for a (bad) games machine.  Using it in business would always be false economy.

[Martin_1962]

LOts of businesses used it for years with no problems

[TheBoy]

LOts of businesses used it for years with no problems

Lots of businesses THOUGHT they used it without problems.

However, if they had done a proper study, they would have discovered that it was false economy when compared to proper OSes like NT.

Hence, any business software I have written for Windows specifically checks for NT, and won't run if running under Win9x.

[Martin_1962]

LOts of businesses used it for years with no problems

Lots of businesses THOUGHT they used it without problems.

However, if they had done a proper study, they would have discovered that it was false economy when compared to proper OSes like NT.

Hence, any business software I have written for Windows specifically checks for NT, and won't run if running under Win9x.

I can think of 40 - 50 businesses who used it without problems as network clients.

Businesses tend to do a lot of one or two apps. and internet connectivity was rare. Work stations were shut down at the end of the day as well. It was also fast with 16 bit programs.

[TheBoy]

It was also fast with 16 bit programs.

It should be - it was a 16bit OS under the skin...

Alas, it can't multitask preemtively, hangs on a network glitch, and falls over more often than me on a friday night...

Has an awful filesystem (FAT) with no tolerance against corruption. No security to protect data from deletion or authorised viewing. It was built on an OS that was never designed for networking.

Once NT hit 3.5 (3.1 was a bit challenging some days) there was no reason to run non NT versions of Windows in business. NT3.5 predates W95.

Nope, Win9x only suitable for games...

[Martin_1962]

It was also fast with 16 bit programs.

It should be - it was a 16bit OS under the skin...

Alas, it can't multitask preemtively, hangs on a network glitch, and falls over more often than me on a friday night...

Has an awful filesystem (FAT) with no tolerance against corruption. No security to protect data from deletion or authorised viewing. It was built on an OS that was never designed for networking.

Once NT hit 3.5 (3.1 was a bit challenging some days) there was no reason to run non NT versions of Windows in business. NT3.5 predates W95.

Nope, Win9x only suitable for games...

Multitasks DOS fine and handles 32 bit windows programs OK but not as well as XP. Security is fine as Netware security is good, as to corruption NFS is excellent, with a client server database engine data was safe once mirrored drives were used.

Standalone it was not so good - single user customers tended to reindex regularly.

[Martin_1962]

98 rebooting  - when powered off overnight it gets that OK.

What gets me is how slow DOS IPX connections are compared to 98

[TheBoy]

Security is fine as Netware security is good, as to corruption NFS is excellent, with a client server database engine data was safe once mirrored drives were used.

yes, netware is secure, with reasonable, but not recoverable file system. but we are talking about w9x, not netware.

[Martin_1962]

Security is fine as Netware security is good, as to corruption NFS is excellent, with a client server database engine data was safe once mirrored drives were used.

yes, netware is secure, with reasonable, but not recoverable file system. but we are talking about w9x, not netware.

I am talking about business use - where you need servers and the systems our customes used were generally very reliable - and used 98 workstations

[TheBoy]

generally very reliable - and used 98 workstations

Thats two words I've never seen in a sentence before

W9x architecture is inherently insecure and unreliable. It is a minor enhancement from WFW, effectively the same OS, but with more 32bit drivers.  Its rare to see a W9x machine run for days without crashing, whether due to faulty driver, application, or OS faults. Results are usually the same - memory corruption causing crashes. And because the OS cannot multitask properly (many W9x API calls are 'exclusive' - as are a very few NT APIs), you cannot recover.

But, and its a big one, an application memory can be corrupted easily. So how do you know what is being written back to your super secure database on its mega server is correct data - you simply cannot guarantee it.

[Martin_1962]

generally very reliable - and used 98 workstations

Thats two words I've never seen in a sentence before

W9x architecture is inherently insecure and unreliable. It is a minor enhancement from WFW, effectively the same OS, but with more 32bit drivers.  Its rare to see a W9x machine run for days without crashing, whether due to faulty driver, application, or OS faults. Results are usually the same - memory corruption causing crashes. And because the OS cannot multitask properly (many W9x API calls are 'exclusive' - as are a very few NT APIs), you cannot recover.

But, and its a big one, an application memory can be corrupted easily. So how do you know what is being written back to your super secure database on its mega server is correct data - you simply cannot guarantee it.

WFW was OK - used that for a while before 98 - NEVER had any issues with memory data corruption either (various flavours of Clipper and MS C)

We have had a few minor problems running our latest software on 98 but it will run but XP is recommended - we are now using CA Visual Objects.

I like OO but still have problems getting used to GUI

[Martin_1962]

ANyway I'm off now - too late for computers now

Bye

[TheBoy]

Since advent of NT3.5, nobody should have been using the old 16 bit and 16/32bit thunked Windows in business. NT always has been a network aware, secure, multitasking (but still single user until Winframe came along) OS.

Anyway, enough of why Win9x is crap, what about my original query?

[Martin_1962]

Since advent of NT3.5, nobody should have been using the old 16 bit and 16/32bit thunked Windows in business. NT always has been a network aware, secure, multitasking (but still single user until Winframe came along) OS.

Anyway, enough of why Win9x is crap, what about my original query?

NT 3.5 was very poor at running DOS apps, Dos 6.22 doesn't multitask - where do you go?

[TheBoy]

NT 3.5 was very poor at running DOS apps

Soz, gotta disagree again. Used to use NT3.5 to run DOS Microsoft Mail MTAs (before MMTA came along for OS/2, and later NT)

[Martin_1962]

Not hot with Clipper though - didn't work well until W2000 even NT4 had issues

[TheBoy]

Not hot with Clipper though - didn't work well until W2000 even NT4 had issues

Tell the supplier to fix their crap database

[Martin_1962]

Not hot with Clipper though - didn't work well until W2000 even NT4 had issues

Tell the supplier to fix their crap database

Oi we're the supplier!

Our VO version is coming along well - the demo version is getting good feedback.

Bugs are disappearing at a great rate

[TheBoy]

Oi we're the supplier!