DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:50 pm**

http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=265

Looks that way

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:10 pm**

Glad I never upgraded.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:19 pm**

That's crap.

You guys don't understand statistics. Simple. Those results will NO WAY pass a Chi Squared test, and as such are not staistically meaningful.

Also, the numbers are (I believe) inside the margin of tolerance for the actual testing. With deviations as small as they are reporting, you'd havce to run the tests at least 20 times (each) before being able to pass a Chi-Squared test.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:31 pm**

I respect your oppinion Mobi. But for the record he placed his results up. How about you put your money where your mouth is and post your 20x run results to counter his?

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:42 pm**

STRESSTEST wrote:I respect your oppinion Mobi.

haha

i didnt notice any slowdown, but i did notice a really really really annoying thing they added called windows security.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:59 pm**

According to that test, the end result may be a slowdown of 2.5% at most. Who gives?

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm**

Looked like they were ascribing (or at least hinting at ascribing) a large portion of the slowdowns to the extra SP2 processes, which can be disabled.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:32 pm**

nice find Stress...........MObi!! STFU!!

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:57 pm**

Mobi's right... those numbers of statisitically insiginificant, cept that -15% one, dunno what is up with that.

He asked a loaded question, and got a loaded answer. If he asked "Is there a performance difference between SP1 and SP2", his conclusion would be different, and I wouldn't be surprised the results would differ too.

19 out of 32 results have a difference of less than a percent, so there isn't much to sweat over.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:37 am**

All I noticed was a slight slowdown at startup. Bootvis took care of that. I also haven't noticed any extra services running, probably because I disabled anything that wasn't essential.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:08 pm**

Anyone happen to know if Ide raid has been fixed in win xp. Currently the only fix for getting decent performance was to convert the disks over to dynamic disks..... which i can't do with the home version of winxp:(

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:21 pm**

XP sucks. SP2 sucks. File Explorer takes 45 seconds to show. I'll not go into the general instability. I've never had a problem with this machine until I put XP on it. 98 runs faster. And more stable. I'll try XP again when SP4 comes out.

Sorry, what was the question?

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:37 pm**

Testiculese wrote:I'll not go into the general instability. I've never had a problem with this machine until I put XP on it. 98 runs faster. And more stable.

o_O

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:03 am**

lol @ Testi

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:37 am**

Testiculese wrote:XP sucks. SP2 sucks. File Explorer takes 45 seconds to show. I'll not go into the general instability. I've never had a problem with this machine until I put XP on it. 98 runs faster. And more stable. I'll try XP again when SP4 comes out.

Sorry, what was the question?

Ditto on the 98.

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:00 pm**

Someone might want to read up on some XP optimization

I've had ME, 98, Win2k and XP on this box and after all of it 2K and XP are as solid as a rock once you set them up correctly without all the fluff.

I'll have to say that I'm never going back to a 9x OS with FAT32 as a core OS ever again.

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:10 pm**

Tyranny wrote:Someone might want to read up on some XP optimization

Or find some decent hardware with good driver support.

[spoiler]Meaning ditch the VIA ★■◆●.[/spoiler]

I've been running XP for some time now, and I've only re-installed twice time...and that was when I got a new hard drive and the other time was when I upgraded to a new motherboard. Its been rock solid stable the entire time.

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:05 pm**

i agree the % is to low to even be notice

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:53 pm**

I have had good luck with XP relative to 2k/ME/9x also but all it has done is delay the inevitable ... I must reinstall the OS now after 1-2 years as opposed to 1 year with 2k, 6 months with 9x, and 6 weeks with ME.

The fact is that over time, the poorly written OS collects so much baggage that it falls apart and can no longer function. I accept this as a way of life now ...

Posted: **Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:46 pm**

It isn't so much the poorly written OS as it is the poor use by the user that causes problems. Not saying you've done anything wrong of course. I've been running the same install for almost a year now. Going to reformat before the end of the year though. It needs it.

Truth be told though, its the build up via use that demands a good cleaning every so often. What do you expect from an OS made by faulty beings? We're far from perfect, so are our products.

Posted: **Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:14 am**

I've formatted this machine maybe twice since i've owned it. it's about four, five years old now. and and this is 2K ON A VIA PLATFORM

bolded for MD the tool.

Posted: **Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:29 am**

Ferno, mini-ITX?

Posted: **Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:43 am**

Don't think MiniITX was around 5 years ago

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:49 am**

Tyranny wrote:All I noticed was a slight slowdown at startup. Bootvis took care of that. I also haven't noticed any extra services running, probably because I disabled anything that wasn't essential.

Same here, but do any updates and start turning them off again.

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:29 pm**

Why would I use MiniITX for my main gaming rig?

Posted: **Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:55 pm**

Ferno wrote:Why would I use MiniITX for my main gaming rig?

portability?

Posted: **Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:50 am**

Lol Testi. I hear ya.
Still on Win2000 here. Why even bother to format & upgrade?

DescentBB

Service pack 2 (XP) Slowdowns confirmed?

Service pack 2 (XP) Slowdowns confirmed?