• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Topic: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    I think I\'m going to do it. I\'m going to reformat my two Dell 4550\'s from XP to windows98 in order to get more out of SI and my performance tool for VSL.
    In XP, my performance tool crashes and hangs a lot. I\'m finding that part of my problem is with MMC. However, does anyone here have an opinion if the performance tool program runs more smoothly on either/or OS?

    Also, does anyone have an opinion as to the rewards vs. the work of reformating an XP machine to boot in 98? Is redoing all this crap worth it?

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    Win98 seems to work more efficiently at the outset, but WinXP can work longer. While its audio system is by far the better understood, Win98 doesn\'t deal very well with cleaning up after itself -- especially after manipulating large files.

    So the main question seems be if the marginal increase in usable RAM is worth the extra hassle and reboots. As for my bias... I\'m a diehard Win98 user who is ready to make the switch. But then again I guess the grass is always greener etc! [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

  3. #3
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    4,045

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    I found that Win 98 was just as stable as Win XP which started doing strange crashes before I reformatted and went back to 98. Win 98 loads so much faster. Performances load in a fraction of the time besides being able to load about 50% more.

  4. #4

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    I run the VSL Performance Tool under Windows 2000 Pro and it has never crashed. The only other application running on that computer, besides GS, is MidiOverLan. What does your crash look like?

  5. #5

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    How much ram do you have and what processors are in the machines?

  6. #6
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    Personally, I think and will always think it is a little nutty to run five year-old operating systems on modern hardware.

    With 1.5 GB of RAM in my XP boxes, I get good loads and good performance, plus, my hardware is well supported. I don\'t know, man, I just don\'t see how it is worth it to run an OS that doesn\'t natively support half the hardware in a modern box and mobo. XP is far more stable, and its ability to recover from problems is so much greater!!

    Of course, a person must do what he desires. I\'m just giving you my perspective having run both OS\'es. I would never go back to W9x. I would buy another box before I would revert to 9x for polyphony\'s sake. That\'s how strongly I personally feel about it. Your mileage may vary.

    One thing to consider: I don\'t know this, but I would assume Giga 3.0 won\'t be running on W9x platforms. A developer would be nuts to spend time writing for five year-old OS software--they would get zero support from the manufacturer. As I say, I don\'t know, but I would assume it to be highly unlikely GS3 would have any support whatsoever for W9x.

  7. #7

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    Nathan, why don\'t you post this question at the VSL forum where there are many who can answer this directly for you, including the developers?

  8. #8

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    I have to say I agree with that. You never want to go back to an obsolete un-supported OS. XP is the best OS MS has come up with yet. Just pack as much ram as you can on your machine and you should do ok.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    I didn\'t know about the RAM restriction. I see your point in that case.

  10. #10

    Re: VSL Performance Tool - 98 vs. XP

    It is a bit of a noodle baker, isn\'t it? Sharmy made the point that is swaying me. My Dell\'s max at 1 gig. If I get another system going in the future, I\'ll get something that can hold 3, 4 gigs of onboard ram, in which case I\'ll happily run XP.
    What\'s been keeping me on the fence for several months is what Bruce was saying - These boxes are built around running XP, XP is more advanced OS, etc, etc,.
    I think I have to cut the wishy washy act. I better do this before I\'m in the middle of another gig (hopefully, right?).

    For whoever asked, both of my machines are P4, 2.4ghz, 1gig RAM.

    Peter -
    I already exploited that option early on.

Go Back to forum

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •