SQL2000 & XP
Stephen Quinn
Anyone using SQL2000 and XP with MDAC 2.7 should read this article.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml
--
HTH
Steve Quinn
Ginny Caughey
We have confirmed that XP requires more memory to provide similar performance to
Windows 2000 for our VO apps in our office. I have now read two benchmark
reports about XP, but since neither of them include information about installed
RAM, it's hard to tell what the optimum RAM should be for XP.
BTW I talked to a Microsoft rep recently (about a completely unrelated matter)
but in the discussion he told me that XP with suitable memory is a much better
performer for .Net apps. I don't have .Net installed on my XP test machine at
the moment, so I can't confirm that, but anyway, that's what their testing
indicates.
Ginny
"Stephen Quinn" <squ...@brutecom.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c039bf5$0$10230$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Geoff Schaller
In some senses almost anything runs faster with more RAM. I was some of the
benchmarks on a Road show that went through Melbourne last week and a friend
of mine attended the whole series. With 1GB of RAM, XP was noticeably faster
to load, minimise and restore than W2K and ME.
Yeah... 1GB!!!!!!
What they didn't say was that the statistics are the reverse for under 512MB
and only equivalent at 512MB. Sheesh! Oh well, I guess that's the way things
are going! 1GB of RAM now only costs US250 so what the heck! If at first
your app is slow.... throw it more resources! <g>.
Is this the "User Pays" principle at work?
Geoff
"Ginny Caughey" <ginny....@wasteworks.com> wrote in message
news:9u0abs$gkb$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
Ginny Caughey
Thanks for the 512 number. At least that's a starting point. I don't think our
commercial apps will need that much to perform decently, although we'll have to
test inhouse and find out what the number is, but for a development machine 512
sounds like a good starting point.
Ginny
"Geoff Schaller" <geof...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:y24N7.382268$bY5.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Jean-Marie Berthiaume
Maybe if I go to a dual Celeron, what you think. Or a Celeron with the
possibility to add lather a second one and 512Mb of RAM.
Or should I go to keep her old 100MH Pentium for old DOS games and go to Win2000
with a Celeron, and try to find a switch board for her screen.
Geoff Schaller a écrit :
--
Jean-Marie Berthiaume
Montréal, Québec
Attention. Enlever les # pour me rejoindre
Please erase the # to reply :
(jie...@videotron.ca)
Geoff Schaller
Very bad move.
Very slow compared with the Pentium equivalent.
Geoff
"Jean-Marie Berthiaume" <#jiembe@#videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kO3O7.23291$hz6.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
Stephen Quinn
Forget the Celeron altogether and get a decent processor.
--
HTH
Steve Quinn
Jean-Marie Berthiaume
intensive user so that's why I was going with a Celeron. Maybe I
should go to an Athlon TBird for her. And I'm still balancing
between 2000 and Home XP while I get XP pro for myself.
The chip is not all. You can get lot from a PC when you twist
the setting and get the best pieces of hardware. I have an old
200Mhz pentium running at 233 with a graphic accelerator PCI,
yes PCI, and you be surprise the speed I get from it and games I
can still play on it. The worst part is Win95 and its 64 Meg RAM
limitation. Let me put in it just Win98 and 512 Meg of RAM and
that could become a surprise bag!
We are doing intensive scanning at work with a 800 Celeron but
in fact the work is really done by the $3000 video card.
Stephen Quinn a écrit :
--
Ed Ratcliffe
I don't know how prices are in your part of Canada but here on the west
coast the low price of a basic Pentium 4 machine makes the choice simple.
Most of the value is going to be in the video card etc anyway, so go with
the Pentium 4 and at least W2K Pro....<g>
Ed