What version of Windows have you found to be best?

Toyduck · Post by **Toyduck** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:01 am

I'm curious, what versions of windows have given the best performance (or luck) with WGNT?

Windows 2000/2000 pro/2000 Server?
Windows XP Home/XP Pro
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise/standard/web server

Toyduck

Ghaleon · Post by **Ghaleon** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:07 pm

With fast systems, you dont notice a difference, but if I was to say right off the top of my head, I would go with win2k ...

I personally use win2k3 server.

Toyduck · Post by **Toyduck** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:25 pm

Ghaleon wrote:With fast systems, you dont notice a difference, but if I was to say right off the top of my head, I would go with win2k ...

I personally use win2k3 server.

Are you using Intel Pentium III/IV or AMD? ..or somthing else?

Toyduck

dspain · Post by **dspain** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:42 pm

Toyduck wrote:
Ghaleon wrote:With fast systems, you dont notice a difference, but if I was to say right off the top of my head, I would go with win2k ...

I personally use win2k3 server.
Are you using Intel Pentium III/IV or AMD? ..or somthing else?

Toyduck

actually windows 2000 (any breed) is perfect for it
and windows 2003 is ok too but for what windows 2000 uses resource wise versus win2003 just for a bbs server i'd stick with 2000.

all this tested on an AMD-700/512mb ram, Intel P3-877/256mb ram and an Intel Celeron-D(2.93)/793mb ram

seems i get the fastest results from the AMD chip, howver only thing on that pc is the bbs as well.

and it all depends on what you wanna do.

see all these people want worldgroup to be freeware or really cheap, and thing is its a freaking ISP-in a box if you set it up properly.

compare the prices of WG to say VISP.NET

thats what i like about WG you could mod it to fit into any pc-setup scheme you want.

so to truely answer your question it all depends on what you will be doing with the server to truly tell you the best hardware/software in my opinion.

Toyduck · Post by **Toyduck** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:57 pm

dspain wrote: see all these people want worldgroup to be freeware or really cheap, and thing is its a freaking ISP-in a box if you set it up properly.

compare the prices of WG to say VISP.NET

thats what i like about WG you could mod it to fit into any pc-setup scheme you want.

so to truely answer your question it all depends on what you will be doing with the server to truly tell you the best hardware/software in my opinion.

Actually, after using Syncronet, Wildcat WINS, and a few others, WG seems 'cleaner' as far as setup and how you can configure things. I also don't mind paying for something if it works, and WG works. I do hope does get WG back up and available as a current product and generates some more development interest.

As far as systems... I have found AMD to be slightly faster than the PIV, and it runs cooler. I have three systems running right now; all with the same hardware config (drive, memory, etc.); a AMD with 2000 server, Pentium III with WinXP Pro and Pentium IV with Win2000 Pro.

I've found the Pentium III and P4 give me the same results. The AMD with the Win2000 server is "slightly slower" but the server OS is more stable; doesn't force me to respond to the office to reset because it doesn't 'freeze up or hang' like the other two on some errors requiring a physical reset by the switch.

Toyduck

dspain · Post by **dspain** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:10 am

Toyduck wrote:
dspain wrote: see all these people want worldgroup to be freeware or really cheap, and thing is its a freaking ISP-in a box if you set it up properly.

compare the prices of WG to say VISP.NET

thats what i like about WG you could mod it to fit into any pc-setup scheme you want.

so to truely answer your question it all depends on what you will be doing with the server to truly tell you the best hardware/software in my opinion.

Actually, after using Syncronet, Wildcat WINS, and a few others, WG seems 'cleaner' as far as setup and how you can configure things. I also don't mind paying for something if it works, and WG works. I do hope does get WG back up and available as a current product and generates some more development interest.

As far as systems... I have found AMD to be slightly faster than the PIV, and it runs cooler. I have three systems running right now; all with the same hardware config (drive, memory, etc.); a AMD with 2000 server, Pentium III with WinXP Pro and Pentium IV with Win2000 Pro.

I've found the Pentium III and P4 give me the same results. The AMD with the Win2000 server is "slightly slower" but the server OS is more stable; doesn't force me to respond to the office to reset because it doesn't 'freeze up or hang' like the other two on some errors requiring a physical reset by the switch.

Toyduck

yeah im in the process of building another pc i chose the intel pentium IV 3.60-HT
the MB intel reccomends for it is slightly higher than ones i chose for the pc prior to finding this processor but they claim the processor works excellent with it.

i typically used to build basic amd athlons for my server needs but this project im working on requires .net and i said what the hell if gonna go .net might as well go vista and .net 3.0

unless its just me i find that .net 2.0 is very laggy and very sluggish when calling its serialization/de-serialization routines.
on a 64bit pc using the zlib64.dll it does better but still a lag-monster

back with .net 1.1 i could ocmpile all the c# scripts for the server im working on in around 1-3mins pending on if i changed or added any new namespaces but with 2.0 it takes the same project 8-11mins

so i need something i know has speed.

i have an intel pIII-877/256mb ram, AMD-800 with 512mb ram, compaq presario celeron-d 2.03 with 1.5gb ram as my servers right now

so do you reccomend sticking with the hyper threading pIV or going AMD64?

Toyduck · Post by **Toyduck** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:47 pm

dspain wrote:
so do you reccomend sticking with the hyper threading pIV or going AMD64?

Right now I like the AMD64 dual core processors. They give me the same performance as the P4-HP at a lower cost.

I installed a couple of months ago a dual Xenon server with HP running Windows Server 2003 with Exchange server 2003 and MSSQL 2003.. I runs smooth; but the .net 2.0 apps I installed are extremly laggy compared to the prior 1.1 versions. I would have kept the older 1.1 versions on the new server, but that's not what the customer wanted. I think the older 1.1 on Windows Server 2000 had better client/server performance with SQL.

I'm not a programmer, more a systems integrator, so I don't have the specifics to give you regarding various .dll's etc. Just how different apps behave and work together.

I'm getting ready to build my first Opteron system for another customer. According to my supplier, that's the chip to use. I'll see...

Toyduck

Ghaleon · Post by **Ghaleon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:40 pm

Quicksilver runs off a dual 2.8 xeon server with 2GB RAM

My Test Server runs off a AMD 3800x2 with 3GB RAM

The AMD is HELLA faster but the xeon cost me a lot more. Go figure.

Toyduck · Post by **Toyduck** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:09 am

Ghaleon wrote:Quicksilver runs off a dual 2.8 xeon server with 2GB RAM

My Test Server runs off a AMD 3800x2 with 3GB RAM

The AMD is HELLA faster but the xeon cost me a lot more. Go figure.

I know! so far I have not found any icompatibilities with software using the AMD and have had great reliability with them.

Toyduck