The Major BBS Forums (Archive)

I know there was a thread about worldgroup and win 2003 server not working correctly. What about vista 64-bit? If no one knows, then I'll probably try it out and see, as I just bought a NEW PC with both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of vista.

Malakai wrote:I know there was a thread about worldgroup and win 2003 server not working correctly. What about vista 64-bit? If no one knows, then I'll probably try it out and see, as I just bought a NEW PC with both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of vista.

Oh geez.

I don't know if anyone's tried any of the 64bit builds yet. I know there were problems with some modules and XP SP2, and some with 2003... I don't think its a problem with the base system though.

Well, I can answer my own question now, and unfortunately, it won't run on x64. It gets an error stating the it's a 16-bit application, and x64 has done away with 16-bit support completely.

Malakai wrote:Well, I can answer my own question now, and unfortunately, it won't run on x64. It gets an error stating the it's a 16-bit application, and x64 has done away with 16-bit support completely.

I have a funny feeling that Vista in general will not support 16bit applications either at all or well. I think part of their moving the platform forward was (finally) shedding the stringent requirement for backward compatibility.

There is no 16 bit support in Vista.
If I recall correctly, almost all of the WG/MBBS systems were 16-bit PE.
MAYBE 3.2+... but that's a gamble. Even then, I think the modules still used 16 bit addressing. This is a prime example of why WG needs to be rewritten with a modern compiler, and using modern coding standards and practices.

EArmbrust wrote:There is no 16 bit support in Vista.
If I recall correctly, almost all of the WG/MBBS systems were 16-bit PE.
MAYBE 3.2+... but that's a gamble. Even then, I think the modules still used 16 bit addressing. This is a prime example of why WG needs to be rewritten with a modern compiler, and using modern coding standards and practices.

yep, worldgroup was written on a 386 under Nt 3.51
using Borland C 5.00

Malakai wrote:I know there was a thread about worldgroup and win 2003 server not working correctly. What about vista 64-bit? If no one knows, then I'll probably try it out and see, as I just bought a NEW PC with both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of vista.

Actually, I run both my systems on Win Server 2003 and have not had any problems with WG itself. I use both Enterprise and Standard editions.

Vista and Win64 are out though, no 16bit support anymore.

Toyduck

Toyduck wrote:

Malakai wrote:I know there was a thread about worldgroup and win 2003 server not working correctly. What about vista 64-bit? If no one knows, then I'll probably try it out and see, as I just bought a NEW PC with both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of vista.

Actually, I run both my systems on Win Server 2003 and have not had any problems with WG itself. I use both Enterprise and Standard editions.

Vista and Win64 are out though, no 16bit support anymore.

Toyduck

which is your best best vista isnt a 'server' o/s.
why people want to run servers on a platform not meant to act as a server is always beyond me.

over at runuo.com people want to run their UO servers on xp-home,vista,hell even some threads on win98....sigh

wg works best under win2000,win2003, and i have even tested it under win2008, i'd leave vista (which still has like 3yrs of fixes to go through), xp (even pro), and any win9x breed out of the picture. want a good bbs thats the way to go.

dspain wrote:
over at runuo.com people want to run their UO servers on xp-home,vista,hell even some threads on win98....sigh

wg works best under win2000,win2003, and i have even tested it under win2008, i'd leave vista (which still has like 3yrs of fixes to go through), xp (even pro), and any win9x breed out of the picture. want a good bbs thats the way to go.

I agree, Win Server 2000 proved to be extremely stable, and Win Server 2003 Standard and Enterprise have worked fine. The only reason I would see for using Win98 would be DOS compatibility for a DOS based BBS.

TD

Toyduck wrote:

dspain wrote:
over at runuo.com people want to run their UO servers on xp-home,vista,hell even some threads on win98....sigh

wg works best under win2000,win2003, and i have even tested it under win2008, i'd leave vista (which still has like 3yrs of fixes to go through), xp (even pro), and any win9x breed out of the picture. want a good bbs thats the way to go.

I agree, Win Server 2000 proved to be extremely stable, and Win Server 2003 Standard and Enterprise have worked fine. The only reason I would see for using Win98 would be DOS compatibility for a DOS based BBS.

TD

yeah and look at the audit trail after init on wgnt under 98 then under any breed of nt.
look at the memory difference.

One of the reasons I have not tried windows 2000 before was because I only have the upgrade version. So, I would have to install windows 98 first. Here's the problem. Neither of my dual-cpu servers will let me install windows 98. So, I can't install windows 2000 with out a stand-alone version.

The other alternative is what I had been using, windows xp professional. As far as resources, windows 2000 is suppose to run slightly faster, take up less resources, and do better data crunching.

XP Pro is still a very good alternative, as far as resources, coming in at a close 2nd, while 2003 is suppose to take up more resources than xp, and I believe that's probably correct, because I did briefly have a copy of 2003 installed, and it seemed a little bit slower than xp pro. Of course, I don't have 3+ghz machines or dual or quad 3ghz machines, or 2003 might be a more viable option. I've got a dual 1.26ghz piii system and a dual 400mhz xeon system, which actually runs a bit faster than the 1.26ghz dual, even with the much faster scsi seagate cheetah hard drive on the 1.26ghz system, probably because of twice the cpu cache.

With those things being said, I would still like to opt for a faster server to run worldgroup on, because it's still not running at full speed with all of the addon modules/services, maybe a dual 2.8ghz xeon.

Malakai wrote:One of the reasons I have not tried windows 2000 before was because I only have the upgrade version. So, I would have to install windows 98 first. Here's the problem. Neither of my dual-cpu servers will let me install windows 98. So, I can't install windows 2000 with out a stand-alone version.

The other alternative is what I had been using, windows xp professional. As far as resources, windows 2000 is suppose to run slightly faster, take up less resources, and do better data crunching.

XP Pro is still a very good alternative, as far as resources, coming in at a close 2nd, while 2003 is suppose to take up more resources than xp, and I believe that's probably correct, because I did briefly have a copy of 2003 installed, and it seemed a little bit slower than xp pro. Of course, I don't have 3+ghz machines or dual or quad 3ghz machines, or 2003 might be a more viable option. I've got a dual 1.26ghz piii system and a dual 400mhz xeon system, which actually runs a bit faster than the 1.26ghz dual, even with the much faster scsi seagate cheetah hard drive on the 1.26ghz system, probably because of twice the cpu cache.

With those things being said, I would still like to opt for a faster server to run worldgroup on, because it's still not running at full speed with all of the addon modules/services, maybe a dual 2.8ghz xeon.

thats an interesting concept. how are you going about testing your speed?
with 2003 installed and running, installing WG and starting it, whats your test method?
servers should be operating stand-alone alot of people run wg or some form of server in the back ground of a pc they use to do other stuff.
as a server i run 2003 on 2 diff machines

1) celeron 2.70, 1gb ram, 100gb hd - this pc runs a wgnt dev system to test modules after compile, and also handles my door server,fidonet server,email server, and a small FTP for clients to download updates.
i have no problems in this setup.

2) celeron 1.0, 512mb ram, 40gb hd - this pc runs c# 2005 express edition, tortoise svn, and a series of other nt development stuff i use
for non WG development projects and although it is running a slow cpu
it seems to run pretty good under 2003 as long as i disable the IIS stuff.
and use this server strictly as a SVN mirror to my master svn server.

I know all of the old dos mbbs systems, even when they ran at a full pace, actually occasionally had spurts of lag, not caused by modem or phone lines, but some thing in the bbs itself.

With worldgroup and windows, it probably happens a bit less. My method to test the speed is to actually log on and use those programs for a long period of time. The lag bursts happened more on my dual piii 1.26ghz system, windows xp pro, less on the dual 400mhz xeon system, also windows xp pro. I would like to stop all of these lag bursts completely.

The only three programs running in the background (besides essentials) were worldgroup, space quest 2112, and a dynamic ip updater.

-

Even with out worldgroup running, I could see a noticeable delay between simple things like pressing the windows symbol/start key and seeing how long it took for the program menu to show up and then just seeing how long it takes for programs to load. That, along with having one of the fastest scsi drives made for the scsi controller told me the system just couldn't handle xp very well, although it may have done better with 2000. So, it's just sitting in storage, probably never to be used again. The damn thing weighs too much to ship (i paid around $100 to ship it here.)

Even my duron 950mhz is faster on xp pro than this eserver.

This is why I upgraded to the xeon system when doing some major upgrading, and although it would probably do fine for awhile, I'd like something even a bit faster if I bring the BBS back up in late 2008 or early 2009.

Malakai wrote:One of the reasons I have not tried windows 2000 before was because I only have the upgrade version. So, I would have to install windows 98 first. Here's the problem. Neither of my dual-cpu servers will let me install windows 98. So, I can't install windows 2000 with out a stand-alone version.

The upgrade should ask you to insert your Win98 CD in your CD drive if it doesn't find a copy of a previous version (98/ME) on the Hardrive, the upgrade disk has the full 2000 install on it, it doesn't need any of the 98 files.

TD

Malakai wrote: T

Even with out worldgroup running, I could see a noticeable delay between simple things like pressing the windows symbol/start key and seeing how long it took for the program menu to show up and then just seeing how long it takes for programs to load.

What's nice about Win Server 2000 (and 2003) is the ability to set the OS to give background services or applications the priority, something XP and Win2000 don't have. If background services are set high, you will see lag on the console when trying to use apps.

Since WG is actually an application, I find it runs smoother and faster with the server set to give front end applications first priority.

TD

Toyduck wrote:

Malakai wrote: T

Even with out worldgroup running, I could see a noticeable delay between simple things like pressing the windows symbol/start key and seeing how long it took for the program menu to show up and then just seeing how long it takes for programs to load.

What's nice about Win Server 2000 (and 2003) is the ability to set the OS to give background services or applications the priority, something XP and Win2000 don't have. If background services are set high, you will see lag on the console when trying to use apps.

Since WG is actually an application, I find it runs smoother and faster with the server set to give front end applications first priority.

TD

problem is with server debugging for sysops is most the sysops that email me for help on lag issues have Wg installed and they use the pc as well.
huge NO NO when trying to setup a pc for entertainment purposes.

claim they get lag when browsing the net or reading email, if its a server only time you should be on it is for server admin stuff and get off.
my server doesnt get touched and with over 27 addons installed averaging 25 users playing majormud, tele-arena6, farwest, and a few elwynor games i get 0 lag within the server except a few spikes here and there.