• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

98 vs XP

T

Tormond

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - June 2007
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
1,406
Any reason to run XP on older boxen vs 98? Seems like a lot less overhead on 98 (although I guess if I really wanted to be true to the cause I would just DL Mage's anti folding thing and see if I can make that work--just don't like Unix (yes I know I am the devil). Just didn't know if teh folding client in 98 was crappy or anything

 
98 runs the older client I think, I forget the differances but there are some I think.

98 also ain't exactly stable, but should be alright. I'd have a very hard time spending the money on XP just for a folding rig. Yea, I hate shitux too-- just don't know how to use it myself. Once mage's deal is done, it should rock for a folding only OS.

But then again, I've loaded XP on a system w/ 64 meg ram so.... :)
 
If you just need a o/s for folding look for win98lite. I looked at it before and it cuts out a lot of the overhead crap that eats up memory. It is also more stable because of this.

XP is a memory hog, to get real performance out of it you need at least 256mb of ram or more. I use 2 pcs at work that are identical 700mhz pcs with 128mb, the one with 98 runs great, the xp one runs slower than snot.
 
Well I have plenty of XP licenses I just figured that the overhead on XP HAD to be worse for folding on slower PCs. I just DLed Mage's iso and burned it and am trying to make it work on a Slot A 900 Athlon atm :)

 
I just borged a 98 machine today, I will say with the new client it is MUCH easier to install folding as a client. Just a thought.

 
Woot was just digging thru my pile o machines and found a Athlon XP 2Ghz w/ 512MB RAM :) now to slap a HD in it and try out Mage's client

 
Tormond said:
Woot was just digging thru my pile o machines and found a Athlon XP 2Ghz w/ 512MB RAM :) now to slap a HD in it and try out Mage's client

Click to expand...

Dang who leaves nice capable boxen like that just lieing around?!! :eek:
 
Heh I have probably 50 machines in my office in some state of disfunction. I just need to go thru them and see what is what.. Oh if only I had the time (well and teh will)

 
Tormond said:
Any reason to run XP on older boxen vs 98? Seems like a lot less overhead on 98 (although I guess if I really wanted to be true to the cause I would just DL Mage's anti folding thing and see if I can make that work--just don't like Unix (yes I know I am the devil). Just didn't know if teh folding client in 98 was crappy or anything

Click to expand...

Well, I just installed XP on the last P3 in my sig since linux wasnt very friendly to to me and it takes like 5 minutes to boot. It folded all day on endless WU's and only completed 7 frames out of 20. Yes, you heard right..... only 7 frames in 10 hours. At that rate it would take a year to crank out a 5000 frame WU. I think i'll try win 98 now......
 
Just a thought, but I think keeping enough RAM open so the folding app does not swap would be the most critical part.

After that, a CPU running at 99% under any OS will do the same about of prosessing one would think.

Or, if your worried about it, just setup 2 machines to make up the difference. :D
 
marty9876 said:
Just a thought, but I think keeping enough RAM open so the folding app does not swap would be the most critical part.

After that, a CPU running at 99% under any OS will do the same about of prosessing one would think.

Or, if your worried about it, just setup 2 machines to make up the difference. :D
Click to expand...

I love the way you think mary.

 
well I just tried to install Mage's client and am getting a Kernel Panic - not syncing: Attempting to Kill init! Now I am not a linux guru but that seems bad
 
Tormond said:
well I just tried to install Mage's client and am getting a Kernel Panic - not syncing: Attempting to Kill init! Now I am not a linux guru but that seems bad
Click to expand...

yea I got that on something too. Tip: leavig it for 2 days did not fix it either.
 
marty9876 said:
yea I got that on something too. Tip: leavig it for 2 days did not fix it either.
Click to expand...

thatrs weird, cause thats how i fix all my computer problems
 
marty9876 said:
Tip: leavig it for 2 days did not fix it either.
Click to expand...

That's how I fix an overheating CPU, works like a charm. I never have to mess with that processor again! Funny how that works.

 
Tormond said:
Well I have plenty of XP licenses I just figured that the overhead on XP HAD to be worse for folding on slower PCs. I just DLed Mage's iso and burned it and am trying to make it work on a Slot A 900 Athlon atm :)

Click to expand...

XP isn't that bad on older machines as long as you have enough RAM. I have it loaded on a dually PII 266 with 256 meg of RAM and it runs rather well. I also have two clients running on it with timeless tinkers and each processor will end up putting out about 100 PPW. That's not bad.

Amazingly enough it's actually double the output it used to get on timeless tinkers. Ever since they put the 200+ point Tinkers in with the timeless WU's, I've seen better speed out of the thing.

 
Also, don't forget you can cut down on the amount of crap that runs under XP by killing unecessary services/apps/etc. I'd say that for all practical purposes the stability XP would be the route to go, and service setup and etc are much easier.

 
I'm not trying to troll, but I'll say that I've noticed a bit of a speed difference between "Shitux" and Windows, in favour of Linux.
 
Aratech said:
Well, I just installed XP on the last P3 in my sig since linux wasnt very friendly to to me and it takes like 5 minutes to boot. It folded all day on endless WU's and only completed 7 frames out of 20. Yes, you heard right..... only 7 frames in 10 hours. At that rate it would take a year to crank out a 5000 frame WU. I think i'll try win 98 now......
Click to expand...

It's not linux, it's because they are 450s. My Dual P3 450 box that I have crunching timeless units only pulls 20 PPD per processor. I've got a mix of Win2K, WinXP, Linux, and OpenBSD machines folding, and they all fold roughly at the same speed with the same processor.
 
sandmanx said:
It's not linux, it's because they are 450s. My Dual P3 450 box that I have crunching timeless units only pulls 20 PPD per processor. I've got a mix of Win2K, WinXP, Linux, and OpenBSD machines folding, and they all fold roughly at the same speed with the same processor.
Click to expand...

I agree, if you've got the ram to run a particular OS, then it won't make a difference really since the client takes up the spare cycles anyway. But a comp without the ram to run xp or win2k and pages off the hd all the time is not gonna put out any points at all.
 
Imitation said:
I agree, if you've got the ram to run a particular OS, then it won't make a difference really since the client takes up the spare cycles anyway. But a comp without the ram to run xp or win2k and pages off the hd all the time is not gonna put out any points at all.
Click to expand...

MS says that XP needs at least 128mb and Win2k needs at least 64mb to run. So maybe I can run win2k instead of win98. That would allow the pc run faster but more stable in systems with older hardware right?
 
I would say if you're going to run Windows over a variation of one of the *nux's then 2K would be the way to go. Its got, like you said, the appropriate stability, and doesn't require as robust of hardware, also it alots the ability to run the most recent clients out of Stanford's labs.

 
p[H]ant0m said:
I would say if you're going to run Windows over a variation of one of the *nux's then 2K would be the way to go. Its got, like you said, the appropriate stability, and doesn't require as robust of hardware, also it alots the ability to run the most recent clients out of Stanford's labs.

Click to expand...

Then that's what i'll do. Thanks.

Tormond, I can get you a copy of win2k if you need it.


 
Here is a tool that you can use to strip down Windows 98, 2k, XP: Windows Lite. Strip away the un-needed parts of windows for Folding or any other app you want to run.
 
Nah I have plenty of licenses for all the MS OSs. Lots of years of having action packs will do that for you :)
 
From what I've seen here (mess of 98SE and XP machines), the 98SE boxen must run the FAH4 client. Every 98SE machine I've tried with the latest console client, I've had to back down to FAH4 to get it stable again. And by "stable", I mean "I should shut that boxen down to dust it, I can't remember when I booted it" run times.

Got two "crappers" running Linux console clients, they "just run"... :)

As for "Millenium", let's just say I don't want to risk the microwave by ridding myself of the CD in that manner... :D
 
Strikemaster said:
As for "Millenium", let's just say I don't want to risk the microwave by ridding myself of the CD in that manner... :D
Click to expand...

I have to agree, "Millenium" is the worst crap that MS has shoved on the PC world. Luckily most people I talk to now have moved on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top