Does OS for SETI make a difference in times?

[jatwell]

I have an XP 1600+ running at 12.5 x 133 (1666) and memory at 166 Cas 2.5 (Windows 98) averages 3:30

It's slower than a XP 1600+ running at 10.5 x 150 (1575), memory 150 Cas 2.5 (Windows 2000) averages 3:15

Both on identical motherboards. Is it the operating system or running the memory async to the bus? The first system should be faster overall, correct? Are those times about in line with what is expected?

 

[jatwell]

Oh, BTW finally upgrading all my computers to DDR 🙂 Should get a little more out of them w/ new XP thorougbreds and DDR (most are Athlon 1200 w/ SDR right now)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Seti likes a high FSB 🙂 so that may be part of the difference but Win2k handles VLAR WUs much better than win9X. So a combo of the 2 should explain the difference.

CkG

 

[Wiz]

yes, that's my experience with those two OS's as well

 

[Crazee]

Win2K will handle VLAR WUs much better than Win 9x so the averages appear right 🙂

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Does WinXP handle them any faster than Win2k? Just curious what changes where made to the Win2k core that allowed XP to come to light.

 

[Assimilator1]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Seti likes a high FSB 🙂 so that may be part of the difference but Win2k handles VLAR WUs much better than win9X. So a combo of the 2 should explain the difference.

CkG

What he said😉 ,in addition SETI likes low latency too ,so the synchronus operation of the FSB & RAM on your 2nd rig will help too🙂
Btw on that 1st rig you'd probably be better off runing the RAM at 133MHz too & then setting it to CAS 2-2-2.Assuming it'll handle it.