Seti speed experience- Win98 vs. Win2k

[Ben98SentraSE]

Just switched one of my boxes (the K62-350) from Win98 to Win2k pro. With Win98 SetiSpy said it processed 3.75% of a WU per hour. Now it says 6.11% an hour!!! If you can switch to Win2k from 95/98, do it!

 

[ElFenix]

sounds to me more like you've gotten an easier WU. plus the fact that setispy isn't very accurate below 10%. but the k6 is really good at 32bit code, so there should be a little less OS overhead. every little bit helps, i guess.

 

[office boy]

Sorry, but win98 is proven to be tha tfastest OS for Seti...
beating linux, winNT, win2K, everything.... Don't ask me why...

 

[Ben98SentraSE]

I dunno. SetiSpy consistently said "3.75% WU/hour" and this one is consistently saying 6.11. We'll see how the SetiQueue stats change...

 

[Ben98SentraSE]

office boy:

I trust your judgement, but I would like to see the data for these claims. I would like to see what systems these tests were on, how the tests were performed, how I can perform these tests myself to see, and your results. All in the name of science of course

 

[office boy]

Well it used to be on teamlambchops website, but they seem to be down right now...
I know in my experiance, win2k was slower then 98 and so was NT. Remember WU time vary from unit to unit...
I'll keep looking for the links and proof from you though.

 

[Assimilator1]

Ben


Let us know the WU times after you've done about 4-5 WU's on your K6-2 with Win2k

OB

Are you sure about Win 98 beating Linux?! Q: ,I thought Linux was the fastest for SETI?

 

[Ben98SentraSE]

Also the processing efficiency in SetiSpy has skyrocketed. On this machine before it was like 15.14, off the bottom of the chart. NOW it is at 8.14. I like

Second Win98 system currently installing win2k pro