I'm getting a Xeon 2.4 system and was worndering which is the best OS to run with it, Windows 2000 or XP pro. I'm using this to burn DVD and other general stuff.
Which OS is best to run with Xeon 2.4
- Thread starter tivonut
- Start date
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 35,054
- 2,214
- 126
I'd get XP Pro, since that's the newest thing. If you don't mind me asking, what kind of general stuff are you going to be doing that requires a Xeon? Don't get me wrong, if it's just for the fun of building factor, go ahead by all means. If it's just for Office, your money might be better spent elsewhere.
This one is easy, run XP as 2K doesn't support hyperthreading as fully as XP. Be sure to enable hyperthreading in your bios.
There are substantial differences in certain areas of the system, if you don't nornmally use the new functionality you might refer to the changes as just eye candy. But in this case XP is a better choice.
Bill <- running dual Xeon 2.8's with HT enabled (XP sees quad cpu system)
There are substantial differences in certain areas of the system, if you don't nornmally use the new functionality you might refer to the changes as just eye candy. But in this case XP is a better choice.
Bill <- running dual Xeon 2.8's with HT enabled (XP sees quad cpu system)
Come on Nothinman, the guy asked XP or 2K. Couldn't you at least wait until someone else jumped in with the usual 'run linux' comment?
Bill
Actually, I believe there is a fairly large difference.
WIN2K is multiprocessor enabled, but doesn't understand the difference between "multiprocessor" and "Hyperthreaded," and I'm reasonabley certain that XP does.
In a nutshell (again, my understanding, I could be off a bit), Hyperthreading enables the use of some (otherwise idle) elements in the processor chip and gains some additional efficiency in doing so, but the additional Hyperthread process is nowhere as powerful as a "real" additional processor.
If the OS thinks it's looking at another (real) processor, the OS may assign a major chunk of processing, and, because it's really NOT a full, real processor, it doesn't perform "on schedule" and other processes end up waiting longer than predicted ... the overall effect is slower / less efficient processing.
If the OS is "Hyperthreading Aware" (as I believe XP is, at least to a minor extent), it recognizes the hyperthreaded / virutal processor for what it is, and assigns more appropriate tasks, keeping the overall processing on-schedule, and gaining some efficiency.
I have a dual 2G Xeon system, I've tried WIN2k and XP: XP (at least with my apps - mostly video editing/rendering) works better. The most recent "Holy Sh*T" moment I had was when Tsunami (TMPGEnc) went hyperthread-enabled. A one hour, 36Gig AVI file was rendered to mpeg1/VCD format (two pass, max quality) in 26 minutes (complete, both passes). An mpeg2/dvd version was rendered in ~35 minutes (single pass, 6 Mbps VBR). At first , I thought it errored-out and bombed ... but the video is 100% OK, perfect-as-possible. The usual render time was more than double that time with the same options enabled.
I may have mutilated some of the technical details, and I may be completely off-base, but the bottom line is that I have tried both (WIN2K and XP Pro) on my dual Xeon system, and XP "fer sher" works better for me. I'm really tempted to load the NET 2003RC2 Server and see what new bells & whistles it opens up.
FWIW
Scott
WIN2K is multiprocessor enabled, but doesn't understand the difference between "multiprocessor" and "Hyperthreaded," and I'm reasonabley certain that XP does.
In a nutshell (again, my understanding, I could be off a bit), Hyperthreading enables the use of some (otherwise idle) elements in the processor chip and gains some additional efficiency in doing so, but the additional Hyperthread process is nowhere as powerful as a "real" additional processor.
If the OS thinks it's looking at another (real) processor, the OS may assign a major chunk of processing, and, because it's really NOT a full, real processor, it doesn't perform "on schedule" and other processes end up waiting longer than predicted ... the overall effect is slower / less efficient processing.
If the OS is "Hyperthreading Aware" (as I believe XP is, at least to a minor extent), it recognizes the hyperthreaded / virutal processor for what it is, and assigns more appropriate tasks, keeping the overall processing on-schedule, and gaining some efficiency.
I have a dual 2G Xeon system, I've tried WIN2k and XP: XP (at least with my apps - mostly video editing/rendering) works better. The most recent "Holy Sh*T" moment I had was when Tsunami (TMPGEnc) went hyperthread-enabled. A one hour, 36Gig AVI file was rendered to mpeg1/VCD format (two pass, max quality) in 26 minutes (complete, both passes). An mpeg2/dvd version was rendered in ~35 minutes (single pass, 6 Mbps VBR). At first , I thought it errored-out and bombed ... but the video is 100% OK, perfect-as-possible. The usual render time was more than double that time with the same options enabled.
I may have mutilated some of the technical details, and I may be completely off-base, but the bottom line is that I have tried both (WIN2K and XP Pro) on my dual Xeon system, and XP "fer sher" works better for me. I'm really tempted to load the NET 2003RC2 Server and see what new bells & whistles it opens up.
FWIW
Scott
shhh, at AT you aren't allowed to recommend anything under a tbird 1.4 w/256mb ram and winXP for web surfing!
it's really annoying to see what so many people here claim is too slow for non-gaming tasks :disgust:
You are forgetting the "IWBC" Specification for home computing.....
("It Would Be Cool")
FWIW
Scott
("It Would Be Cool")
FWIW
Scott
Originally posted by: wizardLRU
Originally posted by: Smilin
Bah. That's for 486's
You must be kidding right?
maybe just a bit.
I personally like Microsoft OS's on higher end machines. They have the extra horsepower to deal with all the overhead of the gui and when MS operating systems have enough power behind them they are wonderful to work with and very efficient from a human-interface perspective.
If I had a 486 though... linux would be the way to go...hehe I wonder if xp could even boot on one.
DOS
If you can afford a Xeon you can afford a few removable drive bays & spare hdds. Then install all OSes & find out what best for you.
Jup. I don't see how the speed of the machine has much or anything to do with it. I use what I like, and if I got a hold of dual xeons I sure as hell wouldn't run windows.
I'm running NetBSD on a duron 1.3 (tiger mp... I need to flash the bios to get smp durons to work, I've been too lazy to do that so far), waimea for a window manager.. and the speed of the machine has little or nothing to do with my decision.
However, I am always open to considering new things
(although it seems I have hit the end of the road as far as OS's (hm.. and window managers) go...)
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 35,054
- 2,214
- 126
Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
However, I am always open to considering new things
I don't see Plan9 or GNU/HURD on your list....
I tried running GNU/HURD once, a while back. It couldn't detect any of my hardware.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter