K7S5A hates Seagate 7200.7 40GBs? The 60 & 80GB work fine

"Mr. Slow" <> wrote in message news:<bu1o9s$nd1$>...
> Fruit salad indeed Kyle but I have always felt that Win 98 based systems are
> quicker than those based on Win 2K and you have confirmed this. For me, Win
> 98 is the better OS; a devil I know perhaps especially while MS are
> continuing support for 98SE.

With due respect to your ongoing help & support for others Mr. Slow,
I have to say I have found Win2K pro and WinXp so much more stable and
faster on the same hardware that I seldom use my Win98 partitions any
more.
Yet I still use it to help support friends and family who are still on
it.
I spent more hours than I care to admit to, learning every tweak and
reliable enhancement to Win98 that I could, and yet I have moved on.

The fact that I never have need to reboot my server at the office on a
daily basis to free system resources or go thru that drill here at
home has me convinced that the NT kernel is superior in many ways.

Without a doubt I also see higher Sandra drive benchmark numbers in
Win98, but I actally see/feel clearly better system performance in
Win2k everyday.

Frank

"Frank" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> "Mr. Slow" <> wrote in message
news:<bu1o9s$nd1$>...
> > Fruit salad indeed Kyle but I have always felt that Win 98 based systems
are
> > quicker than those based on Win 2K and you have confirmed this. For me,
Win
> > 98 is the better OS; a devil I know perhaps especially while MS are
> > continuing support for 98SE.
>
> With due respect to your ongoing help & support for others Mr. Slow,
> I have to say I have found Win2K pro and WinXp so much more stable and
> faster on the same hardware that I seldom use my Win98 partitions any
> more.
> Yet I still use it to help support friends and family who are still on
> it.
> I spent more hours than I care to admit to, learning every tweak and
> reliable enhancement to Win98 that I could, and yet I have moved on.
>
> The fact that I never have need to reboot my server at the office on a
> daily basis to free system resources or go thru that drill here at
> home has me convinced that the NT kernel is superior in many ways.
>
> Without a doubt I also see higher Sandra drive benchmark numbers in
> Win98, but I actally see/feel clearly better system performance in
> Win2k everyday.
>
> Frank

I understand your point, Frank. Most people share your view about the
superiority of the NT kernel OSes. I cannot deny that they are more stable
and once set up, easier to administer. But I LIKE Win 98. Some people are
strange aren't they? Just don't ask what sort of car I
drive.................OK?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:34:52 -0000, "Mr. Slow"
<> wrote:

>
>"Kyle Brant" <> wrote in message
>news:bu1hcu$co7f2$...
>>
>> "Mr. Slow" <> wrote in
>> message news:bu18nn$ng1$...
>> |
>> | "Ava Keech" <> wrote in message
>> | news:...
>> | > On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:01:17 GMT, "James" <> wrote:
>> | >
>> | > >Trust me. Your drives will be slow on the K7S5A even when it
>> doesn't
>> | share
>> | > >a cable with the CDROM. My old Dell P2-500 kills the K7S5A on
>> drive
>> | > >throughput.
>> | >
>> | > Here is some old info I have.
>> | >
>> | > ================================================== ============
>> | > I was having a problem with my new Western Digital 7200 RPM 40 Gig
>> hard
>> | dive
>> | > running slow in Windows XP. I downloaded and installed the file
>> below and
>> | that
>> | > fixed it. On a older version of Sandra my hard drive benchmarked
>> at
>> | around
>> | > 4,000. That is very very slow. After installing the file below
>> my hard
>> | drive
>> | > benchmarks at 28,000!
>> | > http://download.msi.com.tw/support/dvr_exe/SiSide41.exe
>> | > P.S. I also found what appears to be a newer version of the file
>> above
>> | but I
>> | > have not tested it. Here is the link:
>> | > http://download.msi.com.tw/support/dvr_exe/SiSide47.exe
>> | >
>> | > My Hard drive would not go into DMA mode, it was stuck in PIO
>> mode. I
>> | tried a
>> | > few different things to get it into DMA mode but nothing worked.
>> PIO mode
>> | is
>> | > the reason I was getting very slow hard drive benchmarks. Once I
>> install
>> | the
>> | > SISise.exe file my hard drive went into Ultra DMA Mode 5. That is
>> why I
>> | saw
>> | > such a great improvement in hard drive benchmark scores.
>> | >
>> | > So my conclusion is check in the Drvice Manager under IDE
>> Controllers and
>> | if
>> | > your IDE Channels are in PIO mode and DMA mode will not "stick"
>> then
>> | using the
>> | > SIS drivers listed above may indeed help. But if you are already
>> in DMA
>> | mode
>> | > the SIS drivers will not help much if any. The old saying "If it
>> ain't
>> | broke
>> | > don't fix it" applies.
>> |
>> | I have always found the K7S5A to return poor IDE benchmarks. I have
>> just
>> | benchmarked 7 systems on 2 differnet LANs with a mixture of SIS, ALI
>> and VIA
>> | chipsetted boards. All are running with various 40gb. UDMA 100 HDDs,
>> Seagate
>> | WD and Maxtor. DMA is enabled on all. Latest manufacturers chipset
>> drivers
>> | installed on all. Benchmarks vary from 18,000 to 21,000 (K7S5a) up
>> to
>> | 27,100. That's a lot of difference! Ironically, the slowest HDD
>> machines
>> | have the fastest CPUs (T bred 2400 and 2200) and the fastest has the
>> slowest
>> | CPU (Duron 1800). Also, both of the slow machines are running Win 2K
>> NTFS as
>> | opposed to the others which are Win 98SE with FAT32. I've never been
>> able to
>> | explain it fully. Anyone care to comment?
>> | >
>> |
>>
>> You just explained it. Any benchmark that is file system oriented
>> will reveal that NTFS partitions are slower than fat32 partitions.
>> With my k7s5a setup (WD 40G 7200 HD, Thunderbird 1400 CPU), a Sandra
>> benchmark of the fat32 partition would yield about a 24,000 result (a
>> decent and expectable result), while a benchmark of the NTFS drive
>> would yield about 14,000 to 16,000 (best as I can recall). Further,
>> win98 benchmarks will tend to be a bit faster than win2k/XP benchmarks
>> due to the nature of the OS and how the OS works internally. Comparing
>> one brand HD to another with all the other factors thrown in
>> (different chipsets, different cpu speeds, different OS's, different
>> file systems) means none of your results are reliable comparisons.
>> Finally, as a wise old owl once said, mixing apples with oranges (when
>> benchmark testing) gives you fruit salad.
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Kyle
>
>Fruit salad indeed Kyle but I have always felt that Win 98 based systems are
>quicker than those based on Win 2K and you have confirmed this. For me, Win
>98 is the better OS; a devil I know perhaps especially while MS are
>continuing support for 98SE.
>>
>
It does make sense that ntfs systems would benchmark slower than
fat32 systems. The extra security in ntfs should have a cost that
shows up on benchmarks.
PJ

"Mr. Slow" <> wrote in message news:<bu34em$265$>...
> "Frank" <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > "Mr. Slow" <> wrote in message
> news:<bu1o9s$nd1$>...
> > > Fruit salad indeed Kyle but I have always felt that Win 98 based systems
> are
> > > quicker than those based on Win 2K and you have confirmed this. For me,
> Win
> > > 98 is the better OS; a devil I know perhaps especially while MS are
> > > continuing support for 98SE.
> >
> > With due respect to your ongoing help & support for others Mr. Slow,
> > I have to say I have found Win2K pro and WinXp so much more stable and
> > faster on the same hardware that I seldom use my Win98 partitions any
> > more.
> > Yet I still use it to help support friends and family who are still on
> > it.
> > I spent more hours than I care to admit to, learning every tweak and
> > reliable enhancement to Win98 that I could, and yet I have moved on.
> >
> > The fact that I never have need to reboot my server at the office on a
> > daily basis to free system resources or go thru that drill here at
> > home has me convinced that the NT kernel is superior in many ways.
> >
> > Without a doubt I also see higher Sandra drive benchmark numbers in
> > Win98, but I actally see/feel clearly better system performance in
> > Win2k everyday.
> >
> > Frank
>
> I understand your point, Frank. Most people share your view about the
> superiority of the NT kernel OSes. I cannot deny that they are more stable
> and once set up, easier to administer. But I LIKE Win 98. Some people are
> strange aren't they? Just don't ask what sort of car I
> drive.................OK?

Nope, I don't feel you're a bit strange at all.
Just feel we're all fortunate to be here at this highly entertaining
point of technology with the freedom to choose which OS's we like and
use any or all of them.
Best of all that we can come here, learn from others and perhaps help
one another with the challenges we all face from time to time.

OK, I just have to ask now.
What kind of car? :^)

Frank

"Frank" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> "Mr. Slow" <> wrote in message
news:<bu34em$265$>...
> > "Frank" <> wrote in message
> > news: om...
> > > "Mr. Slow" <> wrote in
message
> > news:<bu1o9s$nd1$>...
> > > > Fruit salad indeed Kyle but I have always felt that Win 98 based
systems
> > are
> > > > quicker than those based on Win 2K and you have confirmed this. For
me,
> > Win
> > > > 98 is the better OS; a devil I know perhaps especially while MS are
> > > > continuing support for 98SE.
> > >
> > > With due respect to your ongoing help & support for others Mr. Slow,
> > > I have to say I have found Win2K pro and WinXp so much more stable and
> > > faster on the same hardware that I seldom use my Win98 partitions any
> > > more.
> > > Yet I still use it to help support friends and family who are still on
> > > it.
> > > I spent more hours than I care to admit to, learning every tweak and
> > > reliable enhancement to Win98 that I could, and yet I have moved on.
> > >
> > > The fact that I never have need to reboot my server at the office on a
> > > daily basis to free system resources or go thru that drill here at
> > > home has me convinced that the NT kernel is superior in many ways.
> > >
> > > Without a doubt I also see higher Sandra drive benchmark numbers in
> > > Win98, but I actally see/feel clearly better system performance in
> > > Win2k everyday.
> > >
> > > Frank
> >
> > I understand your point, Frank. Most people share your view about the
> > superiority of the NT kernel OSes. I cannot deny that they are more
stable
> > and once set up, easier to administer. But I LIKE Win 98. Some people
are
> > strange aren't they? Just don't ask what sort of car I
> > drive.................OK?
>
> Nope, I don't feel you're a bit strange at all.
> Just feel we're all fortunate to be here at this highly entertaining
> point of technology with the freedom to choose which OS's we like and
> use any or all of them.
> Best of all that we can come here, learn from others and perhaps help
> one another with the challenges we all face from time to time.
>
> OK, I just have to ask now.
> What kind of car? :^)
>
> Frank

Quite a sensible one actually! It was a kind-of double bluff. It's really
only computers that make me crazy.

Just don't ask what beer I drink, OK? :-)

"PJx" <> wrote in message
news:...
> It does make sense that ntfs systems would benchmark slower than
> fat32 systems. The extra security in ntfs should have a cost that
> shows up on benchmarks.

Yep. That's why my main two hard drives (20 and 40 gig) still use FAT32 on
my XP machine. Only have one drive (80gig) that I formated NTFS and that is
"only" because I use it to edit and capture video. Everything else is
FAT32.

If you need the compression and all the security crap of NTFS then fine but
you pay a price for them. If you don't then FAT32 is actually faster and
more compatible with more apps and games etc.