Which OS?

Discussion in 'Trading Software' started by maxpi, Jan 3, 2003.

  1. maxpi


    Excel crashed repeatedly on my Win98 machine this morning, "low on resources", etc. Should I upgrade to Win2k or XP?

  2. My god yes
  3. nkhoi


  4. Resources mean RAM. Upgrade RAM to 256K, and your system won't crash. Do not confuse RAM with O/S. Do not confuse RAM with Windows.
  5. Well, if that was because of low resources, it will also crash on Windows XP unless you have enough memory. In fact, Windows XP requires more memory than Win98. Get more memory, that's the problem. Also, have you ever thought about optimizing your system? I have optimized my Win98SE and have rarely ever had any crashes since then. It works as if it were a completely different system.

    I know I will have to switch to Windows XP at some point, but right now I really have no compelling technological reason to do so. Money is not a problem, the point is that it would simply be a hassle for me to so when I have a system that works that well.
    So I am just waiting for something that would make me do it...
  6. low Resources in win 98 is not the same as low ram. more ram will not cure this problem.
  7. gnome


    1. Memory has nothing to do with resources. Getting 2G of memory won't help.
    2. Think of resources as a separate part of the OS that works with drivers, "start-up" files for programs, and some other goodies. (a) Some programs are resource hogs, and (b) The OS SHOULD release it's claim on resources when a program is closed. W98 and it's ilk are poor at this... a primary reason W98 is unsatisfactory as a trading computer OS.
    3. If you have "optimized" your W98 and it's running OK, it probably means you're not running that many programs at once. If you start running more, W98 is likely to not handle it. (My system is not as complex as many... Win2000 running 4 monitors + 13 programs that I can see. W98 was not adequate for the job.)

    Bottom line.. If your trading environment is working smoothly in W98, you're fine for now. If it's not, there's really nothing you can do to fix it. Just bite the bullet and go to W2K or XP. :)
  8. XP gets my vote. Although it is far from commercially acceptable, it is the first MSFT product since DOS that deserves to be called an O/S. Well, part of it anyways. A huge chunk of it is obviously graphics and public relations BS.

    But before you believe what they say: XP (like all other MSFT operating systems) is NOT suitable for more than one user per computer, running without a reboot for more than 24 hours, even slightly advanced networking, or decent multi-tasking.

    If you want any of those, you will have to spend the money to get Linux.
  9. Resources in this case do equal RAM. I am speculating here but sounds as though you might be working with 128meg or less. If it is an original config over 2 years old there is even the possibility that you have only 64meg. You should increase this to at least 256meg. With the cheap cost of RAM today, even look at maxing this puppy out. This will definitely be a plus should you choose to upgrade the OS as Win2000 or WinXP both will require more than Win98 to run smoother. They both have minimum recommendations of at least 128meg but I have successfully grown old watching both run with 64meg.

    The resources statement in the thread about releasing memory is also correct when it comes to Win98, whatever flavor. It does not do a great job of resource management when running multiple tasks. That's not to say it can't do it. Nor does it mean that you can't optimize it to handle the things you do smoother. But as with most technology, newer is better.

    Generally, I recommend to my clients that they not set up a new OS that is under a year old. You really don't want to become a free Microsoft test platform. But of late I have softened (In the head, in the middle, and with the requirements). I still say it might be a good idea to go to Win2000. But XP is not scaring me, as a tech, now.

    I run WinXP Pro on all of my main systems (including laptops) and it has preformed efficiently. Yes, there are random horror stories out there. But all-in-all, the platform is fairly good about most of the things that I have required of it (Note: all of my systems have at least 256meg of RAM with 512 being the average). And I task it quite heavily.

    Hope this helps! :)
    #10     Jan 26, 2003