Win95 to Win98 & big performance hit

[JBruyet]

Hey all,

I just upgraded several of my users from win95 to win98 (I can't give them XP because of db software they have to use). I thought they would have a little better performance but they are much slower now. The machines are as follows:

FIC PA-2013 Mobo
AMD K6-2 550 MHz
Western Digital 20GB
128 MB ram
3C905B-TX
8 MB AGP video

Tweaks I've done are:
Under Performance tab
Virtual Mem to 120/120
Memory to Network Server
VCache to 8192/16384 min/max
Config.sys
path\himem.sys
path\emm386.exe noems
dos=high,umb
FIC mobo driver update to 438

Any ideas on what can be done to make these at least as fast as they were? I can't go back to win95 for the same reason I can't go to XP--db software.

Thanks for all help,

Joe Brouillette

 

[Win98User]

Hi,
Before attempting to answer the question, could you explain what the reasons are for the tweaks you have made? You know your machines better than we do ;-)

A post script to that would be, what was the performance like before making the tweaks?

TIA.

 

[davidelnormal]

I run a system very similar to yours and Win 98 runs fine. With the very limited information at hand, the only suggestion I can offer is to nsure you are running Fat 32 not Fat 16.

 

[JBruyet]

Ok, the reason I made the tweaks that I did was in the interest of better performance. I have found that maually setting himem and emm386 will give better performance on win9x machines, and doing the "dos=high,umb" thing frees up more conventional memory. I have read in several places on the internet that setting VCache numbers can help performance too. The virtual mem tweak eliminates lag when Windows wants to readjust the size of virtual mem, and the "network server" tweak uses some extended memory for caching data.

I work at a transit company and these computers are being used for bus dispatching and taking reservations. That is the reason for the OS-limiting db programs that we are running, and the reason for needing as much performance that I can get out of them. FWIW, overclocking is not an option.

To respond to the postscript, I can't put a number on the performance before or after the upgrade. I was told that performance is about half ("or less&quot of what it was pre-upgrade. I had some very upset users over this issue. Hopefully I can find something that will help speed things up. If anyone has any ideas, and I do mean ANY ideas, I will consider them. In the meantime, my Scout is in the parking lot with a straight shot across the field to the road. Just in case...

Thanks,

Joe Brouillette

 

[cdogg]

First of all, I must ask if you did an upgrade or a clean install? Also, what part about the system seems slower to the users - bootup time, db software, both, etc.?

As far as I know, the config.sys tweaks you implemented will only effect some 16-bit applications and is targeted at the DOS environment. It doesn't affect any part of the 32-bit environment.

The rest of the tweaks are fine (and it's good that you set a static swap file). However, I would try putting the Vcache and Config.sys settings back to the default as a test. If it doesn't make a the system any faster or slower without them, better just to leave them to the default for now.


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[Win98User]

Hi JBruyet,
I was asking what the performance was before the tweaks NOT before the upgrade.

cdogg has basically covered my reservations about your tweaks.

As cdogg suggested, have a look at the machine with default settings and compare performance. Please also post back and answer cdogg's question about where the slow performance is being felt. The only additional suggestion I would have at this point would be to try to boost the RAM of the machines. Win98 is a little bit more hungry than Win95.

All the best.

 

[diogenes10]

1> was other software added to the win 98 install that was not in the win 95 configuration? In my home situation, as soon as I add things like virus protection and firewall, win 95 slows down tremendously-at least in start up.

2> if the REQUIRED db software (either original install or upgrade) cannot be/has not been run under anything but win98, do the users have a true comparison base to say win98 runs slower than win95 when performing the required company activity?

 

[wolluf]

Just a quickie - have you turned off the win98 'features' that slow it down, like active desktop, tool tip fade, various animations, smoth scrolling, show windows content while dragging etc (use tweakui for some/most of these) -

http://www.microsoft.com/ntworkstation/downloads/PowerToys/Networking/NTTweakUI.asp.

 

[JBruyet]

Ok, I'm going to try to answer all questions. Here goes:
* All processes are slower--boot, program access, everything, and I do mean everything, is slower.
* Our main db program is a DOS program. I have 120k available for upgrading but there are some promising new technologies on the horizon and we don't want to buy now and wish we would have waited. I'm outvoted.
* I've experimented on and off with VCache and I'm going to just dump it--no visible diff. I can't do without the config.sys tweaks due to reason above.
* Tweaked on not, performance is like my old Datsun--it'll get there but in its own time.
* More memory... There isn't any paging going on but hey, sticking in another 128MB could be a cheap fix. I'll try it.
* Win98 config is identical to Win95 config
* Win95 performance vs Win98 performance is drastically different, and not just with db programs. When clicking on a menu choice the menu comes up in chunks. Is there a program "out there" like the Task Manager in 2k/XP?
* I will give tweakui a shot.

I have until end-of-day tomorrow to get this going. I've never had a problem like this before. Any time I've upgraded someone from Win95 to Win98 (at work and away) my users have always been very pleased. I'll let everyone know what I find out. And THANKS VERY MUCH for all the help and suggestions!!!

Joe Brouillette

 

[cdogg]

We're getting closer. However, one important question remains unanswered:

Did you install Win98 "on top of" Win95, or did you do a clean install (formatting the hard drive first)?

If in fact the setup under Win98 is identical to how it was under Win95, that doesn't leave much room for speculation. Either you didn't perform a clean install which is badly needed here, or the DB software is using up more resources under 98 than it did in 95. In the latter case, it's a poorly written piece of software and probably not much you can do about it.


I do want to mention that I find it very interesting you said:

I can't go back to win95 for the same reason I can't go to XP--db software

Are you saying that you can't go back to 95 because of the db software? But I thought you just said the two setups were identical? Seems like something isn't matching up right...
~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[JBruyet]

Ok, if I'm not communicating clearly I apologize. It might be because I don't drink coffee and I've put in a few "really late nights" trying to get this to work (and here I am again).

1) I did clean installs on all of my computers. As to the possibility of updating the db software, I'll quote the Finance Manager's statement to me yesterday in reference to my question about a possible program update: "Not while I'm working here."

2) As to the Win95/XP conundrum. In the midst of all this I also updated the db program (at first I thought the performance problems might be related, but even booting the computers was affected). Previous to the upgrade we couldn't use XP because it wasn't supported and win95 was. Now, after the upgrade, we can use XP but Win95 is no longer supported.

I don't believe the db program update is contributing anything to the problem. At this point I'm starting to wonder about a possible hardware problem (talkative NIC?) due to a Win98 driver??? Sound far fetched or within the realm of possibility??? Maybe some other piece of hardware?

More to come, I just don't know when.

Joe Brouillette

 

[cdogg]

So, the db software is accessing resources over a network? Or is it all local?

I would try uninstalling the db software and removing the NIC and driver as a test on one of the problematic pc's. Wouldn't take long and you could run some serious comparisons. If that doesn't make a difference, at least you've ruled something out...


~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[cdogg]

Sorry to for all the jabber, but it may be worthwhile to consider 2 main differences between 95 and 98:

1) 98 was the first step Micro$oft took to leave DOS and 16-bit applications behind. It is not built on true DOS. DOS went from 6.22 to 7.0 in Win98, and we all know 7.0 isn't true DOS.

2) Memory Management: caching, virtual memory, resource management all saw slight improvements in Win98. It might be that the config.sys tweaks that worked in 95 were not meant for 98 due to the difference in memory management. You can try adding this line to your system.ini file under the [386Enh] section:

ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1

Note: This entry changes many parameters effectively taking away the improvements of Win98 making it behave much like 95. I usually only recommend trying it in situations like these.


I promise, that's the last you'll hear from me!
~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[JBruyet]

Sheesh, either you're up late too or you're in another country. ANYWAY, I can't uninstall the db software. It's client/server and the users have to manually start the client software before a connection is made. Ever hear of Comet by Signature? It's what we use for secure connections to the server. So the user starts Comet and that starts the session.

I'll see about the conservativeswapfilethingy. I've been putting out small "fires" and trying to pacify some "I like the status quo" users and fix this too. I think I'll see if McDonald's is still hiring.

It's late so later,

Joe Brouillette

 

[cdogg]

Yeah, I'm up late! Stuck on a project right now (C++) that I just can't seem to debug... ~cdogg

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
- A. Einstein

 

[wolluf]

cdogg - small correction - dos went from 6.22 to version 7 in win 95 (from 3.1).

 

[wolluf]

JBruyet - your hardware issue may well be right - but I wouldn't like having to find out what. More memory won't make any difference - 98 should fly with 128MB.
Possibly silly suggestion - have you considered clean installing win98 again on problem machine? (possibly using the minimal hardware on install, add them after approach).

 

[Win98User]

Hi,
Is that instead of my silly suggestion? ;-)

I would add a few points about adding additional memory to this configuration. Firstly it won't hurt. Secondly, it's a cheap option (if you have 128 sticks, poach one from another machine). Thirdly I have seen Win98 machines benfit markedly from 256Mb rather than 128Mb. Lastly this is a Win98 machine with a AMD K6-2 550 MHz processor ~ I have yet to see one fly, they can do with all the help they can get, lol.

All the best.

 

[wolluf]

Sorry win98user - didn't spot you'd suggested that (just saw he was thinking of doing it). Still think memory's not an issue though - haven't noticed any performance gain over 64MB with win98 (other than when machine very heavily loaded - which is bad idea using 98 anyway, as it tends to crash). And I've got a P200 equivalent with 80MB RAM that's pretty quick with 95, 98 & ME (well for the first 5 minutes, until its been running a while and does the usual win9x performance degrade)! Also, its not noticeably different running 95 or 98 speedwise.
Just my opinion! And of course you're right - its worth trying.

 

[mrregan]

Hi,
I would suggest letting win98 manage virtual memory for a while until you determine whether something else is slowing the machines down. What does msconfig show for startup options? Have you disabled fast indexing?