Weird discovery

[compguy91]

I reformatted my hard drive and put XP back on because I decided vista was a little bit resource hungry for me and I'll run it when I get a new PC. I ran Folding at home when I had vista and it took about 6 minutes per frame, I reinstalled it on XP and configured it the same way and it takes about 30 seconds per frame now. Is it normal for it to be that much of a jump? I'm thinking that the amount of resources vista uses is what slowed it down but I'm not sure.

 

[David Lindon]

I reformatted my hard drive and put XP back on because I decided vista was a little bit resource hungry for me and I'll run it when I get a new PC. I ran Folding at home when I had vista and it took about 6 minutes per frame, I reinstalled it on XP and configured it the same way and it takes about 30 seconds per frame now. Is it normal for it to be that much of a jump? I'm thinking that the amount of resources vista uses is what slowed it down but I'm not sure.

Was your vista version 64 bit?

The work units can vary so you could have had a smaller one on vista compared to xp

 

[compguy91]

It was 32 bit vista. The work unit was 5000 I believe. I did have one that was 10,000 at one time but that one took forever to get through (about two or three weeks).

 

[muz]

i told you this over at cv but try vista lite , it runs on the system in my rig quite smooth also ask dude_se and Lhuser they run it on their computers

 

[compguy91]

i told you this over at cv but try vista lite , it runs on the system in my rig quite smooth also ask dude_se and Lhuser they run it on their computers

I might do that. I've got a 160GB HDD that still works perfect, I'll probably install it on that over this next weekend or something. It looks very promising from everything I've read.

 

[dude_se]

yep it runs smoothly. i just dont really use it due to the power options not working on my laptop and some other things which are quite important

 

[Rudster8161]

i told you this over at cv but try vista lite , it runs on the system in my rig quite smooth also ask dude_se and Lhuser they run it on their computers

so can i but my computer p00ns lol not really but its my baby until i either get a new one or actually have a baby

ive always wanted to see different benchmarks for different OS's

It was 32 bit vista. The work unit was 5000 I believe. I did have one that was 10,000 at one time but that one took forever to get through (about two or three weeks).

thats kinda of slow i got a work unit that had about a 7000 units in 6.5 hours. or are you not giving BOINC all your cpu time.

 

[freestyler105]

I'm pretty sure my WU were usually like 20,000,000 steps...weird.

But yeah, it varies. The 20,000,000 step long WUs usually took about 30 minutes to get 1% on my overclocked E6600. The 500,000 step ones would take an hour for 1% on my Athlon X2 3800+.

 

[spywarebanisher]

steps?

 

[A True Folder]

Steps

[23:11:05] Completed 1520000 out of 4000000 steps (38)
[23:51:15] Writing local files
[23:51:15] Completed 1560000 out of 4000000 steps (39)
[00:31:57] Writing local files
[00:31:58] Completed 1600000 out of 4000000 steps (40)
[01:12:17] Writing local files
[01:12:17] Completed 1640000 out of 4000000 steps (41)
[01:52:48] Writing local files
[01:52:48] Completed 1680000 out of 4000000 steps (42)

If you configured FAH the same way then the difference is the resources that Vista was using (ram and CPU) to run, FAH only uses unallocated resources.