🚀 go-pugleaf

I am sure that I have seen something on the net about a compatibility issue 
between 98 and XP machines that are networked. I hada look at the MS 
knowledge base but a google search with xp 98 slow network brought up a 
wealth of sites with a large number of suggestions for fixes. It appears 
connectivity problems between 98 and XP are common, but it also appears they 
can be solved.

Kevin

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message 
news:420b7f1d.7724352@nntp.charter.net...
> It's difficult to provide definitive reasons why the two computers perform 
> the
> way they do without knowing something about the network itself. 
> Altogether too
> many problems can occur from misconfigured or malfunctioning network 
> equipment.
>
> I recently replaced a pair of older P3 systems running Windows 98 with a 
> couple
> of P4s running XP Pro.  The old P3s ran like a slug when accessing a 
> shared
> Quickbooks data base on a Windows 2000 server.  The P4s run much faster. 
> Why?
> Faster processor?  Yes.  More system memory?  Yes.  Faster local hard 
> drive?
> Yes.  Other?  Damned if I know.  The XP Pro systems log in a lot faster, 
> mostly
> because their desktops are not yet cluttered with icons and they are not 
> as
> loaded down with memory-resident bloatware.  File copying to and from the 
> server
> takes about the same amount of time.  Go figure... Ben Myers
>
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:05:38 GMT, ppnerkDELETETHIS@yahoo.com (Phred) 
> wrote:
>
>>In article <lv0l01dae4lilm6mvsv471bbg1oejrl3id@4ax.com>, William P.N. 
>>Smith wrote:
>>>dgrnyc@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>I have a friend that has an old white box computer with a 133 MHz AMD
>>>>K6-2 CPU, 128 MB of RAM and a 20 GB hard drive.
>>>
>>>Kinda marginal, but it ought to work.  Depends on your definition of
>>>"acceptable", but it should be better than Win98...
>>
>>Until recently I was using a system in another place that was pretty
>>similar to the OP's, but it had an Intel processor (233 MHz IIRC) and
>>a 3 GB HDD (which was usually pretty full :).
>>
>>It was usable for the sort of stuff I do routinely, but was
>>v..e...r...y   s..l....o......w to do a network logon, which was
>>rather a PITA at times as it often took 10 or 12 minutes!
>>
>>The "new" machine has a much faster processor, 512 MB RAM, and a
>>"huge" 20 GB HDD.  (All that space! :)  But it's running XP Pro.
>>
>>It logs on quickly (< 1 minute typically) but to my surprise it's
>>actually v..e...r...y   s..l....o.......w copying files to a network
>>drive and deleting files on the network.  *Much* slower than the old
>>machine in fact.  So I put this down to some sort of housework that XP
>>is doing that 2K Pro didn't bother itself with(?).
>>
>>On balance, I prefer the fast logon and can tolerate the slow file
>>management now that it's expected and I can plan around it.
>>
>>Cheers, Phred.
>>
>>-- 
>>ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>>
>