Re: TS4 and Win2K, Win XP, Win98

["Bob Scott" <rlscott@xxxxxxxx>]

Patrick,

Sounds like you ought "upgrade" to NT 4 <g>.  My TS4 system is NT 4 Sp6 dual
500 MHz PIII and although the ntvdm runs 100% on the one processor because
of the server serial poll - I have no problems - very, very stable.  I trade
stocks and I auto add all new symbols to my portfolio (30 days tick data) so
I have over 20,000 in real time with a 600 Mb tick file.  That's why Unfrag
came about - large tick file fragmentation problems.

As I say - maybe yo should reconsider NT 4.

~Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick White <simgenie@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Omega <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:31 AM
Subject: TS4 and Win2K, Win XP, Win98


>Since we are talking about operating systems I thought I would share some
>experiences I and one of my friends had with the different OSes and good
old
>trusty 16 bit TS4.
>
>TS4 runs very smoothly on Win98. Of course you get the occasional blue
>screen of death on Win98 and you have to restart the computer every couple
>of days because the OS is a resource leaker. While on Win2K I get only very
>rare OS lockups or crashes, I seem to get as many or more TS crashes. I run
>the server in a separate memory space, but can't run charting in a separate
>memory space (the program won't load that way for me). If I am doing
>something silly in programming EasyLanguage which causes TS to crash I have
>to restart the server most times anyway to get the internal variables to
>reset but at least I don't have to power down the machine like in Win98.
>
>A friend of mine tried to run TS4 on a brand new Athlon 1.3Ghz XP 256MB RAM
>box but TS4 ran much slower for him and he got the blinky cursor / serial
>mouse thing. It seems XP doesn't recognize the /noserialmice extension like
>NT or Win2K. He even tried XP's 16 bit compatibility mode and got nowhere.
>Anyway he installed Win2K and tried out TS4 and got the same results - it
>was slow running TS4. So he "downgraded" to Win98 and suddenly TS4 was
>running fast as lightning. Anyway, he never figured out what the cause of
>the problem was, but my friend tried 2 computers (thinking the computer was
>faulty) and got the same result both times. I'm not sure if I understand
the
>answer to this little mystery either but I thought I would post these
>experiences so maybe someone could learn from them or shed some light.
>
>Patrick White
>
>
>