which is better for labview - 2000 or XP?

[Ray.R]

Hi Enrique,

I had bought the Serial-ATA, and tried XP with this one (remember the history from the thread you pointed to?).

It was a disaster... multiple times.. 

Talked to a friend who experienced something similar...  Turns out there was an incompatibility with the BIOS & Win XP.  This is with an ASUS P4P800 Deluxe board.

I did upgrade the BIOS..  I didn't dare try XP, but I did notice performance improvements with 2K.  One day... may be... I will try it again... I said maybe..  Remember: "Don't fix what is not broken"...

😄

[bugsmashers]

Hi,

Don't go with XP if you have any choice.  I have LV 7.1 w/ FPGA module and LV crashes as much as 4 times daily. The VI's execute well, but there are problems editing.

Ben

[tst]

I don't know if that has anything to do with XP - many people (including me) use LV in XP and don't see crashes (not too often, anyway). I don't know FPGA or VHDL, but I remember seeing a demo of the FPGA module by an NI representative and if I rememeber correctly he said that it may be prone to crashes.

[Will.D]

I have used LV7.1 on 2000 Pro, XP Pro, and XP Home, and both versions of XP are SP2 (although at home I only put SP2 on there about a month ago).

I haven't really noticed any REAL difference between the platforms.  I've found that the problems associated with SP2 can generally be avoided if LabVIEW is installed AFTER SP2 has been installed, and if your LabVIEW version is new enough to know that SP2 exists.  Again, I've only installed 7.1 over SP2, so I can't speak for earlier versions.

[tbob]

I have also had problems with XP and especially SP2.  Never had problems with Win2K.  Why did Microsuck ever come up with XP when 2K was working just fine?  Most people I talk to have similar problems with XP (serial port, crashes, hang ups, SP2 destroying everything).  I hear that the new OS from Microsuck is even worse.  At home, I just switched to an iMac with OSX, and it is unbleieveable how much better performance you get with the mac.  I just got sick and tired of MS and their crap.  I plugged in my mac and it ran fine.  I plugged in a USB printer while the mac was up, no driver installations, no reboots, just started printing right away.  I plugged in a USB trackball, same thing, no drivers, no reboots, works fine.  I've had to reinstall XP on my Dell twice in the last 12 months, and it crashes occasionally.  The mac has not even burped since I had it (about 2 months).  One of my co-workers has had his mac on for years without ever rebooting (except to install an OS upgrade).  Why don't we all just switch to macs?

[Ray.R]

Hi tbob,

I'm not a MAC-kinda-guy...  But I hear your pain with XP..  Bought it and the latest Office (all PRO).  Still have the wrapper on the office CD's..  I am sticking to 2000... now slowly switching to Linux or Unix.  MS should have two OS'es...  The barbie version and the engineering version.  And leave network security to the pro's..  😄

I heard that the newer MAC's will have Intel / AMD processors instead of Motorolla.  If so, then they may become fully compatible with all Windoze sw.  Then it becomes interesting.  😉

Stars to you buddy!

JLV

😄

[tbob]

The barbie version, hahaha, I like that.  I used to be a Unix guru about 10 years ago.  Thought about switching to Linux, but OSX has an easier GUI, and is based on Unix (Berkley version), and it has a terminal program that gives you a Unix command prompt.  Now I can learn Unix all over again.  How I wish IBM would have promoted OS/2.  It was far better than windblows.  In fact OS/2 of 10 years ago was far better than XP or 2K is today.  Just think how much better it could have been had IBM not been so stupid to kill it.  Here is a great feature of OS/2 that nobody has come up with yet:  You could boot OS/2 command prompt from a floppy disk, run a backup program from the A drive, and the entire hard drive would be backed up to tape (or whatever).  You could then take a brand new hard drive (or re-format the old one), boot up from a floppy, and run the restore program.  Everything is back, exactly how it was when backed up.  No having to install the OS again and then running restore or ghost or whatever.  Why doesn't MS or Apple or Linux provide that feature today?

[Ray.R]

I dunno what happened to IBM..

Businessmen started running the company instead of engineers 😄

The last very good DOS that I bought was IBM DOS-5.0..  It is still on my shelves (or box)..

MStuff was cheap and my wallet fell prey to it. 😛

😉

[Conseils]

I have used a variety of operating systems and also hardware, without many of the 'reliabilty problems' people appear to suffer from.

More often than not I have found that problems arise from lack of attention to detail.

So here are some of my tips: -

  1) Create standards in house.

      Stick to them! (that's not rigidity by the way, its being systematic, controlled, methodical).

  2) Always use good quality hardware (Mother boards, graphics boards, memory etc..).

      Ensure sufficient systems performance for the task in hand.

  3) Create a build sequence (and stick to it) respecting service packs and patches.

      Never use Rev X.0 of any software product for production, wait for X.1 unless unavoidable.

  4) Create a test regime.

       TEST, TEST then Test again - If the unexpected happened in the field - you didn't understand the process (see bottom).

       (Do your worst to it, find the guy who always hits the 'wrong' key and buy him pint afterwards!).

  5) Test it all BEFORE deployment as the client will use it.

  6) Don't tweak.

      Document!, Prove, Demonstrate

  7) Create a duplicate system to allow for off site testing. (See all the other points above and it all falls into place).

Some of this comes from experience, some from simply being methodical and some from knowledge. But basically you can build systems that will remain stable sufficiently long to perform the task in hand.

As an example of the systems in use, we have RS232 based systems running 24 by 7 in a foreign plant, critical to the process making over 20,000 parts a day for JIT delivery.

Here's one of those smart quotes that should give you a good overall pointer: -

"If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing. "
W. Edwards Deming

[Ray.R]

Very good words, help.

But the windoze installation is not much of a process when it is initially done by the people where you buy the PC.

One item is having problems at home on one brand of PC (best motherboard by ASUS, with the top quality peripherals).

The other items is having 20 PC suddently go bad & ugly in the lab because of an upgrade from win-2000 to win-xpee.  To then find out that there are compatibility issues with the OS which are promissed to be fixed in SP-2.  Only to find out that there is an additional patch for SP2 which is to fix the incompatibility problem which originated from xpee. 😛

We're in 2005.  How is it that OS are far less reliable in 2005 than they were in 1993? (OS-2).  I know all about the statistics, etc.  And the ISO-900x, etc..  all of which really do not improve the perceived quality of a product.  They make sure that they are all done exactly the same (good or bad).  When it comes to shrink-wrap sw (including OS), the perception is a simple one:  does it work?  does it allow me to be able to do the work?  is it a "pain" to use? 

Whether I have a process that I follow on installing the OS or not, it won't improve the fact that there are certain flaws with the OS.  And since they are hardware (driver) related, it is obvious that not all people will see (perceive) these flaws.  We saw them on 20 PC's because a process was followed when the PC's were configured.  And when the OS was being installed, no-one knew that problems were going to be perceived later-on.

Sorry that this may not be a nice or positive post, but it is reality.  The perception I have of MSuff is that they are purely interested in revenue, not quality... and I define "quality" as something robust, that does what it is supposed to and being compatible with the previous version (2000).  Especially when win-2K was fine.

,,,,,, maybe I should simply grab a coffee....  😉

But I do agree with processes and following them.  As a matter of fact, it is our life.  In engineering and in business (and any other field).  Following well-defined processes is the path to success.  😄

I do agree with you.  I am extremely dissapointed in MSuff..  Maybe they should follow some sort of process or improve the few that they have.  They are lucky to get that far based on their past success.... we'll see what the future brings..  😐

JLV