We have a server running Windows 2000 Terminal Server with dual 1GHz
processors and a 133MHz bus speed. We have almost 2GB of memory in it.
It's getting slow with the number of users on it.

Our boss is obsessed with bus speeds. A new server has a front side
bus of 800MHz (cannot remember what the CPU speed is). But he wants us
to save costs by keeping Win 2000 on there (no software upgrade costs
with CALs etc). We want Win 2003 Server on there (which we would need
new CALs for).

We believe Win 2003 offers much more improvements in speed.

My question is, what would the real difference in speed be from two
servers running Win 2000, one with dual 1GHz chips and FSB of 133MHz
and the other with dual 1GHz (for arguments sake - in reality, it
would be 2.4GHz or more) with an FSB of 800MHz. He sees it will be six
times faster.

Thanks for any clarification on my understanding of bus speeds!

Cheers,
Mat G
Birmingham, UK

also speed problems i have but i put this down to havin lost the drive and
memory

"Mat G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> We have a server running Windows 2000 Terminal Server with dual 1GHz
> processors and a 133MHz bus speed. We have almost 2GB of memory in it.
> It's getting slow with the number of users on it.
>
> Our boss is obsessed with bus speeds. A new server has a front side
> bus of 800MHz (cannot remember what the CPU speed is). But he wants us
> to save costs by keeping Win 2000 on there (no software upgrade costs
> with CALs etc). We want Win 2003 Server on there (which we would need
> new CALs for).
>
> We believe Win 2003 offers much more improvements in speed.
>
> My question is, what would the real difference in speed be from two
> servers running Win 2000, one with dual 1GHz chips and FSB of 133MHz
> and the other with dual 1GHz (for arguments sake - in reality, it
> would be 2.4GHz or more) with an FSB of 800MHz. He sees it will be six
> times faster.
>
> Thanks for any clarification on my understanding of bus speeds!
>
> Cheers,
> Mat G
> Birmingham, UK

I don't have any benchmark figure, but while a six-fold increase
in FSB will result in some improvement in overall performance,
it will certainly not be six times. As a guesstimate I'd say the
overall gain would be no more than 50% at most. (I'm ready
to be enlightened by anyone who has real figures for this).
It will also depend on the type of application it is put to.

"Mat G" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> We have a server running Windows 2000 Terminal Server with dual 1GHz
> processors and a 133MHz bus speed. We have almost 2GB of memory in it.
> It's getting slow with the number of users on it.
>
> Our boss is obsessed with bus speeds. A new server has a front side
> bus of 800MHz (cannot remember what the CPU speed is). But he wants us
> to save costs by keeping Win 2000 on there (no software upgrade costs
> with CALs etc). We want Win 2003 Server on there (which we would need
> new CALs for).
>
> We believe Win 2003 offers much more improvements in speed.
>
> My question is, what would the real difference in speed be from two
> servers running Win 2000, one with dual 1GHz chips and FSB of 133MHz
> and the other with dual 1GHz (for arguments sake - in reality, it
> would be 2.4GHz or more) with an FSB of 800MHz. He sees it will be six
> times faster.
>
> Thanks for any clarification on my understanding of bus speeds!
>
> Cheers,
> Mat G
> Birmingham, UK

it will obv be fastwr with the 800 bus, you probably would notice a
performance increase if your on 133 bus now. you will probably notice a big
difference in performance,

even with win 03 if that actually even makes a noticeable improvement in
speed it will only be short term, eventually your gona need new hardware.

tell your boss to get his wallet out and ditch the 133 bus and go for the
800 bus, keep win2k you can upgrade to 03 later, if the platform does its
job, only its doing it slowly because of hardware, change the hardware not
the platform

HTH in some way

christo