Dual-core 330 Atom CPU - win XP, 7 or server ?

**sergatiuk** · 10-08-2009, 01:29 AM

i just ordered an atom 330 mobo, as most of you know, this CPU is dual core and supports HT, also my mobo comes with dual channel 4GB ram.
which operation system will take better adventage of the dual core, HT and dual channel ram ?
should i go with a lite version of XP ? a stripped down version of 2003 server, 2008 server or windows 7 ?

**VegasGuy** · 10-08-2009, 01:43 AM

Forget about either server OS. Aside from the cost factor (you are using a licensed copy, right?), they don't bring any advantage in terms of capability, and it's unlikely that they will offer the hardware and software compatability you will need to get the most out of your CarPC.

XP will provide the best compatibility with current hardware and software, and depending on your overall configuration, may offer better performance than Win7. Over the long term, Win7 may be a better choice as new hardware and software becomes available that takes better advantage of its capabilities as compared to XP.

Short term: XP. Long haul: Win7
Your choice.

VegasGuy

**2k1Toaster** · 10-08-2009, 01:53 AM

XP will always be faster than Win7. And it is compatible with all the software around, so it really is the only sane option for a car OS right now. Give it a few years and maybe that will change.

I can't for the life of me understand why people strip their XP installs unless they have a C3 or C7 processor. You loose a bunch of core features, create instability, and gain nothing but headaches. Even the atom should be fast enough for a standard XP install.

**sergatiuk** · 10-08-2009, 01:59 AM

Toaster, probably because i dont yet know what to expect of the atom, i didnt recieve the board yet... right now im running an old pathetic celeron with 256 of ram so a stripped XP is a must, i just dont know what the little 330 atom is capable of (;

**sergatiuk** · 10-08-2009, 02:04 AM

also the reason i asked about the server edition is because i am using it on my 1GB ram pentium M lappy and it performs much better then any other OS i tried including a many linux distros. it is rock solid, by far more stable then XP or win 7...

**VegasGuy** · 10-08-2009, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by sergatiuk

also the reason i asked about the server edition is because i am using it on my 1GB ram pentium M lappy and it performs much better then any other OS i tried including a many linux distros. it is rock solid, by far more stable then XP or win 7...

Please don't mis-understand me, I've always had great luck with Win2003. And I've run it on a number of laptops (though none quite as ancient as yours). It's on the machine I use every day at work. But CarPCs tend to attract some exotic hardware (USB soundcards, OBDII readers, Serial2USB converters and so on), and driver availability and compatability CAN be an issue with the server OSes. Having run a 330 for a month or two, I can say straight away that 2003 is IMHO, probably a little "heavy" for that chipset.

On the same hardware, I agree that a fully configured XP install will probably be faster than a full Win7 install. At the same time, Win7 will also always be more stable than XP, adapt more easily to new hardware and in general be easier to maintain than XP. If speed is your main decision criteria, and I realize that for many on this board it is, then go with XP.

And yes, I have run both XP and Win7 on an Atom330 board and a variety of mini-ATX boards both in and out of the car. I just like Win7 better. Whatever performance difference there may be is inconsequential. Your milage may vary.

VegasGuy

**sergatiuk** · 10-08-2009, 02:48 AM

taking into concideration that i am currently using a laptop that was designed to run win 98 with a celeron (pentium 3 era) and 256 ram, +/- a second or 2 of boot time isnt that crucial. you are a 100% right that win 7 is much more stable and since it runs off vista drivers it should work just fine with all my additional devices, since i tested them all on the 2008 server which also uses vista drivers.
is 7 as configurable as XP ? in referance to boot times, registry editing, bootscreen change, shell replacement ?
also, what is the differance between a 5400RPM and 7200RPM sata HD with the atom, is any ?

**VegasGuy** · 10-08-2009, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by sergatiuk

taking into concideration that i am currently using a laptop that was designed to run win 98 with a celeron (pentium 3 era) and 256 ram, +/- a second or 2 of boot time isnt that crucial. you are a 100% right that win 7 is much more stable and since it runs off vista drivers it should work just fine with all my additional devices, since i tested them all on the 2008 server which also uses vista drivers.
is 7 as configurable as XP ? in referance to boot times, registry editing, bootscreen change, shell replacement ?
also, what is the differance between a 5400RPM and 7200RPM sata HD with the atom, is any ?

As Win7 moves out into the marketplace, more and more tips are appearing on how to tune it for performance. The same principals that apply to any OS apply here: turn off anything you don't need, tune your bios and keep you drives properly organized. The level of tweaks available in no way matches XP, but of course, Win7 hasn't been released yet.

The two areas I had the most issue with my ATOM330 were peripheral IO and heat. The first issue could probably be traced to the Intel 945gl...motherboard. I was using a 64gb SSD, but video playback was VERY shakey. A whole lot of possible culprits to blame, (not the least of which is the 945 chipset and drivers), but that's one of the reasons I eventually replaced the board. The ATOM also runs HOT in comparison to typical dual-core processors, and they are designed that way. My Atom330 with the passive cooling never dropped below 50C and usually ran around 59-61C under load. My current E5200 dual-core rarely if ever climbs above 36C. That's an apples and oranges comparison since the E5200 is fan-cooled, but heat is heat, and it effects all your components, not just the one creating it. As a rule of thumb, faster is always better, so I'd go with 7200. I don't know what motherboard/chipset you're using but the faster drive definitely won't hurt.

Good luck. I think the 330 is a pretty good little processor with plenty of power. I think my motherboard was a bigger problem than the processor.

VegasGuy

**Tidder** · 10-08-2009, 03:18 AM

I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents here. I've tried stripping down every windows OS to date, and I've still found that Server 2003 boots faster and runs more stable than anything else I've tried (yes a stripped down version of win98 is FAST but not very stable in my tests). Yes, it boots faster than XP if tweaked right, and I've ran into zero issues with drivers and/or exotic hardware. I've ran it on a P4 machine, a jetway C7, an Atom 230, Atom 270 netbook, JNC62K + AMD 4850e, and a FitPC Slim, all in the car at different times with ram between 512mb and 1gb.

As far as windows 7, with all the tweaking I've done, I still can't get boot times under 30 seconds from power on to music playing. With Server 2003 I've gotten down to about 12 seconds with the right hardware and bios settings. That's cold boot, not resuming from hibernation. If you have proper licensing for the Enterprise version, I'd say hunt down Micro2003. It's better than any nLite tweaks you could ever do, and I've still yet to run into any issues with having all that stuff stripped out. I can cruise the internets with my verizon usb data card + firefox, iGuidance 2009 + BU-353 works great, winamp is fine, MPC works perfect for videos, etc, and the install footprint is just around 130mb. It's lightning fast to boot up, and pretty quick to shutdown too. EWF works with it as well, but I did not have any success with HORM. However I didn't give it much of a try as I really didn't care with the boot times I saw.

**sergatiuk** · 10-08-2009, 03:55 AM

i remember i saw somebody make a post about using 2003 server, now i know who it is (;
Tidder, the devices that you use are the same as mine, so i have a couple of questions for you, how did you get 2003 down to 130MB ? is there a "lite" version of it out there ? or did you strip it down manually ? 2003 uses win 2000 and XP drivers, correct ?
i doubt i will be cold booting the PC that often, i will be hibernating for the most part, XP resume speed is acceptable, what about 2003 and win 7 ?