Windows Xp Is Not Faster Than Windows 2000 Pro


Recommended Posts

Guys, I recently was reading about Windows XP Vs Windows 2000 Pro reports on the web and got curious about it. The reports indicate that Windows 2000 Pro does perform faster than Windows XP Pro so I went ahead and did my own tests. I installed Windows XP Pro on my PC and played with for a while with Office XP Pro and then surfing the web. After playing with it for a while I then formatted the HD and installed Windows 2000 Pro and played with it for a while. So guess what?

The reports on the web are true. Windows XP Pro is a hell of a whole lot slower than Windows 2000 Pro. Internet Explorer 5.01 SP2 loads and opens pages faster than Internet Explorer 6.0. The same goes for Outlook Express 5, It opens faster than 6.0. Windows 2000 Pro opens applications and performs faster. Windows 2000 also shuts down faster than Windows XP. The only thing that Windows XP was faster at was on startup and emptying the Recycle Bin. I think I am going to keep Windows 2000 for now. XP has more bugs than a Motel rug and is too incompatible with many things. Windows 2000 Pro with SP2 seems to work great. What do you all think?

My system specs:

1.4 GHz AMD Athlon

512 Megs DDR memory

30 Gig 7800 RPM Western Digital HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea, like i said early about that, windows 2000 SP2 is better than windows xp now. XP has potential, but you have to wait a few service packs in before you see what it can do. We all know how bad windows 2000 was when it first came out..couldnt do anything on it, and now its alot better, same should be with xp, lets see how good microsoft can fix it up before the 2003-2004 release of the next windows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool. So where did you get a 7800 RPM hard drive ? I'd like to get one ;-)

Anyway, that's not much of a test, you have to run actual benchmarks, and even if 2000 is faster, it's by a hair and noone would really notice so I don't see why anyone would care.

For some people speed isn't everything. Although I've seen diffrent benchmarks that show diffrent things.

Personally I use Windows XP, for me it's the little features that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the reason why xp is not faster than 2k is the comparison on machines

if u put 2k and xp on the same configuration of a pc of course 2k will rip it

2k has less bullsh** in it for example the visual styles and everything else all that shadow stuff

the extra built in feature which draws better gradients to the shadows of the icons

all these is resource hog and lags xp

if you can turn every single bit of the visual features off and some of the service

i'm very sure xp will perform better than 2k

if u want the visual ull just have to have a bit faster computer then it will run great

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a load of benchmarks with Win2k vs XP and it pretty much showed that although 2k did beat XP on a few benchies, it was only very marginally. C'mon, for an OS that supports skinning in it's own native API's and remains stable with very little memory footprint, it does an awesome job. I would choose XP over 2k SP2 any day!

Oh.. and, were those benchmarks you looked at conducted using RC1 rather than RTM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i say ur all on crack.. i've been running winxp final since early october.. and guess what.. i'm still running the same install.. do you have any idea how many times i had to reformat and re-install winME every month??? win2k, it's running on my server right now, but i have to reboot it once a week, becuz it gets so dog slow..

i have not had 1 single hard crash with winXP pro.. i've had a few small crashes where explorere just restarts.. and then she keeps right on going.. never a hard crash where i had to reboot.. XP is by far the fastest and most stable OS micro**** has ever released...

however.. you have to have the hardware to run it.. i'm currently running it on a mac'd out system.. so yeah anything is going to perform good.. and lets say i do the same un-authentic test. and internet explorer does open a dick hair faster.. so what...

i'll take stability over speed any day..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by default XP has alot more services and background crap running.

if you tweak it, like disable unneeded services, prgrms, etc, install better drivers it will be very close if not better than win2k's performance.

shutdown is slower becuase of system restore feature, XP backs up registry and other stuff.

i can't say it has many "bugs"...security issues is differnt topic.

can't say it has major compatiblity prblms either..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah 2k2 may be faster but I also done some test of my own and the uptime for my xp machine is 3 days longer then for my 2k2 machine.

adverage uptime for my 2k2 advance server 28.5 days

for my winxp pro its adverage uptime is 35 days I need to reboot it but since I installed some patches but I wana see how much longer it can go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is faster, mostly because so many background services run with XP, also if you use regmon, you can see it reads the registry ever 10 secs :D wtf do they do that for? I notice in XP my mouse freezes ever time I use a CPU intensive program like seti@home until it is turned of, so I really do think 2000 is faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- WinXP Pro boots way faster than Win2000 Pro

- If you have a 800MHz+/256Mb+ System you will find WinXP signifigantly Peppier than Win2000

- Opens Apps faster(esp. OfficeXP, Photoshop, CorelDRAW)

- Finding 'decent' drivers for XP easier then when Win2000 first came out

- Game support better on XP by a long shot

- Seems to take better advantage of my hardware(Promise RAID and DMA Hard-drives / Video / Audio Card)

- As stable as 2000 but with better compatibility

- A ton of new features for Audio/Video and GUI

Seems like a no brainer to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stay with XP.

I started using windows whistler beta 1 in december 2000. And it was a great system, way better then 2k. And i used almost all the beta's and they where damn good.

For me XP is the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by thuggers

whats wrong with 7800rpm hardrive's?

oh nothing really except for the fact there is no such thing as a 7800rpm hard drive :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously though, the whole damn argument is just idiotic. If you want a real test go into control panel and set the computer to best performance instead of automatic based on what your config is. Instead of just opening up word 6 times and photoshop 3 to see how fast they open, try opening up about 12 word documents, then open up 4 bmp files in photoshop. Open up realone AND windows media player and also about 8 IE windows. Then proceed to open up any 3d based game of your choice and try playing it on both a w2k system and on an xp machine and THEN tell me which one is faster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scorbing, that is no kind of real test, just opening and closing a couple of programs. Also what are all these bugs you refer too? I have been running XP since RC1 and while I have found a few, most of them have been addressed. Now security is a whole other issue, but all these blanket statements with no real evidence makes your post seem pretty worthless in my opinion.

I'd NEVER go back to Win2K because of a few seconds that one or two programs might open, that is a totally bogus reason.

XP isn't perfect, but it sure beats WIN2K or another of the previous Win9x versions hands down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just for my 2 cents... when i ran 2k2 on my system, it was pretty damn slow. i have my winamp to put a random skin on play. and on 2k2, the mp3 would start playing, and about 10 seconds into the song, the skin would then change, on XP, the skin changes before the song starts... i see XP as MUCH faster than 2k2, even with XPTheming on.

but then again.. it always depends on your system...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep but you got to reboot it for everything you do and sometimes just for sitting there idle. I personally think ME is the worse release MS ever put out. In fact they shouldn't have ever release it cause it was nothing but a nightmare for most folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to burst some people's bubbles, but there is such a thing as a 7800 RPM HD. IBM and some other company's make them.

Go Google it :) if you dont believe me that is ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really should ditch the picture dude, I mean seeing it once is cute, but corny, seeing it repeately.. well need I say more.

In regards to the HD RPM, they guy probably just made a typo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.