Windows Xp Is Not Faster Than Windows 2000 Pro


Recommended Posts

ok, i google searched since i didn't believe you and all I saw was 7800 SERIES hard drives that went 7200 rpms and university webpages so I went to the IBM website and sorry binary but they either made these about 10 years ago or they magically disappeared

http://www.storage.ibm.com/hdd/support/table.htm

you can check for yourself but even on google the only things that goes at 7800rpm are engines and case fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by hurting101

My Windows 98 SE is faster than my XP. Much faster. Doing things like opening the help file, going to display options, and loading some things it much faster on 98.

On high level speed such as what you're referring to, yeah it's definitely faster. I dualboot 98SE and XP, but then again, when you go to a help file in 98, it doesn't do anything extra, whereas XP has a lot of features and accessibility in it. Let's just say when you open an application in 98SE and XP, they're not doing the exact same thing or run the same procedures to achieve the goal. XP is more robust. It's like comparing appels+oranges (nudge).

I might agree that win2k is faster than xp altho marginally insignificant, on a fresh install. But do remember, MS promised that XP will perform better after it has been used a while as some workspace optimisation will be done. Also, if you know what you're doing in XP, and you tweak it enough, it is hell a lot faster than win2k could ever be. If you tweak both to the max, you'll find out XP is way faster and more stable. I don't know about you, but win2k was prone to crashes because of its incompatibilty with a lot of things and it's not as nearly as efficient as XP. As bugs go, i have no idea what you man. I have yet to encounter a serious bug in XP. The only bug that is of any concern is PnP it's already been fixed. On normal operation, i have yet to reboot for 2 months now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All i know is that my system froze with 2k, and it no longer freezes with win xp, thats all i give a rats ass about.

Specs

1.4 AMD

512 MEGs o' RAM

Geforce2 GTS

SB Live Platy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've run and used 2000 Pro and Server, NT4.0 Workstation and Server, and XP Professional RC1

Although XP certainly requires more resources (memory and horsepower ~ CPU Hz), I think that the compatibility and features of XP is worth the investment for those of you who need the stability of NT and the software capability of Windows 9x/ME (like games). But don't expect spectacular "stability" with Windows 2000 if the hardware/software is not also compatible with NT 4.0. Expect the same with XP. If the hardware/software is not compatible with NT 4.0 and/or 2000, don't expect spectacular stability in XP.

If you all find you have problems with 2000 and not XP, this is the major reason. Your hardware/software is not really designed for the NT base! I know this is hard to change since most people buy hardware for performance not compatibility and since most people previously ran 9X/ME, and not NT 4.0/2000. Those who had hardware/software compatible with NT 4.0/2000 will find the same level of stability with windows NT 4.0/2000 as with XP, but XP will definitely run slower although with many extra bells and whistles!

With a fast PC and newer chipset, you may not notice as much difference between 2000 and XP and may actually 'see' better 'performance' in XP because the newer OS is written with backward compatibility for newer chipsets/hardware/software that wasn't available when 2000 was released. (This always happens with newer technology!)

First ADVANCED NOTE: Although you can change the SYSTEM SERVICES and whether they boot or not, this is not a good way to "optimise" the system, unless you don't need the features and like extra troubleshooting. (Then what's the purpose of XP?)

For example, sure you can Disable the FTP service (if the MS FTP Server is installed), the IR monitor (Infrared), Routing and Remote Access, Run As Service, Rip Listener, IPSEC Agent or even the Indexing Service, but some of these are necessary to run certain features of the OS while the Indexing Service will increase the overall performance of the system. NT 4.0 didn't have most of those listed above, like IR Monitor, but 2000 does. The lack of many extra Services would explain why NT 4 can run on a 50mhz 486 with 32MB, but you could never do so with 2000! This same principle works with the difference between 2000 and XP! [Where do you 'view' these Services and changes them? In the Administrative Tools --> Services]

Second NOTE: for those claiming and insisting they can install "better drivers" and "disable boot features or drivers" to make XP run as fast as 2000, most of these are ADVANCED features and require a boot into CONSOLE mode to disable or change the system drivers and how/when they start (boot, system, automatic, manual or disabled). While, in NT4.0 it's possible to change these settings within NT 4.0, to do so in 2000/XP requires CONSOLE mode. I don't know how many of you would actually like to try that, but it WILL not increase performance in most situations and can certainly make the system MORE unstable. Sure, you can DISABLE things like the Kerberos system driver (ksecdd) which works with the SAM (Security Manager), but don't complain when you can't get security to work with a SERVER, encrypted network, file systems, etc. [Where can you view these? Administrative Tools --> Computer Management --> System Information --> Software Environment --> Drivers]

Only change or disable current drivers and Services settings if you really know the driver is not needed or the setting is correct and stable and you are willing to work with console mode and if you like to troublehshoot a non-starting/failing system. (This must be the reason Microsoft wisely removed the option to modify the boot order for drivers from the GUI, but still allows changes to the Services.)

Hey, I haven't heard of 7800 rpm drives until these posts, but it's possible. Standards are set when people make them!

My thoughts are that a new RPM speed for IDE would be at any of the following speeds: 7800, 8400, 9000, 9600. [see the pattern?]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIRST:

I like to correct the RPM speed of my HD. It is not 7800 RPM, it is 7200 RPM - my mistake. Sorry about that.

SECOND:

I agree that Windows XP Pro is great. Visually and features wise is awesome, but can anyone please tell me how to make it faster? I mean, what services and other bullsh... I can "turn off" which I don't need to make it faster. I have turned all the damn visuals off but I know that a lot of crap runs in the background (Pro version) and since I don't run a server, only a PC, I figure I don't need many of the services that run in the background.

I have created a new Windows XP Discussion Group and I will appreciate it if you all joined. It is 100% free and I even placed a poll there about Windows so please go there:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/windowsxpdiscussion/

I want to hear your comments, ideas, tips and suggestions.

-Scorbing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive tried XP corparate and I didnt see the need to change from 2k. XP has tons of crap in it I dont want, the only thing that I think is a real improvement is the visuals and even they get boring after awhile. But in Aus if I had to pay for Full Verison of WinXP its about $530 (AUD), So Billy can go blow himself. Plus I dont think that XP really doesnt give me anything That great that 2k doesnt. 2k runs all my games and proggies, sweetly, fast and stably. What do I need XP for. I didnt really notice and speed difference except Xp beats 2k to bootup and 2k beats Xp to shutdown :p win/lose lose/win pfft who cares.:lick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being an old fart I have been in computer related industry since punch cards. I have installed and tested every OS MS has ever made. Win XP pro wins hands down both for speed and stability. I have installed this on about 20 different configurations and have yet to have any major problems. A couple of the configs didn't even meet min specs. Most of the hardware is not on the HCL. I like it! As far as speed goes turn off eye candy and QoS find a few tweaks and I think it is fastest OS ms has made.

My experience in a nutshell: winXP is fastest and most stable MS OS that I have used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well my experience with the two os's is that I think win 2000 is much better than xp definetly for a dual cpu system I just swapped my friends back to 2k he was amazed at how much easier it set up his hardware than xp . Granted xp is still in its early stages but most of the new games out now smoke the xp os on 2k ,also if I have one more problem with xp i'm going back myself . Too many hassles with this digital signing for every driver Its bs when I ran 2k only problem ever came up was iexplore caused an error .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whenever I feel the need 4 more speed, I just get a faster cpu/mobo:D

XP Pro is the most stable OS I've used - that includes 95/98/ME & NT. Yep my NT box (at work) crashes every so often. The only XP crashes I've had relate to the dodgy Nvidia drivers:dead: :ermm: ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Used W2K since it first came out for gaming etc, everyone was

always reminding me that W2k was not a gaming OS. I used it for

gaming and general purpose and ignored the naysayers. Along

comes XP and I was even more impressed. This OS is the best

OS to come out of Redmond IMO. I heve not experienced a

single problem with it and highly recommend it to all my

customers that meet the minimum system specs. I installed

it on a lowly celeron 366 with only 64 mb of ram and it ran

a little slow but fine. I upgraded the ram to 128 and its a great

running system, rock solid. So it boils down to what you want.

If your having problems and a vast majority are not experiencing

the same, I would look elsewhere other then the OS. My .02. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you people make posts like this. I have seen this topic countless times and it always comes back to the bottom line. Get on any website, listen to TechTV, listen to MS! Xp is the fastest hands down. Maybe the GUI and demanding recources are too much for your system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Qarth

Why do you people make posts like this. I have seen this topic countless times and it always comes back to the bottom line. Get on any website, listen to TechTV, listen to MS! Xp is the fastest hands down. Maybe the GUI and demanding recources are too much for your system.

FIRST:

I don't care much for toys so the "Fisher Price" interface is ridiculous and it's for newbies who only care about looks and not performance.

SECOND:

My system "laughs" at XPs visual crap:

AMD 1400 MHz

512 DDR RAM

Radeon 64 MB DDR Card

30 GIG HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care much for toys so the "Fisher Price" interface is ridiculous and it's for newbies who only care about looks and not performance.

Now this is a well thought out intellegent response, fishing season must be starting early this year.......

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Scorbing

FIRST:

I don't care much for toys so the "Fisher Price" interface is ridiculous and it's for newbies who only care about looks and not performance.

SECOND:

My system "laughs" at XPs visual crap:

AMD 1400 MHz

512 DDR RAM

Radeon 64 MB DDR Card

30 GIG HD

That's cute but my PC out perfroms yours :) Click on my link to my desktops to see my specs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Qarth

That's cute but my PC out perfroms yours :) Click on my link to my desktops to see my specs.

Your system outperforms mine?

All you have is an AMD 1.3GHz processor cowboy!

I'm not very good in math, but since when is 1.3 GHz (yours) higher than 1.4 Ghz (mine) ?

You have 769 MB RAM, I have 512 MB Ram - Big deal! - You have a little more memory than me, but don't come and try to tell me that your AMD is faster than mine because you don't have to be a genius to know that it is not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i'm sure my Asus a7a266 is more than enough to compisate for 100 mhz... and on top of that I use a backup HD to house all my junk... That means that your hd is less functional then mine when performing everyday tasks... yeah...there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Qarth

well i'm sure my Asus a7a266 is more than enough to compisate for 100 mhz... and on top of that I use a backup HD to house all my junk... That means that your hd is less functional then mine when performing everyday tasks... yeah...there...

What makes you think I don't have an extra HD sunny?

I not only have an extra HD, I have 2!, so 1+2 = 3. Not possible? Well read below:

Motherboard:

ATX form factor 4 layers PCB size: 30.5x24.4cm

Promise PDC20265R IDE RAID Chip

866AS-R with a VIA VT8366 - VIA 694 Chipset with a 266 MHz DDR Front Side Bus processor.

Memory expandable to 3 Gigs - Yeah, that's right, 3 Gigs!

Any questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Scorbing

What makes you think I don't have an extra HD sunny?

I not only have an extra HD, I have 2!, so 1+2 = 3. Not possible? Well read below:

Motherboard:

ATX form factor 4 layers PCB size: 30.5x24.4cm

Promise PDC20265R IDE RAID Chip

866AS-R with a VIA VT8366 - VIA 694 Chipset with a 266 MHz DDR Front Side Bus processor.

Memory expandable to 3 Gigs - Yeah, that's right, 3 Gigs!

Any questions?

OK tough guy just post your best 3D mark... and try not to edit it eh?

benchmark.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Qarth

OK tough guy just post your best 3D mark... and try not to edit it eh?

benchmark.jpg

I would love to but unfortunately I don't have benchmark software because I don't care for it since I have no use for it anyways, so you'll just have to settle for what I wrote there. Believe it if you like. If you don't, well I guess that's your problem. Just remember this sunny, you are NOT the only one with a powerful machine. Most of us here in the forum DO have VERY powerful machines but best of all, we are not ignorant.

Have a nice night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.