Is XP faster than 2000?

[Guest]

Hello newsgroup.

Since years i ran on this PC (Athlon XP 2000+, 512 MB Ram, 80 GB HD) Windows
2000. I've got now from a friend a XP pro CD with license (don't worry, it's
competely legal, he didn't installed it on his PC before, in fact, the
package is un-opened).

Should I upgrade my PC to XP? I've read that XP is faster than 2000, is it
true? That is my main concern, if it isn't faster, or even if it is slower, I
won't upgrade.

What is your experience speedwise, XP or 2000?

 

[Dewey]

Hello newsgroup.

Since years i ran on this PC (Athlon XP 2000+, 512 MB Ram, 80 GB HD)
Windows 2000. I've got now from a friend a XP pro CD with license
(don't worry, it's competely legal, he didn't installed it on his PC
before, in fact, the package is un-opened).

Should I upgrade my PC to XP? I've read that XP is faster than 2000,
is it true? That is my main concern, if it isn't faster, or even if it
is slower, I won't upgrade.

What is your experience speedwise, XP or 2000?

Perhaps anecdotal but my father has a bigger, faster computer than I have
and he runs XP while I run 2k on my laptop and my laptop seems far more
stable and faster. YMMV.

 

[Oli Restorick [MVP]]

There is no doubt at all that Windows XP boots much more quickly than
Windows 2000. Whether it's faster in use is another question. Both pass my
"if it feels fast enough it is fast enough" test, but I couldn't say for
sure which I think is faster.

Regards

Oli


"the friendly display name"

 

[DL]

Is it faster, surely the Q is will my apps, or processes run faster.
The answer being your unlikely to notice any difference, plus or minus

"the friendly display name"

 

[Quaestor]

There is no doubt at all that Windows XP boots much more quickly than
Windows 2000.

The Colosus in WWII would probly boot faster than win2k. :-\

 

[DL]

my win2k, a busy sys, boots faster than my light use winxp (it has all the
cartoons off)

The Colosus in WWII would probly boot faster than win2k. :-\

indistinguishable from paranoia.

 

[Austin M. Horst]

"Windows XP: Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and Scalable OS"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/default.aspx
Boot time is faster, "Prefetching" increases XP's performance a little, but Windows 2000 is a fine OS!
Since you have a sealed, licensed version of XP, do yourself a favor, sell the CD and make a little money.


Austin M. Horst

 

[Mike]

If speed is your only concern, then XP would be the go. But after you
factor running problems - my suggestion is stay with 2000. Personally, I
have recently come from XP to 2000Professional; less than a week; and during
the installation process, the 2000 had won me over. And I've used most of
Windows OS available.

Sandgroper Mike

 

[Bob I]

An easy check is to compare minimum hardware requirements. IF you
disable all the "cute" features in XP, you will get about the same
performance as W2K. As far boot speed, XP gets to the login faster, but
seems to chug for awhile after login, while W2k takes longer to get to
login, but usable almost immediately after you login.

 

[Quaestor]

An easy check is to compare minimum hardware requirements. IF you
disable all the "cute" features in XP, you will get about the same
performance as W2K. As far boot speed, XP gets to the login faster,
but seems to chug for awhile after login, while W2k takes longer to
get to login, but usable almost immediately after you login.

OTOH xp is ratware. It calls ms and tells them all about you. And if
you don't let it it will stop working. To get updates you have to
"agree" to let ms do anything they want to your machine. And you have
to ask permission to use the software you own.

 

[Bob I]

Humm, I smell troll.

 

[Quaestor]

Humm, I smell troll.

That's billgates you smell.