Speed comparison; WinXP and WinME

[PaulFXH]

Hi

Earlier this week I finished off a three-month sojourn abroad using a
very non-State of the Art machine (256 MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU)operating on
WinME and DUN. I`m now back using my 1GB RAM, 2.53GHz CPU, WinXP box
with DSL Internet.

But, guess what, the WinME machine is FASTER!

With both machines launching 6 apps at start-up, the WinXP box takes 75
seconds to be ready for action while the computer with WinME has
completed its start-up in 72 seconds.
For shutting down, the difference is significantly greater; 26 seconds
for the WinXP box vs. 12 seconds for WinME.
While I was unable to make any significant measurements, it really did
seem to me that apps (such as Excel, Word) launched quite a bit faster
on the WinME box.

I like to think that both machines were equally well maintained in
terms of absence of unnecessary files, HD defragmentation and freedom
from viruses and other malware.
Therefore, does this revelation come as a surprise to anybody besides
me?
Alernatively, any suggestions as to how I can get the more expensive
box to match the speeds of its more humble team-mate?
[Note that I suspect the fact that the unpartitioned, 80GB HDD on the
WinXP box(compared to the 20GB HDD on the smaller machine) may well be
a contributory factor in the speed difference]

TIA for any comments
Paul

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Windows XP performs best, and is more secure, when installed
on a drive with a single partition that is formatted NTFS.

Please read the following:

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US/

Windows XP's Built-In Optimization
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1149277,00.asp

Windows XP Performance
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

"PaulFXH" wrote:

| Hi
|
| Earlier this week I finished off a three-month sojourn abroad using a
| very non-State of the Art machine (256 MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU)operating on
| WinME and DUN. I`m now back using my 1GB RAM, 2.53GHz CPU, WinXP box
| with DSL Internet.
|
| But, guess what, the WinME machine is FASTER!
|
| With both machines launching 6 apps at start-up, the WinXP box takes 75
| seconds to be ready for action while the computer with WinME has
| completed its start-up in 72 seconds.
| For shutting down, the difference is significantly greater; 26 seconds
| for the WinXP box vs. 12 seconds for WinME.
| While I was unable to make any significant measurements, it really did
| seem to me that apps (such as Excel, Word) launched quite a bit faster
| on the WinME box.
|
| I like to think that both machines were equally well maintained in
| terms of absence of unnecessary files, HD defragmentation and freedom
| from viruses and other malware.
| Therefore, does this revelation come as a surprise to anybody besides
| me?
| Alernatively, any suggestions as to how I can get the more expensive
| box to match the speeds of its more humble team-mate?
| [Note that I suspect the fact that the unpartitioned, 80GB HDD on the
| WinXP box(compared to the 20GB HDD on the smaller machine) may well be
| a contributory factor in the speed difference]
|
| TIA for any comments
| Paul
|

 

[PaulFXH]

Carey Frisch [MVP] escreveu:

Windows XP performs best, and is more secure, when installed
on a drive with a single partition that is formatted NTFS.

Hi Carey
Thanks for your reply and advice.
I was surprised to hear from you that partitioning of my 80GB main HDD
may adversely affect WinXP performance. Indeed, I was preparing to
partition this drive and was already armed with Partition Magic.
Looks like I`m going to have to rethink this.

Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system
whereas that using WinME has FATS32.

Can I take it that you are suggesting that my WinXP machine should IN
NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box?

I will knuckle down to the "homework" you gave me, but an initial
perusal indicated that this was more of a list of reasons for why WinXP
performance should be better than that of older OSs, rather than what
to do if it DOES happen to be slower.

Thanks
Paul

Please read the following:

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US/

Windows XP's Built-In Optimization
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1149277,00.asp

Windows XP Performance
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

"PaulFXH" wrote:

| Hi
|
| Earlier this week I finished off a three-month sojourn abroad using a
| very non-State of the Art machine (256 MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU)operating on
| WinME and DUN. I`m now back using my 1GB RAM, 2.53GHz CPU, WinXP box
| with DSL Internet.
|
| But, guess what, the WinME machine is FASTER!
|
| With both machines launching 6 apps at start-up, the WinXP box takes 75
| seconds to be ready for action while the computer with WinME has
| completed its start-up in 72 seconds.
| For shutting down, the difference is significantly greater; 26 seconds
| for the WinXP box vs. 12 seconds for WinME.
| While I was unable to make any significant measurements, it really did
| seem to me that apps (such as Excel, Word) launched quite a bit faster
| on the WinME box.
|
| I like to think that both machines were equally well maintained in
| terms of absence of unnecessary files, HD defragmentation and freedom
| from viruses and other malware.
| Therefore, does this revelation come as a surprise to anybody besides
| me?
| Alernatively, any suggestions as to how I can get the more expensive
| box to match the speeds of its more humble team-mate?
| [Note that I suspect the fact that the unpartitioned, 80GB HDD on the
| WinXP box(compared to the 20GB HDD on the smaller machine) may well be
| a contributory factor in the speed difference]
|
| TIA for any comments
| Paul
|

 

[PaulFXH]

PaulFXH escreveu:

Carey Frisch [MVP] escreveu:


Hi Carey
Thanks for your reply and advice.
I was surprised to hear from you that partitioning of my 80GB main HDD
may adversely affect WinXP performance. Indeed, I was preparing to
partition this drive and was already armed with Partition Magic.
Looks like I`m going to have to rethink this.

Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system
whereas that using WinME has FATS32.

Can I take it that you are suggesting that my WinXP machine should IN
NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box?

I will knuckle down to the "homework" you gave me, but an initial
perusal indicated that this was more of a list of reasons for why WinXP
performance should be better than that of older OSs, rather than what
to do if it DOES happen to be slower.

Thanks
Paul

OK, Carey, everything read and appropriately digested.

However, I should point out that I've been using WinXP for quite some
time and had gone through many of the standard procedures to keep
performance at a high level (much as is outlined in the ExtremeTech
article).

Note, too, that I don't at all consider my WinXP machine sluggish. My
problem is quite simply that the box I was temporarily using for the
last 3 months (on WinME, one quarter of the RAM, much slower CPU) is,
if anything, FASTER.

The articles you suggested I read have quite unanimously indicated that
this should NOT be the case.
Have you, or anybody else, had a similarly moving experience?

Paul

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US/

Windows XP's Built-In Optimization
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1149277,00.asp

Windows XP Performance
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

"PaulFXH" wrote:

| Hi
|
| Earlier this week I finished off a three-month sojourn abroad using a
| very non-State of the Art machine (256 MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU)operating on
| WinME and DUN. I`m now back using my 1GB RAM, 2.53GHz CPU, WinXP box
| with DSL Internet.
|
| But, guess what, the WinME machine is FASTER!
|
| With both machines launching 6 apps at start-up, the WinXP box takes 75
| seconds to be ready for action while the computer with WinME has
| completed its start-up in 72 seconds.
| For shutting down, the difference is significantly greater; 26 seconds
| for the WinXP box vs. 12 seconds for WinME.
| While I was unable to make any significant measurements, it really did
| seem to me that apps (such as Excel, Word) launched quite a bit faster
| on the WinME box.
|
| I like to think that both machines were equally well maintained in
| terms of absence of unnecessary files, HD defragmentation and freedom
| from viruses and other malware.
| Therefore, does this revelation come as a surprise to anybody besides
| me?
| Alernatively, any suggestions as to how I can get the more expensive
| box to match the speeds of its more humble team-mate?
| [Note that I suspect the fact that the unpartitioned, 80GB HDD on the
| WinXP box(compared to the 20GB HDD on the smaller machine) may well be
| a contributory factor in the speed difference]
|
| TIA for any comments
| Paul
|

 

[BC]

PaulFXH escreveu:

Carey Frisch [MVP] escreveu:


Hi Carey
Thanks for your reply and advice.
I was surprised to hear from you that partitioning of my 80GB main HDD
may adversely affect WinXP performance. Indeed, I was preparing to
partition this drive and was already armed with Partition Magic.
Looks like I`m going to have to rethink this.

Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system
whereas that using WinME has FATS32.

Can I take it that you are suggesting that my WinXP machine should IN
NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box?

I will knuckle down to the "homework" you gave me, but an initial
perusal indicated that this was more of a list of reasons for why WinXP
performance should be better than that of older OSs, rather than what
to do if it DOES happen to be slower.

Thanks
Paul

OK, Carey, everything read and appropriately digested.

However, I should point out that I've been using WinXP for quite some
time and had gone through many of the standard procedures to keep
performance at a high level (much as is outlined in the ExtremeTech
article).

Note, too, that I don't at all consider my WinXP machine sluggish. My
problem is quite simply that the box I was temporarily using for the
last 3 months (on WinME, one quarter of the RAM, much slower CPU) is,
if anything, FASTER.

The articles you suggested I read have quite unanimously indicated that
this should NOT be the case.
Have you, or anybody else, had a similarly moving experience?

Paul

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US/

Windows XP's Built-In Optimization
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1149277,00.asp

Windows XP Performance
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf..mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

"PaulFXH" wrote:

| Hi
|
| Earlier this week I finished off a three-month sojourn abroad usinga
| very non-State of the Art machine (256 MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU)operatingon
| WinME and DUN. I`m now back using my 1GB RAM, 2.53GHz CPU, WinXP box
| with DSL Internet.
|
| But, guess what, the WinME machine is FASTER!
|
| With both machines launching 6 apps at start-up, the WinXP box takes 75
| seconds to be ready for action while the computer with WinME has
| completed its start-up in 72 seconds.
| For shutting down, the difference is significantly greater; 26 seconds
| for the WinXP box vs. 12 seconds for WinME.
| While I was unable to make any significant measurements, it really did
| seem to me that apps (such as Excel, Word) launched quite a bit faster
| on the WinME box.
|
| I like to think that both machines were equally well maintained in
| terms of absence of unnecessary files, HD defragmentation and freedom
| from viruses and other malware.
| Therefore, does this revelation come as a surprise to anybody besides
| me?
| Alernatively, any suggestions as to how I can get the more expensive
| box to match the speeds of its more humble team-mate?
| [Note that I suspect the fact that the unpartitioned, 80GB HDD on the
| WinXP box(compared to the 20GB HDD on the smaller machine) may wellbe
| a contributory factor in the speed difference]
|
| TIA for any comments
| Paul
|

WinXP is slower than Win2k, Win2k is slower
than Win98, and WIn98 is slower than Win95.
(I don't have too much experience with WinME,
but it seems a little slower than Win98.)

You only need to look at the size of the OS
to gauge how much hardware horsepower you
lose dealing with bloated code.

The most responsive PC I've been on recently
was a cleaned-up 1 Ghz P3 running Win98. I
haven't seen any WinXP PC, whether on a P4
or an Athlon, to date come near it in terms of
being able to quickly turn on, take care of
business, and then turn off and be done. I
haven't tried something like this, though:
http://www.alienware.com/product_de...?SysCode=PC-AURORA-ALX-R6&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
Which is what you probably need these days
for a snappy PC running XP

-BC

 

[PaulFXH]

BC escreveu:

PaulFXH escreveu:

Carey Frisch [MVP] escreveu:

Windows XP performs best, and is more secure, when installed
on a drive with a single partition that is formatted NTFS.

Hi Carey
Thanks for your reply and advice.
I was surprised to hear from you that partitioning of my 80GB main HDD
may adversely affect WinXP performance. Indeed, I was preparing to
partition this drive and was already armed with Partition Magic.
Looks like I`m going to have to rethink this.

Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system
whereas that using WinME has FATS32.

Can I take it that you are suggesting that my WinXP machine should IN
NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box?

I will knuckle down to the "homework" you gave me, but an initial
perusal indicated that this was more of a list of reasons for why WinXP
performance should be better than that of older OSs, rather than what
to do if it DOES happen to be slower.

Thanks
Paul

Please read the following:

OK, Carey, everything read and appropriately digested.

However, I should point out that I've been using WinXP for quite some
time and had gone through many of the standard procedures to keep
performance at a high level (much as is outlined in the ExtremeTech
article).

Note, too, that I don't at all consider my WinXP machine sluggish. My
problem is quite simply that the box I was temporarily using for the
last 3 months (on WinME, one quarter of the RAM, much slower CPU) is,
if anything, FASTER.

The articles you suggested I read have quite unanimously indicated that
this should NOT be the case.
Have you, or anybody else, had a similarly moving experience?

Paul

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US/

Windows XP's Built-In Optimization
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1149277,00.asp

Windows XP Performance
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

"PaulFXH" wrote:

| Hi
|
| Earlier this week I finished off a three-month sojourn abroad using a
| very non-State of the Art machine (256 MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU)operating on
| WinME and DUN. I`m now back using my 1GB RAM, 2.53GHz CPU, WinXP box
| with DSL Internet.
|
| But, guess what, the WinME machine is FASTER!
|
| With both machines launching 6 apps at start-up, the WinXP box takes 75
| seconds to be ready for action while the computer with WinME has
| completed its start-up in 72 seconds.
| For shutting down, the difference is significantly greater; 26 seconds
| for the WinXP box vs. 12 seconds for WinME.
| While I was unable to make any significant measurements, it really did
| seem to me that apps (such as Excel, Word) launched quite a bit faster
| on the WinME box.
|
| I like to think that both machines were equally well maintained in
| terms of absence of unnecessary files, HD defragmentation and freedom
| from viruses and other malware.
| Therefore, does this revelation come as a surprise to anybody besides
| me?
| Alernatively, any suggestions as to how I can get the more expensive
| box to match the speeds of its more humble team-mate?
| [Note that I suspect the fact that the unpartitioned, 80GB HDD onthe
| WinXP box(compared to the 20GB HDD on the smaller machine) may well be
| a contributory factor in the speed difference]
|
| TIA for any comments
| Paul
|

Hi BC
Thanks for your comments.

WinXP is slower than Win2k, Win2k is slower
than Win98, and WIn98 is slower than Win95.
(I don't have too much experience with WinME,
but it seems a little slower than Win98.)

Interestingly, the Microsoft link which Carey provided (find it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx)
has quite the opposite opinion to you regarding how WinXP performance
compares with that of earlier versions of Windows.

Here are some quotes from that article:

"Windows XP is the best-performing Windows operating system ever
created"

"For this memory size [128 MB], Windows XP has shown itself to be
consistently superior to previous versions of Windows"

"For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other
activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience [with
WinXP] equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition
(Windows Me) running on the same hardware"

In another qote from the same MS article, it is claimed that "The time
it takes to display a typical new desktop (after turning on the
computer and logging on) should happen in well under 30 seconds"
It is not quite clear to me if this refers to the time from Power On,
through Logon, to Desktop-Ready or only from Logon to Desktop-Ready.
However, even in the latter case, my WinXP machine would be hard
pressed to get through this task in less thasn 30 seconds.

You only need to look at the size of the OS
to gauge how much hardware horsepower you
lose dealing with bloated code.

The most responsive PC I've been on recently
was a cleaned-up 1 Ghz P3 running Win98. I
haven't seen any WinXP PC, whether on a P4
or an Athlon, to date come near it in terms of
being able to quickly turn on, take care of
business, and then turn off and be done. I
haven't tried something like this, though:
http://www.alienware.com/product_de...?SysCode=PC-AURORA-ALX-R6&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
Which is what you probably need these days
for a snappy PC running XP

I don't believe my problems stem from CPU overheating (your link seems
to refer to a CPU cooler). Certainly the measured temperature never
goes above 40 degrees C and CPU usage is rarely excessive.

Nevertheless, your points are interesting, and despite the apparent
contradiction to MS's claims, I have heard them before from others.
Does anybody else have a view on the speed/performance of WinXP in
comparison to its predecessors?

TIA
Paul

 

[XO]

I don't believe my problems stem from CPU overheating (your link seems
to refer to a CPU cooler). Certainly the measured temperature never
goes above 40 degrees C and CPU usage is rarely excessive.

Nevertheless, your points are interesting, and despite the apparent
contradiction to MS's claims, I have heard them before from others.
Does anybody else have a view on the speed/performance of WinXP in
comparison to its predecessors?

TIA
Paul

FWIW, I have Home XP2 on a 3ghz P4. I have WinMe on an 800mhz P3. The P4 with XP takes 1 to 2
seconds longer loading graphics programs such as Paint Shop Pro - and I'm talking in the
neighborhood of 13 to 15 seconds. Has been suggested the hard drives on each are running about the
same although the P4 has the SATA versus the PATA in slower computer.
WinMe boots up faster, opens programs faster, but the P3 @ 800mhz falls by the wayside once the
programs are open and running. Graphics seem faster on the P3 using WinMe, but all the graphic
benchmark programs show the P4 to be at least 3 times faster - go figure...
XO

 

[PaulFXH]

XO escreveu:

FWIW, I have Home XP2 on a 3ghz P4. I have WinMe on an 800mhz P3. The P4 with XP takes 1 to 2
seconds longer loading graphics programs such as Paint Shop Pro - and I'm talking in the
neighborhood of 13 to 15 seconds. Has been suggested the hard drives on each are running about the
same although the P4 has the SATA versus the PATA in slower computer.
WinMe boots up faster, opens programs faster, but the P3 @ 800mhz falls by the wayside once the
programs are open and running. Graphics seem faster on the P3 using WinMe, but all the graphic
benchmark programs show the P4 to be at least 3 times faster - go figure...
XO

Hi XO
Thanks for your comments.
You experience is very similar to mine (indeed your 800 MHz/P3 should
be even slower than my WinME machine).

I came across a further MS article containing some quantification of
WinXP's benefits
(http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx)
:

"Faster startup performance: Windows XP is on average 34% faster than
Windows 2000 and 27% faster than Windows 98 SE"

"For example, average application startup on Windows XP is 25% faster
than Windows 98 SE and equivalent to Windows 2000 Professional."

Is it just me and you who've had these experiences which apparently
contradict MS's benchmarking tests?

Better, still, is there anybody can explain what additionally needs to
be done to achieve the much-vaunted accelerated performance of WinXP?
(Please note that I have gone through all the stuff about minimizing
start-up apps, running unnecessary services, defragmentation, removing
unnecessary temporary files--in other words all of the easy stuff).

TIA
Paul

 

[BC]

BC escreveu:

PaulFXH escreveu:

Carey Frisch [MVP] escreveu:

Windows XP performs best, and is more secure, when installed
on a drive with a single partition that is formatted NTFS.

Hi Carey
Thanks for your reply and advice.
I was surprised to hear from you that partitioning of my 80GB main HDD
may adversely affect WinXP performance. Indeed, I was preparing to
partition this drive and was already armed with Partition Magic.
Looks like I`m going to have to rethink this.

Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system
whereas that using WinME has FATS32.

Can I take it that you are suggesting that my WinXP machine should IN
NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box?

I will knuckle down to the "homework" you gave me, but an initial
perusal indicated that this was more of a list of reasons for why WinXP
performance should be better than that of older OSs, rather than what
to do if it DOES happen to be slower.

Thanks
Paul

Please read the following:

OK, Carey, everything read and appropriately digested.

However, I should point out that I've been using WinXP for quite some
time and had gone through many of the standard procedures to keep
performance at a high level (much as is outlined in the ExtremeTech
article).

Note, too, that I don't at all consider my WinXP machine sluggish. My
problem is quite simply that the box I was temporarily using for the
last 3 months (on WinME, one quarter of the RAM, much slower CPU) is,
if anything, FASTER.

The articles you suggested I read have quite unanimously indicated that
this should NOT be the case.
Have you, or anybody else, had a similarly moving experience?

Paul


NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US/

Windows XP's Built-In Optimization
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1149277,00.asp

Windows XP Performance
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

"PaulFXH" wrote:

| Hi
|
| Earlier this week I finished off a three-month sojourn abroad using a
| very non-State of the Art machine (256 MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU)operating on
| WinME and DUN. I`m now back using my 1GB RAM, 2.53GHz CPU, WinXP box
| with DSL Internet.
|
| But, guess what, the WinME machine is FASTER!
|
| With both machines launching 6 apps at start-up, the WinXP box takes 75
| seconds to be ready for action while the computer with WinME has
| completed its start-up in 72 seconds.
| For shutting down, the difference is significantly greater; 26 seconds
| for the WinXP box vs. 12 seconds for WinME.
| While I was unable to make any significant measurements, it really did
| seem to me that apps (such as Excel, Word) launched quite a bitfaster
| on the WinME box.
|
| I like to think that both machines were equally well maintainedin
| terms of absence of unnecessary files, HD defragmentation and freedom
| from viruses and other malware.
| Therefore, does this revelation come as a surprise to anybody besides
| me?
| Alernatively, any suggestions as to how I can get the more expensive
| box to match the speeds of its more humble team-mate?
| [Note that I suspect the fact that the unpartitioned, 80GB HDD on the
| WinXP box(compared to the 20GB HDD on the smaller machine) may well be
| a contributory factor in the speed difference]
|
| TIA for any comments
| Paul
|

Hi BC
Thanks for your comments.

WinXP is slower than Win2k, Win2k is slower
than Win98, and WIn98 is slower than Win95.
(I don't have too much experience with WinME,
but it seems a little slower than Win98.)

Interestingly, the Microsoft link which Carey provided (find it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx)
has quite the opposite opinion to you regarding how WinXP performance
compares with that of earlier versions of Windows.

Here are some quotes from that article:

"Windows XP is the best-performing Windows operating system ever
created"

"For this memory size [128 MB], Windows XP has shown itself to be
consistently superior to previous versions of Windows"

"For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other
activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience [with
WinXP] equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition
(Windows Me) running on the same hardware"

In another qote from the same MS article, it is claimed that "The time
it takes to display a typical new desktop (after turning on the
computer and logging on) should happen in well under 30 seconds"
It is not quite clear to me if this refers to the time from Power On,
through Logon, to Desktop-Ready or only from Logon to Desktop-Ready.
However, even in the latter case, my WinXP machine would be hard
pressed to get through this task in less thasn 30 seconds.

You only need to look at the size of the OS
to gauge how much hardware horsepower you
lose dealing with bloated code.

The most responsive PC I've been on recently
was a cleaned-up 1 Ghz P3 running Win98. I
haven't seen any WinXP PC, whether on a P4
or an Athlon, to date come near it in terms of
being able to quickly turn on, take care of
business, and then turn off and be done. I
haven't tried something like this, though:
http://www.alienware.com/product_de...?SysCode=PC-AURORA-ALX-R6&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
Which is what you probably need these days
for a snappy PC running XP

I don't believe my problems stem from CPU overheating (your link seems
to refer to a CPU cooler). Certainly the measured temperature never
goes above 40 degrees C and CPU usage is rarely excessive.

Nevertheless, your points are interesting, and despite the apparent
contradiction to MS's claims, I have heard them before from others.
Does anybody else have a view on the speed/performance of WinXP in
comparison to its predecessors?

TIA
Paul

-BC

In the real world, all of the slowest PC's I've run
across during during the past couple of years
have been WinXP's -- mouse-slamming, go-take-
a bathroom-break, check-phone-messages, read-
the-newspaper slow. To be fair, those were PC's
with bad cases of WinRot, but I've never seen
performance degrade so badly on the other
Windows versions. With Windows 98, you could
clear out the Temp folder and the browser caches,.
search for and delete misc "tmp" files, empty the
Recyle Bin, and then run Defrag to gain back
some good performance, but with XP, nothing
seems to work nearly as well, aside from a
full reformat/re-install (which a lot of tech-savvy
users do regularly: http://tinyurl.com/ryttb)

But again you only need to look at the size of the
OS to note that this is what you should expect.
Microsoft has tried to compensate with XP's bloat
by all sorts of tweaks, and XP does indeed seem
reasonably quick if you freshly install the retail
box version from scratch on a new PC with a
wiped hard drive, but then load up all your apps,
and give it just a few months, and you're back to
slowpokiness.

Very recently I had the interesting experience of
working on this Dell gaming notebook PC,
http://tinyurl.com/kj5rq, and fixing up a somewhat
battered Sony PCG-Z505HE notebook for a friend.
The Sony had a bad hard drive so my friend wasn't
so sure it was worth fixing, but I replaced the drive
it with a Toshiba 40Gb (not so easy -- the Sony had
to be disassembled) and while I was at it I upgraded
the memory with a spare memory module I had
lying around. I put on a clean version of Windows
2000 and although he had Office XP on the old
hard drive, I put on Office 2K because I had it handy.
I also installed Firefox, Irfanview, F-Prot for anti-virus
and both Ad-Aware and Spybot for anti-spyware,
as well as a couple of other choice freeware
goodies.

Now bear in mind that the Sony had a 450 MHz
P3 and 192Mb and the Dell a 2GHz dual-core
P4 and 2 Gb of memory. So in terms of turning
them on and just doing stuff like getting online
and opening up and closing out programs, which
do you think was faster? With the Dell plugged
into an outlet and running at full speed, both
were about as responsive. With the Dell on
battery only and auto-running at a slower speed,
the Sony was noticeably faster. To be fair, though,
this wasn't apples to apples -- the Dell still had
all of its preloaded crap demo software like McAfee
and AOL running, while the Sony had only the
basic apps needed. I actually ended up cleaning
up the Dell a bit -- you can't have a new $3K
"gaming" notebook being shown up by a tired
old P3 notebook with a bad battery. Also I didn't
try running Quake 4 or such to see the Dell's
true (alleged) gaming capabilities.

The results, though, were pretty much in line with
what I've seen elsewhere. All the increasing
horsepower is being absorbed by increasingly
bloated software, and not just by Microsoft. And
having better batteries is being offset by having
to fuel all that horsepower, so the practical battery
life for notebooks has essentially remained
constant on average for the past 6 yrs or so,
roughly about 2hrs for the mainstream notebooks
after the short initial "break-in" period. (And this
apparently is not exactly going to improve with
Vista: http://tinyurl.com/qostm)

FYI.

-BC

 

[PaulFXH]

In the real world, all of the slowest PC's I've run
across during during the past couple of years
have been WinXP's -- mouse-slamming, go-take-
a bathroom-break, check-phone-messages, read-
the-newspaper slow. To be fair, those were PC's
with bad cases of WinRot, but I've never seen
performance degrade so badly on the other
Windows versions. With Windows 98, you could
clear out the Temp folder and the browser caches,.
search for and delete misc "tmp" files, empty the
Recyle Bin, and then run Defrag to gain back
some good performance, but with XP, nothing
seems to work nearly as well, aside from a
full reformat/re-install (which a lot of tech-savvy
users do regularly: http://tinyurl.com/ryttb)

But again you only need to look at the size of the
OS to note that this is what you should expect.
Microsoft has tried to compensate with XP's bloat
by all sorts of tweaks, and XP does indeed seem
reasonably quick if you freshly install the retail
box version from scratch on a new PC with a
wiped hard drive, but then load up all your apps,
and give it just a few months, and you're back to
slowpokiness.

Very recently I had the interesting experience of
working on this Dell gaming notebook PC,
http://tinyurl.com/kj5rq, and fixing up a somewhat
battered Sony PCG-Z505HE notebook for a friend.
The Sony had a bad hard drive so my friend wasn't
so sure it was worth fixing, but I replaced the drive
it with a Toshiba 40Gb (not so easy -- the Sony had
to be disassembled) and while I was at it I upgraded
the memory with a spare memory module I had
lying around. I put on a clean version of Windows
2000 and although he had Office XP on the old
hard drive, I put on Office 2K because I had it handy.
I also installed Firefox, Irfanview, F-Prot for anti-virus
and both Ad-Aware and Spybot for anti-spyware,
as well as a couple of other choice freeware
goodies.

Now bear in mind that the Sony had a 450 MHz
P3 and 192Mb and the Dell a 2GHz dual-core
P4 and 2 Gb of memory. So in terms of turning
them on and just doing stuff like getting online
and opening up and closing out programs, which
do you think was faster? With the Dell plugged
into an outlet and running at full speed, both
were about as responsive. With the Dell on
battery only and auto-running at a slower speed,
the Sony was noticeably faster. To be fair, though,
this wasn't apples to apples -- the Dell still had
all of its preloaded crap demo software like McAfee
and AOL running, while the Sony had only the
basic apps needed. I actually ended up cleaning
up the Dell a bit -- you can't have a new $3K
"gaming" notebook being shown up by a tired
old P3 notebook with a bad battery. Also I didn't
try running Quake 4 or such to see the Dell's
true (alleged) gaming capabilities.

The results, though, were pretty much in line with
what I've seen elsewhere. All the increasing
horsepower is being absorbed by increasingly
bloated software, and not just by Microsoft. And
having better batteries is being offset by having
to fuel all that horsepower, so the practical battery
life for notebooks has essentially remained
constant on average for the past 6 yrs or so,
roughly about 2hrs for the mainstream notebooks
after the short initial "break-in" period. (And this
apparently is not exactly going to improve with
Vista: http://tinyurl.com/qostm)

FYI.

Thanks for this very interesting thesis, BC.
It seems, therefore, that the claims (many of which can be seen in the
articles in Cary's post) about self-optimizaton of WinXP and it being
the best-performing Windows OS ever are somewhat divergent from the
real-world truth.
Paul