windows xp worse than 2000????

[surface9]

I have used wondows 2000 for many years (I run some old DOS programs
still) and I recently got a brand new spiffy PC and decided finally to
upgrade to XP. But not until after I checked out my new PC using my
old standby -windows 2000 PRO w SP4.
It worked great and so much faster than my old 440bx PC.

But after I installed windows XP (sp2), everything runs slower,
sluggish, and even freezes up. What gives????? Several of my old dos
programs take forever to finally get started, and they freeze from
inputs that work just fine back on windows 2000. I am perplexed.
Also, 3dsmax started up in 30 seconds on the win2k machine, but it
takes a full 2 minutes on the XP machine - what gives???????

There are several other issues that suggest to me that XP just doesn't
messure up to win2k - am I doing something wrong here? My new PC is
2.8 ghz amd with 4 gigs ram and 160g sata drive - and it works like a
champ with win2k. Unless I can figure out what I am doing wrong with
XP, it'll be back to win2k for me. Any suggestions?

 

[Daave]

I have used wondows 2000 for many years (I run some old DOS programs
still) and I recently got a brand new spiffy PC and decided finally to
upgrade to XP. But not until after I checked out my new PC using my
old standby -windows 2000 PRO w SP4.
It worked great and so much faster than my old 440bx PC.

But after I installed windows XP (sp2), everything runs slower,
sluggish, and even freezes up. What gives????? Several of my old dos
programs take forever to finally get started, and they freeze from
inputs that work just fine back on windows 2000. I am perplexed.
Also, 3dsmax started up in 30 seconds on the win2k machine, but it
takes a full 2 minutes on the XP machine - what gives???????

There are several other issues that suggest to me that XP just doesn't
messure up to win2k - am I doing something wrong here? My new PC is
2.8 ghz amd with 4 gigs ram and 160g sata drive - and it works like a
champ with win2k. Unless I can figure out what I am doing wrong with
XP, it'll be back to win2k for me. Any suggestions?

If configured correctly, your PC should work just as well with XP. And
there are reports that SP3 brings some modest improvement in
performance.

Did you use an XP upgrade disk? If not, you may want to try the dual
boot option that Rich suggested.

Did you perform a clean install or just upgrade your 2000 installation?
A clean install always guarantees success.

Installing SP2 (or SP3 for that matter) requires some preparation. See:

http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45

 

[surface9]

If configured correctly, your PC should work just as well with XP. And
there are reports that SP3 brings some modest improvement in
performance.

Did you use an XP upgrade disk? If not, you may want to try the dual
boot option that Rich suggested.

Did you perform a clean install or just upgrade your 2000 installation?
A clean install always guarantees success.

Installing SP2 (or SP3 for that matter) requires some preparation. See:

http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=45

My XP cd is an upgrade only. So what I did was take a fresh h/d and
install win2k on it with sp4, but nothing else. Then I installed XP
on top of it, not as an upgrade, but as a "new system", and then I
installed SP2. That gives me a boot.ini where I get to choose which
system I will use. The only problem is that I don't want to install
my many applications on both win2k and xp on the same h/d, as that has
caused problems in the past (wi98se and win2k).

I installed all the drivers for the motherboard (MSI) from the CD, and
there are no yellow warnings in hardware/details, so, I really don't
know what else to do. WinXP justs runs a lot slower, and even crashes
on some of my DOS programs that run flawlessly on win2k. And I really
don't understand the long delay for 3dmax (2 min) to start up on XP -
that tells me there is something very very wrong with this system.
Wouldn't you get some kind of a warning or alert if there were
something wrong with a driver somewhere?

 

[Jason]

You install the applications on the same partition/HDD as the OS. Normally
you can access the data file from anywhere. The accounting systems and POS
systems I've dealt with don't have problems with the OS so can be installed
in each OS onto the same partition/HDD for the program (or just copied from
backup). An example is Webshots where the program is installed for each OS
but you can point to the data file on any local HDD/partition.

 

[Ghostrider]

If I was in your situation, I would try a dual boot of Win2K and WinXP.
It gives you the opportunity to revert to Win2k while you learn the
intricacies of XP.
http://www.petri.co.il/install_windows_2000_after_windows_xp.htm

http://www.windowsnetworking.com/kb...eShooting/HowtoinstallWindows2000afterXP.html

There are no inherent intricacies of Windows XP that the knowledgeable
Windows 2000 user cannot easily overcome. After all, Windows XP, so some
feel, is just Windows 2000-SP5 plus all the unnecessary bloatware.

However, older programs or legacy-developed programs, IMO, do have issues
with Windows XP. And, indeed, especially for those that were not programmed
in Visual Basic, they must be compiled via emulation in Windows XP, which
slows loading considerably. But this is the direction that Microsoft is
pursuing --- its own VB, .NET, etc. scripting. The Windows 2000 OS was much
more forgiving towards legacy applications and even well-behaved DOS ones.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It is not necessary to install Win2000 prior to installing XP from an XP
upgrade cd. You can boot with the upgrade cd, format the drive, and supply
the Win2000 cd for the shiny media check when XP Setup requests it.

You should check for updated drivers.

 

[Jason]

In a dual boot XP full/upgrade (don't think OEM works) - install 2000
first - the option you would take.
For single XP (or any version) boot install the upgrade OS you want and when
asked insert the previous OS CD. However this would not work with the likes
of Compaq and other brands that don't supply full OEM CD's (CD's that
reinstall all the crap like factory setup and don't have the normal OS
install).

 

[surface9]

There are no inherent intricacies of Windows XP that the knowledgeable
Windows 2000 user cannot easily overcome. After all, Windows XP, so some
feel, is just Windows 2000-SP5 plus all the unnecessary bloatware.

However, older programs or legacy-developed programs, IMO, do have issues
with Windows XP. And, indeed, especially for those that were not programmed
in Visual Basic, they must be compiled via emulation in Windows XP, which
slows loading considerably. But this is the direction that Microsoft is
pursuing --- its own VB, .NET, etc. scripting. The Windows 2000 OS was much
more forgiving towards legacy applications and even well-behaved DOS ones.

To Ghostrider:

Your opinion about XP and legacy programs
is very interesting: There are several legacy
programs that were developed for mainframes
and got "ported" to the PC. SPF4 and REXX
are two such examples that are still unmatched
for handling large "record-oriented" data files.
I have found nothing that comes close to the
powerful methods these legacy programs use,
so I really don't want to give them up (I have
never tried them in linux, but just assumed
they wouldn't work over there). I just don't
understand why XP wouldn't preserve the good
features of win2k as per legacy programs.
Darn - that is a bumer.

And the 2 minute delay in starting 3dsmax,
which is an object-oriented-developed
application from 2005, is also very worrisome.
I use the very same driver disk (for my new
MSI motherboard) for the XP install as for the
win2k install, so I have doubts about needing
any "newer" drivers from MSI - these work
very well with wi2k.

Are there any discussions about the degradation
of XP viz Win2k with respect to legacy
programs? I would like to look into this in
greater detail.

For now, it looks like I'll stick with WIn2k.
I am very impressed with the speed that this
new PC runs, especially with my legacy
programs.

 

[Daave]

My XP cd is an upgrade only. So what I did was take a fresh h/d and
install win2k on it with sp4, but nothing else. Then I installed XP
on top of it, not as an upgrade, but as a "new system", and then I
installed SP2. That gives me a boot.ini where I get to choose which
system I will use. The only problem is that I don't want to install
my many applications on both win2k and xp on the same h/d, as that has
caused problems in the past (wi98se and win2k).

That must be the probelm, then!

Do you still have the installation disk for 2000? If so, use your XP
Upgrade disk to perform a *clean* install (see Step #9):

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

In my opinion, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with just sticking
with 2000 as long as you practice safe hex. But XP will work just fine
with your PC. Your call.

 

[HeyBub]

Your opinion about XP and legacy programs
is very interesting: There are several legacy
programs that were developed for mainframes
and got "ported" to the PC. SPF4 and REXX
are two such examples that are still unmatched
for handling large "record-oriented" data files.
I have found nothing that comes close to the
powerful methods these legacy programs use,
so I really don't want to give them up (I have
never tried them in linux, but just assumed
they wouldn't work over there). I just don't
understand why XP wouldn't preserve the good
features of win2k as per legacy programs.
Darn - that is a bumer.

And the 2 minute delay in starting 3dsmax,
which is an object-oriented-developed
application from 2005, is also very worrisome.
I use the very same driver disk (for my new
MSI motherboard) for the XP install as for the
win2k install, so I have doubts about needing
any "newer" drivers from MSI - these work
very well with wi2k.

Are there any discussions about the degradation
of XP viz Win2k with respect to legacy
programs? I would like to look into this in
greater detail.

For now, it looks like I'll stick with WIn2k.
I am very impressed with the speed that this
new PC runs, especially with my legacy
programs.

For older, 16-bit programs (at least some of them), for every file open, XP
tries to read the floppy drive! With no diskette inserted, you have about
five seconds of grinding until XP gives up and goes about its business
elsewhere.

The circumvention is to leave a diskette in the drive.

 

[Liviu]

There are several other issues that suggest to me that XP just doesn't
messure up to win2k - am I doing something wrong here? My new PC is
2.8 ghz amd with 4 gigs ram and 160g sata drive [...]

My experience is that a rightly tuned XP runs comparably fast to Win2k
so, yes, I'd say something is odd given the differences you see. Can't
guess what from the distance, but a few things come to mind...

DOS apps (assuming you do mean actual 16b DOS, not 32b text-mode
console apps) may start slower the first time around, since ntvdm.exe
(the virtual dos machine) needs to be loaded. Once started, however,
they should run full speed, and definitely not freeze. You don't say if
you run them full screen (alt-enter) by any chance, in which case it
could simply be a video driver issue.

Another thing about XP is that AFAIK the MS drivers do not include
hardware OpenGL acceleration. If your video card supports it, then you
need to lookup an OEM driver on their site, which would likely take
advantage of it. This can make a big difference for OpenGL apps.

The same (OEM more current, often times better, than what's included
with XP) applies to other drivers, including the motherboard chipset.

Lastly, though I appreciate that it's a bit late in the game to spec the
hardware now, but I would always recommend at least two physical hard
drives. Concurrent data access can be much slower within a drive than
between drives (just try and copy a big file). Usual suspects for disk
thrashing are program/system files, pagefile, app's own data files, and
temp directory. Depending on your specific app's disk usage patterns,
some of these would be better off sitting on different drives or,
barring that, at least different partitions.

 

[Mistoffolees]

To Ghostrider:

Your opinion about XP and legacy programs
is very interesting: There are several legacy
programs that were developed for mainframes
and got "ported" to the PC. SPF4 and REXX
are two such examples that are still unmatched
for handling large "record-oriented" data files.
I have found nothing that comes close to the
powerful methods these legacy programs use,
so I really don't want to give them up (I have
never tried them in linux, but just assumed
they wouldn't work over there). I just don't
understand why XP wouldn't preserve the good
features of win2k as per legacy programs.
Darn - that is a bumer.

And the 2 minute delay in starting 3dsmax,
which is an object-oriented-developed
application from 2005, is also very worrisome.
I use the very same driver disk (for my new
MSI motherboard) for the XP install as for the
win2k install, so I have doubts about needing
any "newer" drivers from MSI - these work
very well with wi2k.

Are there any discussions about the degradation
of XP viz Win2k with respect to legacy
programs? I would like to look into this in
greater detail.

For now, it looks like I'll stick with WIn2k.
I am very impressed with the speed that this
new PC runs, especially with my legacy
programs.

GR has opened the can of worms that centers on programming versus
scripting. Developers of the programs of 1980-90's actually programmed
in machine language, assembler, C, etc. The operating systems were
also much simpler. The net result was high efficiency. But developers
today are forced to "script", resulting in bulkier programs following
less [machine-] direct coded instructions. Ever noticed the size of OS's,
as they progressed from MS-DOS (6 HD floppy diskettes) to Vista (1 DVD
disc)?

 

[farid]

Win XP Pro SP2 is in my opinion the best from Microsoft. It's even better
then Vista.
There must be something wrong with either your installation or your
hardware. Maybe you do not have enough Ram.
Try reinstalling Win XP first and then install the motherboard drivers.
Cheers,
Farid