2000 Pro or XP for speed

[russell2002]

I currently use 2000 Pro and getting new hardware. Not sure if xp is a better option or not.

I want whichever will boot the fastest and have as little demand on system resouces as possible.

I cant think of any XP spcific features I need.

Thanks.

 

[n0cmonkey]

If you're happy with 2k, stick with it.

 

[perdomot]

W2K is faster and has a smaller memory footprint. XP is basically W2K with a lot of eye candy and some extras that don't really justify it. Wait for Longhorn next year and you'll be well served.

 

[LBmtb]

Only thing XP MIGHT do is boot up a tad quicker. I'd say stick to win2k pro. Everytime a new Windows comes out the hardware requirements increase, so win2k will be more efficient.

 

[KoolDrew]

Xp is faster.

 

[russell2002]

Right then, im gonna install win 3.1 and have a 4 second boot up time....

 

[BlueWeasel]

Other than the quicker boot time, XP isn't going to be any faster than W2K.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
Other than the quicker boot time, XP isn't going to be any faster than W2K.

Application prefetch helps more than just boot time. The scheduler is better designed for HT systems. Overall, XP should be somewhat faster than 2k, not the other way around.

Bill

 

[bsobel]

ugh, dp

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
Other than the quicker boot time, XP isn't going to be any faster than W2K.

Application prefetch helps more than just boot time. The scheduler is better designed for HT systems. Overall, XP should be somewhat faster than 2k, not the other way around.

Bill

I agree somewhat, but wouldn't it be dependant on hardware? I would think W2K would be faster on a marginal system.

I will say this, though - I can't tell a difference in W2K and XP with all the eye candy off. I ran XP streamlined as a server (for Remote Desktop) on a Celeron 433Mhz with 192mb of RAM. Now, with W2K on the same system, I really didn't notice a huge improvement in speed....granted, I do run it "headless".

 

[Link19]

Wouldn't XP be just as fast or faster on the most modern hardware as long as you declutter it and strip out all the bloat? But for an older system, Windows 2000 may be faster than XP no matter how much you declutter XP? That is if you don't load any extra crap on 2000.

 

[bsobel]

I agree somewhat, but wouldn't it be dependant on hardware? I would think W2K would be faster on a marginal system.

Sure, an older system wouldn't have HT for example. The OP did say he was getting new hardware however, so I was answering mainly in that context.

Bill

 

[jamesbond007]

W2K definitely feels more snappier out of the box, but I definitely enjoy slimming down XP by turning off all the eye candy and adjusting the 'visual effects' settings to maximum performance. I also like XP's bigger selection of plug and play hardware and the sexier systray icons.

 

[dguy6789]

Windows 2000 needs less ram than Win XP. If you have enough ram where you wouldn't have to swap, then windows xp would always be faster. The only reason 2000 would be faster, is if you have such a small amount of ram, that winxp is swapping like crazy.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Windows 2000 needs less ram than Win XP. If you have enough ram where you wouldn't have to swap, then windows xp would always be faster. The only reason 2000 would be faster, is if you have such a small amount of ram, that winxp is swapping like crazy.

I agree, but cheap as RAM is nowadays, that isn't much of an inconvinient, in my opinion.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I agree somewhat, but wouldn't it be dependant on hardware? I would think W2K would be faster on a marginal system.

Sure, an older system wouldn't have HT for example. The OP did say he was getting new hardware however, so I was answering mainly in that context.

Bill

But you're assuming he is going with a HT enabled machine. He might go for AMD in which the scheduler isn't as important as the ram headroom for applications. Either way... the original poster shouldn't expect things such as games or email apps to run any faster or slower. Windows XP would probably benefit any proc if things such as Java JRE and apps are run simultaneously as scheduling could come into play there.

I run AMD64 with Win2K PRO SP4 and it is NO different than XP PRO was performance wise. A HUGE drawback, however, is that Windows Media Player 10 doesn't install natively on Win2K

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Aenslead

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Windows 2000 needs less ram than Win XP. If you have enough ram where you wouldn't have to swap, then windows xp would always be faster. The only reason 2000 would be faster, is if you have such a small amount of ram, that winxp is swapping like crazy.

I agree, but cheap as RAM is nowadays, that isn't much of an inconvinient, in my opinion.

You can buy 512MB for like $30 now.

 

[Schadenfroh]

on a modern system, you will not see a differance, unless you use hyperthreading to a great extent.

 

[Canterwood]

If it means going out and buying XP to replace 2K then save your money and stick with 2K.

If you've already got a copy of XP, then it might work better with your new hardware, but speed wise there shouldn't be a lot of difference.