2000 vs. xp boot time speed, which faster?

[blazerazor]

Does 2000pro boot faster than xpHome or xpPro.?.

I have a PIII-999mhz laptop boots about as fast (or slower) than my old pII-233mhz.
Its running XpPro, but its a version that missing SP1. I can put xpHome back on it and get SP1 back. Will that speed boot, or should I go with 2000pro.?

 

[Smilin]

XP boots faster than 2000. Home probably boots a little faster than pro just due to having a few less services - not much difference between them though.

Boot time shouldn't really be the determining factor in choosing your OS. If it is, try Dos 2.2

 

[EeyoreX]

XP boots faster than 2000. Home probably boots a little faster than pro just due to having a few less services - not much difference between them though.

Agreed. When I used 2000 on my PC boot times were about 60 seconds. With XP it takes about 15.

Boot time shouldn't really be the determining factor in choosing your OS. If it is, try Dos 2.2

Agreed. DOS will totally be faster I don't let boot times be my deciding factor either. Mostly because I rarely turn my computer off and don't worry about it.

\Dan

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX

Boot time shouldn't really be the determining factor in choosing your OS. If it is, try Dos 2.2

Agreed. DOS will totally be faster I don't let boot times be my deciding factor either. Mostly because I rarely turn my computer off and don't worry about it. \Dan

On anything else I would agree, but with a laptop I have to say that boot times do make a difference. It is annoying (!!) to have to wait a long time for a laptop.



And in a cursory test of my machines here, XP Home seems to boot a few seconds quicker. 2000 takes MUCH longer to boot. I do think that if you can't get SP1 or update your OS then you need to switch to an OS that you can. If you do not need the extras built into Pro then I would stick with home (the generic PC everyone here uses for stuff is home, all of our personal PC's are Pro.)

 

[ntrights]

Yep, XP boots much faster. Even Windows 2003 Server boots faster on my work laptop then 2k (with default services running).

 

[stephbu]

As an adjunct to the defragger thread elsewhere in these forums. XP and Win2k3 benefit from the introduction of a Microsoft Research technology called 'prefetch'. Prefetch analyzes and optimizes page storage on disk for those library disk pages read when first loaded at boottime or during the first 10seconds of each process start up.

The prefetch system (part of the Kernel Cache Manager) stores statistics in the %windir%\prefetch folder to be processed periodically by a scheduled task running defrag <drive>: -b (a hidden switch)

The defrag arranges those file pages in sequential order to quite significantly improve disk read-ahead hit ratio. This alongside other boot optimizations gives big improvements in overall time

The number of services and drivers loaded at boot-time actually increased comparing say Win2K Pro to WinXP Pro.

 

[Amused]

Open a command prompt. Type in: "defrag c: -b" (no quotes) and hit enter.

This will speed up your boot times signifigantly in XP.

 

[TheEliteLlama]

Originally posted by: ntrights
Yep, XP boots much faster. Even Windows 2003 Server boots faster on my work laptop then 2k (with default services running).

You're running that OS on your laptop?

 

[NogginBoink]

In general XP boots faster.

XP also allows you to log in earlier, before several services start that Windows 2000 waits for. The services don't start any earlier; and you can't do any useful work earlier; but it gives the appearance of speed which is what customers want.

 

[ntrights]

Originally posted by: TheEliteLlama

Originally posted by: ntrights
Yep, XP boots much faster. Even Windows 2003 Server boots faster on my work laptop then 2k (with default services running).

Your running that OS on your laptop?

Well actaully im dualbooting with Debian It's my work laptop 700mhz 512ram, Im a Sysadmin

 

[spyordie007]

Boot times was one of MS's focuses with XP (see noggin's post above), however with the advent of Bootvis and SP4 Win 2K Pro. can be made to boot almost as quickly as Win. XP Pro.

As far as all the laptop posts I have XP Pro on my laptop, but dont much care about boot times as I always leave it in hibernate while it's traveling and 2K/XP's start from hibernation is roughly the same. I suppose I leave my desktops on 24/7/365 also so boot time is not much of an issue there either (I reboot my workstations on average about once a month).

-Spy

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: ntrights

Originally posted by: TheEliteLlama

Originally posted by: ntrights
Yep, XP boots much faster. Even Windows 2003 Server boots faster on my work laptop then 2k (with default services running).

Your running that OS on your laptop?

Well actaully im dualbooting with Debian It's my work laptop 700mhz 512ram, Im a Sysadmin

So why are you running 2K3 server with these services on your laptop? You do know all the 2K3 admin tools run under XP Pro (which is after all the companion desktop OS) right?

I cant think of a good reason to run 2K3 Server on a laptop.

 

[stephbu]

I cant think of a good reason to run 2K3 Server on a laptop.

As a developer of enterprise software - it is amazing how much development and testing you can do on a puny laptop with all the services installed without having to build out the 60 machine LAN that it'll run on. *that's* a great reason

 

[spyordie007]

I have production servers, and I have testing servers. When I want to see how an application (say a VS .net aspx application) would run I would build it on my workstation and than place it on a test windows 2003 server. It doesnt go to reason to have multiple developers all running an expensive OS with services they will never need on their desktops when they can all share a handfull of test servers and use XP or 2K on their desktops.

 

[ntrights]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
I have production servers, and I have testing servers. When I want to see how an application (say a VS .net aspx application) would run I would build it on my workstation and than place it on a test windows 2003 server. It doesnt go to reason to have multiple developers all running an expensive OS with services they will never need on their desktops when they can all share a handfull of test servers and use XP or 2K on their desktops.

Good for you then.

 

[ntrights]

Originally posted by: stephbu

I cant think of a good reason to run 2K3 Server on a laptop.

As a developer of enterprise software - it is amazing how much development and testing you can do on a puny laptop with all the services installed without having to build out the 60 machine LAN that it'll run on. *that's* a great reason

Excactly !

 

[spyordie007]

right

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: Smilin
XP boots faster than 2000. Home probably boots a little faster than pro just due to having a few less services - not much difference between them though.

Boot time shouldn't really be the determining factor in choosing your OS. If it is, try Dos 2.2

Actually, Home OS installs usually take longer to boot for many reasons:

1) Multiple profiles, especially if the whole household uses the PC.
2) Home OS installs, especially if they come from companies like Dell or Gateway, tend to be bundled with loads of other software that's set to autostart before you grab something like StartEd and root it out of the registry.

Once everything's ground down to where it should be though, yes, home might boot a tad faster, but I'll always take the increased stability, options, and security you'll find with professional editions. The choice, in my mind, is really a no brainer.

 

[ntrights]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
right

why im i not suprised

 

[spyordie007]

Multiple profiles, especially if the whole household uses the PC.

Having multiple profiles really shouldnt slow down the booting process by any signifigant amount considering the number of profiles which are going to be created within a household. We have computer lab machines that have had many hundreds of profiles on them without any serious problems.

ntrights - dont get me wrong, using win 2k3 server on your laptop is going to give you some features that xp or 2k dont nativly have; however with the admin tools from 2k3 server and a single test server you can achieve the same functionality. Or perhaps I could put things in perspecitve by saying it this way: Most organizations (including my own) dont have the space in their budgets to spend that kind of money on desktop machines when a single test server could cover the functionality; it just doesnt seem practical.

-Spy

 

[IronOxide]

Originally posted by: ntrights

Originally posted by: spyordie007
right

why im i not suprised

fight fight fight fight fight!!!

 

[stephbu]

1) Multiple profiles, especially if the whole household uses the PC.

Only the profiles and registry hives of the NT Service's accounts (and default user if user-login is bypassed) are loaded at boot-time. Rest are loaded on-demand e.g. by user-login.