POLL: which is faster: 2000 vs XP

[dpopiz]

not so much for large number crunching operations that take a number of minutes no matter what, but in terms of "little operations" like opening progs, clicking stuff, etc.

in other words, which one FEELs more snappy?

 

[KoolDrew]

200 would feel faster, but XP would be as fast with all of the eye candy turned off and stuff. I would go with XP though because of the features.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

I've recently used both on the same machine. XP set to "performance" mode is barely discernably faster.

 

[Rip the Jacker]

XP.

And the GUI is wayy better

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew
200 would feel faster, but XP would be as fast with all of the eye candy turned off and stuff. I would go with XP though because of the features.

:thumbsup:

 

[JBT]

I'd go with XP. Turn all the extra visual crap off an your set.

 

[Insomniak]

XP with all the bloated graphics turned off is essentially 2000 with a few refinements. I've used both, and I would say XP is slightly more responsive, however it is also a roughly 2 gig install to 2000's 600 odd megabytes. XP also likes to have a GIGANTIC page file on hand, which has never really made much sense to me.

That said, I would recommend XP at this point, as 2000 is nearing the end of its lifespan. I still consider 2000 to be the high water mark of Microsoft's OSes (XP, as I said, is still 2000 as far as I'm concerned) though.

 

[BFG10K]

XP is faster especially for booting and games.

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: JBT
I'd go with XP. Turn all the extra visual crap off an your set.

ditto

 

[duragezic]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
XP is faster especially for booting and games.

Yeah, with a properly configured XP I don't find anything that Win2k offered me. XP is quite fast, and the boot time is incredible! I look away from my screen after I press power and next thing I know I am at the desktop. Well okay I guess GRUB hampers it by a few seconds Plus, it seems driver support is great and I rarely have any problems with anything OS-related.

 

[Lyfer]

2000 runs good on slower machines, but if you got the hardware for XP go for it!

 

[Rottie]

Originally posted by: Lyfer
2000 runs good on slower machines, but if you got the hardware for XP go for it!

Speaking of slower machine, like Pentium 1 and 2?

 

[agnitrate]

Originally posted by: Rottie

Originally posted by: Lyfer
2000 runs good on slower machines, but if you got the hardware for XP go for it!

Speaking of slower machine, like Pentium 1 and 2?

Good luck. Min. requirements are a Pentium III 300 I believe or somewhere around there. I've worked on pentium 3 350s that are insanely slow with XP on them. 128mb just won't cut it at all.

-silver

 

[Cawchy87]

Originally posted by: BW86

Originally posted by: JBT
I'd go with XP. Turn all the extra visual crap off an your set.

ditto

How would I go about doing this? I switched my theme from xp to the classic windows theme.

 

[KoolDrew]

^^

Right Click My Computer > Properties > Advanced > Performance Settings > Choose "for best performance"

If you have a desktop background you may want to tick "Use drop shadows for icon labels on the desktop" so you do not get the boxes showing around your icons. I however do not use a wallpaper for best performance.

You can also turn off the Themes service since it is not being used.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

ive ran a p3 650 and 256mb pc100 ram, and well it was tediously slow, 256mb i would say is scraping the bottom of the bare minimum to run xp.

 

[RVN]

How many balls of string does it take to reach the moon?

 

[TheWart]

XP on my machine.

 

[CrowDog]

I have a p4 1.3, 128mb rdram and 2000 is far smoother than xp. I know its because of my ram though. I think if you have a high end system the difference wouldent be enough....just go with XP....low end...go 2000.

 

[jm0ris0n]

You really need 256 MB ram for XP to be faster. On a 128MB machine 2000 beats xp hands down. However, once you have 256MB ram, XP is superior. A switch from 2000 to XP yielded over a 30 second faster boot time.

 

[Shawn]

2000

Xp only boots faster. But who boots their machine more than a few times a month?

 

[blazer78]

the difference is very minor imo...

 

[Schadenfroh]

on a lower end system 2k, on a good one, hard pressed to tell any differance