• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL: which is faster: 2000 vs XP

D

dpopiz

Diamond Member
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?
 
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.
 
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.

 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
XP is faster especially for booting and games.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
Click to expand...

Speaking of slower machine, like Pentium 1 and 2?
Click to expand...

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
 
^^

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top