Win XP drivers

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
W

Waffen

Member
Jun 25, 2001
47
0
0
On monday I installed windows XP final and just today I had time to sit down and really give it a try. I am disapointed in the preformace of xp on everthing except for games. It makes my system feel like it has 12mb of RAM insteld of 512. It takes me a long time to burn CD's now and it seems to lock up a lot more than Win 2k ever did. I was just wondering if part of the lockups and instability would be due to XP drivers not being released? I thought that XP would be using 2k drivers but correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for your help guys.
 
S

Skoal

Member
Apr 30, 2000
97
0
0
so is hotline

BTW... I just intalled XP Pro Build 2600 Corp.... and it has been excellent... no crashes... everything seems to run faster... I have a pIII900 laptop with 320mb ram... I was also running win2k previously... I am very pleased with the upgrade...

SKOAL
 
G

gunf1ghter

Golden Member
Jan 29, 2001
1,866
0
0
At first WinXP seemed slower to me, some of the early features where it tries to convince you to take the tutorial, etc, seemed to seriously slow things down. Now that I have been running it for a while I can say that it is definitely as fast if not faster than my Win2K install. Boot time has also been cut down by at least 10-15 seconds. Hibernate works (didn't under Win2K), no installing 20 different service packs and patches (I loaded 2 drivers, that's all).

WinXP rocks!
 
W

WyteWatt

Banned
Jun 8, 2001
6,255
0
0
Can anyone here tell me that windows xp pro. only uses 43 MB of ram after you check memory use after bootup ? On my windows 2000 pro i have only 43 MB of ram used after i bootup and i have all kind of stuff installed. Please let me know what your ram use is on windows xp right after you finish booting up or after you close down all windows ok ?


Any help is well appreicated
Thanks
 
J

Jgtdragon

Diamond Member
May 15, 2000
3,816
19
81
So far, everything works great. I got use the Win2k driver for my scsi adapter, because the newer one doesn't let my Plextor burn at 12x. So far, so good. Seems faster than Windows 98 and Windows 2000. Loads and shutdown faster than Windows 2000. I got all three OS in my current system to compare the three OS.
 
G

gunf1ghter

Golden Member
Jan 29, 2001
1,866
0
0
It is fairly well documented that WinXP uses about 20 MEG more RAM than a similar Win2K install (probably because of IE6 and Luna). RAM is cheap (256 meg stick for under $25).. so who cares?
 
S

Shudder

Platinum Member
May 5, 2000
2,256
0
0
XP only was using 57 on a machine I just installed yesterday

And with AIM, 2 getright windows, winamp, opera, and powerdesk explorer open, I'm still only at 118 myself, which I don't consider very much.
 
W

WyteWatt

Banned
Jun 8, 2001
6,255
0
0
Well i only use 43 MB of ram on bootup on windows 2000 pro and hardly ever go over 100 MB even with that many programs up.
 
G

gunf1ghter

Golden Member
Jan 29, 2001
1,866
0
0
And what the heck is your point? Are you that proud that your Win2K box can run fine under 128 MEGS of RAM? If RAM still cost $1 a MEG then I think more people would give a damn. As it is, people can EASILY put tons of ram in their box for pocket change.
 
Spike

Spike

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,770
1
81
ok, not to sound, um, greedy, but where can I find a copy of XP final? I have 2 copies of RC-1, and 1 copy of RC-2 (believe it or not, two of those are legal!!!) but if I can get my hands on a copy of XP corp, then that would be wonderful, I would not even bother with installing the RC copies. Any suggestions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom