• 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.

Win XP vs. Win2k: RAM Usage

T

Taischo

Member
how much more RAM does WinXP SP2 use over Win2k SP4 when both WinXP and Win2k are tweaked to its limits like disabled unnecessary services etc.......?

e.g. my Win2k uses about 120 MB memory right after startup (incl. McAfee)
 
It's a bit of a silly comparison to make. Unused RAM is wasted RAM, so even if XP uses more RAM for purposes such as caching, that doesn't mean it's going to run slower than 2000.
 
Yea I am going to have to agree, it's all about the applications you are running at startup if you compare the two with the same apps it shouldn't make much difference unless you have a serious case of spyware or something of that nature.
 
In a typical case, when I started clean, I found that WinXP uses up more RAM with new services and such.
But XP and 2k can be trimmed down quite a bit as a number of services are hardly used by a typical user. I got down to just over 65MB to 70MB, before I started to install AV and third-party firewall solutions.

I've tried Win2k, WinXP and Win2k3 (server). I personally think the initial default installation of XP is a waste of time, especially with that ridiculous candy GUI.
Win2k and 2k3 are the best in that department...Clean, straightforward, no BS GUI.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top