XP - How bad is the performance hit?

[DefBringer2]

I'm waiting for my 1.4 AMD and Epox 8k7a w/ Crucial 512mb in mail. Once I get it, I'm very tempted to put XP on rather than Win2k.

My one concern: performance hit. People told me I wouldn't experience a performance hit when I moved from ME to Win2k and I DID. I'm worried that moving up to XP will only slow me down further (granted, it is a new box I'll be running...but still).

Has anybody performed some Q3 benchmarks to compare?

 

[pulse8]

You took a hit from ME to 2k???? Sheesh, something doesn't sound right there. Anyway, From 2k to XP I didn't take much of a hit until I had to take out some RAM. It's a dumb sound card problem that I have. With my 512MB I didn't really notice a difference.

 

[trend]

lol--- tell you what-- install linux onthat and it will be 100x better man-- nice system, but a 500mhrtz computer is great for me

XP suckers you will get a little slow down, but almost unnoticable (maybe that was because i only had 192megs of ram. but i don't know)

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< lol--- tell you what-- install linux onthat and it will be 100x better man-- nice system, but a 500mhrtz computer is great for me

XP suckers you will get a little slow down, but almost unnoticable (maybe that was because i only had 192megs of ram. but i don't know) >>



Linux is pretty much bloatware itself. So this troll was pretty much non-sensical.

 

[pulse8]

<< lol--- tell you what-- install linux onthat and it will be 100x better man-- nice system, but a 500mhrtz computer is great for me

XP suckers you will get a little slow down, but almost unnoticable (maybe that was because i only had 192megs of ram. but i don't know) >>



If you can run all of the programs I run in Windows on Linux, then I'll listen to anything you have to say.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< lol--- tell you what-- install linux onthat and it will be 100x better man-- nice system, but a 500mhrtz computer is great for me

XP suckers you will get a little slow down, but almost unnoticable (maybe that was because i only had 192megs of ram. but i don't know) >>



If you can run all of the programs I run in Windows on Linux, then I'll listen to anything you have to say. >>



I can run most linux problems in Windows thanks to the linux developers. Why has MS lagged behind in creating support for thier programs in linux?

 

[DefBringer2]

<< You took a hit from ME to 2k???? Sheesh, something doesn't sound right there. Anyway, From 2k to XP I didn't take much of a hit until I had to take out some RAM. It's a dumb sound card problem that I have. With my 512MB I didn't really notice a difference. >>



This is unusual? I was running a 550 Celeron OC'd to 850 on a P3V4X. I lost about 10% performance in Q3. Idential drivers on both setups. Then again, I *thought* the driver setups were identical. Who knows? I just assumed my 128mb of RAM wasn't enough for Win2k.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I'm waiting for my 1.4 AMD and Epox 8k7a w/ Crucial 512mb in mail. Once I get it, I'm very tempted to put XP on rather than Win2k.

My one concern: performance hit. People told me I wouldn't experience a performance hit when I moved from ME to Win2k and I DID. I'm worried that moving up to XP will only slow me down further (granted, it is a new box I'll be running...but still).

Has anybody performed some Q3 benchmarks to compare? >>



Well you might take a performance hit from XP rc1, but it is still not released. I think you should wait till XP is released to really worry about it. Until it gets released I am sure a lot of the optimization hasnt taken place and there are still bugs to get worked out.

 

[pulse8]

<<

<< You took a hit from ME to 2k???? Sheesh, something doesn't sound right there. Anyway, From 2k to XP I didn't take much of a hit until I had to take out some RAM. It's a dumb sound card problem that I have. With my 512MB I didn't really notice a difference. >>



This is unusual? I was running a 550 Celeron OC'd to 850 on a P3V4X. I lost about 10% performance in Q3. Idential drivers on both setups. Then again, I *thought* the driver setups were identical. Who knows? I just assumed my 128mb of RAM wasn't enough for Win2k. >>



Ahhh...with 128MB of RAM...now I can see where it came from. If you haven't already, get more RAM. It'll help a lot and it's cheap as hell lately.



<< can run most linux problems in Windows thanks to the linux developers. Why has MS lagged behind in creating support for thier programs in linux? >>



First of all, the programs aren't from Microsoft, I'm talking about programs in general and if I can run all the ORIGINAL programs that I use in Windows and not one that some guy in Butt, Montana wrote in Linux, then you've got something. I've used Linux, I like it, there's just NO support for it. You have to search for drivers and can't do a lot of the things I want to do with my computer. It's not a good operating system for most people because they want to use the programs that Windows offers. Why can't people understand this?

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<<

<< You took a hit from ME to 2k???? Sheesh, something doesn't sound right there. Anyway, From 2k to XP I didn't take much of a hit until I had to take out some RAM. It's a dumb sound card problem that I have. With my 512MB I didn't really notice a difference. >>



This is unusual? I was running a 550 Celeron OC'd to 850 on a P3V4X. I lost about 10% performance in Q3. Idential drivers on both setups. Then again, I *thought* the driver setups were identical. Who knows? I just assumed my 128mb of RAM wasn't enough for Win2k. >>



Ahhh...with 128MB of RAM...now I can see where it came from. If you haven't already, get more RAM. It'll help a lot and it's cheap as hell lately.



<< can run most linux problems in Windows thanks to the linux developers. Why has MS lagged behind in creating support for thier programs in linux? >>



First of all, the programs aren't from Microsoft, I'm talking about programs in general and if I can run all the ORIGINAL programs that I use in Windows and not one that some guy in Butt, Montana wrote in Linux, then you've got something. I've used Linux, I like it, there's just NO support for it. You have to search for drivers and can't do a lot of the things I want to do with my computer. It's not a good operating system for most people because they want to use the programs that Windows offers. Why can't people understand this? >>



I do understand this. And like I said, linux programs work in MS OSes. Since NT has POSIX compliance this should be a lot easier... Anyhow, this is all offtopic so I hope we can just drop this now and not pollute the thread too much. If you would like to have a debate or flame thread let me know

 

[MGMorden]

Is it just me or are you guys tired of the whole bloatware issue? It seems like nobody can come out with a frickin text editor nowadays without someone yelling &quot;Hey, it says the line number at the bottom!?!?! That's an extra 5 lines of code . . . BLOATWARE!!!!&quot;. I mean come on guys. The things we need to be concerned about is does the stuff work reliably, fast, and does is cost decently. In the age where they're having to work to up the space barrier from 137GB I think we can stop whining about an os taking up 1gb or whatever (and if you have a lower capacity drive and can't afford to install a large OS then simply stick with an older one. If you can get along w/ old hardware then you should be able to stick w/ old software). Rant done.

As for XP. It'll be fast on your machine if 2k is fast. From my understanding (and testing, though the last version I tried was 2456) XP will be a pretty good boost for the Windows platform EXCEPT for that !@#$%^&amp;*( activation.

And Linux is good too. I'll defend it because too many people put it down without using it at all or even more common enough to truly understand the advantages. Up until 1999 I was a very strong supporter of Microsoft (bet you guys didn't know that). I tried Linux a few times. Thought it was pretty cool, but I didn't use it a lot. Then after I really got good with it I noticed: you know, this thing is pretty good. Just know that we aren't in a static industry and Linux is already MS's strongest contender, and that will only grow in time (look at AMD compared to Intel now. Or even MS compared to Apple . . . ).

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Is it just me or are you guys tired of the whole bloatware issue? It seems like nobody can come out with a frickin text editor nowadays without someone yelling &quot;Hey, it says the line number at the bottom!?!?! That's an extra 5 lines of code . . . BLOATWARE!!!!&quot;. I mean come on guys. The things we need to be concerned about is does the stuff work reliably, fast, and does is cost decently. In the age where they're having to work to up the space barrier from 137GB I think we can stop whining about an os taking up 1gb or whatever (and if you have a lower capacity drive and can't afford to install a large OS then simply stick with an older one. If you can get along w/ old hardware then you should be able to stick w/ old software). Rant done.

As for XP. It'll be fast on your machine if 2k is fast. From my understanding (and testing, though the last version I tried was 2456) XP will be a pretty good boost for the Windows platform EXCEPT for that !@#$%^&amp;*( activation.

And Linux is good too. I'll defend it because too many people put it down without using it at all or even more common enough to truly understand the advantages. Up until 1999 I was a very strong supporter of Microsoft (bet you guys didn't know that). I tried Linux a few times. Thought it was pretty cool, but I didn't use it a lot. Then after I really got good with it I noticed: you know, this thing is pretty good. Just know that we aren't in a static industry and Linux is already MS's strongest contender, and that will only grow in time (look at AMD compared to Intel now. Or even MS compared to Apple . . . ). >>



Bloatware is still a big deal. I like programs that are small, fast stable and secure. The more code the less of each of these you get.

 

[MGMorden]

Bloatware isn't always an issue when it comes to an OS. Consider the cd burning being included w/ XP. Now unless it's loading something resident (which it may very well be, in which case it's a different issue) then it's not slowing your system down. It's just there in case you need it (and heck almost all of us here would put a burning program or 3 on anyways). As for secuirity, yes I like that too, but that has nothing to do with code size. Sure a poorly written large program is going to have more secuirity holes than a poorly written small program, but that's an issue of code quality. If a program is written properly and carefully then 100MB program is no more inherintly insecure than a 20KB program. Now as to a program being small, I'll admit that if a program can contain the same exact functionality in a smaller size (read: optimized code), then I'm all for that, but I'll not sacrifice functionality simply for size.

 

[Shudder]

I find it amusing that people with 1.4 ghz machines are concerned about a possible % or 2 hit.

If you experienced a hit going from ME to 2k, you must only have 64MB of ram, because that's about the only thing that will make windows 2k slower than ME

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Bloatware isn't always an issue when it comes to an OS. Consider the cd burning being included w/ XP. Now unless it's loading something resident (which it may very well be, in which case it's a different issue) then it's not slowing your system down. It's just there in case you need it (and heck almost all of us here would put a burning program or 3 on anyways). As for secuirity, yes I like that too, but that has nothing to do with code size. Sure a poorly written large program is going to have more secuirity holes than a poorly written small program, but that's an issue of code quality. If a program is written properly and carefully then 100MB program is no more inherintly insecure than a 20KB program. Now as to a program being small, I'll admit that if a program can contain the same exact functionality in a smaller size (read: optimized code), then I'm all for that, but I'll not sacrifice functionality simply for size. >>



Now under ideal conditions I would agree, but coding is not ideal. With large code there is more chances for mistakes and debugging is a lot harder. So in a large program there is more room for error, especially when each part of the program is written by different people and then all slapped together. As far as giving up functionality, I like the UNIX method. Have a bunch of smaller programs that do less but can be used together to do some wonderful things

 

[DefBringer2]

<< I find it amusing that people with 1.4 ghz machines are concerned about a possible % or 2 hit.

If you experienced a hit going from ME to 2k, you must only have 64MB of ram, because that's about the only thing that will make windows 2k slower than ME >>



The hit I took was on a 128mb ram, 850 Celeron. It was at least a 10% performance hit.

My new machine will have 512mb of ram.

My point is that I don't understand how introducing a new OS with more features but slower is an &quot;upgrade&quot;. Now, I'm pretty sure the final release of XP will be just as fast as Win2k but in the past, some software &quot;upgrades&quot; are actually slower than the previous release. Would you trade your car in for one that was slower? DUh....of course not. It is a curious trend in the software world....

 

[Shudder]

It happens with everything. Some of it is slop, some of it is features.

I was REALLY disappointed to know that Doom 3 was using a new engine instead of the usual DOom 1 and 2 one ya know? Doom3 runs so much slower

 

[Speedy3D!]

I was REALLY disappointed to know that Doom 3 was using a new engine instead of the usual DOom 1 and 2 one ya know? Doom3 runs so much slower

Excellent point.

Bloatware isn't always a bad thing ... don't forget that our computers are getting faster and more powerful everyday, so why not put in some new features that take advantage of the hardware's higher capability?

 

[DefBringer2]

<< It happens with everything. Some of it is slop, some of it is features.

I was REALLY disappointed to know that Doom 3 was using a new engine instead of the usual DOom 1 and 2 one ya know? Doom3 runs so much slower >>



Well of course this is ridiculous. Would you equate XP's evolution from Win2k to be as revolutionary as Doom 3 from Doom 2? Of course not.

I'm the first to sign up for THAT performance hit.

 

[Drylock]

Actually I just switched to 12.41 Drivers instead of 12.40 that come with RC1 and the speed boost was significant. Under Quake III and UT I got MORE frames then under ME. I fired up Undying 10x7x32 with full details cranked through the roof and it ran much smoother then under ME. That is with a lowly Overclocked Hercules MX card. I think you will be more then happy with a Geforce type card under XP.

 

[mlip129]

actually opengl games run 10-15% faster under win2k and xp!