Is XP faster than 2000?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

Hello newsgroup.

Since years i ran on this PC (Athlon XP 2000+, 512 MB Ram, 80 GB HD) Windows
2000. I've got now from a friend a XP pro CD with license (don't worry, it's
competely legal, he didn't installed it on his PC before, in fact, the
package is un-opened).

Should I upgrade my PC to XP? I've read that XP is faster than 2000, is it
true? That is my main concern, if it isn't faster, or even if it is slower, I
won't upgrade.

What is your experience speedwise, XP or 2000?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

"=?Utf-8?B?dGhlIGZyaWVuZGx5IGRpc3BsYXkgbmFtZQ==?="
<thefriendlydisplayname@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:75215A9D-A7D3-4E35-A071-3FD905937C3A@microsoft.com:

> Hello newsgroup.
>
> Since years i ran on this PC (Athlon XP 2000+, 512 MB Ram, 80 GB HD)
> Windows 2000. I've got now from a friend a XP pro CD with license
> (don't worry, it's competely legal, he didn't installed it on his PC
> before, in fact, the package is un-opened).
>
> Should I upgrade my PC to XP? I've read that XP is faster than 2000,
> is it true? That is my main concern, if it isn't faster, or even if it
> is slower, I won't upgrade.
>
> What is your experience speedwise, XP or 2000?

Perhaps anecdotal but my father has a bigger, faster computer than I have
and he runs XP while I run 2k on my laptop and my laptop seems far more
stable and faster. YMMV.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

There is no doubt at all that Windows XP boots much more quickly than
Windows 2000. Whether it's faster in use is another question. Both pass my
"if it feels fast enough it is fast enough" test, but I couldn't say for
sure which I think is faster.

Regards

Oli


"the friendly display name"
<thefriendlydisplayname@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:75215A9D-A7D3-4E35-A071-3FD905937C3A@microsoft.com...
> Hello newsgroup.
>
> Since years i ran on this PC (Athlon XP 2000+, 512 MB Ram, 80 GB HD)
> Windows
> 2000. I've got now from a friend a XP pro CD with license (don't worry,
> it's
> competely legal, he didn't installed it on his PC before, in fact, the
> package is un-opened).
>
> Should I upgrade my PC to XP? I've read that XP is faster than 2000, is it
> true? That is my main concern, if it isn't faster, or even if it is
> slower, I
> won't upgrade.
>
> What is your experience speedwise, XP or 2000?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

Oli Restorick [MVP] wrote:

>There is no doubt at all that Windows XP boots much more quickly than
>Windows 2000.
>

The Colosus in WWII would probly boot faster than win2k. :-\



--
A sufficiently advanced computer network protective attitude is indistinguishable from paranoia.

 

[dl]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

Is it faster, surely the Q is will my apps, or processes run faster.
The answer being your unlikely to notice any difference, plus or minus

"the friendly display name"
<thefriendlydisplayname@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:75215A9D-A7D3-4E35-A071-3FD905937C3A@microsoft.com...
> Hello newsgroup.
>
> Since years i ran on this PC (Athlon XP 2000+, 512 MB Ram, 80 GB HD)
Windows
> 2000. I've got now from a friend a XP pro CD with license (don't worry,
it's
> competely legal, he didn't installed it on his PC before, in fact, the
> package is un-opened).
>
> Should I upgrade my PC to XP? I've read that XP is faster than 2000, is it
> true? That is my main concern, if it isn't faster, or even if it is
slower, I
> won't upgrade.
>
> What is your experience speedwise, XP or 2000?

 

[dl]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

my win2k, a busy sys, boots faster than my light use winxp (it has all the
cartoons off)

"Quaestor" <no.spam@my.place> wrote in message
news:118voa0oti8uaa6@news.supernews.com...
> Oli Restorick [MVP] wrote:
>
> >There is no doubt at all that Windows XP boots much more quickly than
> >Windows 2000.
> >
>
> The Colosus in WWII would probly boot faster than win2k. :-\
>
>
>
> --
> A sufficiently advanced computer network protective attitude is
indistinguishable from paranoia.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

"Windows XP: Kernel Improvements Create a More Robust, Powerful, and Scalable OS"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/default.aspx
Boot time is faster, "Prefetching" increases XP's performance a little, but Windows 2000 is a fine OS!
Since you have a sealed, licensed version of XP, do yourself a favor, sell the CD and make a little money.


Austin M. Horst

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

An easy check is to compare minimum hardware requirements. IF you
disable all the "cute" features in XP, you will get about the same
performance as W2K. As far boot speed, XP gets to the login faster, but
seems to chug for awhile after login, while W2k takes longer to get to
login, but usable almost immediately after you login.

the friendly display name wrote:

> Hello newsgroup.
>
> Since years i ran on this PC (Athlon XP 2000+, 512 MB Ram, 80 GB HD) Windows
> 2000. I've got now from a friend a XP pro CD with license (don't worry, it's
> competely legal, he didn't installed it on his PC before, in fact, the
> package is un-opened).
>
> Should I upgrade my PC to XP? I've read that XP is faster than 2000, is it
> true? That is my main concern, if it isn't faster, or even if it is slower, I
> won't upgrade.
>
> What is your experience speedwise, XP or 2000?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

Bob I wrote:

> An easy check is to compare minimum hardware requirements. IF you
> disable all the "cute" features in XP, you will get about the same
> performance as W2K. As far boot speed, XP gets to the login faster,
> but seems to chug for awhile after login, while W2k takes longer to
> get to login, but usable almost immediately after you login.
>

OTOH xp is ratware. It calls ms and tells them all about you. And if
you don't let it it will stop working. To get updates you have to
"agree" to let ms do anything they want to your machine. And you have
to ask permission to use the software you own.


--
A sufficiently advanced computer network protective attitude is indistinguishable from paranoia.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

Humm, I smell troll.

Quaestor wrote:

>
> OTOH xp is ratware. It calls ms and tells them all about you. And if
> you don't let it it will stop working. To get updates you have to
> "agree" to let ms do anything they want to your machine. And you have
> to ask permission to use the software you own.
>
>

 

[Mike]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

If speed is your only concern, then XP would be the go. But after you
factor running problems - my suggestion is stay with 2000. Personally, I
have recently come from XP to 2000Professional; less than a week; and during
the installation process, the 2000 had won me over. And I've used most of
Windows OS available.

Sandgroper Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

Bob I wrote:

> Humm, I smell troll.
>
> Quaestor wrote:
>
>>
>> OTOH xp is ratware. It calls ms and tells them all about you. And
>> if you don't let it it will stop working. To get updates you have to
>> "agree" to let ms do anything they want to your machine. And you
>> have to ask permission to use the software you own.
>>
>>
>

That's billgates you smell.

--
A sufficiently advanced computer network protective attitude is indistinguishable from paranoia.