Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Win2000 Pro Vs WinXP - Which is faster?

Last response: in Windows 2000/NT
Share
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:17:46 PM

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

Hi Folks,

I need to know Which one is faster Win2k (SP4) or WinXP (SP2)? I like Win2k
professional as my regular OS to work on. What about the overall
performance? What are the advantages of WinXP?

Thanks,
Vikas P
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:17:47 PM

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

"Vikas Panchal" <vikaspNOSP0M@NOSPAMmicrosoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23islrJqjFHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi Folks,
>
> I need to know Which one is faster Win2k (SP4) or WinXP (SP2)? I like
> Win2k professional as my regular OS to work on. What about the overall
> performance? What are the advantages of WinXP?
>
> Thanks,
> Vikas P
>
>


XP supports wireless neater than 2000.

XP boots faster than XP

2000 is quicker in day to day use but XP can be tweaked to match it if
you switch off the themes and glossy bits to the GUI



--
Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:17:48 PM

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

"Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o MZf2QqjFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Vikas Panchal" <vikaspNOSP0M@NOSPAMmicrosoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23islrJqjFHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I need to know Which one is faster Win2k (SP4) or WinXP (SP2)? I like
>> Win2k professional as my regular OS to work on. What about the
>> overall performance? What are the advantages of WinXP?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vikas P
>>
>>
>
>
> XP supports wireless neater than 2000.
>
> XP boots faster than XP

oops .... should read "XP boots faster than 2000"

>
> 2000 is quicker in day to day use but XP can be tweaked to match it if
> you switch off the themes and glossy bits to the GUI, but with a
> decent CPU, memory amount, quick hard drive and good graphics card
> you'll not really notice a difference




--
Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
Related resources
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 7:17:49 PM

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

Really?..I have experienced just the opposite. Our Win200 pro machines boot
much faster than our XP machines.

"Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message

oops .... should read "XP boots faster than 2000"
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 8:26:20 PM

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

"TomF" <tomf@here.com> wrote in message
news:1122043810.8faaa12750cda4989b27908539e6fe3d@teranews...
> Really?..I have experienced just the opposite. Our Win200 pro machines
> boot
> much faster than our XP machines.
>



Get a copy of the MS tool Bootvis

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/System-Tweak/BootVis...

it examines your boot services/programs/files and reorganises it for
optimum boot times. Like for like systems should boot faster with XP

--
Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 10:09:38 PM

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

Well, I dont need wireless. What about performance on AMD64?

I've recently bought AMD 64-bit machine with 2GB RAM. My main usage will be
running compilers, and other development tools on it. Though I am running
32-bit OS only on it. So, which one score on this platform? What about
Windows 2003 server? Some insight?

Thanks,
Vikas P

"Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o MZf2QqjFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> "Vikas Panchal" <vikaspNOSP0M@NOSPAMmicrosoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23islrJqjFHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I need to know Which one is faster Win2k (SP4) or WinXP (SP2)? I like
>> Win2k professional as my regular OS to work on. What about the overall
>> performance? What are the advantages of WinXP?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vikas P
>>
>>
>
>
> XP supports wireless neater than 2000.
>
> XP boots faster than XP
>
> 2000 is quicker in day to day use but XP can be tweaked to match it if you
> switch off the themes and glossy bits to the GUI
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP
>
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
>
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 10:09:39 PM

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

"Vikas Panchal" <vks_vikasN0SPAM@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eVARvprjFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Well, I dont need wireless. What about performance on AMD64?
>
> I've recently bought AMD 64-bit machine with 2GB RAM. My main usage
> will be running compilers, and other development tools on it. Though I
> am running 32-bit OS only on it. So, which one score on this platform?
> What about Windows 2003 server? Some insight?
>
> Thanks,
> Vikas P
>
> "Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o MZf2QqjFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> "Vikas Panchal" <vikaspNOSP0M@NOSPAMmicrosoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23islrJqjFHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> I need to know Which one is faster Win2k (SP4) or WinXP (SP2)? I
>>> like Win2k professional as my regular OS to work on. What about the
>>> overall performance? What are the advantages of WinXP?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vikas P
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> XP supports wireless neater than 2000.
>>
>> XP boots faster than XP
>>
>> 2000 is quicker in day to day use but XP can be tweaked to match it
>> if you switch off the themes and glossy bits to the GUI
>>
>>
>>


Why not look at

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx

IT'd be much quicker being 64bit

--
Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 10:32:51 PM

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

"Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o SXQAtrjFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Vikas Panchal" <vks_vikasN0SPAM@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eVARvprjFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Well, I dont need wireless. What about performance on AMD64?
>>
>> I've recently bought AMD 64-bit machine with 2GB RAM. My main usage will
>> be running compilers, and other development tools on it. Though I am
>> running 32-bit OS only on it. So, which one score on this platform? What
>> about Windows 2003 server? Some insight?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vikas P
>>
>> "Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:o MZf2QqjFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> "Vikas Panchal" <vikaspNOSP0M@NOSPAMmicrosoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23islrJqjFHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I need to know Which one is faster Win2k (SP4) or WinXP (SP2)? I like
>>>> Win2k professional as my regular OS to work on. What about the overall
>>>> performance? What are the advantages of WinXP?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Vikas P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> XP supports wireless neater than 2000.
>>>
>>> XP boots faster than XP
>>>
>>> 2000 is quicker in day to day use but XP can be tweaked to match it if
>>> you switch off the themes and glossy bits to the GUI
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> Why not look at
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
>
> IT'd be much quicker being 64bit


Yeah, I know, but I would prefer for to have a dual boot for a while.
Win2000 pro or Win2003 Server for daily routine and XP64 for
experimentation. I am not sure whether all drivers I need are available or
not on 64.

-Vikas P

>
> --
> Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP
>
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
>
>
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 10:32:52 PM

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

"Vikas Panchal" <vks_vikasN0SPAM@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o tTjs2rjFHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o SXQAtrjFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> "Vikas Panchal" <vks_vikasN0SPAM@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:eVARvprjFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> Well, I dont need wireless. What about performance on AMD64?
>>>
>>> I've recently bought AMD 64-bit machine with 2GB RAM. My main usage
>>> will be running compilers, and other development tools on it. Though
>>> I am running 32-bit OS only on it. So, which one score on this
>>> platform? What about Windows 2003 server? Some insight?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Vikas P
>>>
>>> "Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:o MZf2QqjFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Vikas Panchal" <vikaspNOSP0M@NOSPAMmicrosoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23islrJqjFHA.4000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I need to know Which one is faster Win2k (SP4) or WinXP (SP2)? I
>>>>> like Win2k professional as my regular OS to work on. What about
>>>>> the overall performance? What are the advantages of WinXP?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Vikas P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> XP supports wireless neater than 2000.
>>>>
>>>> XP boots faster than XP
>>>>
>>>> 2000 is quicker in day to day use but XP can be tweaked to match it
>>>> if you switch off the themes and glossy bits to the GUI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Why not look at
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
>>
>> IT'd be much quicker being 64bit
>
>
> Yeah, I know, but I would prefer for to have a dual boot for a while.
> Win2000 pro or Win2003 Server for daily routine and XP64 for
> experimentation. I am not sure whether all drivers I need are
> available or not on 64.
>


Best solution would be to use something like VMWare or MS Virtual PC for
your eperimentation/development use

--
Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk
Anonymous
July 22, 2005 11:51:02 PM

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

On 22-Jul-2005, "Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

> XP boots faster than XP

Only if you tweak XP to boot faster than XP.

I suppose W2K can boot faster than W2K as well.

But it's hard to pick an OS based upon this piece of information.
July 23, 2005 11:39:32 AM

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

quoting:
> Really?..I have experienced just the opposite. Our Win200 pro machines
boot
> much faster than our XP machines.
>
> "Steve Parry [MVP]" <k100rs_1990@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> oops .... should read "XP boots faster than 2000"


Isn't the boot time of XP smoke and mirrors? It displays the desktop
faster, but still loading alot of stuff blah blah blah.
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 12:42:13 AM

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

Hi

XP does boot quicker than 2k it is one of MS main aims(to get an os
that boots quickly) to the point where they give OEM's cheaper price
licences for XP if they meet certain criteria

From what i remeber there is like a 10 point scheme and if you hit all
ten as an OEM you get really good price on licences, and two of the
main things were the time it takes a machine to boot to the desktop and
the time it takes it to resume from standby

In my experience 2k takes much longer than XP to boot, thats not to say
its a damn fine OS

Also re XP 64bit there is a woeful lack of driver support at the min -
still beta tho, When I installed it on my AMD64 notebook the weirdist
thing was it actually detected the on board sound chip (which XP doesnt
have drivers for) but nothing else - no NIC drivers (either wired or
wireless) no modem drivers, there were ATI 9600 driver but wiht no NICs
its useless to me

Just my 2 cents worth!!

Si


--
pscyimePosted from http://www.pcreview.co.uk/ newsgroup access
!