How many people on the forum have benchmarked their system before and after they installed XP? I have heard that it is about 25%-30% slower than W2K/ME/98SE and was just wondering what everyone's experience is. Also, does disabling System Restore make as huge of a difference in XP as in ME?
How Much Slower is XP?
- Thread starter Michael_B
- Start date
Not talking about differences in speed particularly on today’s average home computer, just keep in mind, that the XP is capable to utilize much more resources of modern hardware, for example more than 512 MB of RAM and therefore will show better performance in intensive tasks (audio and video transforming), where Win95 (with its 98 and Me relatives) won’t work at all. The speed will be zero for such machines with Win95-coded OS installed, unless some resources are disabled or reduced.
But software, a particular user program is still the most important factor in OS comparison. What are you going to install, to run, to compare on NT-based vc. Win95-code-based computers, what are your tasks? You have to tell this first. It might happen that DOS 6.2 would be the fastest OS for your tasks.
Do you remember that comparison reviews the time when the Windows 95 was introduced?
Even in later Tom’s reviews we can find: DOS 6.2 is the fastest and best OS for games and office applications on Pentium II machines. Does it say you anything on your question?
But software, a particular user program is still the most important factor in OS comparison. What are you going to install, to run, to compare on NT-based vc. Win95-code-based computers, what are your tasks? You have to tell this first. It might happen that DOS 6.2 would be the fastest OS for your tasks.
Do you remember that comparison reviews the time when the Windows 95 was introduced?
Even in later Tom’s reviews we can find: DOS 6.2 is the fastest and best OS for games and office applications on Pentium II machines. Does it say you anything on your question?
On my machine, Windows XP is significantly FASTER than Windows Me and about as fast as Windows 2000 in business apps and in gaming it's about equal to Windows 2000 which is just under Windows Me by roughly 2-5% overall.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Provided you have 128MB or more, the NT-based operating systems (NT4, 2000, XP) are always faster for business applications than the 95-based operating systems (95, 98, 98SE, ME).
Win2K was slightly slower in older games, but XP has rectified this. It's new features make it slightly slower than Win2K, but only by about 5% at worst according to most benchmarks. Plus it's supposed to be faster starting up.
~ The First Formally Rehabilitated AMD Lemming ~
Win2K was slightly slower in older games, but XP has rectified this. It's new features make it slightly slower than Win2K, but only by about 5% at worst according to most benchmarks. Plus it's supposed to be faster starting up.
~ The First Formally Rehabilitated AMD Lemming ~
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram