2k-xp app/game performance

[lemonlemon]

Does anyone know if windows 2k and xp give similar performance in apps and games?

 

[lhgpoobaa]

geez
that really depends on what game you have, how it interacts with the system and how optimised the OS/graphics/etc is.

very very generally, with modern games that are designed to run on 2k & XP you will see little difference, maybe a slight advantage for the XP, but nothing major.

My Next Performance System!!! - P4 Celleron, 128k cache, SDRAM, Integrated graphics, 5400rpm HDD!

 

[lemonlemon]

Ah...I was thinking of current apps like AutoCAD, 3dsmax 4, and popular games such as counterstrike (all the newer games/apps are XP supported so your answer helped...thx!!)
Curious though, is there any refresh rate or capped problems as in XP? Or were those problems added in the XP code?

 

[r2k]

My experience with both comes to this:

1. Newer games don't differ much. XP is a tiny bit faster.
2. Older games generally don't run on 2K but run fine on XP. Examples are Jane's Combat Simulations' Longbow2 and DID's F22 ADF. XP seems to be much better optimized in the compatibility department.
3. If you want a good reliable and fast OS stick with 2K and leave XP alone. XP is just an ugly (IMHO) new face for the 2K. The login with your pic/fast user switching are almost the only better things.
BTW I run Autodesk Architectural Desktop 3.3 (based on AutoCAD 2002) and 3D Studio MAX 3.1 on both and the difference is nil. (I'd even say because of less eyecandies, 2K should be better and faster...)

 

[lemonlemon]

Ah alright, thanks a lot

 

[Zlash]

3. If you want a good reliable and fast OS stick with 2K and leave XP alone. XP is just an ugly (IMHO) new face for the 2K.

Funny you just described 2k and XP =), and the ugly interface excuse is getting old, you can change it to anything you want.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[r2k]

Here's my point: Tell me what exactly makes XP better than 2K?!
Is there a technology difference? Is XP more solid and reliable? Is it faster in apps or even newer games (in Office apps at least quite the contrary - check anandtech.com 's article on Office XP and 2000 performance under Windows XP and 2000...) Is it more secure? Is it more compact and code-efficient? Does it contain fewer we-at-MS-shove-it-in-your-throat programs you don't need and you can't uninstall? Is there ANY respectable proffessional software out there that's not working under 2K that works under XP? Do you really use the likes of the simplistic but mandatory CD recording capabilities of XP or after a couple of days go back to Nero? etc., etc., etc. Come on even Microsoft themselves added a mere 0.1 to the NT version number

As for the interface, you're quite right: You can disable every eyecandy. Sorry for that. Also the fast user switching idea is very cool and efficient.

On a side note, have you seen the new Mac OS X interface called Aqua (or Quartz?) in action? I think it's much better than XP's; But then these things are very subjective...

 

[mbetea]

funny thing, is when people say "WELL JUST TURN THE NEW GUI OFF!!", umm, what's the point of xp then? i don't know how many questions you asked (i can't count :tongue: ) but to sum it up, i'll go with no for all of em.

[insert philosophical statement here]

 

[Zlash]

It's more user friendly for one =).

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[r2k]

Oh yes. It's definitely more user friendly...Specially for my Mom and my aunt ;-)

 

[r2k]

I had to use XP extensively for some days and I must write here about one of its great features: It boots MUCH faster than 2K and it loads the startup programs (same ones on the 2K) QUITE faster. The amazing thing is that I 'feel' it's gotten faster since the time I installed it and set up all the programs. Now I said 'feel' because I haven't benchmarked with a stopwatch and it's all subjective...

Anyone knows how XP does this feat? Does it REALLY boot faster with time going on? What optimizations it does for doing this?

Now with this alone, I'm still not much convinced with XP, although I should say it definitely impressed me very much.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by r2k on 06/14/02 04:35 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Toejam31]

This is because of the Application-Launch Prefetching. As quoted by Microsoft:

Windows XP also uses prefetching when launching applications. The files and the contents of the files accessed by each new process are observed and recorded. No prefetching can be done for the first launch of an application, so first launches are often considerably slower than subsequent launches. About 85% to 90% of the improvement is realized after just one launch of an application, with the remaining speed improvement coming after the system has had an opportunity to adjust the disk layout with information specific to this application.

You'll find an interesting read on this site:

<A HREF="http://www.serverworldmagazine.com/monthly/2002/03/fastboot.shtml" target="_new">Fastboot: Waking up Windows XP</A>

Toejam31

<font color=red>First Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=17935" target="_new"><font color=green>Toejam31's Devastating Dalek Destroyer</font color=green></A>
<font color=red>Second Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new"><font color=green>Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</font color=green></A>
__________________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Some push the envelope. Some just lick it. And some can't find the flap."</font color=purple>