Helpful Information
 
 
Category: Windows Help
Windows 2000 Vs Windows XP: Which one`s faster?

Which one?

Generally speaking - both of them are the same (http://www.etestinglabs.com/main/reports/microsoft.asp) when it comes to speed. Problem is that you have to have better hardware to run xp, which is sort of 'duh?' argument for xp - of course os will run faster on better hardware. :rolleyes:

how much of winME and stuff does XP have in it?
Cause surely if it has some of the crappy windows types in it, those will make it faster.

Of course obviously there are other things like XP probably has more stuff to run anyway cause its an updated version.

Odd how not many people have replied to this thread?

Nothing odd, personally even I consider this to be a litlte stupid thread, and only answered just because I needed to brush on my typing skills :cool:
When talk about speed, question is what to judge by? Different benches give different results - tom's hardware, for example showed that 2k is way faster in working with hardware then xp is. So did anandtech (I believe), but microsoft and elabs say they're the same. Who's right who's wrong, and why should IT peope judge?

I`m not talking about the hardware we use, just the difference between the OSes....

P/s: Stupid huh??

Well.... wouldn't you need to know how fast the OS operate with the hardware... I mean, after all, it's the hardware that makes the pieace of junk go around :)

So, a OS that is slow with the hardware would be slow for the user...logically. Ofcourse a OS that's quick with programs might compensate for the slowness.

As for who's faster, I have no idea, or care... I prefer Unix.

Win2k.

JD

I don't care about which goes faster, I want one that doesn't crash for no reason except that it was a Sunday at 6pm, 6:10pm, 6:20pm, 6:30pm... etc

I believe it's all in how you work with os - its all up to administrator. If you want to have out of the box stable os - from my experience - xp is better here, but it doesn't mean I do not like 2k, as a matter of fact I do run 2k on my older machine (p450) and xp on little newer one (a1.3) and have been for almost half a year now. Xp is stable enough to host http and ftp servers without rebooting for quite long time (usually somewhere up to 3 days), but at the end of a day I turned out to use freebsd (or shall I say 'start learning for better'), because I believe thats where stability is.

I have run XP Pro on about 3 different hardware setups so far. I have decided that XP runs smoother/faster than other Windows OS's on a machine that is 1Ghz or higher. And it also seems the reverse is true too. XP seems to move very slowly for very simple tasks on slower machines such as my 550mhz.

Basically what I am finding is that if your machine is that less than a Ghz, XP is the slower choice. Otherwise XP is the wise choice. The Windows OS's seem to be right along with the current hardware, but maybe backwards compatibility isn't as strong performance-wise as one would hope.

Anyway, those are my observations.

-Mac

Don't care anymore... I've finally got my win2k machine working properly (at the moment) so I'll go with that, and nobody can tempt me to XP while I have an OS that is actually working (plus I change my hardware a lot and WPA doesn't like that).

My opinion(taken with a grain of salt) is that XP is noticebly faster once you cross the 1 Ghz mark with 256 + mb RAM or there abouts. I think this comes down to the basic upper limitations vs minimum requirements of every OS. The last time I remember this aurgument existing was between NT 3.51 and NT 4, the break point there seemed to be at the Pentium 120 and 32 + mb RAM where 4.0 became noticebly faster. Since then I hadn't really noticed this to be the case until 2000 vs XP.

Here's my experience...

Windows XP seems to run faster when you have 64mb RAM compared to Win2k. However when you have at least 128mb RAM Windows 2000 Professional loads faster, but not by too much.

I think they both run your programs at about the same speed, however Windows XP loads a lot of applications and requires a lot more resources than 2k.

i guess WINXP is faster than WIN2k...and when it comes to hibernate option...u cant beat XP...windows never loaded faster b'fore...

Originally posted by Jeratain
Here's my experience...

Windows XP seems to run faster when you have 64mb RAM compared to Win2k. However when you have at least 128mb RAM Windows 2000 Professional loads faster, but not by too much.

I think they both run your programs at about the same speed, however Windows XP loads a lot of applications and requires a lot more resources than 2k.

anyone who runs 64mb of ram for win2k or xp is nuts.

128 is semi-nuts, unless you are the sort of person who lives on windows calculator and notepad apps which use a gram of memory each.

I run win2k and like binky i see no need to change to a wacky skinned windows 2000 with a few new icons and some other superfluous new stuff. Win2k is stable and I think its pretty quick, but that is mostly because I have a 1.7GHz cpu and 512mb ram.

Originally posted by Utopia
128 is semi-nuts, unless you are the sort of person who lives on windows calculator and notepad apps which use a gram of memory each.

i'm running win2K on 128Mb of RAM and i haven't had any problems yet. even if i'm running photoshop, phpEd, winamp, mysqlfront, pgadmin, and several browsers all at the same time.

it does crash sometimes but that's true for all versions anyway.

Xp is stable enough to host http and ftp servers without rebooting for quite long time (usually somewhere up to 3 days) ...


being up for only 3 days without a reboot is terrible ... get Unix ....

lol, why ???

if you didnt know anything about computers, or only wanted a computer to surf the internet + email friends, then yeah get windows,

but seems to me you guys all know what you are talking about, so why use windows at all ?

use linux or unix !!

i use redhat linux, never once has it crahsed, never once has it needed to be re-installed, never once has the ststem tried to re-boot just cos i changed the colour depth, never once has it got a virus, never once has is BSOD'ed

(AND, a redhat 9.0 install generally takes 15-20 minutes. thats a COMPLETE system install, all software, all drivers, all everything,
where it takes several hours under windows)

ohh yeah,,,, and how much extra do you have to pay for this superior OS ???

well, linux is FREE, so is all its software !!!

plus, under windows my 56 k modem runs at about 26k, underlinux, it runs at,,, well whadya know... 56 kbits !

well i never joined any forums before but since ive had a couple drinks and this is a topic i wanna talk about, say hello to ME!

in my experience win2k can be tuned down way more than xp. by playing around with the registry and the services (under admin tools) i can get win2k to do what i need it to at about 40-50mb ram idle. with xp i can only go about as low as 70..

that does have some prerequisites though: i dont have a printer (who the hell uses paper nowadays anyway), in fact i dont have anything that has to do with paper (scanner, fax, etc) so i dont worry about that stuff, but i do have a bunch of other non-usual stuff, like a network with file and internet sharing and other goodies.

as far as im concerned, if youre machine is either A) more than 2 years old or B) cost less than €/$1000, go with win2k because you can tune it down and itll run just fine. if neither A nor B apply, go with XP. the nicest thing about XP as far as im concerned is the startup speed. on my 800mhz p3 with 768mb ram (but old ram so it sucks, lol) i boot xp in 13 seconds. win2k cant compete with that.

RESPOND TO MY POST id appreciate someone reading the junk i write!!

** wanted to add something, sorry: i think LINUX is GREAT ---BUT--- my issue is still compatibility.. its getting much better (all the codecs for movies and stuff is already at linux, but im still missing the software. and im not talking about OFFICE (who needs that crap, besides theres good replacements like StarOffice) im talking about GAMES.. as far as i can tell, the only way to run games like DEUS EX 2 on linux is with a windows emulator and i hate so see my framerates drop down to my neighbors apartment....) but LINUX is OPEN SOURCE so all you programmers, GET AT IT! and to software developers, **dont ignore the future, one day linux will RULE**

** now im adding something again: my 800mhz 768mb ram win2k machine that has been my faithful friend for ages (who will be ditched in 3 days for a 2.2ghz barton with 1gb pc3200 overclocked to 2.5ghz) is actually amazingly stable. i have rebooted 2 times in the last 2 months, once because of new software, once because of a blue screen but that was ATI's fault for releasing crappy drivers)**

-echon (austria rocks!!)

Thank you for resserecting a pointless thread.
Obviously Windows 2000 can be "tuned down more" because it is an older OS and does not require as many resources to run.
I agree that Linux's weakest point is games, and this is completely on-topic anyways.
And I don't know if I would classify 1 reboot per month as "amazingly stable"... wait, never mind, we are talking about windoze here...










privacy (GDPR)