Slashdot Mirror
InfoWorld says WinXP much slower than Win2K
iforgotmyfirstlogon
submitted an InfoWorld story that makes the shocking claim that XP is slower then 2k for business use. Pretty graphs, comparisons of SMP, and they even tested without the eye candy. My favorite comment is this one "it appears that for light-duty service on the newest hardware, Windows XP with Office XP is an acceptable choice -- if an 11 percent performance hit, or 53 minutes added to an 8-hour day, is acceptable." And thats the best case scenario.
And according to the article, it seems that the UI itself is killing the system. Splitting out the UI work to a separate processor via SMP results in massive improvement in performance. Sadly, I have no dual-proc machines here...
The differences in the new XP GUI and the old Me/2K GUI are very superficial and easy to learn. You can even set XP to use the old GUI with a single click.
-- Brian
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
I think the review is a bit unfair. I'm running Office XP on Windows XP here and find it just as fast as Office 2000. They've overlooked the fact that Windows XP starts way faster than Windows 2000. This is only on a Duron 700 with 128Mb of ram.
I have been using Windows XP with Office XP to do work, for the last few days. The upside is it is good for beginners while keeping the features of 2k. If one has never used an NT version of windows they are very likely to be impressed (and IMO rightly so).
On the flipside, it does seem to be a little slower than 2k, and somewhat buggy working with third party software (particularly games). Assumedly this will be working out in coming bug fixes witch MS solicits from you every time an application crashes.
In other words I would enthusiastically recommend it to a home windows user. In an office that already uses a version of NT on the other hand, the switch may not be necessarily.
Limited sample size of two workstations, YMMV.
I installed XP on my work laptop, 650mhz p2. No slow down if you turn off the pretty gfx, its the same speed. Friends with older PC's have told me its slower and have stayed with win2k, ymmv.
But windows networking FLYS compared to my win2k. I can open network domains with 10000+ pc's and it only takes seconds now. Printers and shares now remember the passwords. I can log transparently into a domain for printer shares only. Network login is actually faster now. FTP transfers are the same speed thou. I dont like to log into the domain, but It authenticates me for printers and exchange.
Only crash I'ved had was the 3dfx driver I have in my docking station, disabled the onboard ati card and no problems. The reason I run a 3dfx pci voodoo3, its pci half-height, and does 1600x1200.
On my Home PC, dual 800, I left the gfx on, and turned off shadow menus, that was the main slow down. Only crashs are the geforce nvidia driver (28.88 with newest gf2mx bios, god love those russian unreleased driver/bios sites)
If you had to get a engineering degree in to program, we would have a lot better code out there.
LOL! Do you have any idea how many people are walking around with BSCS degrees, who can't even tell you why qsort beats a bubble sort?
Code is the only cred that matters.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I have XP Pro and 2K Pro on my computer. p3 450, 384 megs of PC 133 ram, XP on my 8 gig fujitisu ata 66 5400 (i think) rpm hd, and 2000 on my 20 gig ata 100 hd. Graphics card is a NVidia GeForce2MX. Mobo is an intel sx440bx.
.net and windows media player. Netscape 6.2 is blazing fast!
Bottom line: With all the fancy graphics and blending and other UI "enhancements", Windows XP is slower than 2000. When i take all the UI enhancements off XP and get it similar to 2000, XP is at least as fast, if not faster thatn 2000. Come on, Microsoft has had from feb 2000 to August 2001 to speed up the code!
I like the addidional drivers, things just work. I dont like the rampant ads for
Activation: It sucks. find a way to negate it.
I needed a new driver for my creative soundblaster soundcard. out now. Most things will have good drivers. I just wish Windows XP could be slimmed down to get rid of the fluff.
Overall, great os.
- If you've been using Windows 2000, the performance you'll get with XP is virtually identical; if you've been using Windows Me, 98 or 98 SE, or 95, your system is going to feel like it has a whole new lease on life.
EWeek's review- We
... found that XP and 2000 outperformed Windows 98 and ran neck and neck with each other.
If you're comparing it to 2000, it meets expectations. If you're comparing it to 9x, it exceeds expectations.So performance-wise, it's really nothing new. Get it because you like the application support, or the fast boot times, or the config restore, or... But don't buy it for the performance.
I was running Win2k on my HPVLI8 here at work (you can look up the specs at hp's web site). I recently added another HD and installed XP with the Plus pack, and Office XP. My 2k partition was running Off. XP as well. I have 256MB of mem installed, to speed things up a bit (they come with 128).
Well, let me tell you how disapointed I was. The XP partition is slower than *anything* I have used before. The article is bang on the money, but doesn't mention a video card *anywhere*! I have the same configuration at home (with a 32 Meg D3D card, pIII 533, 655MB RAM) and it just purrs. Fast boot, fast shutdown, everything. My only complaint is with IE 6. It sucks. If I get any more of those "Do you wish to Debug?" windows I'm gonna lose it.
If you're in charge of purchasing, and you're reading this...upgrade to 2k. Not XP.
Speaking of FUD:
I read the firing squad article, and XP looses to 2k in all but 4 test(all running pentium btw).
but at the conclusion they say:
"Most of the scores were either on par with Win2K or better than it"
So either they are looking for ms revenue, or the guy who reads there conclusion doesn;t read the article and look at the graphs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Actually ClearType depends on "subpixels" found in LCD displays.
See this page for a decent explanation of how it works...
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows