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.

Comments

And MacOS X...

[ruiner13]

And MacOS X.1 actually takes 53 minutes off of your work day. I think this is pretty subjective, so I'll make my own claims. My computer at Work (Win NT) is constantly getting blue screens, unexpected errors (access violation), and other freezes. My Mac at home, which I do the same things on, is rock solid, and doesn't look like a throwback to the 70's.

Re:Silly people

[Peaker]

Zionism IS a form of Racism [indymedia.org.il]

As much as Americanization is a form of native-american-murder.

Zionism is a solution to a serious problem of a prosecuted people around the world.

The site is bringing one subjective side of the news, presenting that one side is doing illegitmate things. If you look at the other side, you see its MUCH MUCH worse.

Re:Irresponsible journalism?

[DrSpin]

The truth IS un-American - its a well known fact. Even Bin Laden knows that!

Re:Same anecdotal evidence here

[yardbird]

Were you trying to look stupid, or was it an accident?

The original post contained "your" three times; the first and third were wrong.

If your running Win9x/ME, then XP is worth the upgrade (providing your hardware can handle it). But if your on 2k already, you probably wont see any change in stability, just in performance.

--