Windows 2000 Pro Vs Windows XP: Which one`s faster? - GoFuckYourself.com

loverboy · 09-23-2004, 09:15 AM

Which one is more superior when it comes to performance and security?

I'm planning to revert back to Win2k but I wanted to brainstorm the downsides especially when you use it for Web Designing purposes.

Bryan Havoc · 09-23-2004, 09:16 AM

Neither. You should pick up a copy of Windows ME. It's stable and secure

Fabuleux · 09-23-2004, 09:21 AM

Windows 2000 is al little faster because it has less bullshit. To gain some more speed you can disable some services LINK . It's very stable, I only reboot around every 2 weeks or so.

The only downside is Adobe Premiere and Microsoft Movie editor won't work. This has nothing to do with w2k but with M$ wanting you to buy XP.

acctman · 09-23-2004, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fabuleux
Windows 2000 is al little faster because it has less bullshit. To gain some more speed you can disable some services LINK . It's very stable, I only reboot around every 2 weeks or so.

The only downside is Adobe Premiere and Microsoft Movie editor won't work. This has nothing to do with w2k but with M$ wanting you to buy XP.

actually it's the kernel file that stops you from using Adobe and other apps. xp is still 32bit and win 2k is 64bit

loverboy · 09-23-2004, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apx_bryan
Neither. You should pick up a copy of Windows ME. It's stable and secure

the problem with windows ME is that Microsoft has stopped making security updates which is abit disappointing the fact that it does not satisfy the security concern, same with Windows 98 as well.

i do have an old machine still running Windows Me and so far so good but let's just stick with the topic.

thanks for your comments

loverboy · 09-23-2004, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fabuleux
Windows 2000 is al little faster because it has less bullshit. To gain some more speed you can disable some services LINK . It's very stable, I only reboot around every 2 weeks or so.

The only downside is Adobe Premiere and Microsoft Movie editor won't work. This has nothing to do with w2k but with M$ wanting you to buy XP.

that's one area mainly I worry about , program compatability. im not really sure if companies like Adobe and Macromedia are still working on their programs to run on an Win2k platform

loverboy · 09-23-2004, 10:07 AM

Microsofts "independent" benchmarks show that XP pro is faster, but I refuse to believe. Do any of you know what is faster for a 2.4ghz 512mb machine?

J B · 09-23-2004, 10:15 AM

I used XP for one week and then switched back to W2K because many things were soooo slow. We have XP on a few machines here... some people like it, some people hate it...

Rexk · 09-23-2004, 10:21 AM

MAC OSX 10.3...switch or be sorry

loverboy · 09-23-2004, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rexk
MAC OSX 10.3...switch or be sorry

that would be an option but i guess not now.

macho · 09-23-2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apx_bryan
Neither. You should pick up a copy of Windows ME. It's stable and secure

Kidding? ME has very many bugs!

woj · 09-23-2004, 11:05 AM

With all the fancy graphics turned on, XP is probably slower...
If you turn all the graphic extras off, it will probably be slightly faster the 2k...

Fabuleux · 09-23-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by loverboy
Microsofts "independent" benchmarks show that XP pro is faster, but I refuse to believe. Do any of you know what is faster for a 2.4ghz 512mb machine?

REAL independent benchmarks show that XP with office XP is 30% slower then w2k with office 2k.

loverboy · 09-23-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fabuleux
REAL independent benchmarks show that XP with office XP is 30% slower then w2k with office 2k.

we will see how it works out, testing one right now.

any other more comments?

loverboy · 09-23-2004, 12:06 PM

*bump*

Fabuleux · 09-23-2004, 03:45 PM

Check this page, I think you will find it interesting:
http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...s/index.x?pg=1

It depends a little on the application which one is faster. On average it's about the same.
However benchmarks can't measure the "feel" of a system. What I try to say is you can benchmark crunching numbers in a math application, but that doesn't say anything about how fast applications load, menu's open and windows pop-up.

There is a lot of room for tweaking performance. With some registry changes you can make the feel of the system 300% faster. For example windows is logging all kinds of bullshit information you don't even want to know about, this takes CPU time and memory and can easily be disabled.

One of the advantages of XP is it's faster boot time. But since I never switch of my computer I don't care much about that...

09-23-2004, 09:15 AM	#1
loverboy When it rains, it pours Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 20,609	Windows 2000 Pro Vs Windows XP: Which one`s faster? Which one is more superior when it comes to performance and security? I'm planning to revert back to Win2k but I wanted to brainstorm the downsides especially when you use it for Web Designing purposes.

09-23-2004, 09:16 AM	#2
Bryan Havoc Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 784	Neither. You should pick up a copy of Windows ME. It's stable and secure __________________ Bryan Havoc // ICQ - 165029472 [email protected] FreePaysiteCash.com

09-23-2004, 09:21 AM	#3
Fabuleux Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,543	Windows 2000 is al little faster because it has less bullshit. To gain some more speed you can disable some services LINK . It's very stable, I only reboot around every 2 weeks or so. The only downside is Adobe Premiere and Microsoft Movie editor won't work. This has nothing to do with w2k but with M$ wanting you to buy XP. __________________

09-23-2004, 10:15 AM	#8
J B Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: StatsRemote.com Posts: 1,804	I used XP for one week and then switched back to W2K because many things were soooo slow. We have XP on a few machines here... some people like it, some people hate it... __________________ A HUGE TIME SAVER FOR LESS THAN $1 PER DAY! Contact: support A\|T statsremote D\|O\|T com

09-23-2004, 10:21 AM	#9
Rexk Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 704	MAC OSX 10.3...switch or be sorry __________________

09-23-2004, 10:07 AM	#7
loverboy When it rains, it pours Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 20,609	Microsofts "independent" benchmarks show that XP pro is faster, but I refuse to believe. Do any of you know what is faster for a 2.4ghz 512mb machine?

09-23-2004, 11:05 AM	#12
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	With all the fancy graphics turned on, XP is probably slower... If you turn all the graphic extras off, it will probably be slightly faster the 2k... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

09-23-2004, 12:06 PM	#15
loverboy When it rains, it pours Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 20,609	bump

09-23-2004, 03:45 PM	#16
Fabuleux Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,543	Check this page, I think you will find it interesting: http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2...s/index.x?pg=1 It depends a little on the application which one is faster. On average it's about the same. However benchmarks can't measure the "feel" of a system. What I try to say is you can benchmark crunching numbers in a math application, but that doesn't say anything about how fast applications load, menu's open and windows pop-up. There is a lot of room for tweaking performance. With some registry changes you can make the feel of the system 300% faster. For example windows is logging all kinds of bullshit information you don't even want to know about, this takes CPU time and memory and can easily be disabled. One of the advantages of XP is it's faster boot time. But since I never switch of my computer I don't care much about that... __________________