Windows XP vs. Windows 2000

D

dr00bie

New Member
#1
I would like to get some feedback from users on which operating system is supreme (if either is...) I am upgrading to an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice from a XP 1700+ and am wondering if there is a good reason why I should buy a copy of XP. I use XP at work, so I know how to use it, but I really am after the performance aspect.

Does XP perform better than 2000 on the same machine?

Thanks,
Drew
 
Shinma

Shinma

____________
#2
My opinion,
No.
The kernel in use by WindowsXP is based off that in Windows2000 Professional.
 
Bink

Bink

Will moderate for food
#3
XP often appears faster, most noticably on bootup because it presents the desktop quickly while it continues to load a lot of things.

Some have said XP performs better in games, but I've also seen reviews that have extinguished the rumour as an issue relevent only to early revisions of Win2K, so I'm not sure about that.

Here's a snippet I found on the WindowsNetworking.com website:

Windows XP versus Windows 2000 Performance:

The IDG test center has presented their performance tests for Windows XP versus Windows 2000. Their tests as well as others, reveal that under most circumstances Windows 2000 is faster than Windows XP. The results are coming in rather consistent if disturbing. For a company to upgrade to Windows XP, one needs to upgrade the hardware or suffer performance degradations. It is basically the same situation faced when considering the upgrade from Win9x to Windows NT or Windowx 2000. The old hardware we were using needed upgrading.

I have been running both Windows 2000 and Windows XP on my home PC and work PC since they were released and I had not noticed much if any performance differences. A close reading of the IDG report told me why. IDG found that both XP and W2K performed well on SMP boxes. Both my home and work PCs are dual processor boxes. Very valuable for certain types of penetration testing such as password cracking.

I am not a game player. I wonder what the implications are for XP Home? Although the IDG tests don't cover game playing performance, I suspect that it will be a problem for game players expecting maximum performance from their systems.

All that said however, if you already own one of the other, just stick with it.
 
jankerson

jankerson

Super Moderator
#4
Other than gaming and some other added features, mostly security features and performance tweaks 2000 is somewhat faster on the same machine.

But I don't see any reason not to upgrade to XP Pro from a performance stand point on a fast machine.
 
ThePerson98

ThePerson98

Active Member
#5
Windows 2000 is a lot nicer on slower machines, and if you know what you are doing, Windows 2000 is pretty nice. I only switched to XP cause of an FPS increase, but I think that may be drivers for XP liking it a lot more (In 2000 it had the AGP speed stuck at off) Windows XP tends to also be a pain. Most people perfer 2000 over XP. And if you have 2000, dont go buy XP. XP tends to put people through heck until it finally runs well :p (Trying to automatically indentify network drivers is a big pain at times, when it doesnt want to go to right drivers)
 
D

dr00bie

New Member
#6
Thanks for all the feedback... I don't really play any games, just Rise of Nations over the Internet with a buddy of mine, and it runs fairly well on my current system.

I think I will stick with my copy of 2000 and move up when they offer full support for 64-bit computing.

Thanks!
Drew
 
A

abcee

New Member
#7
ThePerson98 said:
Windows 2000 is a lot nicer on slower machines
I disagree. Windows XP acts as good on Windows 2000 on the same old machine. Ok, you might need some extra 32 or 64MB of memory when you use XP and more space on your hard drive, but that's about it.
 
F

freshmania

New Member
#8
The company that I work for run radiology imaging software, which is disk and memory intensive and the program runs faster and more stable on win xp with latest patches.

For AMD 64, it is probably a good idea to get winxp 64 bit edition as it offers better performance for some games.
 
ThePerson98

ThePerson98

Active Member
#9
abcee said:
I disagree. Windows XP acts as good on Windows 2000 on the same old machine. Ok, you might need some extra 32 or 64MB of memory when you use XP and more space on your hard drive, but that's about it.
No, it's the truth, XP ran slow as it gets on a pentium 2. 2000 ran great. XP is slightly more resource eating than 2000. They both have ups and downs. And are fine OSes. And also think about it, if you had a pentium 2, which would you choose...Windows2k or XP?
 
krupted

krupted

New Member
#10
if i had a pentium 2 i would smash it into oblivion with a hammer. actually, there is a pII box sitting behind me.... uh maybe ill try and think of a use for it first:D
 
J

Jofax

New Member
#12
Bink said:
XP often appears faster, most noticably on bootup because it presents the desktop quickly while it continues to load a lot of things.

Some have said XP performs better in games, but I've also seen reviews that have extinguished the rumour as an issue relevent only to early revisions of Win2K, so I'm not sure about that.

Here's a snippet I found on the WindowsNetworking.com website:




All that said however, if you already own one of the other, just stick with it.

You may ALSO want to check out these two sites if contemplating between w2k vs. XP:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx

http://www.computeruser.com/article...,1,0501,02.html

Although keep in mind, first link is article distributed from MS (although supposedly tested in independent lab), so take with grain of salt b/c I'm sure MS would love to have everyone upgrade to newest OS perpetually. But then again, you probably want to take everything you read on Internet with same scrutiny.
 
~fr33ze~

~fr33ze~

New Member
#14
dr00bie, if you look just at the normal performance and FPS performance is not crucial (you are not a gamer really) I'd say w2K is great for you. One consideration I had were the updates and compatibility issues.
M$ are focusing more on XP than on W2K and number of various patches for w2k is lower than for XP (8 vs. 5 in August). Another matter: there are some brand new products that are not supported in W2K at all or some feature do not work (like TV outs with some Dell Laptops). Just to be on the safe side I upgraded to XP.
 
Leoslocks

Leoslocks

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
#15
I am using W2K on an old laptop (Pentium MMX 200). The bios does not support the ACPI, old hardware as well as new hardware will not work on it. Slow but rock stable. I wold love to upgrade the laptop but I will stick with W2K. I will probably Slipstream the unofficial SP5 and see how that works.

I would consider using XP Pro X64 Edition 1 except that it reminds me of when I bought Windows 98 and needed Second Edition to be stable.

I will be inclined to look at Media Center Edition also.

There is no "safe side" of microsoft.
 
M

Martin_89

Active Member
#16
ive installed both on various specs of machines. On my XP-M, Duron 1600 & Athlon XP 1600+ ive got/had XP ran faster than 2000, both at booting and general windows use. I didn’t notice any difference with loading times for programs loading etc.

on my PIII-M 800MHz laptop with 256MB ram I find 2000 is really slow to boot with the 4200RPM HDD and it runs pretty slow when browsing folders etc, windows XP Professional doesn’t have this problem on it.

I installed XP Professional SP2 on a PII 400MHz machine with 128MB of ram ( I told him XP would run like crap on it but he said he didn’t care and that he wanted it! :D) once installed I turned off all the graphic stuff like menu fading etc but left the colour scheme on as he liked it :D and it actually ran pretty well :) do more than one thing at once and it wasn’t so good but just internet/msn messenger/email etc it was great.
 
Justintime

Justintime

Moderator
#18
XP surprises sometimes, runs like a dream on my Portege 7200CT Notebook, 60GB HDD PIII 600 and 384Mb RAM. Heck i've gone down as low as a P166 with 128mb ram and it was acceptable.
 

Associates