Does Windows XP Run Faster Than 2000?

[Pinnacle]

We recently replaced a bunch of PII 366 laptops with new ones. I suggested we get rid of the old laptops, but my supervisor thinks we may be able to find a use for them when we switch from Windows 2000 to XP. He feels XP Pro runs faster than 2000, so we may be able to find some use for these old laptops. I do not have enough experience with XP Pro to say one way or the other.

All other factors being equal, what runs faster, 2000 or XP Pro? Thanks.

[hudsonsmith]

IMO, once they are booted they run about the same, with XP requiring more system resources. XP does boot faster. That said, there's no way I would put XP on a PII 366. You are way down the low end of microsoft's system requirements (300MHz w/ 128MB ram recommended, 233MHz w/ 64MB ram minimum). Requirements for W2K are lower (133MHz w/ 64MB ram minimum). I wouldn't be surprised if XP made those laptops run slower.

[craigmodius]

yes, you're cutting it reeeeeeallly close on the bare minimum requirements for XP.

2K might run OK so long as you don't ever have to run anything else on top of 2k like a virus scanner, software firewall etc. Even then, still seems like it's gonna be very slow.

My rule of thumb is double the minimum requirements and only then do you have a realistic minimum requirement.

keep a few around for the IT crew, put the rest up for employee silent auction.

[Rogue1987]

Ya All wanna talk slow,
I got an Pentiun I 233 with 128MB RAM running XP Pro. (Once it gets runnng it isin't too bad, but I would like to get a newer one, but I kind of lack the cash)

HAHA six minuites to boot!

But its still better than my PI 120 with 40MB RAM

[WebHead]

At least make sure it's got plenty of ram and everything should be ok. I think 2K is faster based on my own personal experience.

[gerf]

In my experience, XP uses more resources than 2000. Also, I've seen very stable systems with 2000 have huge issues with XP, including freezes and reboots. I do not suggest getting XP if you're already using 2000 unless there is some component XP has that is required. As far as I can tell, XP has very few benefits over 2000.

Also, If you have less than 64MB of RAM, XP will not install. It will stop at a part of the install, tell you that you do not have the minimum requirement of 64MB of RAM, and make you reboot. Win2k does this with computers under 32MB of RAM.

If you try it, I'd use a few of the tweaks here: http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/xptweaks/supertweaks1.htm. This includes turning off the eye candy of course.

[joeace1]

In my experience, XP uses more resources than 2000. Also, I've seen very stable systems with 2000 have huge issues with XP, including freezes and reboots. I do not suggest getting XP if you're already using 2000 unless there is some component XP has that is required. As far as I can tell, XP has very few benefits over 2000.

Also, If you have less than 64MB of RAM, XP will not install. It will stop at a part of the install, tell you that you do not have the minimum requirement of 64MB of RAM, and make you reboot. Win2k does this with computers under 32MB of RAM.

If you try it, I'd use a few of the tweaks here: http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/xptweaks/supertweaks1.htm. This includes turning off the eye candy of course.

But what fun would XP be without the eye candy I have run both OS with those chips and 2000 seems to run better then XP.

[ADS_Tech]

At least make sure it's got plenty of ram and everything should be ok. I think 2K is faster based on my own personal experience.

Coudnt agree more. Memory is the key on a lower spec machine.

Speed is relative. On a PII 366, 2000 will almost certainly feel faster than XP unless theres a shed load of memory involved. But you dont state how much memory those lappies have.

[Pinnacle]

Coudnt agree more. Memory is the key on a lower spec machine.

Speed is relative. On a PII 366, 2000 will almost certainly feel faster than XP unless theres a shed load of memory involved. But you dont state how much memory those lappies have.

Generally, they have 96 to 128 meg of RAM. A few have 256 meg.

Thanks everyone for your responses.

[NetScum]

In my experience, XP uses more resources than 2000. Also, I've seen very stable systems with 2000 have huge issues with XP, including freezes and reboots. I do not suggest getting XP if you're already using 2000 unless there is some component XP has that is required. As far as I can tell, XP has very few benefits over 2000.

While it took me a long time to consider XP over 2000, going to XP PRO I got a free speed increase on my old PIII 750. W2k didn't like my ABIT BX6 2.0 running the Slot1 PIII in "turbo" mode. BSOD no matter what I did... XP PRO though could care less about the "turbo" mode and I was able to go from PIII 750 to PIII 789 just like that!

Side by side, same hardware I believe from my own testing that XP is faster. You can turn off most of the fluff with XP... XP2 seemed even faster than my original XP build.

[arch0nmyc0n]

I had a P233 with 96MB 72pin RAM and a 13 gig 5400rpm HD running WinXP fine. It was obviously wasn't lightning speed but it worked.

In my experience XP has always run smoother than 2k did on my computers. Where I had issues with 2k, XP etiher made them easier to deal with or got rid of it completly. XP obviously has other issues....I just answered the phone... some guy I reformated his computer with his XP copy called me just now and asked me how to get his email cause he can only access it through his ISP's webpage....so I told him "Start, all programs, outlook express".... he seemed like such and intelligent person before this conversation...ANYWHO... sorry about the tangent...

All around I feel XP is just smoother, but if I were you I'd put 98 on them, you'd get much better, faster use out of them. Maybe not the newest most amazing programs and stuff but... not like they could run it anyways...

[techmonkey13]

I have found that Windows XP Pro responds better than Windows 2000 did on the same hardware. This includes having Microsoft Office XP loaded on the computer. The response was fair and found that XP did a better job overall then Windows 2000. This was on a PII 233 laptop w/ 196MB RAM and also on a PII 333 laptop w/ 256MB RAM. I will say if you do load XP on these older laptops that you look at maxing out the memory. I typically use these older laptops for a network diagnosic device or similar temporary function. Definately, these laptops were not used to replace my every desktop functions.

Good Luck and Happy Computing.

[format c:]

I have tried Win 2k and found it slower than XP pro on the same hardware, Win 2k puts all you cards on the same IRQ and the hard drive seems to grind more than with XP , That is with 512 megss of ram