Win XP vs 2000 performance

[mujahid7ia]

On my old Compaq, 566mhz celeron, 128MB PC100 RAM, I'm running XP (with all gui crap disabled, plus some services turned off) and it is slow as hell (no wonder with 128MB RAM)...
I tried using Win98SE, but I couldn't use half my hardware and all these damn IRQ conflicts / resource errors drove me nuts. I'm wondering about Windows 2000, i think built on same technology as XP, if i use that, will it give me significant performance increases over XP, while remaining compatible with my other XP networking computers, and their shared files/printers?
Also, is win2k stable, at least as much as XP?

Thanks in advance. Any help is greatly appreciated.

[Cobra]

One of the guys I live with uses Win 2000 over XP. He's a computer scientist, so he should know. I'll ask him tomorrow morning, but from what I can gather he believes that it's like XP without all the user-friendly and colourful/playful features. It is based around Windows NT, same as XP is, so I don't think you'll have problems.

I'll ask him tomorrow, unless someone else gives the definitive answer while I'm asleep.

Cobra

[808smokey]

Windows 2000 works better with custom and old programs from my experiences. I like XP pro better and that's what I use

[sterno]

One of my machines at home runs Windows 2000. My machine at work runs XP Pro. My Windows 2000 machine has 1/4 the memory, half the CPU, and slower video, but it's faster for average day-to-day use. It's also more stable, and I have fewer application problems.

[gitreel]

XP has updated drivers. I can't tell you what to do, but I would add more ram. I use xp on every computer I build. I would stick with xp unless you want to start hunting 2000 drivers for everything. Xp has built in drivers for broadband support. 2000 does not network with Xp. I have tried. I turn off all the fluffy stuff, but have never had a problem. I have run computers with Xp on 128MB of ram and also never had a problem. I tell my customers that if they want the fluffy stuff, they need more ram.

[rallynavvie]

I use 2000 at work and XP at home. Given the choice I'd want XP at work as well. It is a memory hog but does well by it. With 512MB you can do pretty much everything with XP. You can dumb memory settings down with it since a friend runs an old P3 400 laptop with it and I think that has 128MB of RAM. I'm sure one of the XP tweaking sites has the settings to tone it down. Some are probably registry hacks so be careful.

[sterno]

2000 does not network with Xp.

At work we have a combination of 2000 and XP Pro, and everything is networked. I have never had a problem accessing anything. I can't speak for XP Home, though, its networking is pretty crippled. I think it's usually safer with 2000 servers running in Active Directory or NT4 domain mode, though.

[gitreel]

I use xp pro and had trouble networking 2000 and xp

[LSchafroth]

If you turn off all teh eye candy in XP and change the desktop to look and feel like 2000, then XP is faster.

That'st eh first thing I do when I install XP. More stable then 2000 too.

Running it on my 266mhz laptop with 162Mb ram and it works fine.

LS

[au7usa]

I'm on Win2k, and few months back found an article showing how WinXP users can get NetBEUI working by using Win2k files. The article said that WinXP NetBEUI was an afterthought and thrown together at the last moment.

WinXP doesn't do everything better!

[808smokey]

XP is Microsofts way of saying "Catch up with the times". I think Win2K is one of those things Microsoft should have skipped and just gone straight to XP Pro. XP and win2k are hard to network together. It can be but you can't use the little "Networking Wizards" on XP to do. It's like networking older 95's together (kinda).

[indolikaa]

Still running Windows 2000 Pro. Haven't seen a reason to upgrade to WinXP yet...

[stiltman]

XP is Microsofts way of saying "Catch up with the times". I think Win2K is one of those things Microsoft should have skipped and just gone straight to XP Pro. XP and win2k are hard to network together. It can be but you can't use the little "Networking Wizards" on XP to do. It's like networking older 95's together (kinda).

You're too funny.

There are no problems networking these to OSs together or with any other OS. That also means any version of Win2K and XP. I have used every version and they all setup just fine. The only problem that come to mind is in an enterprise situation where you have NT4 domain controllers and Win2K domain controllers. A win2K or XP client will try to authenticate to the win2K domain server instead of the NT4 box first.

The rest of your comments are just MS bashing of no merit

BTW, Back to the threads subject, CNET did a performance test compairing win2K and XP a while back. Win2K won.

[au7usa]

XP is Microsofts way of saying "Catch up with the times". I think Win2K is one of those things Microsoft should have skipped and just gone straight to XP Pro. XP and win2k are hard to network together. It can be but you can't use the little "Networking Wizards" on XP to do. It's like networking older 95's together (kinda).

They had to make it work before they made it pretty!

[indolikaa]

BTW, Back to the threads subject, CNET did a performance test compairing win2K and XP a while back. Win2K won.

Can you link it? I'd love to read it. I'm not surprised by the outcome.

[edsmith77]

I agree with Stiltman on the networking portion. I have a mix of both XP Home, Pro and W2K all networked together behind a routed cable modem connection and I have not had any problems at all. XP can be a bit more difficult to work with in networking as the OS includes a bit more protection built in (read as default settings) to protect the average JOE than does W2K. But once these have been set properly works fine.

As far as W2K over XP, well that is up to the individual. IMHO both work very nicely and are very stable. My personal preference is for W2K just because I am more familiar with it vice XP. But the XPs on my home machines rarely require any type of IT support ('cause I'm IT at home) and thank goodness they work reliably. However, we do not use or abuse them beyond basic computing and networking needs. We do not stress them to their limit but work within their limits.
My video machine is the W2K and so far I have not had one OS problem with recording or mainipulating video files. I cannot say the same for W98SE but then again that is a different apple.

Ed.

[stiltman]

BTW, Back to the threads subject, CNET did a performance test compairing win2K and XP a while back. Win2K won.

Can you link it? I'd love to read it. I'm not surprised by the outcome.

Just did a search and couldn't find it....it was a long time ago. right before XP hit the store shelves, but released to OEMs...

[Cobra]

I asked that guy I live with and he has told me that it will definitely work, and you can definitely share printers and the like. He does it at home.

Windows 2000 is also very stable, which is why he uses it over XP.

Cobra

[au7usa]

How to Install Win2K's NetBEUI in XP:
http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/38.htm#tipadaweek

[808smokey]

I'm going to have to dual boot to XP and 2000. My "networking" remarks are based on my experience. I've had many problems getting the two to work together, it was more of a driver issue than anything. But I rarley use 2000, we have it at work to run some Oscope and Spec analyser software but that's only because XP won't run them. It locks up the computer I'll play with 2000 for a bit and try to learn it. Where I used to work we had nothing but problems with 2K. I'm willing to bet it was the "IT" people who set it up wrong. Plus the computers were PII's with only 64mb shared memory. That's the US Navy way. The best for the least amount of $$$

[mujahid7ia]

Well, all the eye candy and crap is disabled, and maybe I'm just impatient, but it seems very slow. I think I'll just try dual booting and experimenting for speed and/or drivers. It's OEM, so most hardware is common.

BTW, I have done many registry and general tweaks to that system in XP, and it is noticeably faster, but it feels slow, even for 566Celeron/128RAM...

Thanks for all the help. You can continue your discussion.

[Guest]

I use 2000 at work and XP at home. Given the choice I'd want XP at work as well. It is a memory hog but does well by it. With 512MB you can do pretty much everything with XP. You can dumb memory settings down with it since a friend runs an old P3 400 laptop with it and I think that has 128MB of RAM. I'm sure one of the XP tweaking sites has the settings to tone it down. Some are probably registry hacks so be careful.

Ditto. I got used to XP features that I find myself looking for on 2k. I have been pretty happy with the stability of XP.

[flaninacupboard]

Well, i use 2000 on my main machine, compared to housemate with same spec PC, loading battlefield levels is a good 10-15 seconds quicker on my system versus his XP one. i'll have to do frame rate or encode checks. however, XP boots in around 45 seconds on his machine, my 2k install is close to three minutes. same with shutdown, around 30 seconds for his and about 2 mins for mine.

My capture machine has 2K and XP. i -have- to use 2k for capping, as XP does "something" i can't identify at random intervals - basically the drive thrashes like crazy. no programs running, CPU usage on 0%. it's not system restore, it's not indexing service, it's not a virus killer or any other soft updating. it's probably just busy uploading all my personal info to MS..... :P
2K on the same machine is totally reliable, and never crashes.

i have a problem with XP, my digital camera. under 2K i can plug and unplug it to my hearts' content, and every time the drive appears in my computer. under xp, i plug it in, the drive is there. i stop the device and unplug. i plug it back in, and.................. nothing happens. happens on XP pro and XP home.

Networking problems.....? currently streaming an audio file through the 98 server from a 2K machine, while simultanesouly downloading a file over the W-LAN from an XP machine. works fine, as did the LAN session between a mix of 2K and XP machines this weekend gone.

[gitreel]

you can adjust the bootup time on xp. normal is 30 seconds

[sterno]

Not to get too far off the subject, but you shouldn't use win2k files to get NetBEUI working on XP. The correct thing to do is to remove NetBEUI from every machine. There is absolutely no reason to run NetBEUI on a modern system. It's nothing but trouble, even on pure NT4 networks it caused problems. Even if you tell Windows to use TCP/IP it seems to switch over to NetBEUI after a while and never go back, and then it starts having trouble with resources that are not available with NetBEUI (like servers in different subnets, Samba servers, and some print servers).

[rallynavvie]

Well, i use 2000 on my main machine, compared to housemate with same spec PC, loading battlefield levels is a good 10-15 seconds quicker on my system versus his XP one. i'll have to do frame rate or encode checks.

I never run into processor-related slowdowns from XP. SMP seems to solve any problems related to the OS running behind whatever game I happen to be playing.

[piano632]

You probably just need more RAM. I installed XP on my old HP w/ 633MHz Celeron and 256MB PC100 RAM (nothing disabled) and no problems so far. Seems better than ever - certainly better than the WinME it originally had. The only thing it doesn't like is Intel Application Accelerator.

[gitreel]

I second the more ram option. I use xp all the time and do not have a problem.

[stiltman]

Not to get too far off the subject, but you shouldn't use win2k files to get NetBEUI working on XP. The correct thing to do is to remove NetBEUI from every machine. There is absolutely no reason to run NetBEUI on a modern system. It's nothing but trouble, even on pure NT4 networks it caused problems. Even if you tell Windows to use TCP/IP it seems to switch over to NetBEUI after a while and never go back, and then it starts having trouble with resources that are not available with NetBEUI (like servers in different subnets, Samba servers, and some print servers).

I think you need to study protocols a little more

NetBEUI is a very fast protocol (faster than IP) and is very effecient. NetBEUI is perfect if you want to isolate computers from parts of your network.

[LSchafroth]

I'm on Win2k, and few months back found an article showing how WinXP users can get NetBEUI working by using Win2k files. The article said that WinXP NetBEUI was an afterthought and thrown together at the last moment.

WinXP doesn't do everything better!

XP has NetBEUI included on the CD. You just need to isntall it.