tseeker

Has anyone ever heard of Windows 2000 slowing the performance of new high end systems (compared to 9x)? I just built my new system and have dual-boot 2000/98 on the same partition. 2000 is nowhere close to as fast as I expected it to be on this system, 98 is much faster but I prefer 2000 for the stability. On my old K6-2/350 system, with the same dual boot setup, 2000 increased the performance drastically compared to 98. I have tweaked 2000 as much as I know how- stopped all unnecessary services, moved the executable to run in RAM, optimized the page file size. I have installed all latest service packs and hotfixes, updated bios and drivers. Any ideas??? I'm about ready to just run 98 but I know the first time I get a blue screen I'm gonna be pissed! ------------------------- Athlon XP 1700+ Gigabyte 7VTXE+ 512MB DDR PC2100 Maxtor 60GB/7200/ATA133 ASUS GeForce3 Ti200 Deluxe/64MB Creative ModemBlaster V.92 (di5633) Liteon 16X DVD LG 16X10X40 CDRW

yes it's turned on but how can I tell if it's running dma 66,100 or 133? My Hard drive is ata-133, does 2000 support 133?

I used pcmark2002, scores in 2000: cpu-4303,mem-2940,hdd-764 scores in 98: cpu-4399, mem-3220, hdd-1079 seems like my hd in 2000 is the biggest slowdown