Heh, check this crap out.

[Sparkhard 0]

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml

 

 

Seems xp isnt all that i Xpected.

 

glad i got a MPS.

[Derf 0]

Those results are totally opposite of what I have experienced. I used to run win2k on my P3 1gig and it was SLOW infuriatingly slow. I'm talking 2 minute boot time slow. I've since gone to XP and my boot time is about 45 sec. It doesn't stop there either. I get better performance in games, and how quickly things load... I'm really curious as to why they get opposite results from what myself and the 10 other people I know in my dorm that run it do.

[James92581 0]

I agree with Derf. When I had Win2k installed, my system boot time was over a minute. With WinXP, it's less than 20 seconds. I only reboot to install new Detonator and VIA drivers (and perhaps WinXP updates), and I'm still amazed at how fast my system boots up. I used to go get a drink or something while booting. I can't do that anymore!!! I'm so mad

 

As for application performances, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit lower than Win2k. But the results from the site doesn't match up with my experience. I personally haven't seen any slow downs. I'd like to know why there's this kind of difference between two systems. Any ideas?

[NTGEEK 0]

Hmmm.... I notice a lot missing regarding the hardware setup!

How much memory were they using?

Motherboards implemented?

Hard drives used?

memory implementation (ddr, rdram,sdram,etc..)?

The SMP systems are assuredly using scsi as opposed to ide. This Might explain the discrepancy if the bencnhmark is I/O bound(I personally notice ide I/O slightly slower on my system as opposed to scsi.)

If the problem was due to the gui interface, what graphics hardware did they use? I'll bet testing on any of the nvidia optimized drivers may have made a difference due to the gui layer slowing some graphic hardware down (not pointing fingers, but if it's ATI or intel graphics neither have been properly optimized for windows2000 let alone XP!)What would have happened if they turned off all the advanced graphic features?

(as an aside, moving from trident onboard graphics to the visiontek 5864 pci worked wonders on speed)

Office XP testing! OMG! is anyone using or implementing office XP after all the bad flack and high upgrade price?

I personally see no performance hit between XP and 2000 What I do see is a sleep mode that works. Lots of bells and whistles. And a stable platform that is rock solid. (except for that darn Easy cd coaster creator problem I am having... roxio?)

[size:18]8[/color] Courier blue

[Sparkhard 0]

Yeah, One of the things they said was faster in XP was the boot time.

 

I think the reason we have different results is because of the style of testing.

 

They are benchmarking REAL WORLD office apps and such. We are comparing those to games and boot times.

 

I mean, come on, somebody could do a game compatibility benchmark against 2000 and make XP blow win2K out of the water. But a large company isnt interested in games, and this was targeted towards companies who may look into upgrading to XP. They would spend a lot of money for an OS that would be slower "for them".

 

But nevertheless it was interesting.

[James92581 0]

I think you do have a point there Sparkhard. It's probably true that Office applications do get some performance hit when they're ran on XP instead of 2000.