Was Win 2000 A Dog Like XP?

[JimC]

I recently replaced my PC.

Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the line in
1997 when it cost over $4000.

New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).

Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I expected
was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster are
Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are slower
than my Win 98 system.

I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1 the
hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of memory).
Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and was
slow (right out of the box).

Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?

Jim

[steve.uk]

what about your start up items?

click start/run and type 'msconfig'.

go to the start up tab and uncheck all the unnecessary programs (such as ms
office, realplay)

a large number loaded at start up will affect performance.

"JimC" > wrote in message
...
> I recently replaced my PC.
>
> Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the line in
> 1997 when it cost over $4000.
>
> New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
>
> Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
expected
> was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster are
> Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are
slower
> than my Win 98 system.
>
> I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1 the
> hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of memory).
> Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and was
> slow (right out of the box).
>
> Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[Nicholas]

If your computer uses on-board video and sound chips, installing a good =
quality
AGP video card and 16-bit PCI sound card will free-up system resources =
and
your computer will run like a dream.


--=20
Nicholas

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------

"JimC" > wrote in message: =20
...

| I recently replaced my PC.
|=20
| Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the =
line in
| 1997 when it cost over $4000.
|=20
| New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
|=20
| Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I =
expected
| was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster =
are
| Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are =
slower
| than my Win 98 system.
|=20
| I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1 =
the
| hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of =
memory).
| Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and =
was
| slow (right out of the box).
|=20
| Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
|=20
| Jim
|=20
|=20
|

[John E. Carty]

"Amir Miller" > wrote in message
...
> Xp is slower then older operating systems.
> It's enough to look at the system requirements to see that you need more
CPU
> and more memory.

He's got a 2.4GHz with 512MB's of memory. You must be nuts to think this is
underpowered for running XP :-)


> As for booting, the reason XP boots faster is because it loads the
services
> at the same time (parallel) rather then one after the other like NT or
2000.
> This causes the system to be up and ready while continuing to load other
> services in the background.
> I admit XP does have it's kicks, but if you want performance, 2000 is
better
> for you.
> In the System properties, under the Advanced -> settings, choose the
'Adjust
> for best performance' radio button, this will eliminate all the fading and
> rounded windows which are nice to your eys but not to your CPU or graphic
> accelarator.
>
> BTW, if you really want performance and stability, checkout
> http://www.redhat.com
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Amir.
>
> "JimC" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I recently replaced my PC.
> >
> > Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the line
in
> > 1997 when it cost over $4000.
> >
> > New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
> >
> > Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
> expected
> > was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster are
> > Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are
> slower
> > than my Win 98 system.
> >
> > I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1 the
> > hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of
memory).
> > Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and was
> > slow (right out of the box).
> >
> > Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[JimC]

Duh? As I said, the only aspects of XP that are faster than my old system
are startups, shutdowns, and restarts!

Jim
"steve.uk" > wrote in message
...
> what about your start up items?
>
> click start/run and type 'msconfig'.
>
> go to the start up tab and uncheck all the unnecessary programs (such as
ms
> office, realplay)
>
> a large number loaded at start up will affect performance.
>
> "JimC" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I recently replaced my PC.
> >
> > Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the line
in
> > 1997 when it cost over $4000.
> >
> > New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
> >
> > Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
> expected
> > was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster are
> > Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are
> slower
> > than my Win 98 system.
> >
> > I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1 the
> > hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of
memory).
> > Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and was
> > slow (right out of the box).
> >
> > Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[JimC]

This is not an issue. Thought $1800 would imply I avoided such, but you are
quite rights about the $900-$1200 specials that the OEMs foist off on users.
Jim
"Nicholas" > wrote in message
...
If your computer uses on-board video and sound chips, installing a good
quality
AGP video card and 16-bit PCI sound card will free-up system resources and
your computer will run like a dream.


--
Nicholas

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------

"JimC" > wrote in message:
...

| I recently replaced my PC.
|
| Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the line in
| 1997 when it cost over $4000.
|
| New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
|
| Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
expected
| was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster are
| Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are
slower
| than my Win 98 system.
|
| I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1 the
| hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of memory).
| Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and was
| slow (right out of the box).
|
| Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
|
| Jim
|
|
|

[steve.uk]

you said performance was poor which can be affected by the number of start
up items loading.

these items can affect start up times AND overall system performance. just
because your start up is faster doesn't mean that this cannot be the cause
of your slow system. duh!




"Amir Miller" > wrote in message
...
> Not underpowered. Just Slow. Fact.
>
> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Amir Miller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Xp is slower then older operating systems.
> > > It's enough to look at the system requirements to see that you need
more
> > CPU
> > > and more memory.
> >
> > He's got a 2.4GHz with 512MB's of memory. You must be nuts to think this
> is
> > underpowered for running XP :-)
> >
> >
> > > As for booting, the reason XP boots faster is because it loads the
> > services
> > > at the same time (parallel) rather then one after the other like NT or
> > 2000.
> > > This causes the system to be up and ready while continuing to load
other
> > > services in the background.
> > > I admit XP does have it's kicks, but if you want performance, 2000 is
> > better
> > > for you.
> > > In the System properties, under the Advanced -> settings, choose the
> > 'Adjust
> > > for best performance' radio button, this will eliminate all the fading
> and
> > > rounded windows which are nice to your eys but not to your CPU or
> graphic
> > > accelarator.
> > >
> > > BTW, if you really want performance and stability, checkout
> > > http://www.redhat.com
> > >
> > > Good Luck,
> > >
> > > Amir.
> > >
> > > "JimC" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I recently replaced my PC.
> > > >
> > > > Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the
> line
> > in
> > > > 1997 when it cost over $4000.
> > > >
> > > > New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
> > > >
> > > > Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
> > > expected
> > > > was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster
> are
> > > > Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are
> > > slower
> > > > than my Win 98 system.
> > > >
> > > > I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1
> the
> > > > hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of
> > memory).
> > > > Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and
> was
> > > > slow (right out of the box).
> > > >
> > > > Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Amir Miller]

Xp is slower then older operating systems.
It's enough to look at the system requirements to see that you need more CPU
and more memory.
As for booting, the reason XP boots faster is because it loads the services
at the same time (parallel) rather then one after the other like NT or 2000.
This causes the system to be up and ready while continuing to load other
services in the background.
I admit XP does have it's kicks, but if you want performance, 2000 is better
for you.
In the System properties, under the Advanced -> settings, choose the 'Adjust
for best performance' radio button, this will eliminate all the fading and
rounded windows which are nice to your eys but not to your CPU or graphic
accelarator.

BTW, if you really want performance and stability, checkout
http://www.redhat.com

Good Luck,

Amir.

"JimC" > wrote in message
...
> I recently replaced my PC.
>
> Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the line in
> 1997 when it cost over $4000.
>
> New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
>
> Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
expected
> was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster are
> Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are
slower
> than my Win 98 system.
>
> I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1 the
> hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of memory).
> Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and was
> slow (right out of the box).
>
> Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[Amir Miller]

Not underpowered. Just Slow. Fact.

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Amir Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Xp is slower then older operating systems.
> > It's enough to look at the system requirements to see that you need more
> CPU
> > and more memory.
>
> He's got a 2.4GHz with 512MB's of memory. You must be nuts to think this
is
> underpowered for running XP :-)
>
>
> > As for booting, the reason XP boots faster is because it loads the
> services
> > at the same time (parallel) rather then one after the other like NT or
> 2000.
> > This causes the system to be up and ready while continuing to load other
> > services in the background.
> > I admit XP does have it's kicks, but if you want performance, 2000 is
> better
> > for you.
> > In the System properties, under the Advanced -> settings, choose the
> 'Adjust
> > for best performance' radio button, this will eliminate all the fading
and
> > rounded windows which are nice to your eys but not to your CPU or
graphic
> > accelarator.
> >
> > BTW, if you really want performance and stability, checkout
> > http://www.redhat.com
> >
> > Good Luck,
> >
> > Amir.
> >
> > "JimC" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I recently replaced my PC.
> > >
> > > Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the
line
> in
> > > 1997 when it cost over $4000.
> > >
> > > New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
> > >
> > > Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
> > expected
> > > was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster
are
> > > Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are
> > slower
> > > than my Win 98 system.
> > >
> > > I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1
the
> > > hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of
> memory).
> > > Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and
was
> > > slow (right out of the box).
> > >
> > > Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Unknown]

Read th KB item Q815411 at Microsoft.
"JimC" > wrote in message
...
> I recently replaced my PC.
>
> Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the line in
> 1997 when it cost over $4000.
>
> New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
>
> Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
expected
> was degraded performance. However, the only things that run faster are
> Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other functions are
slower
> than my Win 98 system.
>
> I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1 the
> hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot of memory).
> Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is slow and was
> slow (right out of the box).
>
> Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[Markeau]

Did your new pc come with any extra software that is getting loaded at
startup *and is still running in the background*? There are also a
lot of native background Services that can be turned off if you don't
need them.

I have 98SE on a 600MHz, 128MB, P3 and it runs WAY slower than XPpro
on my 2.0GHz, 256MB system. And this is with Norton AV and NIS2002pro
and lots of other stuff running in the bg. It's even snappy while
having open multiple IE sessions, OutlookXP, Outlook Express (for
News), Media Center (playing mp3's) and editing photos using MS
PictureIT or Photoshop Elements all at the same time. The only
slowness that see is when backing up/sync'ing (using SynchroMagic)
files from one disk to another.

"JimC" > wrote in message

> I recently replaced my PC.
>
> Old was Win 98SE, 256MB, but only 266mz although it was top of the
> line in 1997 when it cost over $4000.
>
> New is Win XP PRO SP1 (factory installed), 512MB, and 2.4gz ($1800).
>
> Since my new processor is almost 10 times faster, the last thing I
> expected was degraded performance. However, the only things that
run
> faster are Windows startups, shutdowns, and restarts. Most other
> functions are slower than my Win 98 system.
>
> I have searched and surveyed performance tips (including the XP SP1
> the hotfix that speeds up initializations for apps that need a lot
of
> memory). Other than that, I can't find a tip that explains why XP is
> slow and was slow (right out of the box).
>
> Should I have ordered Win 2000 on my new PC?
>
> Jim