· Content
· News
· Articles
· Mailinglists
· Knowledgebase
· Trouble Tickets
· Files
· Glossary
· Links
· Compatibility Lists
· Forums
Welcome to our website
To take full advantage of all features you need to login or register. Registration is completely free and takes only a few seconds.
WinXP: Another Analysis...
Posted by: Jim on: 11/01/2001 05:17 PM [ Print | 32 comment(s) ]
Duke was surfing at work (His laziness astounds me *cough*) and found this tidbit of information regarding Windows XP facing off with Win2k. The folks at InfoWorld provide us with... well... info.
Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs to get the most out of the new OS.They don't seem pleased. What else did they say?
Our tests on a dual-CPU system indicate that both Windows XP and Windows 2000 run better on an SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) configuration with relatively slow CPUs than on a single-CPU system with a screamingly fast processor. As we added more and more load, the benefits of a dual-processor configuration became more apparent. Both OSes (using Office 2000 and optimized UIs) handled the heaviest workload (scenario 3) nearly 40 percent faster on the SMP client machine than on the single-CPU Pentium 4.Can I get an amen? Read for yourself.
« More details on the Epox M762A dual Athlon board · WinXP: Another Analysis...
· Movie Review: K-PAX »
2 pages 1 2
Comment
|
jeh mad scientist Posts: 3716 Joined: 2000-08-06 |
#12262 Posted on: 11/01/2001 11:57 PM
What is VERY strange is that there is nothing in the XP kernel changes to account for this. Especially not the fact that MP "closes the gap". That would strongly imply that there is more compute-bound work being done on the XP side than on the Win2K side. I just don't see any reason for that to be true. |
Comment
|
voltron Master Dualie Posts: 1244 Joined: 2000-12-22 |
#12263 Posted on: 11/02/2001 12:01 AM
I agree except my computer is faster with xp than 2000. MSI K8N Neo2-F, bios 1B | 3800 64 X2 | 2x512MB Kingston 2700 cas 2.5 unbuff | 3950U2D | 10K 70GB | ATI Radeon 800XL 256MB AGP | Viewsonic VX800 | Audigy2 | 3Com 10/100 | Mad Dog Surepower 550Watts | Windows XP Prof SP2. |
Comment
|
Jim_ Administrator Posts: 3577 Joined: 2000-03-15 |
#12264 Posted on: 11/02/2001 01:14 AM
I found XP to be slightly more sluggish on my system even after considerable tweaking. As such, I'm still hugging Win2k. [url="http://www.jimkirk.org"]jimkirk.org[/url] - Not a Myth any Longer. Just a Dad. |
Comment
|
Good Humor Man Registered User Posts: 6 Joined: 2001-09-10 |
#12265 Posted on: 11/02/2001 01:30 AM
We should all get together and "fix" all the problems with Win NT 4.0. It is very fast, cheap, and I bet we could eliminate alot of the crap good 'ol Bill wants us to have. ( *Windows scripting, desktop themes, etc.*) Can anyone steal the source code so we can get started on it? May be we could buy it off of him! Crap this almost sounds like Linux except we would beable to run windows programs on our tweaked OS! |
Comment
|
Pro17 Registered User Posts: 9 Joined: 2001-11-01 |
#12266 Posted on: 11/02/2001 03:22 AM
Think about it. Install Windows for Workgroups on your computer and watch how fast it boots (along with how fast it takes to start up Office 95). Operating systems get more complicated as technology advances. XP might be a little slower than 2000, but so was 95 compared to 3.11, and 98 to 95, etc etc. What did we do to compensate for the speed loss? Buy faster computer parts... |
Comment
|
timekills Satellite rider Posts: 526 Joined: 2000-08-17 |
#12267 Posted on: 11/02/2001 03:45 AM
I assume there was a point other than
Because if there wasn't then all you said was the difference between each OS and the previous incarnation is the newer version is slower. So why aren't we still using Windows 3.1(1)? I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to express it. |
Comment
|
Good Humor Man Registered User Posts: 6 Joined: 2001-09-10 |
#12268 Posted on: 11/02/2001 05:29 AM
Yes of course 95 was slower than 3.11! 95 was nothing more than an attempt to make a 32 bit/16 bit OS all in one as well as 98 and ME. XP, 2000, and NT 4.0 are all 32 bit Operating systems. You are comparing apples and oranges. You can make a very fast 32 bit os. It has been done (look at NT 4.0). I want to just tweak NT 4.0 for modern hardware. I would improve NT4.0 if I could by updating hardware support. You can buy drivers for USB or fat32 under NT 4.0 but it is very expensive! The plug and play is one thing I can do without as well; by only loading drivers you need you can make the kernel smaller and faster. I would add digital audio capabilities. I would get rid of all the crap that is in the OS to make it "more user friendly". Most of the readers here are advanced enough to get rid of it. Get rid of active desktop (memory leak). I can go on and on. Just cut away "bloatware" and I would be happy. Or at least make it where I can customize the install alot more instead of Bill putting what he thinks I need on my computer. Also notice that my whole goal is to have 32 bit OS that runs windows software; Linux will not do this for me so don't suggest I not buy MS products. |
Comment
|
timekills Satellite rider Posts: 526 Joined: 2000-08-17 |
#12269 Posted on: 11/02/2001 05:42 AM
I'll second that. Adobe Premiere runs much more quickly on NT4 than it does on XP. The problem is that the firewire support is nonexistant. It is simple on paper to just "add in" the driver support for newer hardware but that is also what causes the instability, which necessitates harsware and memory management to such a degree that the OS is slowed down. I think we should push hardware manufacturers to standardize their drivers and write less buggy software. When is the last time you saw an NT kernel based OS crash due to an actual kernel problem? 99 out of 100 times (if not more) crashes are due to faulty drivers/hardware and or apps. I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to express it. |
Comment
|
Good Humor Man Registered User Posts: 6 Joined: 2001-09-10 |
#12270 Posted on: 11/02/2001 05:53 AM
When I had my NT 4.0 box it NEVER crashed. Unless you count the time the power went out; but that was not windows fault. I let it run for 1.5 monthes straight once to see how it would perform and it never slowed down. This was on an old Asus P5A with a K-62 550 and 256MB of ram! It also put out 60+ fps with counterstrike on a Voodoo 3 2000 at 960*800. (WOW!) My new Win 2000 box is a joke in terms of stability; explorer.exe crashes all the time! Reminds me of my 98 days. If I wanted an unstable OS I would have stayed with 98SE. Now that I have my first duallie this is not an option so I am screwed. I would put NT 4.0 back on but I cant get NT to regconise my Adaptec SCSI card. I forgot what I did to get it loaded the last time (I have no floppy drive) and don't want to screw with it again. |
Comment
|
nipster NOT a WarMonger Posts: 1839 Joined: 2001-09-12 |
#12271 Posted on: 11/02/2001 07:29 AM
XP = cancer |
Comment
|
[L2K]FiShy It does .5 past the Inet Posts: 545 Joined: 2001-09-11 |
#12272 Posted on: 11/02/2001 07:46 AM
im a mac user here, so i dont see why microsoft can make such shite OS when they sstole there idea of mac, i mean i used to have osX on my g4 (untill some would soft spait the dummy in it) and its damn fast, power full, and usefull. i run os 9 atm, it takes forever to boot up becouse i installed MSN messanger, and that makes it boot for 5 mins longer  and it all takes for ever becouse (for all the ausssies out there) my BPA client in badly writen.. it only cashs when i run 2 programms, WOrd and IE, mmm microshit strikes agian
juggment day will come, and microsoft shell be wide from thwe earth and os/x and linux will take over and we will be free off this BS! my rant  My heart beats true! |
Comment
|
musicman Unregistered |
#12273 Posted on: 11/02/2001 08:51 AM
I do not see any mention of RAM in the systems they tested. XP , as every other version previous, requires more RAM the it's predecessor. If the systems only had 128-256 megs, that would account for the difference. XP is as fast on my box as win2k was. As for the Mac vs Win thread, I think that has been beaten to death, next topic please. |
Comment
|
Good Humor Man Registered User Posts: 6 Joined: 2001-09-10 |
#12274 Posted on: 11/02/2001 09:01 AM
I agree with [L2K]FiShy about Mac OS being good. I have used it before. Unfortunatly Steve Jobs screwed himself over by not making Mac an open standard. Sound familiar? 3DFX did the same thing with Glide and look at where they are now, along with countless others. Another good OS was OS/2 WARP. It was killed by Microsoft however and this great OS never had a chance. Also software companies did not write code for it in great supply. This OS was awsome, it had been run through mainframes at IBM to eliminate lines of code that were uneeded! I bet Bill does not to this for his products. I had to give up on it eventually Damn you microsoft for destroying the one good OS you had; which by the way you stole it from Digital Media! |
Comment
|
jeh mad scientist Posts: 3716 Joined: 2000-08-06 |
#12275 Posted on: 11/02/2001 10:13 AM
Even if the source were available, this would be an ENORMOUS job. Too many of the things people want to run, and too much of the hardware people want to run on, depend on code features that just weren't there until NT5, er, Win2K. There's a reason that the source code tree practically doubled in size from NT4 to Win2K... I think you'd see far more instability problems in the resulting code than you do in NT4, or Win2K or XP for that matter. |
Comment
|
snowsquirrel Sheik of SMP Posts: 188 Joined: 2001-03-26 |
#12276 Posted on: 11/02/2001 10:58 AM
I don't use windows or mac, but I have used both. One comment struck me as a little off the ball, or maybe I just misunderstood it? -------------------------------------- im a mac user here, so i dont see why microsoft can make such shite OS when they sstole there idea of mac, -------------------------------------- They sstole the idea of a shite OS from Apple? Why would you want to steal a shite OS? Stole the idea of GUI? What would you suggest, CLI forever, for everyone except Apple? --------------------------------------- i mean i used to have osX on my g4... --------------------------------------- Speaking of sstealing, were you aware that OS X is based on Unix, and the X windows system? How about the fact that Microsoft had their own implementation of Unix (Xenix) in 1981! ------------------------------------------ ...(untill some would soft spait the dummy in it) -------------------------------------------- you lost me there. --------------------------------------------- and its damn fast, power full, and usefull. --------------------------------------------- sounds like my horse, 'cept I limit his oats so he don't get power full. Truth be known, I would run OS X over Windows anyday, I am not anti-mac, (nor anti-windows for that matter) but if you want people to take the time to read your comments (otherwise why post), then take the time to think about what you are writing. To: [L2K]FiShy, it was just an example, I wasn't picking on you. No hard feelings m8. :-) ~S edit:  |
Comment
|
Pro17 Registered User Posts: 9 Joined: 2001-11-01 |
#12277 Posted on: 11/02/2001 11:27 AM
If you like 2000 so much and hate XP, then stick with 2000. I was being general. Operating systems have advanced, as so has hardware. Get new OS, and then get new hardware. Very simple. BTW, if you do not upgrade to XP, Microsoft will release another Code Red so that you do buy XP or at least purchase some service packs. |
Comment
|
[L2K]FiShy It does .5 past the Inet Posts: 545 Joined: 2001-09-11 |
#12278 Posted on: 11/02/2001 12:33 PM
no hard feeling mate,yes i cant spell
i no osx is unix base, thats what makes it good i mean u havea good mix of the mac os (ie gui etc) and the power of unix. steve jobs was smart not to make mac open source, macs are off of top quality, by keepong it the way it is they steal make big leaps in the IT industry and make sure the when its released it work... i have heaps of problems with PC, fulty hardwear, bad os (winblows), evil drivers ut i never have any with my mac, iv had the g4 for about a year now and have never had to fix it in any way. i no some one who still uses there LC II and hasent had any problems with it, they just drop in a bit more ram and a bigger hdd here and there and it still very useableMy heart beats true! |
Comment
|
ambit LoveYourFruit Posts: 1243 Joined: 2000-10-15 |
#12279 Posted on: 11/02/2001 01:09 PM
Amen! I'm still with the NT4 crowd, and luving it. |
Comment
|
SaintBob Registered User Posts: 53 Joined: 2001-08-25 |
#12280 Posted on: 11/02/2001 07:18 PM
1. So far, the word from the street is that XP is a very good replacement for 9x. But then again, so was W2K. 2. I wonder about the memory foot print of W2K vs. XP too. But the differences in the numbers are huge. 3. "u" is not a replacement for the word "you". It makes you come off sounding ignorant. Your messages are much harder to read. Thus, people tend to ignore posts like that which means your point does not get across. Thus, you are failing to communicate. Which of course, is the whole point of a forum. 4. The MAC UI was stolen from Xerox. So cut the mindless repeating of "MS STOLE MAC UI"!!!! 5. 3dfx was not killed off because glide wasn't open source. They got killed off because they were unable to maintain product superiority or viable cash flow. OpenGL is not open source (at least until recently??). DirectX is not open source. In fact, when 3dfx finally went under, glide was still being widely used in games. 6. No driver problems in MAC? You are living in a dream world here. There have been plenty of driver problems in the MAC. Also, the MAC tends not to push the envelope as far as bleeding edge tech. They did some USB and some firewire. But other than that, you don't have a boat load of 3rd rate hardware manufactures putting out 3rd rate drivers trying to beat their competition to the market. 7. Lets just update NT4 and be done with it!! Not!!! Although I might not agree with the feature bloat of W2K and XP, Microsoft would die if it decided to stop with NT4 and never enhance it. Oh? What? You are saying that you didn't say that they should never enhance it? Then what do you thing W2K and XP are? They are the enhanced versions of NT4. The problem is, you want to pick and chose exactly what features they add based on what you think is important. Well, sorry, but that isn't the way it works. I made this very same mistake with XP. I made the statement "who is going to be using these features?". Many people spoke up and said they were looking into adding functionality to their products by leveraging things like MSN messenger. 8. OS2 was a nice OS compared with Win3.1. But compared to the real world, it was still a joke. And MS didn't kill of OS2. OS2 was killed off by IBM. Mismanagement of the product was not MS's fault. (The story is true that IBM wanted a refund from MS when a programmer rewrote a routine and improved reliability and cut source length in half. IBM charged by the lines of code, not the quality of the end product.) Tim |
Comment
|
travisgrafx Step 1 = Underpants Posts: 166 Joined: 2001-09-14 |
#12281 Posted on: 11/02/2001 07:52 PM
Love the duallie numbers versus single pentium 4s!! I've been preaching SMP for a loooooooooong time at my company. I'll take stability over speed anyday (but i'll take speed too)! One thing that has been surprising me is the difference between intel and amd (the new pentuim 4 xeons are not what i expected). I would have liked to see some numbers in that review from the AMD SMP side too. Oh well, if wishes were fishes.... WildBill "Man who live in glass house should change clothes in basement." |
Comment
|
Good Humor Man Registered User Posts: 6 Joined: 2001-09-10 |
#12282 Posted on: 11/03/2001 12:22 AM
Read my earlier posts. Add hardware support to NT 4.0 and sell the service packs. I would be willing to pay for these as long as they did not destroy the stability by adding plug and play. Win 2K is BASED on NT but is not the same. Win 2K is Plug and play; this makes it more unstable. MS claim that win2k is 17x more stable than NT 4.0! I have had experiences to the contrary; just look at the number of school networks that crashed because of WIn2k. Improveing NT with service paks is not far fetched. Look at this http://www.usbman.com/Win%20NT%20USB%20Guide.htm. Why can't microsoft make stuff like this and call it sp7 for NT 4.0. They could sell it at a reasonable price and I would be happy. Why can't they do this? The reason is because they want an OS that can be the end all solution for everyone. When you get a product that tries fit in 2 different niches you usually get a product that does both but not very well. Imagine if a car company did this. You could only get 1 car to chose with no options or diversity. Give us many different OSes to choose from that have certain characteristics! NT 4.0= stability and speed but higher learning curve. Win XP for home users that is slower, more unstable but very user friendly. |
Comment
|
grindles SMP Duck Posts: 365 Joined: 2000-06-03 |
#12283 Posted on: 11/03/2001 12:51 AM
I've got an idea, why not start a new operating system from scratch, we could base it on Unix, maybe one of those Minix systems to start with. We could keep it free, and open-source, and then everyone who uses it can add features to the main kernel or write their own drivers and release them to the general community. Eventually we could have made an operating system user-friendly and stable enough that quite a few of the more advanced PC users out there try it, many of them helping out with the development of added features within the operating system. |
Comment
|
hojl Registered User Posts: 160 Joined: 2000-11-02 |
#12284 Posted on: 11/03/2001 03:40 AM
oops double post 933x2:PIII(933x2) HE-SL 1.0 gig ram 1x120gig 1x30gig 733x2:PIII(733x2) OR840 786meg ram 1x160gig 1x60gig 1gigx1:amd t-bird ecs 1gig ram: 2x20gig |
Comment
|
hojl Registered User Posts: 160 Joined: 2000-11-02 |
#12285 Posted on: 11/03/2001 03:41 AM
what is code red? and why would it make me buy xp or updates? I currently have nt4 in my dullie and 98 or 2k in my single processors. 933x2:PIII(933x2) HE-SL 1.0 gig ram 1x120gig 1x30gig 733x2:PIII(733x2) OR840 786meg ram 1x160gig 1x60gig 1gigx1:amd t-bird ecs 1gig ram: 2x20gig |
Comment
|
[L2K]FiShy It does .5 past the Inet Posts: 545 Joined: 2001-09-11 |
#12286 Posted on: 11/03/2001 10:58 AM
code red is a virus it uses IIS or eamial to get in ya PC XP is ment to be code red type virus proof (i think thats what head means) My heart beats true! |
2 pages 1 2