|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Win2K Wins Again
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: TotalRecall
The Tech Report has put Windows ME, 2K, and XP head to head in a performance comparison:
Given all of the new, err, features it's actually somewhat surprising how close the performance race is between XP and 2000. The fact that XP does so well with SysMark and the Winstone tests would indicate that it's quite a business performer, at least with the software used in those benchmark suites. It's difficult to say why InfoWorld's results were so different; one possible suspect is not enough RAM, but that's difficult to verify since they didn't reveal how much memory was in their test systems.
Still, if you're running Windows 2000, XP isn't much of a compelling upgrade in terms of raw performance. By themselves, the performance gains you will see don't justify the upgrade price and additional baggage. WinXP doesn't really need anything above our low-end system to be useful, though it does seem to have an appetite for RAM. Luckily, RAM is the cheapest it's ever been.
It's reaffirmed. If you are content with Windows 2K, do not upgrade to XP. The numbers in the comparison are here.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
I got my newest copy of MaximumPC, and I am wondering why WinXP led Win2K in almost ALL their benchmarks ... to the point of them actually giving it a perfect 10 Kick Ass Award and "recommending" an upgrade to XP from 2000.
A must-have OS upgrade, they said... hmmm, maybe if you're using Win9x...
Posted by: Gunslinger
And if you're using Win9x, you just upgrade to 2000.
Why have XP at all?
Posted by: Chako
Because MaximumPC is not the old Boot I so loved.
Posted by: Bobaroo
rrrrr i hate Win98....i want win2000!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
