Windows XP can't do.....

[FreeAgent]

I did better when I had a 300mhz processor on Windows 98. I'm going almost two ghz and XP is slowin me down!

What's up with that?

 

[mOrphine]

turned off the eyecandy?

u need to be more detailed regarding ur system if anyone's gonna make any suggestions

 

[FreeAgent]

WinXP is just a classic example of Microsoft sending out yet another operating system to early without perfecting perameters. The bottom line is$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[FreeAgent]

O.K. here it is I my processor is an intel p4 1.8ghz I have a 120gb hardrive and I have hi performance settings on. In yet I still have to give it a snooze to load picture programs that are of minimal size.

 

[aircooled]

Maybe true....but, I run XP on a 800mhz duron and it doesn't "feel" any slower than when I had 2000 on it.

 

[FreeAgent]

I will have to do some tweeking I guess but this is b.s. man I paid good somlions for this piece to run this sh..ty

 

[FreeAgent]

By the way how do you like XP?

 

[Saltin]

IF XP is running slowly on a 1.8ghz box, you might want to take a look at your setup/drivers.



<< WinXP is just a classic example of Microsoft sending out yet another operating system to early without perfecting perameters. The bottom line is$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ >>



This is based on your experience with the OS I suppose? You are entiltled to your opinion, however wrong it may be. The general consensus here is that XP is a strong OS. Perhaps MS's strongest to date.
Please elaborate on how "MS released XP too early".....I'd like to here what you have to say.

 

[DocDon]

I have XP running on a 800 and on a 1 GHz -- both decidely faster than Win2k and Win 98 -- sure you got it set up correctly??

 

[Nothinman]

I run XP in VMWare on a Athlon 900 and I consider it snappy with the menu effects off.

 

[scotters]

Seems to be another example of Microsoft being the scapegoat for somebody's lack of knowledge. XP has been faster than 2k on my machine in almost everything...and especially so on the Internet. And that's even with 32 bit video at 1024x768! (See system specs for home system--it's nothing humongous!)

 

[MoFunk]

I am running WinXP on a T-bird 1.4@1.53, 40 gig ATA100, 32meg hercules video card and 512 of ram. I have a ton of stuff running all the time and my system is still faster than with Win2k! And that is with ALL the eye candy going! How much ram are you using and how many processes do you have running in the background? I did notice that with a fresh boot WinXP uses 125-130 megs of ram right off the get go. Look at that, depending on how much ram you have you will either need the ram or turn disable some services.

 

[PreDatoR]

I have a 1.33@1.6 512 MB's of DDR and XP was considerably faster than 2k. If you have an SB live a lot of your problems are probably stemming from that. I switched sound cards to a cheap POS i had when i was experiencing big slowdowns and they went away... I went back to 2k pro though until XP releases a service pack and hardware vendors release some vastly improved drivers for their sh!t.

 

[Aenygma]

I have XP Pro... Its kewl with the exception of I have not received a faster boot up time at all and there is that annoying lil DHCTP thing I had (fixed tho) and... here is one I don't like.. I have a program that generates .lst files....and XP simply cannot find them when I perform a search. I went to their help site, and they have a bulletin on it, and said a fix should be coming in January.


<1.4 T-bird
768 Ram
Geforce 3
SB live

 

[btvillarin]

I like WinXP. Everything is pretty speedy, and even speedier when you turn off the graphics. I don't notice any slowdown, even after a couple days of staying on. Just make sure your drivers are right. Coming from Win2K, it's pretty much the same since I didn't play much games. Tweak everything just right, and it runs like a dream.

850 Tbird
512MB PC133 SDRAM
Asus A7V133
ATI Radeon 32MB SDR
SB Live! Value
IBM 75GXP 30GB
Western Digital WD600AB 60GB
HP CD-Writer 8x4x32

 

[KentState]

I feel sorry for you system if it can't run XP at an acceptable level. I played with the crappy eMachines at work yesterday and they didn't have any problems with their Celeron and 128 mb of RAM. I didn't notice any difference between it and Win2k.

 

[jyates]

I've noticed that my machine (PIII 1ghz slot 1 Intel) boots quicker than Windows 98SE. Also I tried out several different modems and sounds cards when assembling it and xp detected every one of them and loaded the drivers so I didn't have to touch a cd or floppy!

 

[Gooberlx2]

Yeah I just upgraded my win2k pro to WinXP pro today. I have noticed an increase in performance. (T-bird 900, 256 pc133, geforce ddr). I'm....not impressed but not disappointed either. 'twas a pain teaking and unistalling and disabling all the BS i don't want running (messenger, system restore, firewall, remote access(i like VNC better), etc).

I think you just need to tweak it out. Get powertoys, turn off menu shadows and pointer shadows, and all that razzle dazzle. (though I don't mind the "XP" blue/green theme)

 

[Pederv]

My philosophy on Microsoft OS's is don't get it until they're just about to release the next one.
I think that when Microsoft is confident enough in their flagship OS to take it to the next level, that's the time to get it.
I didn't get Win95 until MS released Win98.
I didn't get Win98SE until MS released WinME.
I just got Win2k SP2 when they released WinXP.
This way not only are most of the bugs fixed in the OS, but most of the bugs are also fixed in the drivers.

 

[Yoshi]

XP is a bit slower than 95/98, but is seems a little faster than 2k (especially in the boot time dept). And besides, I'll take a speed hit over 9x for the stability of XP/2k any day.

 

[y2kc]

<< Seems to be another example of Microsoft being the scapegoat for somebody's lack of knowledge....... >>



Exactly...

My advice: stick with 98

 

[owensdj]

FreeAgent, maybe you don't have enough memory to run XP well? XP needs more memory than 98 to get good performance, but if you give it the memory, it should be faster for most non-game applications.

 

[CTho9305]

i consider xp to be as fast as win98 on my tbird 700... something's wrong with your setup

 

[yellowhobbit]

i'm running WinWP Prof on a p3 733 and 512MB 133SDRAM. I admit that Win98 had the faster touch, but you hardly notice the difference. No way i'm going back to Win98SE

 

[ProviaFan]

I run it on an 800mhz Duron with 192MB of RAM, and it's perfectly acceptable, even with all the eyecandy on, and this is with a crappy old ATI Rage Pro Turbo PCI.