Windows 200 outperforms Windows XP
-
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml Kind of "fun" since they recently presented a list of changes to the kernel that should improve performance. Dont they test what they do? /Magnus
I read this on the W2K Mailing List yesterday. I expect it's embarrassing news for Microsoft, but we shouldn't be surprised, when you consider the UI changes. I'd be surprised if the XP Kernel itself was slower than the 2000 Kernel. Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++ 5.0/6.0
"I'm just another 'S' bend in the internet. A ton of stuff goes through my system, and some of the hairer, stickier and lumpier stuff sticks." - Chris Maunder (I just couldn't let that one past ;)) -
I read this on the W2K Mailing List yesterday. I expect it's embarrassing news for Microsoft, but we shouldn't be surprised, when you consider the UI changes. I'd be surprised if the XP Kernel itself was slower than the 2000 Kernel. Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++ 5.0/6.0
"I'm just another 'S' bend in the internet. A ton of stuff goes through my system, and some of the hairer, stickier and lumpier stuff sticks." - Chris Maunder (I just couldn't let that one past ;)) -
As i understood it they used automated test tools, i find it hard to belive the UI changes whould affect them if they are not design to test the UI. /Magnus
-
All the tests were about UI. But it still doesn't change the fact that it looks very bad. *Slaps MS around some* Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml Kind of "fun" since they recently presented a list of changes to the kernel that should improve performance. Dont they test what they do? /Magnus
-
Microsoft marketing blurb = "XYX is faster" Translation = "One tiny feature of XYZ is faster, but the bulk of it is just as slow as previous version" In the case of Windows XP it's the boot-up time that is faster.:)
I tought they might actually had improved, i think they have done a real good job with W2000, and finally dumping the crap OS'es 95,98,ME is another good thing. But maybe they are back to the old habits of spending 99% of the development on flashy UI's again. /Magnus
-
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml Kind of "fun" since they recently presented a list of changes to the kernel that should improve performance. Dont they test what they do? /Magnus
Hmmm Somehow I have this feeling that Win 2000 is the last MS OS a lot of people are gonna use. Somehow I feel a lot of the techies at least might stay with Win 2K for a couple of years more and then move over to Gnome and KDE both of which would have matured enough by then. Somehow I feel XP has started off so bad, nobody wants to install it.
-
Hmmm Somehow I have this feeling that Win 2000 is the last MS OS a lot of people are gonna use. Somehow I feel a lot of the techies at least might stay with Win 2K for a couple of years more and then move over to Gnome and KDE both of which would have matured enough by then. Somehow I feel XP has started off so bad, nobody wants to install it.
As far as I can see (speaking as a Win2k user), there's no "gotta-have" features in XP. Moving from Win31 to Win95 was pretty much a no-brainer. Win98 offered a better plug-n-play capability and USB support. Win2k offered no-reboot network support, NT reliability, and DirectX support. ME offered nothing to existing Win95/98 users, and XP offers nothing to existing Win2K users. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
As far as I can see (speaking as a Win2k user), there's no "gotta-have" features in XP. Moving from Win31 to Win95 was pretty much a no-brainer. Win98 offered a better plug-n-play capability and USB support. Win2k offered no-reboot network support, NT reliability, and DirectX support. ME offered nothing to existing Win95/98 users, and XP offers nothing to existing Win2K users. "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Couldnt have said it better myself. I think that if people are still running 98 and long for some stability they should move to XP. But...can computers running 98 (from 2-3 years ago) handle XP? Not with 64 megs they cant. __________________________ do { cout << "I will never use = when I mean == " << endl; } while (i = 1)
-
Couldnt have said it better myself. I think that if people are still running 98 and long for some stability they should move to XP. But...can computers running 98 (from 2-3 years ago) handle XP? Not with 64 megs they cant. __________________________ do { cout << "I will never use = when I mean == " << endl; } while (i = 1)
True, but memory is real cheap at the moment. If we hadn't upgraded our desktop machine at home (AMD K6-450 with 192MB RAM) to Win2k 6 months ago I'd be seriously considering it; as it is, the only thing in XP which would be tempting for us is Fast User Switching. Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++ 5.0/6.0
"I'm just another 'S' bend in the internet. A ton of stuff goes through my system, and some of the hairer, stickier and lumpier stuff sticks." - Chris Maunder (I just couldn't let that one past ;)) -
Hmmm Somehow I have this feeling that Win 2000 is the last MS OS a lot of people are gonna use. Somehow I feel a lot of the techies at least might stay with Win 2K for a couple of years more and then move over to Gnome and KDE both of which would have matured enough by then. Somehow I feel XP has started off so bad, nobody wants to install it.
This is exactly how I feel. It's kind of sad. I am really comfortable with Windows programming. A year or two from now I will have to uproot and plant myself in xwindow programming, but good programming skills are platform independant. :)
-
As i understood it they used automated test tools, i find it hard to belive the UI changes whould affect them if they are not design to test the UI. /Magnus
The UI can affect a program bady, as the case with WinXP. That is why 404Browser is not focused on a fancy UI like WinXP has. -Steven Visit Ltpb.8m.com Surf the web faster than ever: http://www.404Browser.com
-
The UI can affect a program bady, as the case with WinXP. That is why 404Browser is not focused on a fancy UI like WinXP has. -Steven Visit Ltpb.8m.com Surf the web faster than ever: http://www.404Browser.com
-
What i am saying is that, for an application to run faster it should not have a fancy GUI. -Steven Download 404Browser Today! (note this link will download 404Browser) Visit Ltpb.8m.com Surf the web faster than ever: http://www.404Browser.com
-
True, but memory is real cheap at the moment. If we hadn't upgraded our desktop machine at home (AMD K6-450 with 192MB RAM) to Win2k 6 months ago I'd be seriously considering it; as it is, the only thing in XP which would be tempting for us is Fast User Switching. Andy Metcalfe - Sonardyne International Ltd
Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++ 5.0/6.0
"I'm just another 'S' bend in the internet. A ton of stuff goes through my system, and some of the hairer, stickier and lumpier stuff sticks." - Chris Maunder (I just couldn't let that one past ;))I agree. I just ordered a gig of memory from crucial. :-D For some reason (maybe its the people that I know) I can see people buying XP and installing it over (arg..) their current OS. No consideration to if the computer hardware needs improvement was well. Fast user switching: Probably the only reason I will evenually install it on my parents computer. They have 2 kids at home still. Looks to be a cool feature. __________________________ do { cout << "I will never use = when I mean == " << endl; } while (i = 1)
-
Hmmm Somehow I have this feeling that Win 2000 is the last MS OS a lot of people are gonna use. Somehow I feel a lot of the techies at least might stay with Win 2K for a couple of years more and then move over to Gnome and KDE both of which would have matured enough by then. Somehow I feel XP has started off so bad, nobody wants to install it.
I have seen all the features in WinXP before in Linux. Also Linux is more stable, and has most of the bugs worked out already -Steven Download 404Browser Today! (note this link will download 404Browser) Visit Ltpb.8m.com Surf the web faster than ever: http://www.404Browser.com
-
I have seen all the features in WinXP before in Linux. Also Linux is more stable, and has most of the bugs worked out already -Steven Download 404Browser Today! (note this link will download 404Browser) Visit Ltpb.8m.com Surf the web faster than ever: http://www.404Browser.com
-
Hmmm Somehow I have this feeling that Win 2000 is the last MS OS a lot of people are gonna use. Somehow I feel a lot of the techies at least might stay with Win 2K for a couple of years more and then move over to Gnome and KDE both of which would have matured enough by then. Somehow I feel XP has started off so bad, nobody wants to install it.
-
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml Kind of "fun" since they recently presented a list of changes to the kernel that should improve performance. Dont they test what they do? /Magnus
Even more fun is that they are the only ones to report a decrease in performance. I didn't make a study of it but I noticed an increased performance in several applications (comparison between clean Win98,Win2K and WinXP) using WinXP. Maybe it is a new disease that forces journalists to badmouth MS instead. Witness several articles about Amazon implying that they dumped Windows in favor of Linux whereas they replaced their Unix system with Linux. :suss:
-
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml Kind of "fun" since they recently presented a list of changes to the kernel that should improve performance. Dont they test what they do? /Magnus
I'm rather skeptical of this test. My own personal experience has been otherwise. Their particular test cases may have been slower, but I think this test primarily tests interactive tasks which, so long as they are faster than a human can perform will not be noticeably slower. The new GUI is slower in some ways. The alpha blending and skining do use more CPU time than previous versions of Windows. Luckily, you can disable it if the speed is that important to you. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
