Win2k: faster than Win9x?

[Arcadian]

Ever since I upgraded to Windows 2000, I've felt that the OS is more resposive, and seems faster. Even games seem to work better, and are more fluid. However, everyone I ever speak to thinks Windows 2000 is much slower than Windows 98. What does everybody else think?

[Tupac]

My first impression was that it is faster..but after i went back to 98 i didnt notice that much of a difference. THen when i went to ME i noticed a little jump up. And i boot in like 15 seconds now.

[X-isTancE]

IMHO W2K is noticeably faster in normal apps. but in 3D type programs such as Q3. I'd say win98 is faster. Though if you add in your normal daily blue screen or two for 98 then there is no real contest, because I just haven't gotten any with W2K. Not that it's not possible because I'm sure it is, its just that obviously much less frequent. YAY!!!!

[Arcadian]

Originally posted by X-isTancE:
IMHO W2K is noticeably faster in normal apps. but in 3D type programs such as Q3. I'd say win98 is faster. Though if you add in your normal daily blue screen or two for 98 then there is no real contest, because I just haven't gotten any with W2K. Not that it's not possible because I'm sure it is, its just that obviously much less frequent. YAY!!!!

I never get bluescreens unless I mess with certain programs. Almost any windows program runs fine, including games, but I sometimes get a bluescreen when I run emulators like MAME or snes9x. Win2k is much more stable than win98, where I used to bluescreen using Internet Destroyer.

[DoomLurker]

It seems to run about the same here, but runs a little bit better in Q3A. Go figure.

[blppt]

2k is definitely slower booting up than 98 even thought i now have 256 megs of ram, but its memory management improvements alone make it a great upgrade to own, plus, of course for games you can always have 98 running alongside 2000.

------------------
------
Pat D.

Visit a music site I write for: http://members.xoom.com/Awake600

[This message has been edited by blppt (edited September 10, 2000).]

[JOEBOO]

In most cases concerning 3D apps, (if you are using an AGP card) WIN2K is going to bench slower because it takes up more space in volatile memory than 98 (assuming that you are comparing the same hardware side by side). The reason you might notice a speed increase in standard app performance in WIN2K over 98 is due in large part that each application is given a specific memory block to run within. This is how WIN2K is able to remain stable even after a particualarly nasty app crash or even an app induced BSD. This also helps with memory leakage produced by running programs in general. Memory leaks can occur from simply loading a program and closing it...to see what I mean start your 98 pc up from a cold boot...immediately go into your system properties and look at the amount of free resources. Note that number then go and open up an app like quicken, or word or whatever open it about 10 times, don't do anything but open and close it, now go back to your system properties and check out the free resources, you will notice a loss of free resources dependant on the number of times you opened and closed the app. Now go do the same thing within WIN2K, the loss of resources will not be near as significant as with 98. This is one of the few reasons that 2000 may seem faster than 98, but as far as gaming goes, even though it isn't near as stable, 2000 is too much of a memory hog, the requirements are still much higher, and the driver support is simply not there to justify it as a gaming OS.....IMHO....plus I tried it and didn't care for the lack of game compatibility.

[Daniel]

For me Windows 2000 seems to be the First OS that came out from Microsoft Without Stability problems, it runs smothly.
Another thing that I really like is the Hibernate function, it is awesome, I was always wondering of the PC manufacturer that make that on a PC not just in laptops.
The problem that I don't like from Win2K is the lack of compatibility with many Electronic Arts Games, so I have now both installed, ME & 2K .

Originally posted by Arcadian:
Ever since I upgraded to Windows 2000, I've felt that the OS is more resposive, and seems faster. Even games seem to work better, and are more fluid. However, everyone I ever speak to thinks Windows 2000 is much slower than Windows 98. What does everybody else think?

[This message has been edited by Daniel (edited September 11, 2000).]

[BloodRed]

I have WinME and Win2K installed on my computers at home. I installed Win2K on my computer that shares my connection, since it's more stable than Win98SE and made for networking. I have WinMe on my main system becasue it's faster than Win2K and more stable than Win98SE, and is compatable with all my programs and apps. If you're worried about stability, use Win2K. If you want speed, compatablity, AND stability, use WinME

------------------
-BR

[KR02]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daniel:
[B]For me Windows 2000 seems to be the First OS that came out from Microsoft Without Stability problems, it runs smothly.
Another thing that I really like is the Hibernate function, it is awesome, I was always wondering of the PC manufacturer that make that on a PC not just in laptops.
The problem that I don't like from Win2K is the lack of compatibility with many Electronic Arts Games, so I have now both installed, ME & 2K .

What about DOS?

[bhirsch]

I agree with "blppt" above. Win2k boots slowly, Win2k's memory management is better..., some games are faster in Win2k, some aren't, but it's very competitive...

Office Productivity Apps (adobe, office2k, etc) are faster in WIn2k (based on our testing). Reliability is better in Win2k..

Me? I dual boot Win98 and Win2k Server, I have win98 installed for the soul purpose of Gaming, and Win2k installed for everything else

Whistler is what I'm really excited about, the next release after winME, it will have the WinNT Kernel, but be designed for consumers (home users). That is the step that everyone has been waiting for, the true combination of NT Stability with Gaming support...which raises a very interesting question Will Whistler support Dual Processor? kind of makes you think, don't it? Dual proc gaming machine Not to say that will change everything, but...never the less, interesting


------------------
Thanks,
Benjamin Hirsch
Technical Analyst / Lab Manager
SharkyExtreme
"Drive it like you stole it!"

[zombor]

hell, on my notebook, win2k takes less than half the time to boot than 98, and even half of that when i hibernate it(one of microsofts best things yet). It boots in about 30 seconds when i hibernate it. Havent tried many games in it it due to the fact that i cant get to comapq site right now to get the win2k drivers for my rage mobility chip(also very awsome). so hopefully later today ill be able to get them.

[Sol]

Originally posted by zombor:
hell, on my notebook, win2k takes less than half the time to boot than 98, and even half of that when i hibernate it(one of microsofts best things yet). It boots in about 30 seconds when i hibernate it. Havent tried many games in it it due to the fact that i cant get to comapq site right now to get the win2k drivers for my rage mobility chip(also very awsome). so hopefully later today ill be able to get them.

I have noticed this also on my system at home. Win2k seems to boot a little faster then win98SE.

[JOEBOO]

whitsler was the code name for WinMe they are one in the same. Anyway, I like 98Se or Me (particularly with Thunderbirds and broadband connections...having that TCP/IP stack in an OS tailored more for gaming is nice). I like Win2K if I want to run a workstation or light load server, but alot of people don't have the resources (hardware) out the gate to run it very well. Hell I am writing on a compaq 233 laptop with 64MB or RAM running professional right now...and while it is stable, and usually runs pretty quickly the first time I get 2 or more apps open, it will start bogging down in a hurry.

------------------
Keep honking I'm reloading.

[HarneyEmpire]

Whistler is what I'm really excited about, the next release after winME, it will have the WinNT Kernel, but be designed for consumers (home users).
[/B]

Are you sure Windows ME is the good old NT
Kernal or is it based on the kernal...?