Re: Speed comparison; WinXP and WinME


BC escreveu:

PaulFXH wrote:
PaulFXH escreveu:

Carey Frisch [MVP] escreveu:

Windows XP performs best, and is more secure, when installed
on a drive with a single partition that is formatted NTFS.

Hi Carey
Thanks for your reply and advice.
I was surprised to hear from you that partitioning of my 80GB main HDD
may adversely affect WinXP performance. Indeed, I was preparing to
partition this drive and was already armed with Partition Magic.
Looks like I`m going to have to rethink this.

Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system
whereas that using WinME has FATS32.

Can I take it that you are suggesting that my WinXP machine should IN
NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box?

I will knuckle down to the "homework" you gave me, but an initial
perusal indicated that this was more of a list of reasons for why WinXP
performance should be better than that of older OSs, rather than what
to do if it DOES happen to be slower.

Thanks
Paul

Please read the following:

OK, Carey, everything read and appropriately digested.

However, I should point out that I've been using WinXP for quite some
time and had gone through many of the standard procedures to keep
performance at a high level (much as is outlined in the ExtremeTech
article).

Note, too, that I don't at all consider my WinXP machine sluggish. My
problem is quite simply that the box I was temporarily using for the
last 3 months (on WinME, one quarter of the RAM, much slower CPU) is,
if anything, FASTER.

The articles you suggested I read have quite unanimously indicated that
this should NOT be the case.
Have you, or anybody else, had a similarly moving experience?

Paul


NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463/EN-US/

Windows XP's Built-In Optimization
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1149277,00.asp

Windows XP Performance
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx

Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

"PaulFXH" wrote:

| Hi
|
| Earlier this week I finished off a three-month sojourn abroad using a
| very non-State of the Art machine (256 MB RAM, 1.8GHz CPU)operating on
| WinME and DUN. I`m now back using my 1GB RAM, 2.53GHz CPU, WinXP box
| with DSL Internet.
|
| But, guess what, the WinME machine is FASTER!
|
| With both machines launching 6 apps at start-up, the WinXP box takes 75
| seconds to be ready for action while the computer with WinME has
| completed its start-up in 72 seconds.
| For shutting down, the difference is significantly greater; 26 seconds
| for the WinXP box vs. 12 seconds for WinME.
| While I was unable to make any significant measurements, it really did
| seem to me that apps (such as Excel, Word) launched quite a bit faster
| on the WinME box.
|
| I like to think that both machines were equally well maintained in
| terms of absence of unnecessary files, HD defragmentation and freedom
| from viruses and other malware.
| Therefore, does this revelation come as a surprise to anybody besides
| me?
| Alernatively, any suggestions as to how I can get the more expensive
| box to match the speeds of its more humble team-mate?
| [Note that I suspect the fact that the unpartitioned, 80GB HDD on the
| WinXP box(compared to the 20GB HDD on the smaller machine) may well be
| a contributory factor in the speed difference]
|
| TIA for any comments
| Paul
|


Hi BC
Thanks for your comments.

WinXP is slower than Win2k, Win2k is slower
than Win98, and WIn98 is slower than Win95.
(I don't have too much experience with WinME,
but it seems a little slower than Win98.)

Interestingly, the Microsoft link which Carey provided (find it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpperf.mspx)
has quite the opposite opinion to you regarding how WinXP performance
compares with that of earlier versions of Windows.

Here are some quotes from that article:

"Windows XP is the best-performing Windows operating system ever
created"

"For this memory size [128 MB], Windows XP has shown itself to be
consistently superior to previous versions of Windows"

"For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other
activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience [with
WinXP] equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition
(Windows Me) running on the same hardware"

In another qote from the same MS article, it is claimed that "The time
it takes to display a typical new desktop (after turning on the
computer and logging on) should happen in well under 30 seconds"
It is not quite clear to me if this refers to the time from Power On,
through Logon, to Desktop-Ready or only from Logon to Desktop-Ready.
However, even in the latter case, my WinXP machine would be hard
pressed to get through this task in less thasn 30 seconds.


You only need to look at the size of the OS
to gauge how much hardware horsepower you
lose dealing with bloated code.

The most responsive PC I've been on recently
was a cleaned-up 1 Ghz P3 running Win98. I
haven't seen any WinXP PC, whether on a P4
or an Athlon, to date come near it in terms of
being able to quickly turn on, take care of
business, and then turn off and be done. I
haven't tried something like this, though:
http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/Aurora_ALX/alx_features.aspx?SysCode=PC-AURORA-ALX-R6&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT
Which is what you probably need these days
for a snappy PC running XP


I don't believe my problems stem from CPU overheating (your link seems
to refer to a CPU cooler). Certainly the measured temperature never
goes above 40 degrees C and CPU usage is rarely excessive.

Nevertheless, your points are interesting, and despite the apparent
contradiction to MS's claims, I have heard them before from others.
Does anybody else have a view on the speed/performance of WinXP in
comparison to its predecessors?

TIA
Paul

-BC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speed comparison; WinXP and WinME
    ... Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system ... NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box? ... Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Speed comparison; WinXP and WinME
    ... partition this drive and was already armed with Partition Magic. ... Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system ... NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box? ... Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Speed comparison; WinXP and WinME
    ... I was surprised to hear from you that partitioning of my 80GB main HDD ... partition this drive and was already armed with Partition Magic. ... Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system ... NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Speed comparison; WinXP and WinME
    ... I was surprised to hear from you that partitioning of my 80GB main HDD ... Please note that both HDDs on my WinXP computer have the NTFS system ... NO WAY be slower than my smaller/theoretically slower WinME box? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: xp wont install as dual os on win98se system
    ... > at the end of my HDD. ... Microsoft WinXP Upgrade Advisor to see if you have any incompatible ... HOW TO Prepare to Upgrade Win98 or WinMe ... Upgrading to Windows XP ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)