Windows XP Slow?
- Thread starter Alan L.
- Start date
- Views: 1261
XP is outa here. After 3 months of struggling with it we are wiping it clean and replacing with Windows 2000. These 7 computers would not cooperate with the Windows 2000 server in our small network - were VERY slow on the network, wouldn't stay connected, and were just overall extremely disapponting.
For operations on the network which includes installing software, file transfers, etc. the w2K client is 3 to 5 times faster. Plus it is rock solid stable and stays connected. And I can think of ONE THING I'm giving up by not having XP.
Maybe there will be another version of Windows Microsoft comes out with thats better than Windows 2000, but XP ain't it.
For operations on the network which includes installing software, file transfers, etc. the w2K client is 3 to 5 times faster. Plus it is rock solid stable and stays connected. And I can think of ONE THING I'm giving up by not having XP.
Maybe there will be another version of Windows Microsoft comes out with thats better than Windows 2000, but XP ain't it.
GlueGuy
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2001
- Messages
- 1,654
- Tractor
- Kubota B7500
I've used both, and they are pretty equal. XP has a lot of extra animations and stuff that are totally worthless. When those are turned off, there is basically no difference in speed (which is the way I use it). Stability-wise they are pretty equal as well. I work in a software development environment, and typically have 45-50 processes running at any given time. Both of these OS's (XP and 2000) operate about the same for this.
looch
Veteran Member
I'm doing what I can to get out of this MS fiasco. I have my trusty PII 400 at home with a recent (and very cheap) 256 Mb RAM upgrade. It is happily running Mandrake Linux 8.1 with Sun's StarOffice suite - all free. Also, I just purchased a slightly used Sun Ultra 5 workstation with a 360 Mhz Sparc processor which will be running the Solaris operating system. The cool thing about this machine is the Sun PCi card that is coming with it. It's a card with an AMD processor and its own memory bank that will allow me to run Windows applications simultaneously with UNIX - just so that I can be compatible with those that haven't made the change (I'd like to add "yet" to the end of that sentence but I'm doubtful).
At work I administer 5 NT servers (yes, I said NT) locally and 2 remotely. I also take care of an HP 9000 D270 running HP-UX 11.0. The difference is night and day. I recall rebooting the UNIX server over the Christmas holidays because of electrical work being done in the building. The NT servers are rebooted every 2 weeks as part of a maintenance plan.
Most of the PC's at work are still running NT 4.0. We have about 15 machines running 2000. The only real benefit of 2000 I see is for laptop users who don't have to log in to 2 different domains depending on whether they are connected to the LAN or not.
At work I administer 5 NT servers (yes, I said NT) locally and 2 remotely. I also take care of an HP 9000 D270 running HP-UX 11.0. The difference is night and day. I recall rebooting the UNIX server over the Christmas holidays because of electrical work being done in the building. The NT servers are rebooted every 2 weeks as part of a maintenance plan.
Most of the PC's at work are still running NT 4.0. We have about 15 machines running 2000. The only real benefit of 2000 I see is for laptop users who don't have to log in to 2 different domains depending on whether they are connected to the LAN or not.
