Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

InfoWorld says WinXP much slower than Win2K 790

iforgotmyfirstlogon submitted an InfoWorld story that makes the shocking claim that XP is slower then 2k for business use. Pretty graphs, comparisons of SMP, and they even tested without the eye candy. My favorite comment is this one "it appears that for light-duty service on the newest hardware, Windows XP with Office XP is an acceptable choice -- if an 11 percent performance hit, or 53 minutes added to an 8-hour day, is acceptable." And thats the best case scenario.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

InfoWorld says WinXP much slower than Win2K

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Just installed XP on a local system. It's definitely slower than 2K. Are the drivers going to be brought up to speed to make upgrading worth the hassle? The extra stability is definitely one reason to migrate.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      And according to the article, it seems that the UI itself is killing the system. Splitting out the UI work to a separate processor via SMP results in massive improvement in performance. Sadly, I have no dual-proc machines here...
    • I have XP Pro and 2K Pro on my computer. p3 450, 384 megs of PC 133 ram, XP on my 8 gig fujitisu ata 66 5400 (i think) rpm hd, and 2000 on my 20 gig ata 100 hd. Graphics card is a NVidia GeForce2MX. Mobo is an intel sx440bx.

      Bottom line: With all the fancy graphics and blending and other UI "enhancements", Windows XP is slower than 2000. When i take all the UI enhancements off XP and get it similar to 2000, XP is at least as fast, if not faster thatn 2000. Come on, Microsoft has had from feb 2000 to August 2001 to speed up the code!

      I like the addidional drivers, things just work. I dont like the rampant ads for .net and windows media player. Netscape 6.2 is blazing fast!
      Activation: It sucks. find a way to negate it.

      I needed a new driver for my creative soundblaster soundcard. out now. Most things will have good drivers. I just wish Windows XP could be slimmed down to get rid of the fluff.

      Overall, great os.
    • I was running Win2k on my HPVLI8 here at work (you can look up the specs at hp's web site). I recently added another HD and installed XP with the Plus pack, and Office XP. My 2k partition was running Off. XP as well. I have 256MB of mem installed, to speed things up a bit (they come with 128).

      Well, let me tell you how disapointed I was. The XP partition is slower than *anything* I have used before. The article is bang on the money, but doesn't mention a video card *anywhere*! I have the same configuration at home (with a 32 Meg D3D card, pIII 533, 655MB RAM) and it just purrs. Fast boot, fast shutdown, everything. My only complaint is with IE 6. It sucks. If I get any more of those "Do you wish to Debug?" windows I'm gonna lose it.

      If you're in charge of purchasing, and you're reading this...upgrade to 2k. Not XP.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:52PM (#2513529) Homepage
    You also have a huge amount of retraining because XP doesnt look or act anything like the NT4.0 or Win2K models.

    You now need to re-train your users on how to use the Operating system...

    Gotta love how they say how linux is too hard to switch users too but dont mention that Microsoft does the exact same thing every 2 years to their user interface.

    • Huh? You can make XP look (and "work") a lot like 2K if you want to. I'm not using XP every day but on the TechNet versions we got to test, that's the first thing I did to customize it. I wouldn't really call it a "huge amount of retraining".

      Now going from 9x to NT/2K/XP, that takes some re-training :-)
      • by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:08PM (#2513651) Homepage Journal
        The first thing I did with XP was turn off that ugly, stupid, round, bouncy, primary-color assault they call "Aqua", wait... whatever they call it. Like almost every visual UI change uSoft has done in the past 10 years, it only chews up more screen real estate with wasted pixels.

        Once that was changed, I had a reasonably lean, nice-looking UI with the benefits of the enhancements to the task bar (very nice!) and the start panel (kinda cool, but pointless IMO, also that can be turned off too). And on a laptop, ClearType is worth the upgrade price alone.

        Now, configuring is another matter. For instance, I still can't always get volumes to share on my home network the way I want them to on the first try, but then again Joe Worduser isn't going to be doing those kinds of things.

        OTOH, XP boots radically faster than Win2k on my IBM i-series laptop (Celeron 433, 192 MB RAM) and shuts down faster too.

        Now going from 9x to NT/2K/XP, that takes some re-training :-)

        Mostly in unlearning that you have to reboot your computer every hour.

        • Cleartype is not just for laptops, its awesome on crt monitors also. Cleartype make normal anti-aliasing look like crap.

          BTW, you can customize the cleartype look on the cleartype m$ page.
          http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/defa ult.htm [microsoft.com]
          • Ridiculous tricks like that wouldn't be required if programmers were encouraged to write applications which were independent of screen resolution.

            Last week I was up in Oregon helping a friend who just turned 80 to configure his Windows desktop, and he had it configured for 640x400 on a 17" monitor. I tried upping the resolution to 1024x800 but he couldn't read the text any longer. And from my own experience with Windows, I know that bumping up all font sizes in prefs just makes the Windows application dialogues illegible.

            So after showing him my online photo album, I set the resolution back to 640x400.

          • Actually ClearType depends on "subpixels" found in LCD displays.

            See this page [grc.com] for a decent explanation of how it works...
    • The differences in the new XP GUI and the old Me/2K GUI are very superficial and easy to learn. You can even set XP to use the old GUI with a single click.

      -- Brian
      • You can even set XP to use the old GUI with a single click.

        Kind of off-topic, but therein lies the rub on simplicity. An OS is an easy OS when you know it. Settings are easy to change when you know where to go poking around to change them.

        When you know which series of menus to go through to change the XP look n' feel (is it really only a single click? I haven't used XP, or any windows for nearly 2 years now), that's easy. So too is it easy for someone to modprobe the latest tulip driver NIC driver in linux. Of course, not knowing how to do these things makes it more difficult for the newcomer. (yeah yeah I know, here on /. we're all geeks and finding the right setting for plain-old win9x look is probably fairly obvious, but is that true for everybody?)

        Sorry, i know it's off-topic, your post just piqued me in a certain way.


      • You can even set XP to use the old GUI with a single click.


        Does Amazon know about this? Someone call Bezos!

    • Oh please! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mr.nobody ( 113509 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:03PM (#2513617)

      Gotta love how they say how linux is too hard to switch users too but dont mention that Microsoft does the exact same thing every 2 years to their user interface.

      What a load.

      XP is the first time since Windows 95 that Microsoft has made a major change in the look and feel of the GUI. As 95 begat 98 which begat ME (and NT 4 begat 2000) minor things have changed such as the placement of the Windows Explorer icon and a Control Panel group or two, but the same basic grey bar at the bottom of the screen with the start button has always remained.

      Every 2 years? Complete FUD.

      • I think you're the one with the wheelbarrow full of excrement.

        The NT 4.0 to Windows 2000 change was fairly dramatic. Nearly all of the control panel options disappeared, replaced with the ever-crappy, crashing pile of MMC. User Manager and Server Manager, gone. Complete retraining for all the sysadmins who have to use these tools daily and aren't sharp enough to pick it up on their own. Active Directory was introduced in Win2K, a large change for large organizations, where even incremental changes are extremely expensive.

        The problem is that you don't remember how painful the Win2K upgrade was because it happened two years ago. When your company does the upgrade, go hang out with the user support folks for a couple days. Feel their pain. Take notes, and keep them. Otherwise you'll forget how much the XP upgrade sucks in a couple years, when, uh, Windows YP is introduced, or Windows XQ, or whatever they're going to call the next one, the one with build number 6.X.

        rocketscientist.

    • by tmark ( 230091 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:20PM (#2513735)
      Gotta love how they say how linux is too hard to switch users too but dont mention that Microsoft does the exact same thing every 2 years to their user interface.

      I gotta love how Linux zealots downplay the difficulty in switching users to Linux but then jump on top of Microsoft when they change their UI - as if that made the abhorrent UIs currently available on Linux somehow even approximately as useable as (the still crappy) Windows UI.
    • by Masem ( 1171 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:23PM (#2513761)
      If only we told people how to *use* computers as opposed to teaching them to click on specific buttons and using specific menu items to do specific tasks...

      Typically, as long as an OS has a consistent interface *and* plenty of help, I doubt a well-trained computer user will get lost. However, sheep that are trained on how to use Windows or Word or Excel will flounder when they have to deviate a bit from the path.

      The XP interface isn't terrible. (I'm a sucker for AA fonts and alpha layer fun). All the buttons are in the usual places, but look just a bit different. But because we've "trained" people to look for a black X on a grey button in the top right corner of a blue-background window border in order to close a window, the new XP interface will give those sheep headaches. Microsoft's fault? No; I blame "..For Dummies" and the rest for the sheep mentality.

      • by geomcbay ( 263540 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @04:23PM (#2514146)
        For the record, I've been a computer programmer since the C64 days. But I really dislike this "people who don't know how to use *real* computers are sheep" attitude.

        Computers are no different than anything else: Cars, VCRs, whatever. Yet hardcore tech guys tend to think people are stupid for not learning how to "use" computers, often snickering at those who have never used a CLI. The simple fact of the matter is many people don't WANT to learn the in-depth operation of a computer just like most don't want to learn the exact details of how a car, tv, vcr or whatever works. They just want an extremely simple, fairly standard UI. They have lives to lead that include many things other than computer use and aren't willing to spend 1000s of hours learning the ins and outs of computer use just to type letters and surf the web -- and they shouldn't have to.
        • The simple fact of the matter is many people don't WANT to learn the in-depth operation of a computer just like most don't want to learn the exact details of how a car, tv, vcr or whatever works.

          Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

          For the record, I don't consider people like this very smart. If you have no desire to learn the details of how something works, you shouldn't be using it. I know a guy who had no desire to learn how his car works. When the oil light came on, he didn't care, because he didn't know what it meant. When the engine siezed a couple of days later and it cost him $3000 to replace, he finally decided it might be a good idea to learn a little about his vehicle.

          Maybe that's the difference between intelligent people and the common sheep. Intelligent people actually make an attempt to understand the products they use. The common sheep only learn the bare minimum to get by and nothing more.
          • by kaladorn ( 514293 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @07:05PM (#2514866) Homepage Journal
            For the record, I don't consider people like this very smart. If you have no desire to learn the details of how something works, you shouldn't be using it. I know a guy who had no desire to learn how his car works

            I will observe that there is a difference between having the interest in something and having the time to investigate it. For example, there was a time when a car was a fairly rudimentary thing to do most operations on. This was well before a dozen sensors controlled combustion, before vehicle engine control modules with arcane diagnostic codes that require a mechanic or a nasty piece of hardware to get at. This was before the level of complexity of those systems grew to the level it currently is.

            I also don't know... you may have tremendous amounts of spare time. Most people don't. I'd love to know why my Doctor prescribes a certain medication, but at some level, I have to take his word for it as anything more than a beer n' pretzels explanation will exceed my university chemistry knowledge level. Similarly, I ask my mechanic why he's doing something, but once he moves off into bafflegab, I'm left with two choices: trust that he's a professional or don't.

            I think I could probably walk around almost anyone's house or the environment they work in and identify at least some things about which they know little or nothing other than how to operate the item in question in a simple way. We humans now live in a complex world and not only is it infeasible for you to know something about everything you come in contact with, it is inefficient. Specialization is efficient. Knowing a little bit about a lot of things has some utility, but that isn't having real knowledge of those things. A veneer isn't in-depth knowledge. And if you spend your life trying to investigate all of the existing objects that you come in contact with, you won't be doing much else.

            Reduction of complexity to usable levels is how humans cope with an increasingly complex world. Reducing formerly complex tasks which had to be understood in detail to black box technologies that anyone can get at least average utility out of is how we move on to dealing with higher level concerns. I for one am glad that I don't have to worry about what IRQ or DMA channel or I/O space address my various PC cards occupy now. There was a time when I did. I wasted hours friggin' around with these things because it was a necessity. It no longer is, and I can worry about new (and more worthwhile) concerns.

            And, strictly as an aside, the snide down-the-nose look that most Geeks tend to give the untermensch that compose most of our world and who use M$ products doesn't exactly enhance the reputation of our caste nor encourage people to seek our help our to try our chosen solutions. In fact, it drives them deeper into the hands of those who offer them no pain and who pander to how the world is, not how we all wish it were.
        • by vsync64 ( 155958 ) <vsync@quadium.net> on Friday November 02, 2001 @07:56PM (#2515014) Homepage
          I've said this before and I'll say it again. I don't in any way expect people to know every detail of how every component in their system works. I do, however, expect them to understand the basics before wreaking havoc upon the lives of others in the community they invade. I also expect them not to run away in disgust when knowledge is presented to them on a silver platter.

          I don't know how everything in a car works, but I understand the basics of axles and gears. I don't know every line of telephone switch code by heart, but I understand the basics of country codes, area codes, and prefixes. And so on. For a computer, the equivalent is understanding the basic differences between short-term and long-term storage, how file systems are organized ("This is a folder/directory. You can put files or other folders in it."), and the like. For networks, the basics are host addressing schemes (TLDs, user@host, etc), simple protocol knowledge (no, your mail is not sent over the Web, even though there may be a Web front end, and there is more to the Internet than the WWW), and what "client", "server", "upload", and "download" mean. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who refuses to learn these basics, any more than I would expect sympathy from a police officer if I attempted to drive without first learning what the pretty colors on traffic lights meant.

          The second and more important issue I mentioned is that people tend to shun the acquisition of knowledge, especially when computers are involved. No, I don't know everything about how a VCR works. But I had a VHS tape I needed to watch the other day get crumpled, and what did I do? I broke out the screwdriver. And now I know exactly how the VCR releases the locks on the tape spools, how the tape feeds through the cartridge, and all the other knowledge that will let me more quickly diagnose a problem with my VCR if it ever occurs again, and I watched my video on time.

          I don't expect every computer user to open the case every time something goes wrong, but I expect it to make at least a token effort at proper use and maintainence of the system it uses on a daily basis. If I say "your file system keeps getting corrupted because you keep turning off your computer when it is writing to disk", I expect you to stop cutting power in that fashion. If I say "the reason it keeps having to write to disk so much is that you need more than 32MB of RAM to run 5 applications at the same time", I expect you to get more RAM or stop whining to me, and certainly not to say "but it has a gigabyte" when I have explained the difference between short-term and long-term memory 5 times in the past 3 minutes.

          If someone wants to be lazy and ignorant, that's his problem. But he shouldn't expect his life to be a seamless ocean of perfect technological ecstacy, and he shouldn't expect me to gladly mop up after him for free. I reserve the right to charge high prices for the accumulated technical knowledge of a lifetime, when he could have learned what he needs to know in 5 minutes of his own time.

  • Tell me again... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Shotgun ( 30919 )
    how this is ANY different from every previous release of Windows?

    Hell, even Linux distributions are starting to follow this trend.

  • by gergi ( 220700 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:53PM (#2513540)
    Don't you know? Of course it's going to run slower: It's got all those extra features that win2k didn't have like um... hmmm...
    • Doesn't it have a 3D animated dog to help with the search applet? Or was this just a rumor?
  • by Shimmer ( 3036 ) <brianberns@gmail.com> on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:54PM (#2513547) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone doubt that, say, Word 95 installed on Windows 95 would run circles around Word XP on Windows XP (on the same hardware)? I hope not. You can call it bloat, but there's probably a reason why people (not just "lusers", but also "power users" who "know better") keep upgrading anyways.

    This is the foundation of the Wintel monopoly: Harness ever-expanding software to Moore's law and reap the benefits. We don't have to like it, but at this point its not a surprise either. Maybe instead we should try to understand why it's been so successful.

    -- Brian
    • by joshjs ( 533522 ) <joshjs@cs.uw m . edu> on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:08PM (#2513646) Homepage
      This is why I still have my typewriter: you don't even have to tell it to print, it's so damn fast.
    • "A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that."
      --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
    • I guess you can say win95 is faster but when you count all the extra work you have to do to reboot it, and reinstall it, and all the features you are missing (yes I happen to like WMP and the built in cd burning and the built in scanning features of XP) you probably end up way behind when you use win95.

      Heck including the browser with the OS was such an incredible leap in usefulness of the OS that it threatened to shake the very foundations of the computer software world.

      That said there are things that DON'T need to be changed and I'm not sure that office XP works any better for me than office 2000 or office 97. I'm not sure it works anyworse either though.

      BTW if software companies didn't abuse the hell out of moore's law and the gullibility of people to upgrade when they say to, many many programmers would be without jobs in the computer industry and that just sux.

      Do what you want to one way or another, but I'm going to stick with winXP at this point with its ability to keep my computer going for 60 days (and counting) without reboots and still let me use all my windows tool and windows games and let me burn a cd as easily as copying files from one hd to another.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:54PM (#2513553)
    "InforWorld story that makes the shocking claim that XP is slower then 2k for business use"

    even more shocking is that InfoWorld has changed their name to InforWorld, and that the previously respectable publication has taken to printing such elementary mistakes as "slower then" rather than "slower than"

    troll me, flamebait me, i don't care. you should check your spelling and learn the difference between the common homonyms! and here i thought this site was for geeks and nerds...
  • by johnburton ( 21870 ) <johnb@jbmail.com> on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:55PM (#2513555) Homepage
    Ok, so I'm not exactly a microsoft fan but I got XP professional recently because as a professional software developer I need to at least be aware of how it works, and what it does...

    But I'm suprised because I subjectivly find it works noticably faster than 2000 seemed to do. Programs seem to load quicker and ot just seems more responsive. Could be because I reformatted and defragmented my disk I suppose.

    Have to agree with the comments about moveing things around. Not a problem for me, but it did take me ages to find a few things first time.
    • as a professional software developer I need to at least be aware of how it works, and what it does

      As a professional Windows software developer. Please, make the distinction. The quality of being a software developer does not somehow imply that, for some reason, one should know how Windows works. I'm a professional software developer myself and the last Windows I've seen was Windows 95 about 5 years ago in a totally non-programming related context. I don't even know what the rest of them look like.

  • by Pov ( 248300 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:56PM (#2513560)
    It's hard to argue with statistics from an authoritative source, but I'm running XP right now and I have XPerienced no qualitative decrease in performance over my old Win2K install. I would say I fit into the power-user category since I usually multi-task through a couple of applications and run with about 8 windows of something or other open at a time. I can't benchmark with pretty graphs, but I don't think I'm losing 53 minutes a day or even five.
    • I was using XP (beta 2 mind you) on a Pentium 166 with 64 MB of RAM, well below the recommended specs, and was getting acceptable performance. I could use the maching as a web browsing, email, word processing machine without a problem. Of course I wouldn't be playing games on it or anything. Oh, and 6 months up-time BTW, no crashes.
  • by gburgyan ( 28359 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:58PM (#2513571) Homepage
    How often in the last couple years did you notice "Gee, this word processor can't keep up with my mad typing skillz." So what if an automated benchmark can't make a bazillion documents as fast.

    In the end there are lies, damn lies and benchmarks.

    As someone who's used XP, the time lost (microseconds per day) are more than made up for with the added reliability of the system and the much easier recovery process. (Personal experience -- I was evaluating the system for work and purposely installed some crappy drivers that I knew would blow up; the system recovered just fine)

    I read this in the print version of InfoWorld a few days ago and got pissed off then too. If you're going to beat up on M$, do it better for crying out loud. This is just like the dumb VM debates for Linux.

  • by pinny20 ( 415459 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:58PM (#2513574)
    I think the review is a bit unfair. I'm running Office XP on Windows XP here and find it just as fast as Office 2000. They've overlooked the fact that Windows XP starts way faster than Windows 2000. This is only on a Duron 700 with 128Mb of ram.
  • by Refried Beans ( 70083 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:59PM (#2513587) Homepage
    Now with compiler optimizations!
  • by Uttles ( 324447 ) <uttles@@@gmail...com> on Friday November 02, 2001 @02:59PM (#2513589) Homepage Journal
    It's easy to point to certain features in a new OS as examples of progress, but end-users often find that a new OS performs like molasses compared to the version they were using.

    So why does that happen? Well I'll tell you my educated guess: every year, electrical and computer engineers make amazing advances with comptuer hardware, making RAM more plentiful and less expensive, making hard drives larger and faster, implementing devices like L2 cache to decrease read/write times, and most popularly making Processors faster than ever (at least by clock speed.) You would think that these advances would make all software simply fly, be faster and more responsive than ever, and you'd have unlimited storage space for your files. However, that's not the way it is, and somehow, you still run out of disk space, don't have enough RAM, and have programs running slow (on a 2 GHZ Machine!!!) So what is it? Programmers. "Computer Scientists," rather than improving on software that ran well on old architectures, go by the thought process "well now that we have all this power, why don't we use it all" and so they end up writing applications and OS's that hog all the newly available extra resources. I'm not saying all Comp Sci's do this, I mean look at Linux, it's pretty damn efficient. When it comes to commercial apps though like Windoze, rather than make something extraordinarily efficient that runs on the newest machines, they say "well the hardware takes care of efficiency, let's just make something with a lot of bells and whistles." What you end up with is grossly large applications that sloth along on extremely powerful machines that have the capability to be so much more. This is yet another reason to use Linux.
    • by slow_flight ( 518010 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:19PM (#2513732)
      I think what happens is that programmer's focus changes. When I first started as a professional programmer 12 years ago, we concentrated on code size. The distribution media of choice back then was the floppy disk, and we really, really wanted to keep our app small enough to distribute on a floppy. That, and user's hard drives were small. Priority one was code size (and remember that this priority ultimately resulted in the Y2K debacle).

      Eventually disk and memory became cheap, so responsiveness became the focus. "Don't worry about spending a few more bytes, just make it faster." Then processor power became cheap too.

      Now that memory and performance are more than adequate on the platform, the priority has become features. "Don't worry about how big it will be, memory is cheap. Forget about how slow it is, everyone that matters has at least a Pentium III to run it. Just get some new features in there asap."

      My point is that code is slow and bloated because no one cares about that anymore, at least with regard to the 'unwashed masses'.

      It's a lot like the way you grow into your income. I bought a house nine years ago when I was making one-third of what I make now, yet I still seem to go paycheck-to-paycheck even though I'm still in the same house.
    • by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:30PM (#2513799)
      When it comes to commercial apps though like Windoze, rather than make something extraordinarily efficient that runs on the newest machines, they say "well the hardware takes care of efficiency, let's just make something with a lot of bells and whistles." What you end up with is grossly large applications that sloth along on extremely powerful machines that have the capability to be so much more. This is yet another reason to use Linux.

      And of course, here on Linux, we never make the same mistake. We're all just chugging along with fvwm as our window manager and pico as our editor and all of our apps have a footprint of less than 4 megs in total...

      And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

      Bloat and feature creep happen on all platforms. It's just easier to escape under Linux, because you aren't locked into a single toolset. Calling it a Windows-only problem is a gross misnomer, however.

      The real problem with sluggishness under Windows is actually device probing (during boot) and hard drive seek time (when launching anything, due to the many configuration files it checks). Swapping isn't a concern if you use your system wisely, and applications are usually quite responsive (YMMV). Branding Windows application programmers as lazy when your system bogs down is grossly oversimplifying.
    • Gates Law: Every eighteen months, the speed of software halves.
    • "well now that we have all this power, why don't we use it all" and so they end up writing applications and OS's that hog all the newly available extra resources

      Your statement is 100% correct but I strongly disagree with its implication... By wasting CPU cycles and disk space, programmers are achieving a higher level of complexity much more quickly and easily than before. e.g. by developing software in garbage-collected or dynamic languages like Java or Python, which dramatically reduce the difficulty of software development, at a moderate cost in efficiency.

      Also consider e.g. a program that stores its data in flat or XML text files, versus packed binary files. The binary files are obviously going to waste less space, but you'll sure have a hard time editing them by hand.

    • Actually the problem isn't "well now that we have all this power, why don't we use it all" its the fact that people can become 'programmers' pretty easy now a days.
      I have never meant a computer sientist, or software engineer that thought that way, but I have met a lot of programmers whpo have no clue about engineering and just write crappy bloated code.
      If you had to get a engineering degree in to program, we would have a lot better code out there.
      "I can draw a form, I as a progrmeer" mentality just pisses me off.
    • You seem to be making a correlation between cost effective technology and advances in technology.

      The costs of technology products are determined by market demand and competition.

      Look at the advancement path that almost every computer peripheral has taken over the years.

      Remember when a 28.8k modem was more then 2x the price of a 14.4? Do you really think that 28.8k modem cost that much more to make? Same with CD drives, first the 2x then a 4x and now a 72x. Do you think it took some technology breakthrough to get a 20x over a 10x? No. It is all marketing. Milk the consumer for every dime you can get. Once the market gets saturated the price comes down to a stable level and the "older" items drop off the bottom to maintain the bare minimum price. Watch the CPU market. Same process.
      There is proof in this concept with a few CDR's that are the same exact model internally but have different firmware. So you pay less for the 8x version then the SAME EXACT 12x writer.
      Look at the laser printer options. The market bottom appears to be about $1000 for a good printer. Why does HP not sell the HP4 for like $300? Because they have the 4000 and 4050 for the same price the LJ4 was 6 years ago. Does it really cost $1200 to produce a printer? Where is the technology advancement in that thing? Would most people be happy with a LJ4? YES
  • by tester13 ( 186772 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:02PM (#2513602) Homepage
    I have been using Windows XP with Office XP to do work, for the last few days. The upside is it is good for beginners while keeping the features of 2k. If one has never used an NT version of windows they are very likely to be impressed (and IMO rightly so).

    On the flipside, it does seem to be a little slower than 2k, and somewhat buggy working with third party software (particularly games). Assumedly this will be working out in coming bug fixes witch MS solicits from you every time an application crashes.

    In other words I would enthusiastically recommend it to a home windows user. In an office that already uses a version of NT on the other hand, the switch may not be necessarily.

    Limited sample size of two workstations, YMMV.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:03PM (#2513619)
    Slashdot is so predictable. The second I, and many other people who enjoy knowledge over ignorance, read the Infoworld benchmarks... I knew that Slashdot would post these, and ONLY these, and ignore the many other benchmarks that show WinXP performs as good if not better than 2k.

    For instance, here is what Paul from WinInformant has to say:

    "InfoWorld stood alone this week when it declared that Windows XP significantly underperformed Windows 2000 and Windows 9x in its tests. Not only do the controversial InfoWorld results fly in the face of Microsoft's published results and actual real-world use, they refute every independent XP performance test performed to date. One gets the idea that ... nah ... InfoWorld was trying to make XP lose. Don't believe me? Consider this: The following organizations have tested XP, independently of Microsoft: CNET/ZDNET, eTesting Labs, eWeek, PC Magazine, and PC World. All these independent labs came to the same conclusion: XP meets or exceeds the performance of Win2K and Win9x. The InfoWorld results are also at odds with real-world XP use, which already includes hundreds of thousands of beta testers, tens of thousands of IT professionals and developers, and hundreds of thousands of enterprise customers. "Microsoft has not received any indications that users are experiencing reduced performance compared with Windows 2000," a company spokesperson said. "We have had extensive feedback that Windows XP is better performing than Windows 9x." Go figure. And yet, you just know that every anti-Microsoft site on the planet is going to run with the InfoWorld story and not any of the positive stories. Ain't life grand?"

    Looks like he hit that nail right on the head, huh?
    • ignore the many other benchmarks that show WinXP performs as good if not better than 2k.

      I have yet to see any other comprehensive benchmark. The only people saying it's faster are Microsoft, and they've yet to release hard numbers.
    • When was the last time you saw any of those magazines publish something that didn't trumpet the latest and greatest from Microsoft? Granted, that's probably a very harsh statement.

      Also, Windows XP is supposed to perform better than Windows 9x. That's what NT has been for all along.

    • The InfoWorld results are also at odds with real-world XP use, which already includes hundreds of thousands of beta testers, tens of thousands of IT professionals and developers, and hundreds of thousands of enterprise customers.

      We have 100 machine running it here, and it sucks.
      I'm going to a meeting this afternoon to determin if we will pull the plug based on are results.
      If ew are only experinecing 11% degrade of preformance, I'll be surprised.

      People say upgrade our hardware and the performance will Improve! I say either save money and get the same results from nnot changing or keep the same OS upgrade the harware and get even better results.

      it runs better then 9x but we expect that.
    • by borzwazie ( 101172 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:57PM (#2514001) Homepage
      I have also tried XP. It has a lot of really nice features, and some not-so-nice things.


      First of all, if you turn off all the GUI bloat (My Computer -> Properties -> Performance Settings) it is nicely quick indeed even on low-end machines PROVIDED that you have lots of RAM. A Celeron 400 with 192 megs of RAM boots into XP much faster than 2000 does, and performs at or above the level of 2000 with a similar amount of RAM.


      It is true, with any newly-release software, that there are probably bugs and compatibility issues. But XP really shines in some areas, notable Firewire. A friend who had a 1394 card that he couldn't get to work in win98 lent me the card, so I tried it and a DV cam in XP. Not only did XP not need any drivers, it mounted the camera up as a drive instantly, and has a built-in image capture utility that works extremely well (though it could use some extra settings for images). Color me impressed as hell.


      XP by default, installs about 1.2 gigs of stuff! It also ships with a number of security concerns like Remote Registry, Remote Desktop, and some other services turned on by default... XP also has a lot of services that are not necessarily security concerns, but, do we really need easy wireless configuration turned on by default if you don't have any wireless devices? Same for the camera image services. Those turn on if disabled as soon as you install a camera anyway. So, there's LOTS of room for memory bloat improvment. I got a significant speedup by disabling a lot of unneeded services (probably about 12-15 by default).


      We in the linux community, instead of bitching, need to look at XP as the new target. Look how good OSX and XP are. If we want to remain a competitor, we need to make our desktops this good. No excuses.

    • ZDNet's review [zdnet.com]:

      • If you've been using Windows 2000, the performance you'll get with XP is virtually identical; if you've been using Windows Me, 98 or 98 SE, or 95, your system is going to feel like it has a whole new lease on life.
      EWeek's review [zdnet.com]

      • We ... found that XP and 2000 outperformed Windows 98 and ran neck and neck with each other.
      If you're comparing it to 2000, it meets expectations. If you're comparing it to 9x, it exceeds expectations.

      So performance-wise, it's really nothing new. Get it because you like the application support, or the fast boot times, or the config restore, or... But don't buy it for the performance.

    • by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @04:13PM (#2514107) Homepage
      "independently of Microsoft: CNET/ZDNET, eTesting Labs, eWeek, PC Magazine, and PC World"

      Independently of the big three automakers, ExxonMobile says, "We objectively consider the newest crop of SUVs to be the most wonderful ever, and urge their immediate purchase by all."

  • by Telek ( 410366 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:07PM (#2513642) Homepage
    Running Word 6.0 on Windows 3.11 a Pentium 4 significantly outperforms Office Xp on the same machine!!!

    Who'da thunkit?
  • Come on, MS does not build for performance, it is built around the bells and whistles and ease of use.
    And that is what sells the product (IMO).
  • Numerical FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spellcheckur ( 253528 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:10PM (#2513669)
    I have to question the validity of any simulation that thinks that 100% of the average user's 8 hour work day is spent doing things that a computer isn't orders of magnitude too fast for.

    I write code for a living, and while I've got a well tuned linux box to do all my compiling, any (speed) advantages it has over an $800 low-end Windows box when I'm writing emails or posting to /. is lost when I pause at the end of a sentence to consider my next thought.

    (voiceover indicating speed being wasted goes here)

    Your "average" user, in all likelihood, isn't running 100% processor intensive tasks. They're composing emails, or preparing presentations, or IMing their coworkers about the wording of some useless document. An 11% slowdown is going to cost them seconds on a day, not minutes. Certainly not 53 minutes.

    Now don't get me wrong, I hate Windows with a passion, but isn't this the same kind of FUD we've been laughing at for years, just going in the other direction?

    (Besides, who works an 8 hour day?)

  • Windows XP takes more memory than Windows 2000. If the benchmarks were done on a 128MB machine, I wouldn't be surprised by them. On a 256MB machine, I'd be more surprised. On a 512MB machine, I'd be extremely surprised.
  • i upgraded to xp from 98se, and even though i've noticed a slight (but quite acceptable) performance hit, the dramatically increased stability makes up for it completely. i would much rather have my system run a little slower and much more reliably than have it chugging a little faster but having any given application bring it down every couple days.
  • But what about the user experience? Is speed everything?

    Here's an article... [betanews.com] that gets at the usability of XP (in relation to Win98 not Win2K).

    What do you think? How important is performance versus ease of use and the other user experience factors?
  • that if the present trend continues they'll have to change their name to MicrosoftWorld.

  • SMP Advantage??? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gregoyle ( 122532 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:16PM (#2513710)
    Our tests on a dual-CPU system indicate that both Windows XP and Windows 2000 run better on an SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) configuration with relatively slow CPUs than on a single-CPU system with a screamingly fast processor.

    Oh, the silly things Intel marketing makes journalists say. Since when is the Pentium 4 faster than a Pentium III of lower clock speed in day-to-day apps? As far as I know the only apps where the P4 is significantly faster are either ones with SSE2 or Quake 3.

    Comparing a 1.5GHz P4 to 2 1 GHz PIII's is absolutely insane without at least first comparing it to 1 PIII. Especially when you are talking business apps. The P4 will continue to be a dog until Intel pushes it past the 3GHz mark. And if AMD can hold their own it might even be a dog then.

    Calling the 1GHz PIII "relatively slow" in the same breath as calling a 1.5GHz P4 "blazingly fast" makes me giggle. Back to NetHack.

  • Anybody else find it funny that Taco didn't decide to make the title "InfoWorld says Win2k is much faster than WinXP" ??
  • XP is a great improvement over Win2k for the laptop users. Much faster boot/shutdown and hibernate/dehibernate cycles. I installed XP RC2 on my Dell Inspiron 5000e (1600x1200 screen) without needing to install a single additional driver.

    Performance wise: Subjective performance is better, esp with startup/login/dehibernate... I can't detect any speed difference in application performance. I develop in VB/Java/SQL Server often simultaneously... Definately a more severe test than average.

    No hangs, crashes, etc to date (and on a beta XP install.)

    Altogether almost as significant of an improvement over Win2k as Win2k was over WinNT4.

    I'm not pro-MS either... I've been a loyal Linux user since .97a My desktop machines at work are running Linux and Solaris.
  • by tcc ( 140386 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:18PM (#2513727) Homepage Journal
    It's not really supprising, I've installed XP on my dual celeron 400 system and a week later, I've trashed it and reinstalled win2k.

    There are 2 issues here. The HOME version and the (supposely) PRO version.

    the PRO has WAY too much "take me by the hand I am a complete newbie" stuff in it, too much monitoring, too much popups for crap that I should do myself anyways. While I can understand this in the "home version", it's PERFECT for home, it's nice looking easy and made for newbies... but the professionnal version really is NOT aimed at professionnals that's for sure...

    heck I can see myself if I need updates
    I can see myself if my drives are full
    I don't need any importer utilities to copy files from my previous version, even less converting my Mp3 to WMA
    I don't need a stinkin popup window everytime I throw in a CD-R or RW.
    Etc...

    Oh and for those who will say "you can turn them off too you know?" Well, I don't need these options turned on by default and having to turn them all off just to be less annoyed right off the start, it should be the opposite, no? (again for the pro version, not home).

    I don't want this to be a flame, even if it sounds like bitching, but if you look at the points mentionned, it's weird that a "pro" version has all of these little annoying things, people that will buy pro are used to NT/2K environment (usually) so why would he downgrade to the "clippy-age" when he upgrades?

  • So while I understand that it's lots of fun to find a site which claims that WinXP is 10% slower and doesn't do the laundry or clean the kitchen and trumpet it on Slashdot, don't let just the one site be your guide.

    For example [gamers.com] [firingsquad.com] here is a site (and a cite) that claims XP actually offers slight improvements over 2k.

    Even some [zdnet.co.uk] [zdnet.co.uk] lacking benchmarks still claim that XP is faster than 2k.

    Come on now, let's do some research before we spread misinformed FUD of our own!
    • Speaking of FUD:
      I read the firing squad article, and XP looses to 2k in all but 4 test(all running pentium btw).
      but at the conclusion they say:
      "Most of the scores were either on par with Win2K or better than it"

      So either they are looking for ms revenue, or the guy who reads there conclusion doesn;t read the article and look at the graphs.
  • by ptomblin ( 1378 ) <ptomblin@xcski.com> on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:24PM (#2513763) Homepage Journal
    Grove giveth, and Gates taketh away.
  • After a lot of Microsoft Hype and and Windows Zelots saying this is is version that will kill the need for Linux and Unix. With this new version claiming better performance, and will not crash, and better multitasking. Then shortly after its release flaws in the software are found and it just dosent to seem to run that much better then before. And it seemed that the old version seems to be running a little faster. Hmm. I never expected XP to end up like 95
  • This could be terrible for Microsoft. If XP is consistently slower than W2K in all tests, the upgrade sales could plummet. Then people would realize how the monoloply works when they get an os they don't want next time they buy a pc.

    Oh. And I'm a karmawhore today.
  • 53 minutes (Score:2, Funny)

    by JMZero ( 449047 )
    I have to work for an extra 53 minutes each day since we switched to Windows XP. My job is to hit the recalc button on my spreadsheet 42,000 times a day.

    I've decided to switch all our desktops to multi processor machines too. Small performance increases (and of course, computer performance is THE bottleneck for worker productivity) are well worth raising our hardware expenditure by 50%.

    Of course XP is a little slower, but that's neither critical information, nor all that surprising. At least he could have done benchmarks on server software (where performance is a little more of a limiter).
  • by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:27PM (#2513784) Homepage Journal
    I installed XP on my work laptop, 650mhz p2. No slow down if you turn off the pretty gfx, its the same speed. Friends with older PC's have told me its slower and have stayed with win2k, ymmv.

    But windows networking FLYS compared to my win2k. I can open network domains with 10000+ pc's and it only takes seconds now. Printers and shares now remember the passwords. I can log transparently into a domain for printer shares only. Network login is actually faster now. FTP transfers are the same speed thou. I dont like to log into the domain, but It authenticates me for printers and exchange.

    Only crash I'ved had was the 3dfx driver I have in my docking station, disabled the onboard ati card and no problems. The reason I run a 3dfx pci voodoo3, its pci half-height, and does 1600x1200.

    On my Home PC, dual 800, I left the gfx on, and turned off shadow menus, that was the main slow down. Only crashs are the geforce nvidia driver (28.88 with newest gf2mx bios, god love those russian unreleased driver/bios sites)
  • by vlad_petric ( 94134 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:31PM (#2513808) Homepage
    The author of the article forgot to mention the amount of RAM on the test machines. When publishing the results of a benchmark one is supposed to include all configuration details so that others can replicate it. What's the use of a benchmark if it's not replicable ? The amount of RAM is certainly an important factor for overbloated applications like OfficeXP.

    I'd suggest Infoworld to take a look at sites like www.firingsquad.com [firingsquad.com] to learn how to publish benchmarks.

    The Raven.
  • Configuration? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yamla ( 136560 ) <chris@@@hypocrite...org> on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:34PM (#2513834)
    This document is meaningless without knowing more about their test setup. They list the CPUs of each computer but do not mention how much RAM each has. Consider the possibility that each machine has 64 megs of RAM. Unlikely, yes, but it would explain these results. Or perhaps the hard drives are set up with DMA enabled in Win2k and not enabled in WinXP.

    Besides, as has been mentioned already, a system that performs 11% slower than another only means 53 minutes out of an 8 hour day if your CPU is 100% busy all the time.

  • One thing I'll say about XP (and this is grandly off-topic, but I got Karma to spare ;o)): ClearType kicks ass on LCD's.

    Strange that it is not enabled by default (I guess it may not look that good on a CRT), so if you have an XP box and haven't enabled it yet, try it. It's under Display Properties, Appearance, Effects...

    Unfortunately no Open Source alternative for this yet... And unfortunately no time to create one either... :(

    I hummbly appologize for such a pro-M$ comment here. At least the box dual-boots Redhat.
  • Which versions of Windows did they use? There are four versions of Windows 2000 and two versions of Windows XP. I assume they used Windows 2000 Professional, but did they? They don't say. And did they use XP Professional or XP Home Edition?

    Would it make a difference? It should, otherwise why pay $100 more for XP Professional?

  • by Diamon ( 13013 )
    In the usual rush to post anything anti-MS, it appears to have been missed that the article states that WinXP & OfficeXP is slower than Win2K & Office2k.

    The tests seem non-scientific at best. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bash MS, this isn't one.

    And on the topic of the gui changes there are some really good general usability improvements (top right pixel of screen is now part of the closed button on a maximimzed window, bottom left pixel now is part of the start button target), task based interface etc.

    But if you want to compare speed do it apples to apples Office2k on Win2k and WinXP.
  • Why don't they say how much RAM was on the systems? That might explain the difference since XP is a real RAM hog. I compared a P4 1.5GHz XP system with 128 MB to one with 256 and the difference was obvious. No benchmarks, unfortunately since it was in the store, but geez - let's get *all* the facts before we draw conclusions.
  • by friday2k ( 205692 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @03:47PM (#2513938)
    The title says it, I am very positively surprised by XP. Same machine, same applications, same everything and for example I get a performance boost in Java applications (like hushmail) that I can significantly feel. Working with it seems faster, too. The Taskbar is better (MUCH better), setting up the system was easy (except for the Intel 2100 Modem, which doesnt have XP drivers, so the 2K drivers have to work). The system seems to make better use of 384MB RAM, if I watch system monitors it seems to have a better swapping method. But this is all not very scientific. I believe if Infoworld says so that it _is_ slower. It certainly does not feel that way on a user level. It might be different if Id run a server here.
    Thanks for reading these random thoughts ...
  • by MongooseCN ( 139203 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @04:08PM (#2514080) Homepage
    Linux is going in the complete opposite direction of Windows and getting faster with each version. If Linux is going to compete with Windows it better start getting slow, and getting slow fast!
  • by jht ( 5006 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @04:39PM (#2514220) Homepage Journal
    When was the last time _any_ major release of a consumer OS got faster when it was revved up a version?

    (I'm not counting MacOS X 10.0.x - 10.1, as the 10.0.x series was basically an early adopter beta version disguised as release)

    But any version of Windows ever as far as I can remember, any version of Classic MacOS, even Linux for the most part, though individual packages and subsystems may be sped up as they mature, the overall OS usually gets more and more bloated with time. If you take Windows 2000, optimize it, but then pile on a bunch more cruft on top, of course the overall product will slow down.

    Software expands to fill all the available hardware plus approximately 10%. Operating systems are partular offenders (and bloated office suites).
  • Who Knows? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EvilJohn ( 17821 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @04:43PM (#2514242) Homepage

    C|Net disagrees. [cnet.com]

    Intrestingly enough WinInfo [wininformant.com] predicted this sort of response. Look under the title "InfoWorld Disses Windows XP: Who Do You Trust?" to see how the other half lives.

    I wish these "OS reviews" were as in-depth as the gaming site's card and driver reviews. Both the C|Net and Infoworld reviews leave me with more questions they answer.

  • by macpeep ( 36699 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @04:59PM (#2514316)
    I'm not going to argue over the 11%. It may or may not be true but let's assume it IS true for a minute.

    A user spends most of his/her time writing emails and documents, surfing the net etc. where the computer more or less idles all of the time. Even if a certain operation is 11% slower, you can't extrapolate it over the course of the day and come up with a figure of 53 minutes. I'm sorry but that's just idiotic. Most users will lose a few seconds per day over this! If there's even a small increase in productivity due to other things like, let's say clearer and simplified dialogs, faster access to your documents due to thumbnails in the file manager or something similar, it MORE than makes up for the lost couple of seconds.

    Articles like this are really pathetic. You know, you don't HAVE to post something negative about Microsoft EVERY day.
  • by Null_Packet ( 15946 ) <nullpacket@dosche r . n et> on Friday November 02, 2001 @05:58PM (#2514584)

    I honestly have to wonder how many more of these stories Rob is going to continue submitting on this same line of articles. We have seen over the last year or so a steady increase in these kinds of articles by standard Slashdot Editors, and I have read a strong increase in support [slashdot.org] for Microsoft on Slashdot [slashdot.org], strangely enough. I don't mean to imply that all or even most of Slashdot's readership is MS-biased, but I think Malda is letting his own bias show. Most Engineers who get frustrated with a particluar release of any software package vent by the water cooler, but I think Malda is venting via the articles he chooses, which shows a poor display of bias.

    XP Launch [slashdot.org]

    MS FrontPage [slashdot.org]

    MS Loses Delay Appeal [slashdot.org]

    Whether or not this post is modded up, I hope CmdrTaco takes notice that while he has founded and continues to heavily influence one of the best Tech-News Sites ever made, he needs to keep some kind of restraint. I'm not defending MS, but rather trying to promote the idea that you don't sit around all day and bash something you don't even use. I could understand if Malda was teased all day for running Linux in a Windows Shop, but I would guess that it's typically the other way around. When was the last time you even saw XP in person, Taco? or 2000? I don't post criticisms about the drivability of Ferarris and Saabs, or even Peugots- why? Because I have contact with them, and I don't consider myself to be anywhere near an authority on them. Maybe this kind of consideration should be taken to newer windows products with some of the Slashdot editors.

  • by Kraft ( 253059 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @06:23PM (#2514683) Homepage
    Thought I'd post this link, since nobody else has:

    The windows.com version is here: Lab Report: Windows XP Outperforms Earlier Versions [microsoft.com].

    And the msn version [zdnet.com]. See the links "benchmark" and "performance". Notice the msn.zdnet.com link. Can somebody clear what the relationship between ZD and MS for me?

You can tune a piano, but you can't tuna fish. You can tune a filesystem, but you can't tuna fish. -- from the tunefs(8) man page

Working...