Comment Re:I have a feeling.... (Score 1) 1010
Speed is not about features, its about whats actually running.
XP, with settings adjusted for performance (right click on my computer -> properties -> advanced -> performance settings -> adjust for best performance) is just as fast as windows 2000. In fact I would not be surprised if it was faster now with SP3. That should not be a surprise XP is mostly just a refinement of 2k, leaving the default "pretty" gui enabled will of course be slower. 2k probably doesn't have as good of driver support for some of today's faster technology's as well that didn't exist back then. That point is better illustrated by NT4 which was a horrid OS, I would be very surprised if any app today on a modern system running NT4 performed better than XP. NT4's threading was inferior, the whole OS was vastly less stable, it was ridden with security problems very vulnerable to virus's, spyware, etc and was an utter bitch to fix and required a restart for nearly anything. Win2k was the first decent thing that came out of MS, day and night compared to anything they made earlier. Most of the technical anti microsoft sentiment came out of these pre 2k products.
This is the case with vista as well. Most of the speed issues are rooted not in the underlying OS which with vista is likely better than XP, but with the huge, crappy, and mandatory gui they put on top of it.
This is true with GNU/Linux also, the kernel is fine tuned and fast. But if your going to then run gnome or kde, its going to be much slower than if you were running something like flux or wm. (and X itself isn't all that light either).