Which will run smoother on a computer with a slower CPU (say 500MHz)
and 512MB of ram: A stripped down install of Windows XP or a stripped
down version of Windows 2000? |
Request for Question Clarification by
sublime1-ga
on
19 Oct 2005 20:45 PDT
vortec4800...
Actually I find W2K much more user-friendly than XP.
Additionally, it is essentially the same operating system,
at heart, as Windows XP. However it takes less space to
install, and uses fewer system resources.
There's really no need to strip it down on the basis of
your processor speed. Stripping it down would help you
save some hard drive space, but if you have a drive that
is larger than 10GB, there's no reason to strip it down.
Let me know what else you need to condsider your question
answered satisfactorily, in view of what I've indicated.
sublime1-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
vortec4800-ga
on
19 Oct 2005 21:40 PDT
Well I'm not so sure Win2k would be faster. The basis of the two
operating systems are the same, but Windows XP is basically Win2k with
an updated kernel. By "stripped down" I mean disabling the GUI in
WinXP, and shutting off all the unnecessary services both operating
systems love to keep running in the background. WinXP has some updates
to help make it a faster running operating system all things equal, so
even though Windows 2000 has lower requirements and such it may not be
as efficient as the newer Windows XP given they are so similar. The
CPU speed was only for a baseline, I am not exactly sure what the
exact specs of this old laptop are. I do believe it is around 3 - 500
MHz however. I would just like to know if any of the "improvements" in
the newer Windows XP Kernel would make it a quicker running OS on a
slow CPU, or would the trimmer running 2000 actually be the better OS
in this scenario?
|
Request for Question Clarification by
sublime1-ga
on
19 Oct 2005 22:56 PDT
vortec4800...
I can't really speak to the supposed improvements in the speed
of XP, but, from my experience, you'd probably never notice the
difference between the two. You're much more likely to see a
difference by using a hard drive with a faster RPM and access
time. The hard drive speed is much more of a bottleneck than
the CPU or OS speed, from what I've seen.
sublime1-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
vortec4800-ga
on
19 Oct 2005 23:27 PDT
Interesting. Well that answers my question pretty well - they'll be about the same.
Thanks for the help.
|
