VOGONS

Common searches


First post, by computergeek92

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I know that with every release of Windows, adding each new service pack makes the OS run slower. (higher ram and cpu usage even on clean install.) I notice that Windows XP SP3 uses about 250MB roughly, but the original XP release without any service packs uses 60-80mb ram on a clean install (lucky thrift store cd finds 😁) So lets say I had a new install of Windows 2000 SP4 - how would it compare to the original XP release in cpu and ram usage at idle? Is there any data to represent thus? Just curious.

Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html

Reply 1 of 9, by Stojke

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

The best way is to try it your self. When I had an old laptop in ~2007 I was able to go to the Internet/YouTube with it while using Windows 2000 SP4. The laptop was an Toshiba made with Intel Pentium II 333MHz , 196MB of RAM and an integrated graphics chip. The system itself used around 80MB.

Note | LLSID | "Big boobs are important!"

Reply 2 of 9, by shamino

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

An important consideration would be whether you use WinXP with it's default settings, or you disable the "themes" service and other such services which aren't really required and don't exist in Win2k.
Assuming you turn all that extra stuff off, then there might not be very much difference. With XP's extra services turned on, I think the difference is pretty significant though, at least in terms of RAM usage if not performance.

If making an equal effort to trim both OS versions, then from past experience I do think Win2k will run leaner than XP.
I was never able to get WinXP RAM usage quite as low as I could with Win2k, but I'm not sure I made the comparison using XP SP0.

Reply 3 of 9, by mirh

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Drivers also matter.
In 2004 for no goddamn reasons, ATI drivers inflated in memory footprint.

Once I found the right ones (number 6) though, XP SP3 with all updates (and no tweak at all) only required 128MB (or at least this is what task manager reported)

pcgamingwiki.com

Reply 4 of 9, by calvin

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Yes, with little room to run other applications, and using any free memory inefficiently. Sure, XP might be using ~100 MB RAM, but it's not doing a good job at caching, preloading, or anything to actually make sure of free RAM. Free RAM is wasted RAM, and can be used and given up as needed.

As for 2000 SP4 vs. XP SP0, dear god, just run 2000. XP SP0 is awful in every way. SP1 made it a bit better, and SP2 changed a lot of stuff, but made XP tolerable. IMHO, stick with 2000 - it's actually vintage now and not unsupported semi-modern.

2xP2 450, 512 MB SDR, GeForce DDR, Asus P2B-D, Windows 2000
P3 866, 512 MB RDRAM, Radeon X1650, Dell Dimension XPS B866, Windows 7
M2 @ 250 MHz, 64 MB SDE, SiS5598, Compaq Presario 2286, Windows 98

Reply 5 of 9, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
computergeek92 wrote:

I know that with every release of Windows, adding each new service pack makes the OS run slower. (higher ram and cpu usage even on clean install.)

There is data to suggest otherwise.
http://icrontic.com/article/does_service_pack … 2_slow_you_down
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/xp-sp3-per … home-about/1747

See also http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457057.aspx .

Reply 6 of 9, by computergeek92

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
calvin wrote:

Yes, with little room to run other applications, and using any free memory inefficiently. Sure, XP might be using ~100 MB RAM, but it's not doing a good job at caching, preloading, or anything to actually make sure of free RAM. Free RAM is wasted RAM, and can be used and given up as needed.

As for 2000 SP4 vs. XP SP0, dear god, just run 2000. XP SP0 is awful in every way. SP1 made it a bit better, and SP2 changed a lot of stuff, but made XP tolerable. IMHO, stick with 2000 - it's actually vintage now and not unsupported semi-modern.

For me, Windows 2K is more unstable than Win98SE in my experience. For example, when I once dual booted Win98SE and Windows 2000: I installed the D-link Air 11MBPS PCI wireless card drivers, and it blew the kernel for both OS's upon reboot. Thus making them load with a bluescreen and no way to fix it without reinstalling Win98SE and Win2000 all over again. I tried dual booting Win98SE and WinXP on the same PC and installed the D-link drivers on XP and I did not get a BSOD on reboot and the machine worked well using both OS's and it was reliable, unlike Win2000. Also recently I installed Win2000 on a Dell PIII computer. The disk already came with Win2000's SP3 on it. So I downloaded SP4 to the PC and I clicked on the install file, but then I clicked cancel because I wanted to check something else out on the PC before installing SP4. I rebooted without installing SP4 and then Win2000 corrupted itself for no apparent reason. It said something about a system file missing. Also, I did not click too fast when exiting the SP4 installer, and plus the PC was a 1000MHz PIII with 256MB ram (plenty of power for Win2000) So, unlike popular belief, Win2000 is NOT a reliable OS, especially with drivers. I could never get my Promise ATA66 card to install Win2000 on a hard drive attached to the card. It did not matter what driver version I tried booting from floppy disk at F6. I still got a IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL Bluescreen in the middle of the Win2000 install and I could not finish the OS install. The last thing I don't like about Win2000 is that it is said to have poor memory management. Many people report seeing no difference in performance with 256MB or 512MB of ram on their Win2k system.

Why is XP SP0 so bad? I tried running it and also XP SP1. I found a surprising advantage of using it instead of XP SP2. The compatibility Tab function where 640X480 games play in full screen does not work on SP2 and SP3. Earlier versions of XP - (being SP0, SP1) CAN run old games in fullscreen 640X480! Plus - if you install XP starting with SP0, then update to SP1 and still use Windows media player 8, if you upgrade to Windows Media Player 9 you will keep all the older music visual effects that came with WMP 8. If you do a clean install with a SP2 or SP3 disk (which only includes WMP 9) you won't have any of the older WMP 8 visual effects, such as the rainbow one. One thing about WinXP SP3 is that you can no longer sort music files by "date modified" Please tell me, just how bad was XP before SP2? I don't remember SP0 and SP1 that much because I was using them before I was interested in computers. I Know that SP2 and SP3 of XP made it the most reliable, easy to use, legacy and forward compatible, and overall the best OS ever made! 😀 I still use and prefer it over Windows 7 or Linux. Still works and everything.

Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html

Reply 7 of 9, by calvin

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Sounds more like shitty drivers than Windows being unstable. If you have shitty drivers, Windows will feel unstable - this is what ruined Vista's reputation.

Extremely insecure and buggy. Still is today, but SP0/1 would get pwned just from sitting on the internet within minutes. I was there, and I remember how malware ridden XP (particularly pre-SP2) was. Vista was a breath of air after the insecurity theatre. (I think this is due to the fact XP lived way too long, disrupting the normal release cycles due to Vista being delayed.) Even then, why use XP when 2000 and 98 run better on old systems and 7/8/10 run better on new systems?

Oh. and if you cared about music and visualizations, you're probably running Milkdrop on Winamp or using Foobar instead.

2xP2 450, 512 MB SDR, GeForce DDR, Asus P2B-D, Windows 2000
P3 866, 512 MB RDRAM, Radeon X1650, Dell Dimension XPS B866, Windows 7
M2 @ 250 MHz, 64 MB SDE, SiS5598, Compaq Presario 2286, Windows 98

Reply 8 of 9, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
computergeek92 wrote:

For me, Windows 2K is more unstable than Win98SE in my experience. For example, when I once dual booted Win98SE and Windows 2000: I installed the D-link Air 11MBPS PCI wireless card drivers, and it blew the kernel for both OS's upon reboot. Thus making them load with a bluescreen and no way to fix it without reinstalling Win98SE and Win2000 all over again.

And on this basis it is more unstable than Win98SE? I agree with Mr. Calvin; wireless drivers are a recipe for disaster.

I rebooted without installing SP4 and then Win2000 corrupted itself for no apparent reason. It said something about a system file missing. Also, I did not click too fast when exiting the SP4 installer

So that was all just a complete coincidence..?

I suggest using nLite if you're doing a fresh install from a disc that doesn't have the latest service pack.

The compatibility Tab function where 640X480 games play in full screen does not work on SP2 and SP3.

Is there a specific game with which you have seen this problem? What happens when you try to use this function?

One thing about WinXP SP3 is that you can no longer sort music files by "date modified"

You mean in Explorer, or in Media Player? In Explorer, you may have to go to View -> Customize this folder and then change the folder type. (I'm not sure if there's a way to stop Windows from trying to assign folder types entirely; I haven't looked into it.)

Reply 9 of 9, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Jorpho wrote:
There is data to suggest otherwise. http://icrontic.com/article/does_service_pack … 2_slow_you_down http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ha […]
Show full quote
computergeek92 wrote:

I know that with every release of Windows, adding each new service pack makes the OS run slower. (higher ram and cpu usage even on clean install.)

There is data to suggest otherwise.
http://icrontic.com/article/does_service_pack … 2_slow_you_down
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/xp-sp3-per … home-about/1747

See also http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457057.aspx .

Problem is that the performance depends on a lot of factors.
You can't take a single set of optimizations/tweaks and expect them to be optimal for every possible system out there.
What makes one system faster, may have no effect on another system, or even make it slower. It all depends on what type of CPU you use, how much memory the system has, how fast that memory is, etc.
For example, XP introduced HyperThreading-aware synchronization objects and scheduling. This makes HT-systems faster, but has no effect on non-HT systems.
So you can create benchmark scenarios that 'prove' either way (take a HT-system and measure XP vs 2000 to show improvements in multi-threaded environments... or show no difference on a non-HT system).
In general, service packs and updates do not slow down new systems, they may actually make them faster, by fixing performance bugs or adding new optimizations, but they may or may not slow down older systems that are not part of the intended target audience.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/