Got this in an email InfoWorld Tests Show XP Slower Than W2K
I was quite surprised to see the results of this test by InfoWorld. It's
hard to believe. I'm sure that MS is extremely unhappy with these results,
and they commented they were not able to replicate them either. I'm sure
many more words will be written about this, but InfoWorld are a bunch of
smart cookies and they have done this for over 20 years, I have been reading
them for that long.
A lot of my industry knowledge comes from this mag. It's not like the first
bunch of rookies tells us that WinXP is actually slower than W2K. If it's
true, it's a black eye for some one for sure. As per "fair use" I'm copying
two paragraphs of the InfoWorld article, and then I'll send you to the
actual full article. This is pretty amazing. When I received the email with
this news I said to myself "WHOA NELLIE !!" Here goes:
"HOPELESS OPTIMISM must be a fundamental part of human nature, because we
want to believe that new operating systems truly represent an improvement on
their predecessors. 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. As a result, CTOs wanting
to capitalize on the benefits of a new OS may find that new hardware
investments are necessary -- and expensive -- requirements.
"Unfortunately, Microsoft's Windows XP appears to be maintaining that
tradition, as indicated by results of independent testing performed by CSA
Research and confirmed by our work in the InfoWorld Test Center. Our tests
of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated
that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000
significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our
Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did
the Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined
to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs
to get the most out of the new OS."
Here is the article. This is a 'must read' my friends: And I'll keep you up
to date regarding the inevitable sequels of this saga.
<http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=110101-WaitingForXP>

This really says nothing. Did you installed and tried it yourself?
I bet you really DON'T notice any difference in speed.

I run XP professional and I really like it and it is so stable (for a windows machine!) ;-)

You know, you get those e-mails saying [Which is slower] or [which is faster] after major release from MS. I have seen those. lol.
Domenico is right. Try for yourself before you determine.

I find Outlook 2002 (in Office XP) quite a bit slower than 2000 when it comes to the Office stuff.

AH

from my own experience, xp beats the hell out of win2k... no benchmarks required.

Yep, I agree. XP is hands down the winner. While it's very close in terms of my win2k professional workstation, it just seems to do everything better and with the same rock solid stability.

Not to mention that you can setup a home network with the click of a mouse. (OLD WAY = IP Masquerading - Linux term for what I used to share my cable connection with several PC's before I switched to XP)

It's the OS I've been waiting years for :D