WinME faster than WinXP?

Hi
I recently spent three months using a small machine (256MB RAM, 1.8GHz

CPU, 20GB HDD) running on WinME.
Due largely to the excellent help I received from this group, I managed
to get
the WinME box running very smartly. To such an extent that I believed
it
was actually faster doing some things than my home-based WinXP machine
(1GB RAM, 2.53 Ghz CPU, 240GB on two HDDs).
Now that I'm back home, I can indeed confirm this: the WinME box is
FASTER!
In shutdown, WinME takes 12 seconds against 32 for the WinXP machine.
Starting up (same number of start-up apps on both machines) the 72
seconds
required by the WinME box is better than the 87 seconds needed by
WinXP.
Additionally, although I made no attempt to measure the times, it does
seem
that apps such as Word, Excel and OE do show up just that little bit
faster
on the WinME machine.

I already posted this on the WinXP (general) NG and was referred to
various
MS articles with comments such as:

"For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other
activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience [with
WinXP] equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition
(Windows Me) running on the same hardware"

"Windows XP is the best-performing Windows operating system ever
created"

What am I to believe? Either my WinXP machine is so messed up that I am
not seeing the benefits of the more modern OS or (to paraphrase Mark
Twain) rumours of WinXPs superiority have been greatly exaggerated.

Paul

Can you spell "bloat"? :-)

If you are concerned about the hardware requirements to get a decent speed
out of XP compared to Win Me just think for a moment as to what you would
need when running Vista.
--
Mike Maltby




PaulFXH wrote:

Hi
I recently spent three months using a small machine (256MB RAM, 1.8GHz

CPU, 20GB HDD) running on WinME.
Due largely to the excellent help I received from this group, I
managed to get
the WinME box running very smartly. To such an extent that I believed
it
was actually faster doing some things than my home-based WinXP machine
(1GB RAM, 2.53 Ghz CPU, 240GB on two HDDs).
Now that I'm back home, I can indeed confirm this: the WinME box is
FASTER!
In shutdown, WinME takes 12 seconds against 32 for the WinXP machine.
Starting up (same number of start-up apps on both machines) the 72
seconds
required by the WinME box is better than the 87 seconds needed by
WinXP.
Additionally, although I made no attempt to measure the times, it does
seem
that apps such as Word, Excel and OE do show up just that little bit
faster
on the WinME machine.

I already posted this on the WinXP (general) NG and was referred to
various
MS articles with comments such as:

"For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other
activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience [with
WinXP] equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition
(Windows Me) running on the same hardware"

"Windows XP is the best-performing Windows operating system ever
created"

What am I to believe? Either my WinXP machine is so messed up that I
am not seeing the benefits of the more modern OS or (to paraphrase
Mark Twain) rumours of WinXPs superiority have been greatly
exaggerated.

Paul

Mike M escreveu:

Can you spell "bloat"? :-)

Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could.
Are there any consequences emanating from this admission?


If you are concerned about the hardware requirements to get a decent speed
out of XP compared to Win Me just think for a moment as to what you would
need when running Vista.

Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as
(or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine?
Many of the articles written by MS in 2001-2002 stress that WinXP will
perform better (from which I deduce FASTER) than previous OSs on
machines with the SAME HARDWARE.
Are you saying this is not true in practice?

Paul
--
Mike Maltby




PaulFXH wrote:

Hi
I recently spent three months using a small machine (256MB RAM, 1.8GHz

CPU, 20GB HDD) running on WinME.
Due largely to the excellent help I received from this group, I
managed to get
the WinME box running very smartly. To such an extent that I believed
it
was actually faster doing some things than my home-based WinXP machine
(1GB RAM, 2.53 Ghz CPU, 240GB on two HDDs).
Now that I'm back home, I can indeed confirm this: the WinME box is
FASTER!
In shutdown, WinME takes 12 seconds against 32 for the WinXP machine.
Starting up (same number of start-up apps on both machines) the 72
seconds
required by the WinME box is better than the 87 seconds needed by
WinXP.
Additionally, although I made no attempt to measure the times, it does
seem
that apps such as Word, Excel and OE do show up just that little bit
faster
on the WinME machine.

I already posted this on the WinXP (general) NG and was referred to
various
MS articles with comments such as:

"For many workloads that involve Web browsing, e-mail, and other
activities, 64 MB of RAM will provide you with a user experience [with
WinXP] equivalent or superior to that of Windows Millennium Edition
(Windows Me) running on the same hardware"

"Windows XP is the best-performing Windows operating system ever
created"

What am I to believe? Either my WinXP machine is so messed up that I
am not seeing the benefits of the more modern OS or (to paraphrase
Mark Twain) rumours of WinXPs superiority have been greatly
exaggerated.

Paul

Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could.
Are there any consequences emanating from this admission?

Other than needing more disk space and a fast processor to do the same
thing? No, g

Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as
(or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine?

That rather depends on what you wish to do. One can make an XP PC fly by
stripping out all of the services that you don't require and similar
tinkering but just look at their respective footprint and you will see
part of the problem.

Are you saying this is not true in practice?

Copy writers rarely use the product they are marketing.
--
Mike Maltby



PaulFXH wrote:

Mike M escreveu:

Can you spell "bloat"? :-)

Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could.
Are there any consequences emanating from this admission?


If you are concerned about the hardware requirements to get a decent
speed out of XP compared to Win Me just think for a moment as to
what you would need when running Vista.

Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as
(or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine?
Many of the articles written by MS in 2001-2002 stress that WinXP will
perform better (from which I deduce FASTER) than previous OSs on
machines with the SAME HARDWARE.
Are you saying this is not true in practice?

Good thread, interesting points.
I dual boot a win98SE/XP Pro.
AMD 1.33g Epox Mobo 512Ram.
I reckon win98se is generally faster on my setup.
Word is opened in a flash, so is Excel & Access, but on XP it
is not so 'flash'. Same with most things I have loaded on both O/S's;
The only real difference I have noticed between the two, is xp seems
to have a 'smoothness' about it, something maybe others mis-read as
being faster.
Gekko

"Mike M" wrote in message
...
Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could.
Are there any consequences emanating from this admission?

Other than needing more disk space and a fast processor to do the same
thing? No, g

Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as
(or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine?

That rather depends on what you wish to do. One can make an XP PC fly by
stripping out all of the services that you don't require and similar
tinkering but just look at their respective footprint and you will see
part of the problem.

Are you saying this is not true in practice?

Copy writers rarely use the product they are marketing.
--
Mike Maltby



PaulFXH wrote:

Mike M escreveu:

Can you spell "bloat"? :-)

Well, now that you've shown me, I believe I could.
Are there any consequences emanating from this admission?


If you are concerned about the hardware requirements to get a decent
speed out of XP compared to Win Me just think for a moment as to
what you would need when running Vista.

Whatever about Vista, are you saying that WinXP can only be as fast as
(or faster than) WinME if it is loaded on a faster machine?
Many of the articles written by MS in 2001-2002 stress that WinXP will
perform better (from which I deduce FASTER) than previous OSs on
machines with the SAME HARDWARE.
Are you saying this is not true in practice?

Gekko escreveu:

Good thread, interesting points.
I dual boot a win98SE/XP Pro.
AMD 1.33g Epox Mobo 512Ram.
I reckon win98se is generally faster on my setup.
Word is opened in a flash, so is Excel & Access, but on XP it
is not so 'flash'. Same with most things I have loaded on both O/S's;
The only real difference I have noticed between the two, is xp seems
to have a 'smoothness' about it, something maybe others mis-read as
being faster.
Gekko


I've posted this (or similar) on the WinXP.General NG also.
Interestingly, between the two NGs, absolutely nobody has replied to
say that WinXP can indeed actually be faster than WinME (or the other
Win9x OSs).
Does this mean that the eulogistic prognostications (sorry, but it just
came out like that) with regard to PERFORMANCE (not stability) with
which MS announced the launching of WinXP were indeed exaggerations?
Now, to avoid misinterpretations, there's an awful lot to like in WinXP
(stability being an obvious plus) but I just wish it was as zippy as
the WinME machine I used earlier this year.
Paul

What you seem however to be forgetting in your comparison are the
1,000,001 things that can be done on an XP system that cannot be done on a
machine running 9x. The list really is endless. Further 9x systems can
barely multi-task before running out of resources, can't handle the
majority of modern hardware including big hard disks and certainly not
modern dual-core cpus. So yes, if you just want to load and run a small
Excel spreadsheet using Office 97 then yes run Win98 or 98SE and it will
be quick but if you want to do real work then you will have to move to
using XP or W2K3.
--
Mike Maltby




PaulFXH wrote:

I've posted this (or similar) on the WinXP.General NG also.
Interestingly, between the two NGs, absolutely nobody has replied to
say that WinXP can indeed actually be faster than WinME (or the other
Win9x OSs).
Does this mean that the eulogistic prognostications (sorry, but it
just came out like that) with regard to PERFORMANCE (not stability)
with which MS announced the launching of WinXP were indeed
exaggerations? Now, to avoid misinterpretations, there's an awful lot
to like in WinXP (stability being an obvious plus) but I just wish it
was as zippy as the WinME machine I used earlier this year.
Paul

Mike M escreveu:

What you seem however to be forgetting in your comparison are the
1,000,001 things that can be done on an XP system that cannot be done on a
machine running 9x. The list really is endless. Further 9x systems can
barely multi-task before running out of resources, can't handle the
majority of modern hardware including big hard disks and certainly not
modern dual-core cpus. So yes, if you just want to load and run a small
Excel spreadsheet using Office 97 then yes run Win98 or 98SE and it will
be quick but if you want to do real work then you will have to move to
using XP or W2K3.

Hi Mike
Thanks for your comments.
Just to emphasize that the point I am raising here has little if
anything to do with a sense of disappointment with WinXP (which I have
happily used for more than 4 years) but with the pleasant surprise I
experienced with the WinME OS recently.

While I take your point about the many benefits of WinXP, I really
believe that many (if not a majority) of computer users would be better
off sticking with Win9x/ME given that they are never going to be
involved in "real" work as you define it.
Too, I find that the claims made about WinXP's performance (in
comparison to earlier OSs) are, frankly, misleading.
As an example, this article (2001)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx

says that:

"Microsoft® Windows® XP offers excellent overall performance-which
includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly
responsive applications."

This has not been my experience for the type of work I normally engage
in (although I am fully aware of the other limitations of earlier OSs).

Paul

--
Mike Maltby

but with the pleasant surprise I
experienced with the WinME OS recently.

I totally understand where you are coming from.

I really
believe that many (if not a majority) of computer users would be
better off sticking with Win9x/ME

But only if they are using older hardware. There simply aren't the
drivers for Win 98SE or Win Me for much modern hardware.

Try doing some video editing on a modern fast box and compare that with
Win Me, the new machines win hands down. Video editing is no longer the
specialist niche it once was, even I do it, and it can sometimes take many
hours to render videos even when running on my dual core AMD64 4200. I
dread to think how long some of those jobs would have taken on my Win Me
box. Not that I can check since Win Me won't install on that box which in
addition to a dual core processor has raid0 and raid5 disk arrays with the
raid5 array presenting as a 600GB volume, something Win Me simply can't
handle with its FAT32 filing system. Win 9x can't handle the amount of
memory. However if just browsing, e-mailing and writing documents in Word
or working with relatively small spreadsheets then Win 9x is adequate for
many users.

So yes, Win 98/Me isn't badly suited for older systems with older hardware
but given the life of a computer many of the computers sold with Win Me
pre-installed are approaching the end of their lives and Win 9x isn't
suitable to be installed on their modern replacements. Also for those
replacing their systems in 2007 are more likely to find their new box has
Vista installed as XP will be on its way out. For example XP SP1 goes out
of support in October this year although support for XP SP2 will continue
for some time due to it being a business OS unless an XP SP3 is released
after Vista.

"Microsoft® Windows® XP offers excellent overall performance-which
includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly
responsive applications."

Which it does here. So much so that none of my main machines are even
capable of running Win Me.
--
Mike Maltby



PaulFXH wrote:

Thanks for your comments.
Just to emphasize that the point I am raising here has little if
anything to do with a sense of disappointment with WinXP (which I have
happily used for more than 4 years) but with the pleasant surprise I
experienced with the WinME OS recently.

While I take your point about the many benefits of WinXP, I really
believe that many (if not a majority) of computer users would be
better off sticking with Win9x/ME given that they are never going to
be involved in "real" work as you define it.
Too, I find that the claims made about WinXP's performance (in
comparison to earlier OSs) are, frankly, misleading.
As an example, this article (2001)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx

says that:

"Microsoft® Windows® XP offers excellent overall performance-which
includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly
responsive applications."

This has not been my experience for the type of work I normally engage
in (although I am fully aware of the other limitations of earlier
OSs).

"PaulFXH" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mike M escreveu:

What you seem however to be forgetting in your comparison are the
1,000,001 things that can be done on an XP system that cannot be done on a
machine running 9x. The list really is endless. Further 9x systems can
barely multi-task before running out of resources, can't handle the
majority of modern hardware including big hard disks and certainly not
modern dual-core cpus. So yes, if you just want to load and run a small
Excel spreadsheet using Office 97 then yes run Win98 or 98SE and it will
be quick but if you want to do real work then you will have to move to
using XP or W2K3.

Hi Mike
Thanks for your comments.
Just to emphasize that the point I am raising here has little if
anything to do with a sense of disappointment with WinXP (which I have
happily used for more than 4 years) but with the pleasant surprise I
experienced with the WinME OS recently.

While I take your point about the many benefits of WinXP, I really
believe that many (if not a majority) of computer users would be better
off sticking with Win9x/ME given that they are never going to be
involved in "real" work as you define it.
Too, I find that the claims made about WinXP's performance (in
comparison to earlier OSs) are, frankly, misleading.
As an example, this article (2001)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...te/xpperf.mspx

..says that:

.."Microsoft® Windows® XP offers excellent overall performance-which
..includes dramatically faster boot and resume times and highly
..responsive applications."

..This has not been my experience for the type of work I normally engage
..in (although I am fully aware of the other limitations of earlier OSs).


====================================

The boot and resume times claims are generally true - for a clean system
such as used in a Work environment.
XP tends to do its housekeeping chores on shutdown,rather than startup, so
that the boot time is kept to actually loading the stuff that's supposed to
load, rather than keeping house in that way that happens in WIn9x. This
reduces the boot time - especially when added to the background defrag and
prefetch abilities of XP.

Note that the speed claims are limited to those times - not to the actual
application running times


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's