4 ms·
I remember things differently. Perhaps it was because I was working with older hardware or something I don't know but Windows 2k felt so slow to boot. I know i
by mcny 2y ago
I remember things differently. Perhaps it was because I was working with older hardware or something I don't know but Windows 2k felt so slow to boot.
I know it isn't a fair comparison since the computer with windows XP was newer and I don't remember the details but I remember thinking windows XP boots faster than 2k.
- reginald78 2y agoIIRC with XP they late loaded a lot of things to get the desktop showing faster than 2000. My experience at the time was that while the desktop might have loaded faster it wasn't actually usable for quite awhile after I was looking at it, but that might have had more to do with all the crapware on many XP machines I used at the time. XP definitely needed more ram than 2000 to function acceptably. I remember 128mb being slow but tolerable on 2000 and absolutely brutal on XP.
- pndy 2y ago> IIRC with XP they late loaded a lot of things to get the desktop showing faster than 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher - that's the thing they introduced in XP to speed up loading the system and programs
- Suppafly 2y ago>My experience at the time was that while the desktop might have loaded faster it wasn't actually usable for quite awhile after I was looking at it This, I think the fastboot stuff probably seemed good on development machines used at microsoft, but on the cheap computers loaded with OEM garbage that they were pushing as being capable of running xp, it mostly loaded the desktop and then locked up for several minutes to finish actually booting.
- recursive 2y agoInteresting. I have the opposite recollection. Perhaps it has more to do with the hardware I was using.