Linked by Stephen Reilly on Mon 12th Mar 2007 17:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 220926
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-11-11
"Whoa, whoa. XP did so introduce a number of performance penalties, particularly SP2."
Could you please provide links that backup this claim? From what I've read and based on my own experience there was no significant performance difference between XP and 2K, and SP2 didn't make much of a difference either.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2001q4/os/index.x?pg=9
"Toss aside the WPA, the bundled services, and the new GUI (especially the new GUI) and you're left with this fact: The numbers don't lie. Regardless of how you feel about all the aforementioned goodies that Microsoft claims make Windows XP better than its predecessors, based on our tests, there's no reason to call XP a performance dud."
http://www.short-media.com/articles/does_service_pack_2_slow_you_do...
"The test PC equipped with Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 was an average of 0.5% faster than the same hardware with Service Pack 2 installed. The percentage difference between faster and slower is insignificantly small."
As for the proper multi-monitor support, I was referring to the fact that 2K did not support multi-monitor video cards properly, i.e. if you had a single video card that supported multiple monitors, you could only have a single desktop span over them, but not multiple desktops with independent resolutions, refresh rates, color depth etc. Matrox was the only company that figured out how to hack its way around the limitation by tricking the device manager into thinking that there are two physical cards installed, and kudos to Matrox for that, yet still it does not take away the fact that there was this limitation in 2K which was removed in XP.