Better performance with Win2k on slower computers
Just a few tips for you guys with slower computers, like myself: (I have a P2/233 Mhz, 64mb ram, and Win2k runs MUCH better than Win98) You really should disable some cosmetic enhancements, like Pointer Shadow and Menu Fading etc.
Just a few tips for you guys with slower computers, like myself:
(I have a P2/233 Mhz, 64mb ram, and Win2k runs MUCH better than Win98)
You really should disable some cosmetic enhancements, like Pointer Shadow and Menu Fading etc... It really helps! I didn't think it could help that much. You don't need that stuff. I just have menu roll-ins now instead.
Disable all the un-needed systray programs, like Winamp Agent, Volume Control and such. That helps too.
Hope you guys get something out of this. I did.
----
Ch33rs,
CeRbErO
[This message has been edited by CeRbErO (edited 19 June 2000).]
(I have a P2/233 Mhz, 64mb ram, and Win2k runs MUCH better than Win98)
You really should disable some cosmetic enhancements, like Pointer Shadow and Menu Fading etc... It really helps! I didn't think it could help that much. You don't need that stuff. I just have menu roll-ins now instead.
Disable all the un-needed systray programs, like Winamp Agent, Volume Control and such. That helps too.
Hope you guys get something out of this. I did.
----
Ch33rs,
CeRbErO
[This message has been edited by CeRbErO (edited 19 June 2000).]
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
The cosmetic features that you told people to turn off will improve performance, but there are factors that could improve performance much more, such as the chipset on your video card and how much RAM it has onboard, the revision of the BIOS on your motherboard, the age and stability of certain drivers, and perhaps most apparent, having more than one device on the hard drive's IDE chain (if you use IDE for your HDD). If you have a CD-ROM drive or something hooked up as a slave to the HDD, expect noticeably slower performance than if the hard drive is the only device.
Also, SDRAM is relatively cheap now, and 2000 loves RAM even more than NT did, so don't go slim with the RAM.
The 820 chipset and RDRAM do make 2000 much snappier, but RDRAM is EXPENSIVE! over $300 for 128MB.
Also, SDRAM is relatively cheap now, and 2000 loves RAM even more than NT did, so don't go slim with the RAM.
The 820 chipset and RDRAM do make 2000 much snappier, but RDRAM is EXPENSIVE! over $300 for 128MB.
Ofcourse you're right Mystical, but I wrote this for people using Win2k at home, as an alternative to Win98, and they/me maybe dont have the money to buy more RAM of any kind at the moment. And most ppl with home PC's just have 2 IDE controllers.
I have 2 hard drives on my first IDE controller and 1 cd-rom and 1 cd burner on my second one.
I have 2 hard drives on my first IDE controller and 1 cd-rom and 1 cd burner on my second one.
I'm using Win2000 on a 333Mhz, and it's substantially faster than with Win98. I've got Norton Antivirus and Creative Disc Detector running in my system tray, almost necessary evils. RAM does make a difference, as I could tell when I upgraded from 128 to 192. I turned off some services, since I'm only running this on a 2-'puter peer-to-peer network that is our home and office system. My GeForce card may help.
I must say, Win2000 is much stabler than Win98, as well as faster. The initial load takes a bit longer, but no more unneccesary re-boots.
I must say, Win2000 is much stabler than Win98, as well as faster. The initial load takes a bit longer, but no more unneccesary re-boots.
