Microsoft says that Windows 7 will be designed to run faster on solid state disks than Windows XP or Vista. But the folks at flash memory maker Patriot Media say there’s already an OS that outperforms them both. And no, it’s not some version of Linux or OS X. It’s Windows 2000.
Apparently Windows 2000 runs 5% to 8% faster on solid state disks than the newer operating systems because there are fewer applications running in the background on the older OS. Apparently Windows 98 is even faster, but it also tends to wear out flash memory more quickly because it has a habit of writing over the same portion of the SSD over and over instead of spreading the data out across the memory module.
Many netbooks, including Asus Eee PC, Dell Inspiron Mini 9, and HP Mini 1000 models ship with solid state disks. But none that I’m aware of come with Windows 2000 as an option. Still, if you’re looking for a bit of a performance boost and happen to have an old install disk, now might be a good time to pull it out of the closet. On the other hand, may newer programs won’t run on Windows 2000 and good luck finding all the security updates you need.
According to Patrio Media’s tests, Windows Vista performs better with SSDs than Windows XP; OS X trumps Vista, and Linux is faster than either but still slower than Windows 2000.
Monkey King has it backwards, I have had numerous crashes with XP but 2000 has been rock solid, just need some knowledge and maybe this:
I run Windows 2000 on a older laptop. It runs quicker than Windows XP and is more efficient.
Well, strip off the fancy interface and some extras and XP virtually becomes W2K. There’s only a 0.1 difference in internal version names between W2K and XP anyway. I have run W2k on an Asus Eee PC 701 for over a year now. I relocated the swap file and browser cache to an SD card that stays permanently in the slot. I use the XP drivers provided on the recovery CD, although the web cam doesn’t work. That’s not an issue for me, and apart from that nothing has ever once given me a problem. Best OS sub I ever made.
The internal version comment is simply stupid.windows 7 is 6.1,and windows 8, which is completely overhauled is only 6.2.windows vista is much buggier than windows 7 and it is 6.0
I always like Windows 2000… I don’t see what XP and Vista can do for me that Windows 2000 couldn’t… Maybe Windows 7 will learn lessons from W2K!
While interesting, I don’t see how this is the right choice. Going back to the GUI in Windows 2000 would be difficult. Its easier to tweak Windows XP. Go on the Dell Mini 9 forums for example, and follow the advice there. For example, go here to find out about various services you can turn off:
You’ll also generally want to run msconfig (or autoruns, or your favorite) and disable just about everything you can google for that you don’t need.
To me this is a more viable path than going back to Windows 2000.
Also, the comment about Windows 98 burning out SSDs faster doesn’t sound right. In theory, the drive levelling functions in SSDs are supposed to keep this from happening. Whether they actually achieve this in all cases is unknown since this is a bit of a black art.
I still have some public access Win2K machines that run fine. They don’t have driver issues for the most part because they run most standard Win Apps just fine. The only big issue I see is you can’t Install IE vers 7.
WIn 2K was never as stable as Win XP, but its still worked far, far better then Win 95 and Win 98. I still have dozens of Win 2K recovery discs in my office.
What good is speed if some of your hardware won’t work because of lack of drivers?
I agree with Andy Norris. The small Linux distros that load into RAM have got to be faster.
Some small Linuxes designed for slow systems actually load the entire OS (usually well under 100MB) into RAM so that they don’t have to wait on the disk as they operate.
Comments are closed.