Web Pages Open Slowly
BJ Asks - I just upgraded from Windows 2000 Professional to XP
Professional. I have noticed that web pages that are open are slower
to display when I switch to them, and sites that I browse to open
significantly slower than they did prior to the upgrade. This is happening
consistently. I checked the Task Manager and very little else is running -
nothing that should bog down my machine like this. And my system is clean
of any malware that might slow it down.
I thought that BJ might have tried upgrading a machine that wasn't really up to Windows XP requirements, but follow up showed that his computer is a Pentium 4 1.50 GHz with 256 Mb RAM.
I don't really have an immediately good answer for this one. It sounds like BJ has a pretty good handle on the things that can slow his computer down. The only thing that he didn't mention was that he had defragged the hard drive after the upgrade.
My gut feeling on this one was that Windows XP is inherently slower in operation than Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was the best performing version of Windows prior to Windows XP and it was the Microsoft flag ship for a long time. The first couple of links claim that XP is faster, but read the 4th one! Of course, this test was performed in 2001, but their criteria appears sound and their results appear to be well founded.
RELATED LINK: W2K vs WXP performance.
RELATED LINK: From the horse's mouth.
RELATED LINK: With Graphs!
RELATED LINK: InfoWorld test results show otherwise.
Well, I still haven't come up with anything that I would consider a definitive answer. The only thing I can suggest is that he follow the guidelines in the Windows XP Install Guide and see how much that improves the performance. Based on the way BJ asked his question, I feel that he probably had a good upgrade and that what he is experiencing now is the difference between Windows 2000 performing well and Windows XP performance on a mid range processor with all the visual effects and extra services slowing the system down a little. The other possibility is that the upgrade went bad and he is now feeling the effects of that.
I thought that BJ might have tried upgrading a machine that wasn't really up to Windows XP requirements, but follow up showed that his computer is a Pentium 4 1.50 GHz with 256 Mb RAM.
I don't really have an immediately good answer for this one. It sounds like BJ has a pretty good handle on the things that can slow his computer down. The only thing that he didn't mention was that he had defragged the hard drive after the upgrade.
My gut feeling on this one was that Windows XP is inherently slower in operation than Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was the best performing version of Windows prior to Windows XP and it was the Microsoft flag ship for a long time. The first couple of links claim that XP is faster, but read the 4th one! Of course, this test was performed in 2001, but their criteria appears sound and their results appear to be well founded.
RELATED LINK: W2K vs WXP performance.
RELATED LINK: From the horse's mouth.
RELATED LINK: With Graphs!
RELATED LINK: InfoWorld test results show otherwise.
Well, I still haven't come up with anything that I would consider a definitive answer. The only thing I can suggest is that he follow the guidelines in the Windows XP Install Guide and see how much that improves the performance. Based on the way BJ asked his question, I feel that he probably had a good upgrade and that what he is experiencing now is the difference between Windows 2000 performing well and Windows XP performance on a mid range processor with all the visual effects and extra services slowing the system down a little. The other possibility is that the upgrade went bad and he is now feeling the effects of that.