[tseeker]

Has anyone ever heard of Windows 2000 slowing the performance of new high end systems (compared to 9x)?

I just built my new system and have dual-boot 2000/98 on the same partition. 2000 is nowhere close to as fast as I expected it to be on this system, 98 is much faster but I prefer 2000 for the stability. On my old K6-2/350 system, with the same dual boot setup, 2000 increased the performance drastically compared to 98.
I have tweaked 2000 as much as I know how- stopped all unnecessary services, moved the executable to run in RAM, optimized the page file size. I have installed all latest service packs and hotfixes, updated bios and drivers.

Any ideas??? I'm about ready to just run 98 but I know the first time I get a blue screen I'm gonna be pissed!

-------------------------
Athlon XP 1700+
Gigabyte 7VTXE+
512MB DDR PC2100
Maxtor 60GB/7200/ATA133
ASUS GeForce3 Ti200 Deluxe/64MB
Creative ModemBlaster V.92 (di5633)
Liteon 16X DVD
LG 16X10X40 CDRW

[kgeissler]

What are you using to benchmark your system?

Did you use SiSoft Sandra?

[tseeker]

I used pcmark2002, scores in 2000: cpu-4303,mem-2940,hdd-764 scores in 98: cpu-4399, mem-3220, hdd-1079

seems like my hd in 2000 is the biggest slowdown

[kgeissler]

Do you have UDMA turned on in 2000? It is turned off by default.

[tseeker]

yes it's turned on but how can I tell if it's running dma 66,100 or 133? My Hard drive is ata-133, does 2000 support 133?

[pmistry]

I doubt 2000 supports ATA133 yet. Maybe SP3, it should still top out around ATA100, but maybe your chipset drivers need to be updated. If its VIA based grab those. Sometimes the VIA IDE chipset driver sucks, unistall it.