gojirasan

[NOTE: XP Pro SP2 and Windows Fundamentals (FLP) has been added to this comparison] Well here is some data I have just compiled in case anyone else is interested. I have been trying to decide whether to keep using windows 2000 or to switch to XP or even a desktop build of 2003 for my new computer. I found the results *very* interesting. Based on these measurements and on the fact that the initial installation sizes of windows 2000 and windows XP were almost identical at around 800MB (2003 was 600MB), it looks like I am going to finally be saying goodbye to 2000. The windows 2000 installation is updated to SP5 and the XP installation is unpatched (SP0). The win2003 installation is questionable as it is a very unofficial build that I downloaded called the "eXPerience edition". The system is a Pentium III-S 1.13Ghz (tualatin) with 512MB RAM. The following data was gathered with guidance from cluberti. I have listed the running processes to show any applications that might have been causing memory usage. XP and 2003 had no installed programs at all. Windows 2000 did have some but only Tiny Personal Firewall and Daemon Tools were set to load on boot and, I shut them down before taking the measurements. All 3 OSes are fresh or near fresh installs. Measurements were recorded (with perfmon) within 5 minutes of booting. I am not exactly sure which numbers to add to get the most precise footprint, but I personally would not include memory used by the system cache in my comparison since that is very useful and is not memory bloat. All installations (with the exception of the second set of WinFLP measurements) are more or less default. Neither nlite nor xplite were used. Edit: My new system is a Core2 Wolfdale E8400 with 4GB of RAM. It seems that service pack 2 adds a huge amount of bloat (both in memory and in hard drive space) to XP. Memory has increased significantly from XP (gold) only some of which can be accounted for by a more aggressive disk cache. The hard drive space has more than tripled from around 800 megs to almost 3 gigs. It's like a vista-lite. Windows FLP is an interesting system. Although even turning services off manually it still has trouble competing with either Win2k SP5 or WinXP SP0 (which is still king). Too bad it's so buggy without service packs and probably has worse compatibility than windows 2000. Note that I wasn't able to run the task manager or even sysinternals process explorer to check on the commit charge or running processes for WinFLP. Also note that there was no form of directx running on WinFLP. dxdiag.exe was not even present. I will be adding more updates with WinXP x64, maybe nlited and maybe a downloadable nlited distribution of XP 32. The latter (TinyXP rev6 by eXPerience) I have been using for a while now. So I am not sure it would be fair to compare it against these fresh installs. I will probably do it anyway. For anyone who isn't familiar with the 'counter' names, here are microsoft's own descriptions. Working Set (_total): "Working Set is the current size, in bytes, of the Working Set of this process. The Working Set is the set of memory pages touched recently by the threads in the process. If free memory in the computer is above a threshold, pages are left in the Working Set of a process even if they are not in use. When free memory falls below a threshold, pages are trimmed from Working Sets. If they are needed they will then be soft-faulted back into the Working Set before leaving main memory." Pool Nonpaged Bytes: "Pool Nonpaged Bytes is the size, in bytes, of the nonpaged pool, an area of system memory (physical memory used by the operating system) for objects that cannot be written to disk, but must remain in physical memory as long as they are allocated. This counter displays the last observed value only; it is not an average." Cache Bytes: "Cache Bytes is the sum of the System Cache Resident Bytes, System Driver Resident Bytes, System Code Resident Bytes, and Pool Paged Resident Bytes counters. This counter displays the last observed value only; it is not an average." System Cache Resident Bytes: "System Cache Resident Bytes is the size, in bytes, of the pageable operating system code in the file system cache. This value includes only current physical pages and does not include any virtual memory pages not currently resident. It does equal the System Cache value shown in Task Manager. As a result, this value may be smaller than the actual amount of virtual memory in use by the file system cache. This value is a component of System Code Resident Bytes which represents all pageable operating system code that is currently in physical memory. This counter displays the last observed value only; it is not an average. " System Code Resident Bytes: "System Code Resident Bytes is the size, in bytes of the operating system code currently in physical memory that can be written to disk when not in use. This value is a component of System Code Total Bytes, which also includes operating system code on disk. System Code Resident Bytes (and System Code Total Bytes) does not include code that must remain in physical memory and cannot be written to disk. This counter displays the last observed value only; it is not an average." System Driver Resident Bytes: "System Driver Resident Bytes is the size, in bytes, of the pageable physical memory being used by device drivers. It is the working set (physical memory area) of the drivers. This value is a component of System Driver Total Bytes, which also includes driver memory that has been written to disk. Neither System Driver Resident Bytes nor System Driver Total Bytes includes memory that cannot be written to disk." Pool Paged Resident Bytes: "Pool Paged Resident Bytes is the current size, in bytes, of the paged pool. The paged pool is an area of system memory (physical memory used by the operating system) for objects that can be written to disk when they are not being used. Space used by the paged and nonpaged pools are taken from physical memory, so a pool that is too large denies memory space to processes. This counter displays the last observed value only; it is not an average." Available Bytes: "Available Bytes is the amount of physical memory, in bytes, immediately available for allocation to a process or for system use. It is equal to the sum of memory assigned to the standby (cached), free and zero page lists." Commit Charge: "Committed memory is the physical memory in use for which space has been reserved in the paging file should it need to be written to disk." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows 2000 (SP5) Physical memory: 523,756k (512MB) Working Set[_total](last): 59,338,752 Pool Nonpaged Bytes(last): 11,476,992 Cache Bytes(last): 33,361,920 System Cache Resident Bytes(last): 4,591,616 System Code Resident Bytes(last): 8,269,824 System Driver Resident Bytes(last): 221,184 Pool Paged Resident Bytes(last): 20,287,488 Available Bytes(last): 436,408,320 commit charge (task manager)(current): 85,192k --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- running processes: system smss.exe winlogon.exe csrss.exe services.exe lsass.exe notepad.exe [3,704k] svchost.exe (x3) spoolsv.exe regsvc.exe MSTask.exe WinMgmt.exe taskmgr.exe [3,628k] explorer.exe -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows XP Pro (no service pack) Physical memory: 523,756k (512MB) Working Set[_total](last): 60,100,608 Pool Nonpaged Bytes(last): 2,736,128 Cache Bytes(last): 25,460,736 System Cache Resident Bytes(last): 15,810,560 System Code Resident Bytes(last): 4096 System Driver Resident Bytes(last): 1,282,048 Pool Paged Resident Bytes(last): 8,355,840 Available Bytes(last): 438,001,664 commit charge (task manager)(current): 57,612k ------------------------------------------------------------------------ running processes: ctfmon.exe explorer.exe spoolsv.exe svchost.exe (x4) lsass.exe services.exe winlogon.exe csrss.exe smss.exe taskmgr.exe [3,652k] system notepad.exe [3,672k] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows XP Pro SP2 physical memory: 4GB (3,398,700K) (new system) available bytes: 3,090,903,040 pool paged resident bytes: 83,677,184 system driver bytes:0 system code resident bytes: 1,851,392 system cache resident bytes: 27,607,040 cache bytes: 113,135,616 pool nonpaged bytes: 15,478,784 working set(total): 104,312,832 commit charge: 236,008k --------------------------------------------------------------------------- running processes: IGFXSRVC.EXE IGFXPERS.EXE HKCMD.EXE IGFXTRAY.EXE mmc.exe EXPLORER.EXE taskmgr.exe SPOOLSV.EXE ALG.EXE SVCHOST.EXE (x5) LSASS.EXE SERVICES.EXE WINLOGON.EXE CSRSS.EXE wuauclt.exe SMSS.EXE notepad.exe CTFMON.EXE System ----------------------------------------------------- WinFLP standard min install (before updates) installed on older system (Pentium 3 tualatin 1.13 Ghz, 512MB ram) working set_total(last): 139,415,552 pool nonpaged bytes(last): 7,053,312 cache bytes(last): 59,924,480 system cache resident bytes(last): 34,033,664 system code resident bytes(last): 36,864 system driver resident bytes(last): 1,576,960 pool paged resident bytes(last): 24,276,992 available bytes(last): 346,361,856 after windows updates and manually turning off (stopping and disabling) many unused services: working set_total(last): 83,005,440 pool nonpaged bytes(last): 4,087,808 cache bytes(last): 27,074,560 system cache resident bytes(last): 13,516,800 system code resident bytes(last): 8,192 system driver resident bytes(last): 1,531,904 pool paged resident bytes(last): 12,017,664 available bytes(last): 407,113,728 windows folder size(fresh install + firefox with a few extensions/themes): 656 MB documents and settings (fresh install + firefox with a few extensions/themes): 22.6 MB program files: 30.4 MB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows 2003 Server (eXPerience Edition) Physical mem: 523,756k (512MB) Working Set[_total](last): 79,691,776 Pool Nonpaged Bytes(last): 11,644,928 Cache Bytes(last): 28,884,992 System Cache Resident Bytes(last): 17,182,720 System Code Resident Bytes(last): 32,768 System Driver Resident Bytes(last): 1,855,488 Pool Paged Resident Bytes(last): 9,814,016 Available Bytes(last): 419,024,896 commit charge (task manager)(current): 84,112k --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- running processes: taskmgr.exe [3,340k] wmiprvse.exe explorer.exe svchost.exe (x6) lsass.exe services.exe winlogon.exe csrss.exe smss.exe notepad.exe [2,560k] wmiadap.exe system

I want to thank you, cluberti, for your detailed reply to my question. I do appreciate it. So the /3G switch is a total non-issue. That changes things considerably. And win2k also has a compatibility mode (thanks Mijzelf). Those were my two primary reasons for moving to XP. So it actually makes 2K look a bit better. I am curious as to how an nlited, xplited win2k would compare to an nlited, xplited XP in terms of HDD/mem footprint. I would guess that win2k would still be at least somewhat smaller. Probably the only way to find this out is to actually try it for myself. Comparing the HDD footprint is easy, but is there an accurate way of determining how much RAM the OS is using with no applications running? Maybe just running process explorer and closing all non-essential processes? Your recommendation is well taken. No more bugfixes in 2K. Better XP compatibility/support in both drivers and apps. That may be enough of a reason to switch. Is there any truth to the faster boot time? As far as the limits of 32 bit addressing link, I have already read pretty widely on the topic. Mainly because I was looking into enabling PAE, but based on what I have read it is too much of a hack to be bothered with and could actually reduce performance instead of increasing it. And in any case it's not possible (without some kind of real hack I suppose) with the newest service packs of either XP or 2K (or Vista even). I guess I could still consider running windows server 2003 for my 32 bit OS. I am just afraid that it will be difficult/impossible to find drivers for it and only server apps are really ever tested on it. So it may end up having reliability problems. I think what I'll do is compare the HDD and mem size of all 3 installations after they have been fullly patched, nlited, and XPlited. So would it be fair to say that the only argument that can be made for running 2000 (with or without 4 gigs) at this time is its (presumably) slightly smaller HDD/mem footprint? And that the memory difference is too small to make a measurable difference in performance or memory management in general and that whatever HDD space could be saved would be insignificant especially when compared to modern HDD sizes (I will have 4 1TB drives in this system). I will do the mem/HDD footprint comparison before deciding. If the difference really is minimal I guess I will go with XP. Of course XP also has that PITA activation thing which I am not looking forward to. Yet another reason I have delayed 'upgrading'. Should I post the results of my test in this forum?

I gave XP a try when it was released, but quickly went back to 2K due to reliability (pre-SP1) issues that I was having, and just on principle to avoid all that shiny fisher price XP bloat (aka higher HDD/mem usage). But I am in the process of buying a new computer and am now sitting with 2 beautiful 2GB sticks ready to install. So my question is this: does it still make sense from a performance and anti-bloat stance to stick with 2K or should I downgrade to XP for its (slightly) better compatibility with current programs, the legacy 'compatibility mode' for playing DOS games, and the /3G switch or whatever other real improvements XP may have? A faster boot time maybe? Since win2K, which was indeed a huge improvement (in reliability) over 98SE it seems that MS is determined to keep making their OSes worse. The thought of installing vista (9 gigs!!!) makes me gag. I am dreading the day that I have no choice due to some new DX10 only game. I am hoping to wait it out for Vienna since they claim to be going for a more lean and mean build. We can all keep our fingers crossed. Note that I absolutely will be multi-booting with XP x64 to run Maya, 3D Studio Max and other modeling proggies (also DOS 7.1, 98micro, and Ubuntu Linux), and that I will be nLite-ing and XPlite-ing to keep the HDD footprint down. The purpose of the win2k/win2003/winXP 32bit install is to be able to run the windows programs that won't run 64 bit natively and to most efficiently run older programs that are never gonna use a lot of memory. Although I do love win2k and would be sad to part with it, in the end it is every last percent of performance that really matters to me. But 'performance' also includes having the maximum amount of memory usable for programs other than the OS itself: the main reason I am still a 2K user. Most of the comparisons (benchmarks) between 2K and XP that I have seen seem to indicate that they have basically equal performance in every way except minimum memory requirements and a larger minimum install size. And normally that would be reason enough for me to stick with 2K (more mem for my programs to use, more space on my OS partition). But OTOH, with 4 gigabytes it seems that I might benefit from the /3G switch in XP and I do play DOS games, so the compatibility mode may be worthwhile. And while most of my professional applications will probably have 64 bit versions, there may be the occasional memory hog (like say a recent game) that doesn't. So does win2k still make any sense at all with 4GB? Is there any argument to be made for it? Obviously I am leaning toward installing both a 32 bit and a 64 bit version of XP, but I am still hesitating. I do love win2k, a rare gem in the OS world. I realize that in the end it will probably not make any noticeable difference as long as I use XP x64 for my more demanding apps, but I still need to make a decision and I don't want to flip a coin. I am more interested here in theory than practice. On the one hand a nlite-ed, XP-lited 2K will be leaner and meaner. On the other there is the /3G switch, less need to run DOSbox for DOS games, and slightly better compatibility with current apps (no need to crack a setup file to remove the win version check).