Is Windows XP faster that windows 98?

Answer 1

On less powerful processors, such as the Pentium II, Windows 2000 offers a significant speed advantage. However, Windows XP has better support for multi-threading and multi-processing, which makes it faster than Windows 2000 on newer processors.

Answer 2

Windows XP recommended a 233Mhz processor, while Windows Vista recommended an 800Mhz processor (3 times more speed was required). From a linear perspective, one might say that Windows Vista is 3 times slower than Windows XP, based solely on system requirements. In practice, one could upgrade a Windows XP system to a Windows Vista system, but they would experience longer boot times and a generally less responsive UI (e.g. programs take longer to load).

In cases where the hard drive was not a limiting speed factor, and the drivers and software installed are equivalent, Windows XP will always load and run faster than Vista. Windows 7 requires 4 times more CPU speed than Windows XP, and 16 times more RAM than Windows XP, but was capable of keeping its resource usage in check better, often outperforming Vista on identical hardware and rivalling even Windows XP with most advanced features disabled. At a point where the hard drive is the limiting factor, all three operating systems will run at roughly the same speed (e.g. a 1Ghz processor with a slow hard drive).

The general benchmark for a Windows system is that the recommended hardware will result in a boot time of 30-60 seconds (60 being the more usual case). Slower processors will increase this time accordingly. For example, Windows Vista on a 233Mhz system should take from 90 seconds to 3 minutes to load compared to XP's 30-60 seconds.

Answer 3

yes it is.

i used windows 98 before and it is so slow and crazy.

Answer 4

Yes.