Does an OS effect internet speed?

Since I've been using XP my internet connection seems much faster! Some of you may remember there were some links to various connection speed testers a while back. I'm only on NTLs entry level 150k, but it seemed pretty much the same as my dial up connection was. But since sticking XP on here things have definitely sped up! Is this down to the OS or just a coincidence?

 

Oh come on MO, admit it......you've put your PC on M*n* !

:duck:

 

lmaO!

nOpe! but I did cOlOur the the LEDs in the cable MOdem in with that green lObster sperm!

 

Could it not be that a properly set up Windows XP computer is simply more responsive and faster than Windows 9x (presumably what you were using before?).

 

I was using ME. It's not just things like responsiveness. Download times and such also seem faster!

 

Hmmmm... Windows ME, a much despised incarnation of the 9X family. If I remember correctly, Win ME was riddled with glitches and stability issues especially drivers etc. I know when I had it I ditched it pretty quickly for Win 2K Pro. But I would assume that what you are experiencing is probably the effect of drivers and code that are actually written to utilise broadband/cable connections whereas when ME came out these sorts of connection were still esoteric or limited in their availability.
If you want to get some more speed or tweak your XP rig then try the following link http://www.tweakxp.com/

 

Mr Moderator please have a word with MO, surely only O's after M's are supposed to be in capitals or is that down to XP as well

 

I dont think ME was an offspring of the 9X familly, it was more a bastard son on NT. No real DOS, actually it wasnt a real OS, twas but a joke, i hope!

 

ME was indeed an offspring of 98. DOS was there, but it was hidden from the user, and what remained was severely cut down. It did user the same driver model as Windows 2000 though.

Windows ME sucked, basically. All the disadvantages from 2000 and 98 rolled into one dire package.

 

I stand corrected

no argument with that sentiment

 

I'm not a real expert - but I klnow that OS's like 95 etc weren't really optimized for networking etc... a lot of tweaking of the registry was required if I remember correctly...

 

People laughed at me when I stuck with 98 over ME - well, I was proved right in the long run as 98 was more stable... XP isn't too bad though, though I would like to know why EVERY copy of Win9x upwards I've had has trouble shutting down - and this is on 3 different configurations/brands of computer - very odd...

 

The Windows 98 shut down problem is very common Dom, and can be caused by many things. Its usually something resident in memory which cannot be closed down properly, but it can also be caused by network components which Windows does not like (usually not Microsoft ones funnily enough).

 

Back in the days before XP I had WIN98SE and upgraded to ME. It was so bad I had go to back to WIN98SE. I think WIN98SE is stilll a good operating system as uses little resources. A P233 with 64MB RAM will run it fine. For me though XP is the best. I do sometimes wished I went for Win 2000 instead but XP will do fine.

 

I "upgraded" from 98 to ME! All it did was make my desktop icons a little MOre funks and make me crash pretty much daily!

I've not crashed once since using XP! The only problem I have with XP is that everytime I open Outlook it freezes as soon as I type in a password. I then have to close it and then it works the second time. Odd!

I'll have a look through the tweak XP link! Thanks!

 

XP is everything windows should have always been. Nice looking, easy for none computing people to use, fast, stable etc. My PC never crashes on XP. I have a cheap £30 motherboard as well. The dreaded K75SA.

 

XP nice looking??

looks like play doh!

My mums first OS

 

As someone who currently runs Win2K Pro, what's wrong with 2000 then? I have no complaints. I know games support is a big issue for many with 2k, but I don't play games, so apart from that what are the disadvantages?

 

I think that came out a little wrong Henry, it just seemed like it was trying to be like Windows 2000, with none of the advantages 2000 offered, while 98 had DOS, which could be an advantage, was mutilated in ME.

Personally, I'm not sure what to think of 2000, but I dont really like it. Seems a very poor relation to XP now (although I appreciate that XP is more or less very similar) - Maybe my impression of it is tarred by the fact I never got 2000 running stable on my home PC for whatever reason.

PS. I think Windows XP is good looking as well. It can easily be changed to your tastes too.

 

Yep, fair comment.

I went straight from 98SE to 2000 (I also liked 98SE too, noticeably much more stable than the original 98), but having gotten used to using NT4 at work I got a taste for the NT platform. Have been using 2000 at home for over 2 and half years and have never felt to need to change, it's been as steady as a rock IME (currently running SP4 - although SP2 onwards was very stable IMO). I've not even bothered installing ME at home, and glad I didn't from what other people have said of their experiences in the past.

XP just looks like a prettier version of 2000 to me, but having not ever invested any time to look into XP I'm prepared to have my opinions changed. Just as long as it doesn't run slower than 2000 on the same machine, that's my only concern i guess.