|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
FWIW, based on reviews and comments from users, ME is
not the way to go. The basic "guts" of 2000 and XP are the same, so
stability is equal. XP, however, does not yet have drivers available for
all printers, etc., but Gates says that will be soon, for whatever that is
worth. As a result of all of its features, XP runs about 30% slower than
2000, which means you need more speed to equal 2000. Finally, Gates will
only support products for a limited time, so the closing bell will ring for 2000
much before it does for XP.
Bill
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From:
Maurice
Cruz
To: <A title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 2:00
AM
Subject: which Windows?
Hi,Am planning to upgrade from Windows 98. Someone on
thislist suggested upgrading to Windows 2000 instead of XP asthe
former is more stable. My question : Windows 2000 or Windows Milleneum
Edition?This will be for a stand-alone desktop PC.Thanks,
Maurice
|