|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
"Also of note to NT users was that the FAT performance was consistently
better than NTFS with either OS."
Developers I know who have been working with Win 2K for that last 6 months
or so have been vocal about Win2K. Their comments applied to the RTM
version of Win2K and not earlier versions. The general consensus was that
it's a resource hog, slow, quirky to install and the uninstall doesn't quite
live up to it's name. Testers that have been using it say the same thing.
Stability is much improved.
I don't thiink I'll be switching anytime soon...unless...Win2K can make TS-5
a more stable product. But what are the odds of that?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Cheatham [mailto:nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 3:04 PM
> To: Omega List
> Subject: No rush for Win 2000
>
>
> For all those who can't wait to get win 2k, you should check out
> page 132 of
> the current PC Mag...
>
> "In desktop performance Win 2k was mostly unremarkable compared with NT4"
>
> To summarize, their tests were Win 2k v. NT v. 98 SE. NT was slightly
> faster in most configs than Win 2k. The exception was FAT w/256K (versus
> lesser mem in the other tests) and in tests of web site creation apps. 98
> lost.
>
> However the win 2k server performance was much better than NT.
>
> Also of note to NT users was that the FAT performance was consistently
> better than NTFS with either OS.
>
> CC
>
>
>
>
>
>
|