|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Gary wrote:
>It sounds to me like W2k is faster than NT *server* for SERVER
>operations. I don't see anything there that says it's faster for
>standalone applications.
I'm not sure W2k is actually faster than NT for standalone
apps. In fact, benchmarks may be a bit lower since W2k
drivers have not yet been tweaked. It does "feel" faster to
me, though.
My query was in response to a post which stated that an
extra 200MHz was needed to equalize performance (with NT). I
find that somewhat difficult to believe (unless the
intention was to state that the minimum system requirements
are higher for W2k). Other than that, I doubt one would
need, for example, to run W2k on a PIII/800 in order to get
the same performance with NT on a PIII/600.
Best regards,
Jim
|