|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
You just need a lot of ram. XP if faster than 2000. No question....and
it doesn't get slower with age like all other windows versions.
R
>-----Original Message-----
>From: M. Simms [mailto:prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:45 AM
>To: Omega-List
>Subject: Don't upgrade: WinXP slower than Win2K
>
>
>InfoWorld Tests Show XP Slower Than W2K
>
>I was quite surprised to see the results of this test by
>InfoWorld. It's hard to believe. I'm sure that MS is extremely
>unhappy with these results, and they commented they were not
>able to replicate them either. I'm sure many more words will
>be written about this, but InfoWorld are a bunch of smart
>cookies and they have done this for over 20 years, I have been
>reading them for that long.
>
>A lot of my industry knowledge comes from this mag. It's not
>like the first bunch of rookies tells us that WinXP is
>actually slower than W2K. If it's true, it's a black eye for
>some one for sure. As per "fair use" I'm copying two
>paragraphs of the InfoWorld article, and then I'll send you to
>the actual full article. This is pretty amazing. When I
>received the email with this news I said to myself "WHOA
>NELLIE !!" Here goes:
>
>"HOPELESS OPTIMISM must be a fundamental part of human nature,
>because we want to believe that new operating systems truly
>represent an improvement on their predecessors. It's easy to
>point to certain features in a new OS as examples of progress,
>but end-users often find that a new OS performs like molasses
>compared to the version they were using. As a result, CTOs
>wanting to capitalize on the benefits of a new OS may find
>that new hardware investments are necessary -- and expensive
>-- requirements.
>
>"Unfortunately, Microsoft's Windows XP appears to be
>maintaining that tradition, as indicated by results of
>independent testing performed by CSA Research and confirmed by
>our work in the InfoWorld Test Center. Our tests of the
>multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000
>demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical
>hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP.
>In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took
>nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows
>2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies
>determined to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering
>desktop systems with dual CPUs to get the most out of the new OS."
>
>Here is the article. This is a 'must read' my friends: And
>I'll keep you up to date regarding the inevitable sequels of
>this saga. http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=110101-WaitingForXP
>
>
|