|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Not really sure what you mean.
XP is not really an upgrade for W2K.
XP is an upgrade for windows 98 and ME.
There would be no reason for someone who is using W2K and likes it, to get
XP.
XP is basicly W2K, but better for general use.
Anyone upgrading, deffinately get XP and not W2K. But, if you have W2K
and like it. No need to get XP.
XP is better and if you are buying new, get XP.
Slower? Maybe. But, comparing it to windows 98 or ME, XP would be slower
as W2K is slower. It takes more speed and memory to run the latest. The
new would be sloooooooooow or may not even run at all on an old win 98
machine.
Get XP go with 1.4 G or more speed and 350M plus memory.
At 09:44 AM 11/1/01 -0500, M. Simms wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
|