|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Nope, you are mistaken. I have been running XP for several months now
and it is faster than XP. Sure, it needs more RAM, but RAM is dirt
cheap. Get all you can get. I am running XP on a P3 450 with 384RAM
and it runs like a champ. Another thing....don't upgrade from win9x to
XP. As with all versions of Windows, a clean install is much better.
Screw everything you hear about benchmarks and MS bullying
people.....determine the difference yourself. As I did. WinXP is like
Win2000 with much improved drivers and gaming support. Win2000 I have
never been impressed with. Better than 98, but not where it should be.
XP is the best so far.
Roger
>-----Original Message-----
>From: p [mailto:rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:31 PM
>To: prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Omega-List
>Subject: Re: Don't upgrade: WinXP slower than Win2K
>
>
>
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|