|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
If you're already running W2K, you might also want to check out the write-up
on this performance test by InfoWorld before you spend your money on XP.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Cheatham [mailto:nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 9:39 AM
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Don't upgrade: WinXP slower than Win2K
I can't think of a single reason to upgrade my win 2000 for trading. It
works essentially perfectly. Why would I want to spend the money and more
importantly the time for a little speed increase that may or may not
materialize? Upgrading to win 2000 to get over nt's defrag problems was one
thing, but XP doesn't seem to offer anything materially new for a TS user.
Upgrading OSs is a total pain, inevitably something won't work right...am I
missing something? Maybe it is something to consider for a new computer...
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <jpb2112@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'p'" <rhodes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:16 AM
Subject: RE: Don't upgrade: WinXP slower than Win2K
> 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
>
|