From: David Habgood (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 08 2006 - 22:12:53 MDT
Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 03:40:10PM -0700, Charles D Hixson wrote:
>>>That's not true, Windows XP takes much less time to boot up than
>>>Windows 95... I think people who have been around for 10 years
>>>know pretty well that computers evolved both qualitatively and
>>On identical hardware? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. Mind
>>you, I don't really have any experience of MSWind XP, so I could
>>be wrong, but I *think* you're noticing faster CPUs and disk
>I can't speak to Win95 vs. WinXP, but WinXP is faster than Win2K on
>identical hardware in every case I've tried, unless the hardware has
>less than 256MiB of RAM (which is ridiculous on any machine that
>runs 2K anyways). It might be faster there too, but I haven't
WinXP is essentially the same as 2k is it not? (this isn't my field), so
it wouldn't surprise me that the more recent version is faster.
Win98 (entirely different) will run faster than 2K/XP from my
experience, however, it isn't as capable.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT