[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]    [<<]Thread[>>]

Number   :  5029
Date     :  2003-07-14
Author   :  Chris Kahney
Subject  :  Re: *OT* (Off topic) WIN98SE SLOW DOWN
Size(KB) :  2


Well believe it or not they didn't hire me for my good looks ;) I have 
quite a bit of computer experience myself, course I can't claim 25 years 
but computers 25 years ago have about as much in common as modern PCs as 
the Model T has to do with a modern Mustang. The primary storage system is 
no longer tape, we now use a mouse and most programs are no longer run from 
the command line (among many other differences). Really the only systems 
that matter in today's market are those who can run Windows 95 or better, 
which means the last 10 years (486 or better). Very few applications are 
still produced that will run on anything less, and I have 10 years of PC 
experience so I meet the minimum criteria.

If you don't believe me that's your opinion, but it's my opinion XP will 
run applications faster and smoother on a PC with 300mhz & 128megs than 98 
does.

Seems Microsoft and PC Buyer agree with me:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.asp

http://pcbuyersguide.com/software/system/WinXP_benchmarks.html
"ZD Net eTesting Labs tested Windows 2000 against several other Windows 
versions and determined that it was faster, overall, than both Windows 95 
and 98. With 64 MB of system RAM, Windows 2000 was 32 percent faster than 
Windows 95 and 27 percent faster than Windows 98. At 128 MB of RAM, Windows 
2000 was 39 percent faster than Windows 95 and 30 percent faster than 
Windows 98."

Think you'll agree XP is close enough to Windows 2000 that the benchmarks 
are interchangeable. If you don't it doesn't matter, ZD Net does.

Of course you could right all those reviews off as Microsoft propaganda, 
but then you could probably do that to any review I brought up so there 
would be no way to prove my stance. Like I said it was my opinion and I 
have some sources that back up my claim, you're welcome to attempt to find 
your own sources disproving my opinion but my opinion will be unchanged, 
I've upgraded enough old systems to know what I say is fact.


At 01:18 PM 7/14/2003, you wrote:

>Yes, XP will be more reliable and easier to configure than '98SE, but
>whether it will run better on a 300Mhz machine depends on your definition
>of 'better'.
>
>My backup machine is a K6-400 w/ 192M. It runs quite fast (and mostly
>reliably) on '98 provided you keep it defragged and clean out the registry
>now and again (lack of maintenance is the cause of most system slowdowns,
>BTW.)
>
>With XP installed it runs like it was lubricated with treacle, but it *is*
>easier to configure -- particularly, I suppose, from the point of view of a
>'phone support tech who only has to get it running, not live with it...
>
>I doubt if my opinion (based on some 25 years of assembling, repairing,
>configuring and running the things) is really worth two cents -- let's say
>one and a half.



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.