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

Number   :  5040
Date     :  2003-07-16
Author   :  Chris Kahney
Subject  :  Re: *OT* (Off topic) WIN98SE SLOW DOWN
Size(KB) :  1



>I note, however that his experience appears to be with Win2000, not XP --
>and there *is* a difference.
>
>2000 isn't anywhere near as bloated as XP, which starts a lot more
>background services, all of which occupy system time.

Not true. Very little has changed between 2000 and XP:
http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2105,5,17,1,0501,02.html
"Windows 2000 and Windows XP are, of course, essentially the same operating 
system. Internally at Microsoft, Windows 2000 is known as NT 5 while XP is 
known as NT 5.1. Both are based on the original Windows NT kernel, and both 
have sought to marry the NT and Windows 98 operating systems."

"All the above said, if you have at least a 400MHz machine with 256MB of 
RAM, Windows XP will run faster on your system than will Windows 2000. 
" alright so I said 300mhz & 128megs, but this just adds to my assertion 
that XP *is* faster than 2000. More proof:
http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/msxp.pdf



>With my current main machine (a Athlon 1.33GB with a gig of RAM and 120GB
>of RAID 0 -- now over 2YO) I hardly know I'm alive!

If you have a Athlon 1.33ghz w/ 1gig ram and 120gig Raid 0 and XP is 
*still* giving you a problem then you've got some serious problems with 
your PC...


>Video capture is just another background task, no 2GB file limits, no need
>to devote the entire machine to it -- even handles video copying on-the-fly
>at 4X with room to do other tasks at the same time.
>
>Since this topic is very much OT, I won't carry it further.

Not really. Everything we do on a PC is constantly effected by the OS, and 
that includes xxcopy run on a Windows based PC, but if you don't want to 
talk about it that's fine.


>Charles



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