On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:06:48PM -0500, Carl Wilhelm Soderstrom wrote: >> I've been running XP since June or so. I have to agree with what Scott >>said. There is no doubt that it is faster than Win98 was. > but will it run on a 486? win98 would; but if XP won't, then win98 >is faster (at least in that case). I tried XP on a P233/96MB here at the >office; and IMHO, it was slower than anything else on that box. If you turn >off the cycle-wasting new interface stuff (rounded windows and such), and go >back to the win2k-ish 'classic' interface; it was about the same as w2k. Yeah, but people love sexy desktops :-) > > as for buying more memory... not all memory is obscenely cheap. >72-pin stuff isn't. :) Yeah, that's probably the case. > > so the upshot as I see it is; that it's not a worthwhile upgrade, >unless you have bleeding-edge hardware... and even then; if it's not broke, >why fix it? (of course, one could argue that windows is inherently >broken...). Microsoft's 'fixes' usually just lead to a different set of >problems you have to learn to deal with. Yes, this is true especially if using samba file servers. Just go ahead and install SP2 on a machine that uses a samba pdc. >Carl Soderstrom >-- >Network Engineer >Real-Time Enterprises >(952) 943-8700 >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >http://www.mn-linux.org >tclug-list at mn-linux.org >https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list -- Ben Lutgens Sistina Software Inc Sysadmin MCSE: Must Consult Someone Experienced -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20011027/74f10976/attachment.pgp