|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Just to make sure you feel even worse :)
>From one of the windows mag,
Win2K is slower than WinNT by 15 to 20% on a same computer comparison,
not those Win2K is faster review just because they tested that on
a 3X CPU speed PC :)
Then now WinXP is 15 to 20% slower on the same computer with Win2K.
I wonder those old 486 could do most of what we want afterall :)
Lawrence
--- "M. Simms" <prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Didn't you hear ?
> XP requires 50% of the CPU to check that your hardware and XP registration
> key are synched.
> Old Bill G wanted to be sure you only get 1 install per copy.
> He doesn't trust you, so it constantly keeps checking, and checking, and
> checking.....
> ;>)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Cheatham [mailto:nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:28 PM
> > To: Omega List
> > Subject: off topic: XP
> >
> >
> > BlankMy internet computer died and I went out and bought a new XP version.
> > So far my feelings are pretty much all negative. Just in
> > installing/configuring software I have had about 4 crashes, most dealing
> > with outlook express. The speed is snail-like, even sending email is
> > obviously slower than 2000, despite the machine being more than 2x faster.
> > Right clicking on the background takes about 3 seconds to get a
> > menu...with
> > 2000 it is instantaneous.
> >
> > Am I doing something wrong? This thing can't be this slow, can it? I am
> > considering reformatting the whole thing and starting from scratch with
> > w2000.
> >
> > Thanks for any input,
> > Chris
> >
> >
>
>
=====
Lawrence Chan http://www.tickquest.com
Transform market data into opportunities
|