Re: [vox] XP - bottom line, painful :)

[Eric <unix4erMAPSic@yahoo.com>]

Windows 2000 takes *a lot* of resources, if XP takes
more, surely *brand new* systems would probably need
to be purchased with .25-.5 gig of RAM and 800Mhz+
processors- no kidding. I was getting out of memory
errors with 256 MB of RAM. 
ERIc

--- William Kendrick <nbs@sonic.net> wrote:
> 
> I was reading some /.'d article on Anandtech, and
> noticed one
> about XP.  It's from July, but is amusing.  I
> skipped ahead to the
> end, to determine what the reviewers actually
> thought of the OS.
> 
> Their words:
> 
>   "The XP transition is going to be a painful one.
> ...
>   we must conclude that the phenomena [ speed
> problems ] are intrinsic
>   to the OS and that the only viable solution is to
> upgrade the hardware. ...
>   
>   Bottom Line: If you plan to upgrade to Windows
> XP/Office XP, and if you've
>   already qualified new PC platforms based on your
> experience with
>   Windows 2000/Office 2000, you'll need to revise
> your minimum system
>   performance levels upwards by 25-30%. That should
> give you enough
>   headroom to compensate for the more `portly' XP
> combination."
> 
> 
> Didn't someone from LUGOD recently say their
> business will be switching
> to XP?*  You might want to point them to this
> article ;)
> 
>   http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1501
> 
> 
> -bill!
> 
> * Honestly, I've heard of only this _one_.  Even the
> Windows- / NT-
>   evangelists I know are steering clear of XP. :)


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com