> William Chops Westfield wrote:
>> Roman wrote:
>>> Having spent a few days on the holidays playing with a friends new
>>> PC running windows XP, again it is noticeably slower than my win98
>>> system, even though it has more ram and a faster processor.
>>
>> Well, presumably XP and ME were microsoft's lasp gasp attempt
>> to get people with 1GHz+ machines to buy new (faster) ones to
>> make up for the speed loss, thus improving the US economy and
>> making a bunch of people a bunch of money.  It doesn't seem to
>> have worked, though.  My 400MHz machines still seem to be
>> running most applications just fine, not that I'm what the industry
>> would call a power user ("gee, I guess a windows PC makes an
>> OK X terminal." :-)
I agree there - I've got a 500MHz K6-II with 128MB of RAM and an 80GB Maxtor
hard drive - the thing flies. I *may* upgrade to a 1GHz or faster machine,
but I'm keeping Win98. I've seen way too many WinXP machines crashing during
normal use. Win2k is nice, though. The only reason I'm using 98 instead of
95 is because of the "Windows Protection Error" bug - a timer in one of the
VxDs overflows, causes a divide-by-zero and locks the system. Microsoft
released a patch for OSR2 (v4.0.950B or 4.0.950C), but not Win95 release
(v4.0.950). That and Win98's FAT32 support is nice.To some extent...
Personally I prefer Slackware Linux. ReiserFS is pretty much bulletproof -
I've tripped over my Linux router's power cable umpteen thousand times and
it *still* boots perfectly after a filesystem log replay.

Later.
--
Phil.
philpem@dsl.pipex.com
http://www.philpem.dsl.pipex.com/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics