Re: OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- From: "Calif Bill" <bmckeespam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:33:19 -0800
"HK" <payer33859@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uaSdnag0PMUD1dHanZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wayne.B wrote:
Not yet ready for prime time is my conclusion:
"New tests have revealed that Windows XP with the beta Service Pack 3
has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service
Pack 1."
http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html?tag=newsmap
"Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM, put
Microsoft Office 2007 through a set of productivity tasks, including
creating a compound document and supporting workbooks and presentation
materials."
A notebook computer with one gig of RAM?
D'oh.
No F'n reason you should need even that much memory, except for badly
written operating system and grossly bloated code! Hell, 303x IBM
Mainframes ran 8 meg of ram and did all the accounting for BofA, Montgomery
Wards, etc. Sure they used swap files, but they also had programs written
by programmers who understood computers. Was like the first Windows version
of Word Perfect. 26 megabytes to install. The 2nd write of it, did more
and dropped to about 18 Mbytes. Engage the brain and understand that if you
double the code to do something, you are going to take twice the time to do
it. One of the reasons, people now look at Quad Cores, etc.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- From: Wayne . B
- Re: OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- References:
- OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- From: Wayne . B
- Re: OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- From: HK
- OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- Prev by Date: Re: 17' Mahogany runabout just completed
- Next by Date: Re: OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- Next by thread: Re: OT: More on WinXP vs Vista
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|