Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alydar who wrote (57900)	5/8/2001 8:43:52 AM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Your salesperson was misinformed. Windows 2000 and Windows XP use memory more effectively than the DOS based products, but they don't require more. This common misperception is easily debunked with a little practical testing. I have analyzed memory and CPU usage while doing a number of common tasks under all 5 of the OS variants you mention, using a variety of systems. There is simply no truth to the opinion that the NT based systems require significantly more resources than the DOS based systems or that the newer versions use more than the old. I believe that the misconception comes from the fact that over time, more and more application components are considered "required", but that is a usage pattern and not a property of the base OS. If you load those same components on Win95, you get about the same profile as Win98 or WinME. If anything, the newer versions manage memory better.