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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roads End who wrote (199899)	10/24/2002 10:43:20 AM
From: ild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Riechers, I guess you see big improvements from W98 to XP. THe reason is that W98 doesn't effectively use RAM, its HDD access is almost not cashed. Win 2000 is a pretty efficient OS, so comparing it to XP you should see mostly cosmetic improvements. So yes, XP is the best just because W98 wasn't designed to run on as powerful computers as we have now. W98 was based on W95 which in its turn was designed in 1991-1993. So my point is that Microsoft sucks. Its OS offerings have not kept place with the advancement in hardware.