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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (20060)	6/15/1998 11:47:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

I have just installed Win 98 on a AMD 486 dx 100. It would not run with 16 mb, so I upgraded to 48. It is now faster than a P133 with 80 mb running NT 4.0 for many applications. Is this another fishing expedition Reggie? What's the point? NT's a pig? I knew that. NT's where we want to go, though. Bill's made that perfectly clear. What I've see from those ad salesmen in the press says Win98 is about the same as Win95, perf wise. First one that came to hand: In general, your system should perform about the same running Windows 98 as it did running Windows 95. But if you convert to FAT32, you will gain some disk space and see subtle but important changes in application load time. These subtleties represent some of the greatest benefits to upgrading to Windows 98.--Larry Seltzer (from zdnet.com And remember that the "innovative" fast load stuff came from co-conspirator Intel. From what I recall, Cnet said that Win98 was faster than Win95+IE4, but slower than vanilla Win95. Might have been really fast without that all important "integrated" IE, but who can say? As for the three day thing, tell me when it hits three months and I'll be duly impressed. Cheers, Dan.