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.

Non-Tech : MB TRADING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderAlan who wrote (4597)	5/1/1999 10:25:00 AM
From: wily	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7382

Alan, I've been through serious tribulations on this one. Even did some investigating. My conclusion is that 98 has a little more overhead than 95 and so seems slower with a same-speed processor. Add some processor speed and it can seem as fast as 95. There also may be more memory used by the OS, so extra RAM can help too. This is what I've been able to glean from my own experiments and asking around. If you try win98 be sure to defragment with the option selected to "optimize how fast your programs start" (or something to that effect), 'cause it makes a big difference. Here's some answers I got when I went looking (Andy Thomas was the one I asked specifically): techstocks.com wily PS Still using 95 but may go back to 98 if I need the multiple-monitor support. The only thing I really miss from 98 is the "show desktop" feature, but I can mostly get around that by using hot-keys to open frequently used folders and programs.