For the record...
jcoates at archive.org
Mon Feb 14 07:56:47 MST 2005
>I suggest you try XP on the laptop. Up until recently I had a pentium 3
>700mhz laptop. XP ran considerably faster than 2000.
IMO, the most significant difference between w2k and xp on a laptop is the
bootup/restoration times. w2k bootup/restore took eons - they definitely
fixed it up on xp, which takes a couple/few 10's of seconds.
From: plug-bounces at plug.org [mailto:plug-bounces at plug.org]On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 7:50 AM
To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: For the record...
>Many people still slap on windows 2000, although I agree XP is more
>_However_, this laptop is older. It came with Windows 98, and so Windows
>2000 was newer than the laptop or at least contemporary. I wouldn't
>dream of XP on it because XP would be too slow.
I suggest you try XP on the laptop. Up until recently I had a pentium 3
700mhz laptop. XP ran considerably faster than 2000.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin. |
| IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
More information about the PLUG