I'm not winding anyone up here - this is a genuine question. I am bewildered as to why anyone would choose to run XP instead of Win2k. XP is WAY too "Big Brother" for my liking, it requires minimum of 128mb RAM, vs Win2k's min spec of 64mb. Personally, I buy my RAM to run my applications faster, NOT to waste on a bloated OS - one might very reasonably question WHY XP is running so inefficiently. Please enlighten me, and like I said - I'm not looking for an argument, so flamers don't bother - I'm looking for genuine replies only - convince me, if you can, to downgrade ( ;) ) to XP from 2k! Regards, Arky ;o)
yes.. and when i get bored of it i switch to my laptop with win2k and after encoding is done, i reboot my main comp and relive the bliss of win98 :D fisher-price rules
Since much of the XP code is rewritten I figured it might not be as slow as 2k on older machines. And alas! Like a vitamin injection on my old 350MHz PII, even faster than 98 ... maybe not 95B. cheers
--------------------- Все важное всегда так просто. Все простое всегда так сложно.