98,2000, And XP

IntelUser101 · 03-12-2005, 11:53 AM

would 98 or 2000 run faster than xp no matter what? cuz i heard xp hogs RAM

Terencentanio · 03-12-2005, 12:04 PM

XP does. 98 would run a **** of a lot faster, specially if you use Sindows

2000 is just a death trap.

tribalsun · 03-12-2005, 12:14 PM

XP will run just fine on your system. I recently went from Win 2k Pro to Win XP SP-2 and my RAM usage is roughly the same at system start up with XP as it was with 2K Pro. I would never run 98 if it was a choice between that and XP with your set-up, nor would I ever go to 98 from Win 2k Pro.

Terencentanio · 03-12-2005, 12:20 PM

And why not? (waits for typical answer "unstable")

Osiris · 03-12-2005, 12:23 PM

Explain to me how XP hogs ram??

IntelUser101 · 03-12-2005, 12:25 PM

well if u have low ram like 128 or below is slow as a block of ice sitting on concrete

Terencentanio · 03-12-2005, 12:26 PM

XP requires more system resources to run. It's an undenyable fact. Win95 will boot and run faster than any other windows version, even if by unnoticable figures, simply because it's smaler. Win98 is somewhere in between. Instablity isn't a factor... XP takes more sources.

I've never actually USED XP, but I've seen it on several PC's, usually averaging at 87% usage. I have run Win98 on 9% and Win2k on about 48% I think...

IntelUser101 · 03-12-2005, 12:29 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that tells all u 128ers out there using xp

tribalsun · 03-12-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Terencentanio
XP requires more system resources to run. It's an undenyable fact. Win95 will boot and run faster than any other windows version, even if by unnoticable figures, simply because it's smaler. Win98 is somewhere in between. Instablity isn't a factor... XP takes more sources.

I've never actually USED XP, but I've seen it on several PC's, usually averaging at 87% usage. I have run Win98 on 9% and Win2k on about 48% I think...

XP is a modern OS, so it does require more than 95 to run, yes. By your rationale I should quit playing DOOM 3 and go back to the original DOOM because it requires less to run. At system start-up XP has consumed 220 megs, the same as my 2k Pro box did. As a comparison, my parents had 256 with XP, it used 120 at start-up. I installed and extra 256 and start-up usage increased only marginally. My XP box boots up quicker than any version of windows I've ever used thanks to XP's prefetch. By your reasoning we should just all go back to Windows 3.1 and DOS, I mean afterall it's smaller right?

Terencentanio · 03-12-2005, 12:38 PM

If you insist, sire

Member Login