Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Oct 2011 23:00 UTC
Windows Ten years ago today, Microsoft launched what would become the world's most popular desktop operating system - for better or worse. Its interface colours were... Interesting (trying hard to avoid bias here, folks, bear with me now). Its early performance was... Not always entirely up to par. Its security track record was... Well, it sucked hard in that department (I tried). We're ten years down the line, and thanks to Vista, way too many people are still using this relic.
Thread beginning with comment 494365
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Performance
by Phucked on Wed 26th Oct 2011 03:23 UTC in reply to "Performance"
Phucked
Member since:
2008-09-24



- Linux has an unfortunate inverse relationship between performance and user friendliness; e.g. KDE4 is as slow as Vista, while stand alone WMs are very fast but take some geekiness to use.




Oh really?

On my PII 450mhz KDE4 is much faster than XP was.

Edited 2011-10-26 03:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Performance
by Gullible Jones on Wed 26th Oct 2011 15:02 in reply to "RE: Performance"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

With what kind of graphics card, pray tell? Or are you just trolling?

Mind, I've used XP on a Thinkpad 600E with 200 MB of RAM. It wasn't exactly fast, but it was usable and didn't swap too much.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Performance
by Phucked on Thu 27th Oct 2011 09:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Performance"
Phucked Member since:
2008-09-24

With what kind of graphics card, pray tell? Or are you just trolling?

Mind, I've used XP on a Thinkpad 600E with 200 MB of RAM. It wasn't exactly fast, but it was usable and didn't swap too much.


It has a Radeon 8500le, I don't run most of the desktop effects as it bogs down fast. It no speed deomon but it is faster and has much more bounce back than XP, 2000 worked better on it.

Reply Parent Score: 2