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 494460
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Performance
by Gullible Jones on Wed 26th Oct 2011 15:02 UTC 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

RE[4]: Performance
by Gullible Jones on Sun 30th Oct 2011 12:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Performance"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Interesting, that looks roughly on par with my Intel 945 stuff in terms of performance. Maybe the drivers are better... 2D definitely sucks on the Intel stuff.

(OTOH, 2D has sucked on every chipset I've ever used on Linux.)

Reply Parent Score: 2