Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <Xns93B3BEE2CA8C7nntprogerscom@220.127.116.11>,
> REMOVEnntp@rogers.com says...
>>>read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB.
>>XP uses more memory than 98, but the added stability and features (Power
>>Saving, NTFS, etc) are well worth it.
> Stability isn't that much of an issue. What I'd like to have is raw
> speed. Looks like I'll have to add extra memory quite soon.
If you want raw speed, spend your money on more ram and a faster
processor and faster disk. The OS won't make that much difference, but
the twentieth time you crash on 98SE while my XP machine rattles on
reliably you might notice a bit of difference in throughput.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 10:36 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.