Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography
 

Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <Xns93B3BEE2CA8C7nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130>,
> REMOVEnntp@rogers.com says...
>
>>>I
>>>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.