«

Alfred Molon wrote:

> I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM (expandable to
> 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've been using 98SE). I
> read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB.
>
> Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it now.
> And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally all
> computer resources should be available for image processing.
>
> How much faster is 98SE than XP ? How much memory does it burn ?

XP will run quite happily in 256 meg. XP is faster than 98SE (I have
both), and vastly more stable and reliable. If you plan to do a lot of
image processing, more ram is better, regardless of which OS you choose.

Ron Hunter <> wrote in message news:<92fPa.24259$ m>...
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>

I personally vote for Win2000.. stable, all new PCs are supported,
without XP choosing some things for me.. But it as well as the others
like lots of mem for PS. Maybe laess game oriented, but most all
graphic apps work very well with it.


> > I'm about to upgrade to an IBM subnotebook with 256 MB RAM (expandable to
> > 1024 MB). This machine comes with XP (until now I've been using 98SE). I
> > read somewhere that XP is a memory hog, occupying up to half a GB.
> >
> > Now I might upgrade the memory later, but I wasn't planning to do it now.
> > And I certainly would add memory to be able to use XP. Ideally all
> > computer resources should be available for image processing.
> >
> > How much faster is 98SE than XP ? How much memory does it burn ?
>
> XP will run quite happily in 256 meg. XP is faster than 98SE (I have
> both), and vastly more stable and reliable. If you plan to do a lot of
> image processing, more ram is better, regardless of which OS you choose.