Re: 98 vs. XP for digital photography

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ron Hunter, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. Ron Hunter

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:

    > In article <Xns93B3BEE2CA8C7nntprogerscom@140.99.99.130>,
    > 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.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    857
    Silverstrand
    Nov 18, 2005
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    807
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B1?=
    Jul 15, 2004
  3. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    767
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  4. Gary Hendricks

    Digital Photography Tip #1: Avoid using the digital zoom feature

    Gary Hendricks, Dec 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    381
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,052
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page