| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 35654 | 2003-07-18 09:23:00 | Microsoft bending the truth... | Dolby Digital (160) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 160854 | 2003-07-18 13:42:00 | :D :D | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 160855 | 2003-07-18 21:49:00 | > I've just been loading Win XP Pro on to a PC and > during the load it comes up with the amazing > statement of "The fastest Windows ever - loads faster > than any previous version of Windows". > Sorry, have I missed something, are my pc's different > to Microsofts. Mine are the complete opposite; its > the slowest windows ever (on the same hardware). Well I'm sorry about all the issues all you people have with Windows XP and Microsoft, but I've definitely found Win XP to be faster booting than any of the previous versions of Windows (if installed at recommended specs or higher of course). I went from Win 98SE and ME to Windows XP on the same machine (no hardware change at all) and one of the first things I commented on (to almost everyone I talked to about it) was the speed that XP booted. I have SP1 installed, and all the updates (up to 2 days ago when I last updated - I believe there are a couple more now) and I still find it boots faster than any other Windows I've had. Cheers, :D Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 160856 | 2003-07-18 22:19:00 | >>I went from Win 98SE and ME to Windows XP on the same machine (no hardware change at all) and one of the first things I commented on (to almost everyone I talked to about it) was the speed that XP booted . I have run Windows 98 (first version), Win 2000 Pro and XP Pro on the same machine, Win98 eats them for breakfast; win2000 Pro and XP Pro have similar load times . I don't have an issue with the load times as such . . . its the rolling blurb which appears on the install that I have a problem with (as if people sit there and read it!) . In my experience win95 and win98 fly on modern hardware, Win XP needs modern hardware to get a look in . Actually, I did the load on an AMD K5 200 with 80MB of ram and to be honest I am impressed how it runs . |
Dolby Digital (160) | ||
| 160857 | 2003-07-18 22:20:00 | I can't see the point in fiddling around to get a few seconds faster booting. I make a coffee. :^O win98se mc |
mark c (247) | ||
| 160858 | 2003-07-19 08:55:00 | XP is _very_ fast at getting to the logon screen which gives the impression of a fast boot but at thats not a complete startup. I tested a 256mb, athlon 1800 with XPhome vs my old 256mb, P400 running win98SE. My timing was from hitting reset through to the desktop loaded with no disk activity. The athlon had ~5 seconds advantage because of a faster BIOS. The P2 booted in 43 seconds, while the athlon took 47 seconds. I was impressed with XP. While its not the fastest ever on the same hardware (my money would be on v1.01), MS have overcome the general software bloat factor in startup times. ie, for once your new computer won't take longer to start up than your old one. |
bmason (508) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||