>On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:19:35 +0300, peter kostov wrote:
>Really? On decent hardware (read: anything bought in the last 2 years with
>at least 2GB RAM), Vista works much better than XP. Vista x64 is also the
>primary testing ground for GIMP on Windows - at least for the releases
>available at gimp-win.sf.net.
Not certain if this reply is directed to the right party - having trouble
deciphering quotes from new postings on this board, however:
I am amused by the notion that 'decent hardware' is that purchased in the
last 2 years with at least 2gb ram, and also by the notion that Vista in any
flavor runs better than xp.
I will agree that newer hardware tends to run either OS faster - so, if
faster is better, newer hardware rules. OTOH, I am running GIMP on a 5-year
old 3.0 gHz machine (2GB RAM) in XP and in Linux (Ubuntu 8.10), and it runs
just fine in both. The latest version of Gimp runs as well in XP as it does
in Ubuntu. Previous versions of GIMP would crash in XP.
I purchased (by 'involuntary' default because almost nothing else was
available) a 64-bit Vista notebook for my daughter. Vista on that machine
runs as well as XP on mine, and that's a good thing. It runs like a snail on
my son's 1.5 year old 32-bit notebook.
We would have scrapped Vista on the new notebook (I own an unused copy of XP)
except that XP drivers for the HD on the new notebook are not readily
available (another MS-imposed 'involuntary' default. . . keeps my heart
beating warm for MS . . . their day is coming).
Gimp-user mailing list