I concur, XP is more light-weight IMO.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:01:55AM -0700, Joshua MacCraw wrote:
> You base that on fact or just impression? I've not found W7 any slower
> than XP on the same hardware.
>
> On 8/8/2010 8:08 PM, Scoobydo wrote:
> > XP is faster especially with only 2 gigs of RAM..
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:30:08 -0500, Steve Tomporowski
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I went out and got a netbook, it's an Asus Eee PC 1005PEB, which I've
> >> upgraded to 2GB memory. It has an N450 in it, and, although I expected
> >> it to be slow, it's pretty much a dog and Asus had decided that any
> >> working area on the screen should be made as small as possible with
> >> large menu bars, gadgets, etc. It came with Win7 Starter which brings
> >> on the question: I have three options here: Clean up this install,
> >> install Win7 Ultimate or install XP. I just don't know if XP will
> >> actually be faster. What I'd like to do is be able to play video off
> >> the hard drive, not necessarily HD. It just seems to me that the
> >> Aspire Revo seems faster. (Yeah, I tried with wired network also).
> >>
> >> Suggestions?
> >>
> >> Thanks....Steve
> >
> >
--
Bryan G. Seitz
