That's good news and I just based in on the fact that WinXP doesn't need
any more than 2 gigs to run optimally while I would not consider running
Win 7 X64 with any less than 4 gigs. My opinion of course and I have never
owned a portable of any kind and probably never will. There's just nothing
I need it for when I'm out and about and can wait until I get home..
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:01:55 -0500, Joshua MacCraw <[email protected]>
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
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
