Actually I'm in somewhat of a quandary. My game box with Win7 X64 is
currently running on 2 gigs because I wanted my main box with the Phenom
II X6 1055T with Vista X64 to have a full 4 gigs. DDR2 is done and I don't
want to be buying anymore of it but I'm not yet in a position to upgrade
my main boxes mobo to DDR3. I definitely notice the difference that 2 gigs
makes when I boot up and play L4D2. Loading the game and then getting back
to the desk top after quitting is a much sloooower process.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:10:45 -0500, Bryan Seitz <[email protected]> wrote:
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
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
