A scroll of mail from Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 5
Feb 2001 06:36:16 -0800 (PST)
Read it? y
>It's actualy worse than that while windows 95 will
>handle 512, preformance for most applications suffers
>when you use anything over 64. Windows 98/ME will
>give preformance gains, in general use with 128, but
>preformance begins to degrade with more memory than
>that installed. (Graphics software like Photoshop
>seem to be a special case).
While I am not a great fan of Microsoft, I have to say that Win2000 is
rock solid and uses all of your memory (I've got 256Mb). I've been
very impressed with it as I used to run Win98 and (at least) daily
reboots were required. Win2k just sits there, serving files to my
other boxes and checking my email, as well as playing games, running
the webcam and photo-scanning/editing. It's expensive though, but the
best damn Microsoft OS I've ever used, and that's out of, well, all of
them.
I usually leave it running all of the time and I don't think I've ever
seen it crash. It's almost as stable as my Linux/BSD boxen. ;)
dave
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
