>I suggest you try XP on the laptop. Up until recently I had a pentium 3 >700mhz laptop. XP ran considerably faster than 2000.
IMO, the most significant difference between w2k and xp on a laptop is the bootup/restoration times. w2k bootup/restore took eons - they definitely fixed it up on xp, which takes a couple/few 10's of seconds. Josh Coates http://www.jcoates.org -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Derek Burdick Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 7:50 AM To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List Subject: Re: For the record... >Many people still slap on windows 2000, although I agree XP is more >common nowdays. > >_However_, this laptop is older. It came with Windows 98, and so Windows >2000 was newer than the laptop or at least contemporary. I wouldn't >dream of XP on it because XP would be too slow. > I suggest you try XP on the laptop. Up until recently I had a pentium 3 700mhz laptop. XP ran considerably faster than 2000. .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `===================================' .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
