> some system monitors.     Looks like XP eats about 100 meg of memory
without
> anything else running.   That's real efficient.   I dont code but it
should
> use about 10K.       I was using NT for the past 5 out 6 years,  until
last
> year when I couldnt bear the installation, network setup,  and the patches
> Microsoft added to make NT more windows/ multimedia compatible any more.
I
> figured why try to make it compatible, why not use the real thing.   I
stick
> my conclusion,  XP is a dog.

OK, I am less than impressed by Microsoft too, but 10K?  Even embedded
versions of DOS take up at least 64K.  I do admit 100M is way too big
though.  What are they doing with all that RAM?  I know a programming guru
who says that the way Windows processes keystrokes is amazingly inefficient.
He says thay allocate a chunk of memory and copy an event buffer or some
such block of data, appending the new event in the process.  And this is
done with each press of the key or mouse click!  No wonder the resources get
fragmented on a Win9X/ME system!

Just so folks know, recent versions of Linux are hogs too.  And slow!  Well,
not the underlying OS, but the window manager on top of the OS.  Yes, that's
right folks, the window manager and the OS are separate and distinct things
in Linux, not all thrown together and inseparable like Windows.  Try
browsing files and directories on KDE desktop on Linux, and compare it to
browsing directories with Windows Explorer.  I have a dual-boot SuSE 7.3 /
Win98SE machine at home, and browsing in Linux is MUCH slower than browsing
in Windows.

That said, I still (mostly) like Linux, I still (mostly) like Windows, and I
still think Microsoft is digging their own grave.  Their licensing policies
are acting like better and better shovels, and Linux makes the ground
softer!

Best regards,
Ivan Baggett
Bagotronix Inc.
website:  www.bagotronix.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Reagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] XP is a dog


> You are probably right Brad.  Most of the comments were W2000.  I received
> some comments from other engineers that he had no problems with XP/ Protel
> combo.      Anyway, XP has the same delays I see with NT with certain
> commands ie place track there are long delays which I did not see in W98
> unless my client rcs and ini files got corrupted.       I just installed
> some system monitors.     Looks like XP eats about 100 meg of memory
without
> anything else running.   That's real efficient.   I dont code but it
should
> use about 10K.       I was using NT for the past 5 out 6 years,  until
last
> year when I couldnt bear the installation, network setup,  and the patches
> Microsoft added to make NT more windows/ multimedia compatible any more.
I
> figured why try to make it compatible, why not use the real thing.   I
stick
> my conclusion,  XP is a dog.
>
>
> Mike Reagan
> EDSI



************************************************************************
* Tracking #: 6FC3EB9061CAED47A35393ECA6970857C67D5043
*
************************************************************************

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to