Honor 9 Lite review
I read with interest this evening a thread in the Help-room Forum regarding going backwards and deleting XP and re-installing Win98SE. I must confess that whilst I have recently updated my system from Win 98SE to XP Home, I'm not that impressed with the speed of it lighting up. Mr Microsoft says that it will be much faster than previous versions, but after asking the question, myself, on the Help-room Forum regarding the speed, and trying out the suggestion of using Bootvis, it seemed to speed up once, but now is quite slow to start.
Do people really think that XP is that much faster than say 98SE, or are we just looking for something that is newer, but not necessarily better? It seems to me that there is a lot of new technology coming forward that really is taking three steps backward in regard to the method of operation and it's overall utilisation.
A classic is trying to video via a set top free-view box. It is useless, because it seems that you can only video what you are watching, yet everyone says how much better it is!! You cannot mix terrestrial and digital!
I am just passing comments, and do not expect to get any real answers just other comments.
Quite simply the only reason I moved away from 98SE was when new software would not install on "Yesterday's OS"
It is ancient wisdom to recommend the strict order.......Decide what you want to do ........ Find the software that will do it, and then and only then - pick the computer(OS) that will run the software.
My point exactly. That's why I think that a lot of us get the most up-to-date system because market forces are such that the impression is we cannot possibly manage with out it, which of course is completely untrue!
"Do people really think that XP is that much faster than say 98SE, or are we just looking for something that is newer, but not necessarily better?"
On a machine that is suitable to run XP the answer is a catagorical YES.
Windows 98 is now very old technology and has sever limitations when compared XP.
Many people are happy with their 98 setup because it does what they require from their computer.
That is however completely different from 98 being better than XP.
Thanks for your comment. My machine, according to all the requirements spelt out by MS is suitable for XP, never the less, I am seeing no discernible improvement in over all performance. It is certainly slower to fire up, but, having said that, as I say earlier, the applications run the same as in Win 98SE. I have to admit, that had I bought a new modern specification machine, (mine is four years old!), then maybe XP would be that much better, but it does concern me when the publicity suggests upgrading "older systems" to the all singing, all dancing, XP, and you will then be better off. I'm not sure this is strictly true.
I think the net result of these comments is much the same, get XP on a new high spec. machine and everything will be fine, but to upgrade an older spec machine, even with a clean install, as mine was, you will be very little better off.
You are obviously too young too have known it!!
yes at 61 your probably right lol
You'll soon be catching me!!
I have no problem watching terrestial TV programmes whilst recording a Freeview channel.
Re XP - my basic system is six years old including the motherboard, has a PentiumIII 550MHz CPU (upgraded from a Celeron 400MHz processor about nine months ago), 256MB of RAM (used to be 128MB) and I have been using XP Pro for around 18 months very successfully.
It's the most stable OS I've ever used from Microsoft over the past 17 or 18 years.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.