> Ok, I'll take your word for it, but I had to jab when a W2k user was the > first to complain. > > While I have the Anything-but-Windows Spotlight, I'd like to point out > that Windows 2000 requires a substantial amount of hardware to run on, > whereas Linux runs on a 386+. I'm going to step out on a limb and say you > probably paid mucho money to upgrade to a new PC just so you > could run W2k > while I run Linux on everything from my toaster and Palm Pilot on up.
Thats true if you don't use Gnome or KDE. I used Linux Mandrake with Gnome and KDE and they are definitely slower than the Win2k GUI. Also the starting of applications is much faster on Windows. I was able to compare this with XEmacs, Netscape and StarOffice. I used Linux until last year and than tried (just for fun) Win2K. I'm now using Xemacs, SSH, CVS, LaTeX on Win2K and it works fine. (on a K6 233) Jantho _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
