robin wrote: > Randy Kramer wrote: Just for the record, I didn't write what you attributed to me. I think Dan W. Dooley wrote it, but I'm not absolutely sure.
> So is it a case of comparing apples and pears (i.e. recent versions of > KDE with old versions of Windows)? Perhaps. I've made this comparison / complaint with Win95 vs. Caldera 2.2, 2.4, RedHat 5.2, 6.0, 6.2, Mandrake 6.0, 6.2, 7.0, 7.2, 8.1, and I'm now installing Mandrake 8.2. I've never had the need to upgrade beyond Win95, and don't plan to spend the money to do so. (I have worked on a few comparable machines with Win98, and saw no real difference in speed.) Win 95 has worked well for me with 32 MB or less. (I now have 64 MB installed.) > At least KDE will run on my office > machine, whereas I doubt if XP would (it only has 64MB of RAM). Like it > or not, desktops and applications that want to be full-featured tend to > assume that people have at the very least 128MB of RAM on at least a > 500MHz CPU, preferably more and faster. I'd be interested to see > performance compared between XP and Mandrake 8.2/KDE, with both boxes > running the same kinds of services with the same level of security > (well, to the extent that XP can get the same level of security!). > > Sir Robin, now happily back in KDE I agree, I expect to stay with KDE, perhaps using a few GNOME (and other non-KDE) applications. > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
