In article <20020103182853.UAJA1008.fep02-svc.ttyl.com@localhost>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
>> From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Thu 03/Jan/2002 16:06 GMT >> To: ql-users <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [ql-users] Happy New Year (and with a BITTER lesson to be lea >rned) Love Live QLs >> >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 15:27:56 -0000 , Norman Dunbar wrote: >> >> > Well, I'm running QPC2v2 on Win2k - what's wrong with it ? >> >> Apart from being slowest than Win95, > >My experience is that as long as you ahve at least 128Mb of memory then Win2K >outperformas any of the Win9x variants. > >> more bloated (if at all >> possible) and giving you no way to run in TRUE DOS (a MUST on >> desktop PCs for QXL !), nothing is wrong... > >This point I have to give you! > >> >> > Or is it (sorry, the Win2k stuff) only for Laptops ? >> > We have a couple of Compaq Evos which run Win2k very nicely. >> >> It may run "nicely", this is not to say that it makes a good usage >> of the machine ressources: re-install Win95 and compare the speeds >> of the same software under both OSes: you will be _amazed_ by the >> speed difference... > >My laptop is is dual boot (with the OS in separate partitions so they do not >interfer with each other). The performance under Win2K is noticeably faster >than under Win95. I do have 256Mb of memory on the machine and I think Win2K >makes better use of extra memory than Win9x. Trust you to have the luxurious hardware, Dave :-) When are you going to attend a London Quanta Group meeting, we would love to see you with your speedy laptop ? -- Malcolm Cadman
