![]() ![]() This is very obvious when you boot into 2k after a week or more in XP. ![]() 2K has much better desktop responsiveness. I benchmarked XP and 2k on the same system and didn’t get a conclusive result either way except that 2k consistently won in PC mark by 1% (10 tests). On the performance side XP boots faster but that’s it as far as I can tell. ![]() Obviously, XP has built in skins and other UI enhancements but I just found myself turning these off as the computer responded better that way. The quality control on XP has been poor – I sometimes wonder if they even use their own software in there at MS. I found what a lot of other have: too many “features” to turn off in XP (search puppy, avi preview, zip folders, cd burning, common tasks…) no real disadvantage in using 2k for anything what-so-ever lots of noticeable, annoying bugs in XP.īugs have been my biggest disappointment: settings that won’t stay set random window focus errors CD Burner incompatibility (even while it worked with 2k on the same machine!) stupidly intrusive autoplay that can’t remember how you set it up, and many other little annoyances mainly to do with it forgetting your settings. The XP / 2K comparison has been one I have given a lot of though for a fair while now, as I have dual booted them on my Athlon 2600 machine for over 18 months. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |