Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Russell
I've got a Vista Lenovo tablet, and I'm not thrilled with Vista, but it's okay and fortunately the computer is powerful enough to overcome most of the excessive resource consumption of Vista. But XP isn't not much of an option for tablet users because of the big difference in tablet support between the two. Still, I long for the efficiency of XP. (Can't believe I just combined efficiency and XP in the same sentence!)
|
Properly tweaked, XP can be fairly efficient, given sufficient resources. (Which in this case means at least 512MB of RAM.)
A friend recently upgraded to XP on one of his machines, and tweaked it as I recommended. To his surprise, it not only booted much faster than Win2K (which
was a design goal of XP), but also booted faster than his Win98SE machine, when 98SE was in a largely stock config, with only Roxio and Norton loading on startup, while XP loaded a lot of startup apps.)
Quote:
|
I'd love to get a Mac, but compatibility issues, plus having to learn another OS (I'd rather learn Linux), and cost all make it not a good choice for me. But I had multiple Macs before a Windows PC, and I do prefer to go with Apple if not for those factors.
|
Cost and compatibility are the big issues. Mac OS/X is based on a modified BSD kernel with all of the standard Gnu utilities, so a lot of what you might learn about Linux is applicable.
______
Dennis