A common attitude with Windows users here

[smerf]

Hi,

Just took a course in college on Windows 2000 professional and server. It is funny that the more I know the more windows 2000 crashes.

Has anyone noticed that as the PC clones claim that they are running faster they actually are running slower at least in real time by my stop watch, or is it that the PC clone mfg's are lying to us, stay tuned I will investigate this matter more. My stop watch tells me that my old 500 mhz Compaq Presario takes 2 minutes and 39 seconds to start up. My Amiga 3000 at 25 mhz takes 32.5 seconds to start up, and my new 2.2 ghz e-machine takes 3 minutes and 2 seconds to start up, but now my old Packard Bell at 200 mhz only takes 1 minute and 45 seconds to start up. HMMMM very interesting. Now my Amiga takes approx. 1 sec to shut off, my Packard Bell takes 10 seconds to shut off, my Compaq takes 1 minute and 52 seconds to shut off and my e-machine at 2.2 ghz takes 2 minutes and 56 seconds to shut off. So this tells me that the fastest machine I own is really the slowest, and the slowest machine I own (Amiga) is really the fastest, at least in real time.

Very Interesting!

My Amiga 3000 running OS 2.0 hasn't crashed in 10 years, my Packard Bell running Windows 95 crashes about once every 6 months, my Compaq Presario running Windows 98 crashes about once a year, and my e-machine running Windows XP hasn't crashed yet, (only had it 2 months) :-)

HMMM My oldest machine the Amiga seems to be the most dependable.

HMMM now what am I using Windows 2000 on, how about an 800 mhz Microtel machine, like I said the more I know about a OS the more it crashes, I crash this out at least twice a month.

Smerf

[smerf]

Hi,

Just wanted to clarify a few things I said in my past statement.

It just seems as computers get faster and do more micro sloth builds bigger OS's that just eat up all the head room that the new machines give, actually making them slower by our standards of clocking a device called a stop watch or real time (minutes & seconds or in some cases hours).

Lets look at some facts Mandrake Linux loads up on my 500 mhz compaq in just over 15 minutes, Lindows loads up in just over 7 minutes, Windows 2000 in just over 45 minutes.

Mandrake linux gives me an OS and lots of applications like internet programs, an office suite (like micro slot office) and some games. (over 15 minutes install)

Lindows gives me an operating system and internet browser and 4 games (wonder where they got that idea from) (just over 7 minutes install)

Windows 2000 an OS and internet browser with 4 games.
(over 45 minutes install)

Mandrake and Lindows no crashy yet, Windows 2000 crashy at least once a month)

Now lets look at Windows 2000 startup, I turn on computer, i get windows 2000 screen --------------- and still look at windows 2000 screen ------------ then it gives me the OS screen but don't try to use any apps yet it is loading other thingys like volume control, anti virus, this and that, now after about 3 minutes I can use it.

Now lets look at Mandrake, i turn it on, I look at start up choose my OS system, look at hardware found screens, look at software start up screens (drivers) and then after 3 minutes can use system, pretty even start up and shut down with windows 2000

Lindows starts up nice after about 30 secs in OS screen with icons, thing I don't like is that Lindows made screen look like windows screen and operate like windows, but does not run windows programs.

So for speed don't look at 2.2 ghz, or 400 mhz buss speed ask the retailer how long does it take to actually do work.
Is it faster than my machine now in real time.

If you don't like that than ask yourself, self how fast can I type, can I out type a 2.2 ghz machine.

Will that 2.2 ghz speed out distance my printer?

or am I just going to play games.

smerf