Chuck(G)
25k Member
I had some time over the weekend to conduct an experiment that I've been meaning to do for years.
I took a 3.0GHz/800 Prescott P4 HT system with 2GB of memory and a SATA HD and loaded up Xubuntu 16.04 LTS on it. I then installed WinXP and Win7 allowing for 1GB of memory space under VirtualBox. (I have licensed copies of both--early Win7 didn't appeal to me, so the DVD went onto the shef, along with Win8 and Vista).
Now there are those who say that Win7 is so much better--and faster--than XP. Not in my experience! Side-by-side with identical installations of Firefox showed that Win7 was perhaps only half as fast as XP. I suspect that Win2K would be even faster--VBbox would certainly suport it.
So what I'm I missing? Is the superiority of Win7 over XP just a bunch of smoke shoveling?
I took a 3.0GHz/800 Prescott P4 HT system with 2GB of memory and a SATA HD and loaded up Xubuntu 16.04 LTS on it. I then installed WinXP and Win7 allowing for 1GB of memory space under VirtualBox. (I have licensed copies of both--early Win7 didn't appeal to me, so the DVD went onto the shef, along with Win8 and Vista).
Now there are those who say that Win7 is so much better--and faster--than XP. Not in my experience! Side-by-side with identical installations of Firefox showed that Win7 was perhaps only half as fast as XP. I suspect that Win2K would be even faster--VBbox would certainly suport it.
So what I'm I missing? Is the superiority of Win7 over XP just a bunch of smoke shoveling?