http://www.metafilter.com/575// Comments on MetaFilter post Comments on 575 Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:29:23 -0800 Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:29:23 -0800 en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 http://www.metafilter.com/575/ Early testing indicates that not only is Windows 2000 <b>slower</b> than NT 4, but the more RAM you have, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/000125-000009.html">the greater NT's advantage</a>. That's not how Microsoft is spinning it, of course. post:www.metafilter.com,2000:site.575 Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:24:48 -0800 jjg windows nt microsoft http://www.metafilter.com/575/#283 D'oh! Apps seem to load a lot slower in win2k vs. NT4, but other than that, I can't tell the difference on my workstation (700Mhz P3 chip w/ 256Mb RAM). I don't see how win2k could be any faster, it's more bloated code I'm sure, but the convenience of the extra features are worth it to me. comment:www.metafilter.com,2000:site.575-283 Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:29:23 -0800 mathowie