Yeah you are quite correct but XP is so sooo pretty and we all know that a pretty 
desktop encourages higher productivity ;)                                     NOT

waste some time ere:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/phattag/






On Monday, September 2, 2002 at 10:54 am, T23 User wrote:
>I have a question about What's 
>the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP?:

>
>Microsoft claims XP is faster.  How is that possible with bloatware.  XP takes more 
>memory than W2K, has more useless features, requires a faster processor, and what 
>can't I do with W2K that I need to do with XP?  And then there is an exteremly-limiting 
>key code for registration... come on Microsoft, who are you fooling?
>
>So I've made my opinions clear.  Here is a more scientific study on the differences 
>between XP and W2K:
>
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml
>
>Simpler is better.  Don't believe the hype and get the most out of your CPU.
>
>Regards all.
>
>

• Reply or follow-up to this message

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum