[Socratic]

Prove it...

 

Sorry can't.  The Win98 machine is mine (among a few) but the XP was for a friend for whom I had to do work and had it home for a few days.  Also, the benchmark link which you provided say 256 KB RAM is needed to run the program.  I guess my claim is based on the time I had my friend's machine and saw no improvement in how snappily windows opened nor speed in web surfing.

[zeugma]

256 KB RAM is needed to run the program

I think his sticking point is that nothing runs in 256KB of ram these days. If you meant 256 MB of ram, that's a couple of orders of magnitude or so different.

[RedWing9]

Also, the benchmark link which you provided say 256 KB RAM is needed to run the program.

64mb was the minimum, 256kb was recommended.

I guess my claim is based on the time I had my friend's machine and saw no improvement in how snappily windows opened nor speed in web surfing.

You shouldn't ever post your experience as indicative of Win 98 running as fast as Win XP because you have no idea how to gauge the two.

I do. I have been building PC's since the mid 90's, my first a PII 450. My current machine is a P4 2.8C. I have run Win 95, 98, 2000, and XP on my machines (5 iterations). My boot times in Win 98 were approx 1:15. Today, my machine takes 83 seconds to boot to the signon screen, and that's after two raid arrays initialize (each one taking approx 5 sec in the startup). Additionally, I can assure you that using benchmarks my PC kicks a Win 98 machines a$$.

Windows XP is more efficient, faster and more powerful than Win 98. Anyone who claims otherwise has never taken the time to adequetly compare the two.

Of course, if you're running a PII or first gen PIII I could see how Win 98 can run faster. Then again, your system would suck, IMO.