RE: Windows XP

I'll admit you always have to take benchmarks with a grain of salt.  They
only measure what they're told to measure.  Like I said--lies, d***d, lies,
and benchmarks.  (got a quarantine msg on the previous version <g>)  I was a
little surprised by Livingston's column.  I've bought his books and always
thought he was pretty level headed and not much on creating controversy.
His real love is fonts--True Type was a major event in his life.<g>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wills, Mike N. (TC) [mailto:MNWills@taylorcorp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 9:46 AM
> To: 'midrange-l@midrange.com'
> Subject: RE: Windows XP
>
>
> Hmm... I have heard direct opposites for a couple other
> groups. MaximumPC
> (hard core computer mag) said that it is a must have because
> of improved
> speed and support for software. In fact, they gave it a 10
> out of ten and a
> "Kick Ass" award. Which I have never seen them to a M$ OS do
> in the history
> of magazine. They claim to always go against the grain and
> "call it as they
> see it" even if the product is a major advertiser in the
> magazine. Of course
> their measurement for speed is mostly in Games, 3D rendering,
> and Image
> editing. I will ignore TechTV, they are about 90% microsoft
> lovers anyway.
> It mostly depends on what InfoWorld was testing, results can
> vary greatly
> for speed.
>
> Now, I do have several problems with the ideology behind the
> OS, such as
> built in software such as burning (which is horrid) and video
> editing. But
> guess what so does Apple, and does anyone go after them? No. The only
> difference is, Apple has much better burning capabilities and
> video editing,
> and their kernel is open source.
>