Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted December 23, 2003 Not true. There are a lot of changes under the hood. Everything from memory management to low level kernel support for the .NET platform. Some serious file system improvemets have been made and the networking system has been reworked.It's easy to think of XP as a 2000 with lipstick, but it's really not. True, but I don't think that for general gaming purposes, those low level kernel changes would make much of a dent. I would still have to recommend XP, simple for the fact that sooner or later, hardware that is only supported in XP will start to be common. Win2k has much less 'bloat' than XP, but with today's monster systems, it has become a non-issue. Â I noticed on the back of the cover of "call of duty" that optimum requirements for this specific game are higher on XP than on ME! Â The new windows will support 64Bit. And that, ladies and gentlemen, will make a difference. If I just knew which difference! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted December 23, 2003 I noticed on the back of the cover of "call of duty" that optimum requirements for this specific game are higher on XP than on ME! Â WinXP uses more resources even when idle compared to WinME. But because WinXP is so much more efficent at utilizing the resources you will get alot higher performance compared to the different hardware-specs. Did I make any sense to you? Â example: I had roughly 450 MB free when idle in WinME (512MB RAM), I have roughly 400MB free when idle in WinXP. I get alot shorter load-times in XP with OFP. I get alot higher performance in XP with OFP. Both use as much RAM as possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
