Re: Do we actually need XP support?

[flash flash@xxxxxxxx]

On 25/3/14 1:29 PM, Bill Troop wrote:
>> W2K is lightweight and perhaps less buggy in some ways that XP
>> (that, in my opinion, would need a service pack 4). The less you
>> have on top of the host system, the better you are off. W2K is
>> the minimum if you want good integration with the host.
> 
> All I can say is, having reluctantly taken Kari's advice to try
> W2K, I find it is perceptibly better for XyWrite than XP. I have
> tried them both. XP is more sluggish even on the fastest possible
> modern computer. (And not that I am by any means an expert!)


Code bloat is the explanation.