3 ms·
> it was slow and under-powered As someone who used one of these laptops as a daily driver for years, I disagree. The CPU was quite powerful. I would regularly
by sidewndr46 4y ago
> it was slow and under-powered
As someone who used one of these laptops as a daily driver for years, I disagree. The CPU was quite powerful. I would regularly use it to take notes in class, do development work (with an IDE) & browse the web. Compilation of larger components could be quite slow.
If you didn't insist on running the latest desktop environment with a bazillion bizarre graphical effects, it worked without issue. Battery life was 'good enough' that I could get a couple hours of regular usage.
Fast forward to today & many "productivity" applications like Microsoft Teams are so bloated they consume more memory than the entirety of that system had.
- skykooler 4y agoSame; I had an EeePC as my main laptop for four years. Never really felt slow, aside from when compiling software (I distinctly remember installing MacPorts on my hackintosh partition and it taking three hours to compile the base set of packages).
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago>As someone who used one of these laptops as a daily driver for years, I disagree. The CPU was quite powerful. The benchmarks, reviews and poor sales disagreed with you. Maybe it wasn't under-powered for your standards and needs back then, but compared to what the mainstream laptop market of the time, they were very slow in windows apps which is what most consumers ran back then.
- sidewndr46 4y agoPast Windows XP I've never used a Windows system on any hardware I would consider adequate. Other than the non-stop "windows update broke thing X which worked just fine" it has a user interface that still manages to feel behind Windows 3.11. I think the fact that I consider XP to be performant is the fact that I had less to compare against back when it first released.