exo.blog has at the request of their members re-run the original OfficeBench test, this time with 2GB of RAM in the test system. Unfortunately the outcome is unchanged bar a 4% improvement on the previous score. One can argue that Windows XP system requirements are quite a bit lower than its successor, and thats probably got a lot to do with it. This, coupled with claims that Vista SP1 will not improve on performance but will in fact be all about stability and reliability instead, doesn't offer much hope for those people on older systems.
Make of it what you will, I personally don't have performance issues at all. I use Vista with 2GB of RAM and I have a Sandisk 2GB memory stick that is used for the "Ready Boost" feature, maybe they should re-run the test with that scenario.
Chris Pirillo had this to say on all those negative articles surrounding Windows Vista, enjoy!
Make of it what you will, I personally don't have performance issues at all. I use Vista with 2GB of RAM and I have a Sandisk 2GB memory stick that is used for the "Ready Boost" feature, maybe they should re-run the test with that scenario.
Chris Pirillo had this to say on all those negative articles surrounding Windows Vista, enjoy!
Revised OfficeBench Completion Times (Seconds)
Note: The Windows XP (SP3) results have been added to the chart to add further context to the Vista results. As before, all tests were conducted on the same Dell XPS M1710 system w/2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and DDR-2 667MHz RAM.
For those interested, they also ran the test using Office 2003 instead of Office 2007, you can view the results by following the link below to the source.
News source: Update: Re-Testing Vista w/2GB RAM, Office 2003 @ exo.blog
Then, XP needs Security improvements and stability, specially in Explorer.EXE
This is like games (the way some people think about Windows), most of Gamers think Games means Graphics, but for me Games means Gameplay > Stability > Graphics.
Well, im my opinion here's what should be implemented in XP and Vista:
Vista: Stability > Reliability > Performance
XP: Security > Stability
P.S: If Vista SP1 will not improve Performance why the results show a small improvement? (1GB).
Also, could someone quietly go out and shoot Chris Pirillo. The guy is as much of a journalist as Nostradamus.
Also, could someone quietly go out and shoot Chris Pirillo. The guy is as much of a journalist as Nostradamus.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
That says it all. I really didn't expect that towards the ending. Funny stuff. XP rules, and you know it.
You do know that that, at the end, is the renowned BSOD Screensaver right?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle2958844.ece
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle2958844.ece
I bet you half those are becuase people 1 dont know how to use their computer correctly / hate change... 2 bought into the anti-vista hype
I think I'll take Vista 64 over XP or XP 64 running on the same Hardware.
MAKE your own benchmarks, be it clocking video converting, file copying, audio encoding, movie editing, etc.
this will provide the only insight you need to know if Vista or XP performs better with your current hardware configuration.
In my case, Vista equals and almost on every clocking i made exceeds XP performace with my hardware.
So, for me there is no discussion at all...
ITS MAKING ALL THIS MONEY AND ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT MORE MORE MORE!!!
LEAVE IT ALONE!!!
WORSE TECH EVER, URI EXPLOITS, YOU ALL JUST WANT TO MAKE MONEY, YOU'RE LUCKY IT'S GOT RELEASED FOR YOU B*STARDS,
LEAVE WINDOWS VISTA ALONE!!!!
ANYONE THAT HAS A PROBLEM WITH VISTA, YOU'VE GOTTA DEAL WITH ME
Last edited by Azmodan on 28 Nov 2007 - 15:06
In case you didn't know, typing in all caps is considered to be rude.
Bumping a whole line of text up to some ridiculous font size is also generally frowned upon.
Oh, and uttering thinly veiled machoistic threats is just childish and dumb.
If you were trying to be funny, it didn't work. :|
In case you didn't know, typing in all caps is considered to be rude.
in b4 reeses for breakfast.
wait..isn't it easier just to open the house door and smell the fresh air?
The site that did the benchmarks said they make their tools available for anyone to test with, just register on their site and download the tools to do your own testing. Which I did, however they never sent me my password to actually download the tools. Seems alittle fishy.
Well, it's been out for a year and it still doesn't seemed to have tuned too well for most people. Maybe it's self-tuning, but it's also self-BSODing. Nor has it tuned itself to be faster for gaming.
This argument is pointless. Vista's performance is well-known and it is not exactly "wow." You load any OS on modern hardware with 2GB of RAM and it's going to run pretty well! I mean, does XP run slow on your system?
http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_SP3_out...sion/1196208954
I would duplicate the test on several other "sets" of computers to see if you come up with the same results.
So some morons doesn't bitch about the fact that they tested software which is not written for Vista. Well, Office 2007 is. Anyway, they tested Office 2003 on both machines and Vista is crappola.
Opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one and they all stink. What really stinks are people grasping for straws to "prove" Vista sucks compared to XP. What really gets me are the dumb nerds of the neckbeard brigade who repeat this trash to your average user and then they go on and parrot what they said.
Pirrillo's piece was satire but to be honest, I would say a good number of Vista problems are caused by bad hardware or some dolt trying to shoehorn the OS in their crappy 6 year old computer.
XP is fine but I like the fact that Vista is much more secure, uses memory efficiently (unused RAM is wasted RAM), and to me has shown a considerable performance difference over the past several months.
Everyone has a blog....Hell I have a blog, bet no one cares about it though. Why does anyone give a rats ass what this person says?
While there may be a few reasons to compare Vista SP1 to RTM and XP SP3 to SP2, I don't see much relelance in those comparisons, either. Service packs were meant to be bug fixes anyway so stepping up to the new service pack release from the previous one, a person should not expect a gain in performance. Except for XP SP2 in which more features were added to the operating system but were not optimized where SP3 simply optimized and fixed the issues within those features. There would obvious be a gain in performance.
Duh...LOL
i don't know since when (and started by which freaking idiots) service packs are tied to performance gain, but that was not service packs are for.
if you get some performance gain, well good for you. now spread your ass cheek and yodel like tarzan ...
Exchange has been doing this for years, Store.exe caches information in memory and uses as much as it can without inhibiting performance to increase I/O throughput.
Vituralization sells on the fact that a lot of server hardware, not just RAM but also CPU cycles go unused which is a waste of resources. Servers are consolidated as virtual machines and you maximize the use of your hardware while driving down costs.
But from your comment, you're probably one of those people who bitched about Vista using the unused RAM as a cache and posting it on other message boards (while using M-dollar sign) in hopes that Gates himself was reading it and would rush to remedy the issue.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.