Re: Vista SP2 big performance increase?

Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance shootout - which is best?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789

--
Visit the new Windows Vista Answers Forums:
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/.../windowsvista/


"Wanna be Microsoft guru" <> wrote in message news:49b80ecb$0$21275$ om...
Hi,

Does someone know it the nex version og Windows vista will introduce performance increase??
I am thinking of direction of Windows 7 ?


---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Microsoft Technology Group
http://www.hd720i.com
http://www.saqib.biz (pakistani dance)


--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.8 Final
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <> wrote:

> Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP
> performance shootout - which is best?
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789

Nice chart on page 3, thanks.



--
The first big front wheel rollerblades.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27532210@N04/3056505603/

and what bench tests did you use and what were the results and who verified
them?




"nerdy werdy" <> wrote in message
news:49b833e0$...
> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
>> Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance
>> shootout - which is best?
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789
>>
>
>
> These are some unscientific tests if there ever were any!
>
> XP is far faster than vista.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:42:44 +1000, "Geoff" <>
wrote:

>"nerdy werdy" <> wrote in message
>news:49b833e0$...
>> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
>>> Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance
>>> shootout - which is best?
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789
>>>
>>
>>
>> These are some unscientific tests if there ever were any!
>>
>> XP is far faster than vista.
>

[Top Post Corrected]
>and what bench tests did you use and what were the results and who verified
>them?
>

Start with the fact that Vista has twice the hardware requirements vs.
XP. That ought to give you a clue. But, regardless, it's been proven
time and again and demonstrated repeatedly in real world performance
by anyone who has used both side by side: Vista is much slower than XP
on the same hardware.

Wrong! I'm running Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same PC
and performance is equal. If fact, I hardly use Windows XP since Vista
is so much better, especially graphics rendering.

"+Bob+" <> wrote in message news:...
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:42:44 +1000, "Geoff" <>
wrote:

>"nerdy werdy" <> wrote in message
>news:49b833e0$...
>> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
>>> Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance
>>> shootout - which is best?
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789
>>>
>>
>>
>> These are some unscientific tests if there ever were any!
>>
>> XP is far faster than vista.
>

[Top Post Corrected]
>and what bench tests did you use and what were the results and who verified
>them?
>

Start with the fact that Vista has twice the hardware requirements vs.
XP. That ought to give you a clue. But, regardless, it's been proven
time and again and demonstrated repeatedly in real world performance
by anyone who has used both side by side: Vista is much slower than XP
on the same hardware.

Carey Frisch [MVP] <> wrote:
>
> Wrong! I'm running Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same PC
> and performance is equal. If fact, I hardly use Windows XP since Vista
> is so much better, especially graphics rendering.


What do mean that Vista is better at graphics rendering? What on earth do
you mean by that? You mean in games?

ss.

Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> Wrong! I'm running Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same PC
> and performance is equal. If fact, I hardly use Windows XP since Vista
> is so much better, especially graphics rendering.

Bwaahaahaa! Put your foot in your mouth again, eh Carey? If
performance is equal on the same machine, how is vista 'so much better'?!

Putting your foot in your mouth must be difficult with the severe case
of cranial-rectal inversion you suffer from <shivers!>

http://www.laffyerassoff.com/funny-p...heads-up-2.jpg

Yet you manage to do it just about every time!

>
> "+Bob+" <> wrote in message news:...
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:42:44 +1000, "Geoff" <>
> wrote:
>
>> "nerdy werdy" <> wrote in message
>> news:49b833e0$...
>>> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
>>>> Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance
>>>> shootout - which is best?
>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3789
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are some unscientific tests if there ever were any!
>>>
>>> XP is far faster than vista.
>
> [Top Post Corrected]
>> and what bench tests did you use and what were the results and who verified
>> them?
>>
>
> Start with the fact that Vista has twice the hardware requirements vs.
> XP. That ought to give you a clue. But, regardless, it's been proven
> time and again and demonstrated repeatedly in real world performance
> by anyone who has used both side by side: Vista is much slower than XP
> on the same hardware.


--
"Software is like sex, it's better when it's free."
- Linus Torvalds

DRM and unintended consequences:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/se...35&tag=nl.e101

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
>
>> Wrong! I'm running Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same PC
>> and performance is equal. If fact, I hardly use Windows XP since Vista
>> is so much better, especially graphics rendering.
>
> Bwaahaahaa! Put your foot in your mouth again, eh Carey? If performance
> is equal on the same machine, how is vista 'so much better'?!
>
> Putting your foot in your mouth must be difficult with the severe case of
> cranial-rectal inversion you suffer from <shivers!>
>
> http://www.laffyerassoff.com/funny-p...heads-up-2.jpg
>
> Yet you manage to do it just about every time!


To be fair, he did make it quite clear that he thought the major advances of
Vista especially lie within its 'graphics rendering' - I suppose he means
the shiny new GUI on the surface.

ss.

The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:07:01 AM, and on a
whim, Carey Frisch [MVP] pounded out on the keyboard:

> Wrong! I'm running Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same PC
> and performance is equal. If fact, I hardly use Windows XP since Vista
> is so much better, especially graphics rendering.
>


I'm sorry, that's bunk. If you can keep from stretching the truth, post
benchmarks from each OS, ON THE SAME MACHINE.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:56:49 PM, and on a
whim, Frank pounded out on the keyboard:

> Terry R. wrote:
>> The date and time was Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:07:01 AM, and on a
>> whim, Carey Frisch [MVP] pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> Wrong! I'm running Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same PC
>>> and performance is equal. If fact, I hardly use Windows XP since Vista
>>> is so much better, especially graphics rendering.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, that's bunk. If you can keep from stretching the truth, post
>> benchmarks from each OS, ON THE SAME MACHINE.
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

If you're going to give a comparison, make it a good one:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ista,1531.html


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.