Speed test confirm...Vista is faster than XP...!

I did several Internet download/upload speed test using to
www.speedtest.net on a dual boot PC with Vista Ultimate X64 and XP
ProSP2 X64.

Here are the averages for 6 complete tests on each OS.

1) Vista 5725 down 485 up.
2) XPPro 5699 down 431 up.

Vista is definitely faster!
Frank

Vista may have passed the Internet download upload test, but with opening
applications, moving files and a few other tasks, Vista is slower. This may
change when the SP1 comes out.

Vista has a much larger core than XP and millions of lines of code that XP
doesn't have so not all functions will be faster with Vista.


"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I did several Internet download/upload speed test using to
>www.speedtest.net on a dual boot PC with Vista Ultimate X64 and XP ProSP2
>X64.
>
> Here are the averages for 6 complete tests on each OS.
>
> 1) Vista 5725 down 485 up.
> 2) XPPro 5699 down 431 up.
>
> Vista is definitely faster!
> Frank
>

"Bill Yanaire" <> wrote in message
news:%23qHsi$...
> Vista may have passed the Internet download upload test, but with opening
> applications, moving files and a few other tasks, Vista is slower. This
> may change when the SP1 comes out.
>
> Vista has a much larger core than XP and millions of lines of code that XP
> doesn't have so not all functions will be faster with Vista.
>
>
> "Frank" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I did several Internet download/upload speed test using to
>>www.speedtest.net on a dual boot PC with Vista Ultimate X64 and XP ProSP2
>>X64.
>>
>> Here are the averages for 6 complete tests on each OS.
>>
>> 1) Vista 5725 down 485 up.
>> 2) XPPro 5699 down 431 up.
>>
>> Vista is definitely faster!
>> Frank
>>
>
>
=============================

My observation is Vista works really well on a very fast processor and gobs
of memory. If you use a machine two or three or more years old with a 2.4ghz
or 2.8ghz processor and 1 gig of ram, Vista just bogs down. Also, one should
have fast disk drives.

I am running Vista Ultimate; first tried the o/s on two different computers
one of 2003 vintage the other 2005 vintage, and had nothing but problems.
Gave up bought a shiny new 2007 E7oo Acer Aspire with an Intel 6600 quad
core 2.4ghz processor, 4gigs of ram dual channel, two SATA II HDs, a Nvidia
8800 GTS 320 ddr megs ram, 750 watt p/s and Vista runs like a dream.
Connected to a extreme speed cable system and get 9800+ downloads and 800
uploads.

Bought my son a dyi system AM2 mb, 4gigs of ram dual channel, SATAII hds,
450 p/s, ATI 1950 video with 256 mb ram, and it too runs Vista Home premium
like a dream with uploads/doneloads slightly slower.

I despised Vista when running on the older computers however clearly Vista
shines on up to date equipment.

---

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:13:52 -0800, Frank <> wrote:

>I did several Internet download/upload speed test using to
>www.speedtest.net on a dual boot PC with Vista Ultimate X64 and XP
>ProSP2 X64.
>
>Here are the averages for 6 complete tests on each OS.
>
>1) Vista 5725 down 485 up.
>2) XPPro 5699 down 431 up.
>
>Vista is definitely faster!
>Frank

Such a "test" doesn't mean sh*t you foolish little monkey.

Vista is slower for some application since the driver's aren't tuned
yet. True Vista CAN be faster for some things, but clearly not all and
in fact is SLOWER for many as people that actually know what they're
doing have proved over and over if you actually know how to test and
where to find the results they've had. A Microsoft butt kissing moron
like you has no idea how to test or how to analyze test results. All
you're good for is throwing your feces around and making an ass of
yourself daily.

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:13:52 -0800, Frank <> wrote:
>
>
>>I did several Internet download/upload speed test using to
>>www.speedtest.net on a dual boot PC with Vista Ultimate X64 and XP
>>ProSP2 X64.
>>
>>Here are the averages for 6 complete tests on each OS.
>>
>>1) Vista 5725 down 485 up.
>>2) XPPro 5699 down 431 up.
>>
>>Vista is definitely faster!
>>Frank
>
>
> Such a "test" doesn't mean sh*t you foolish little monkey.
>
> Vista is slower for some application since the driver's aren't tuned
> yet. True Vista CAN be faster for some things, but clearly not all and
> in fact is SLOWER for many as people that actually know what they're
> doing have proved over and over if you actually know how to test and
> where to find the results they've had. A Microsoft butt kissing moron
> like you has no idea how to test or how to analyze test results. All
> you're good for is throwing your feces around and making an ass of
> yourself daily.
>

Forget how to read mr pig?
Read'em and weep you creep...hahaha...lol!
Frank

0.45% faster. There's the WOW!! Not.

In some circles that would be called statistically insignificant.

Oh, you're being sarcastic, right?


"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
I did several Internet download/upload speed test using to
www.speedtest.net on a dual boot PC with Vista Ultimate X64 and XP
ProSP2 X64.

Here are the averages for 6 complete tests on each OS.

1) Vista 5725 down 485 up.
2) XPPro 5699 down 431 up.

Vista is definitely faster!
Frank

sdgreen wrote:
>
> "Bill Yanaire" <> wrote in message
> news:%23qHsi$...
>> Vista may have passed the Internet download upload test, but with
>> opening applications, moving files and a few other tasks, Vista is
>> slower. This may change when the SP1 comes out.
>>
>> Vista has a much larger core than XP and millions of lines of code
>> that XP doesn't have so not all functions will be faster with Vista.
>>
>>
>> "Frank" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> I did several Internet download/upload speed test using to
>>> www.speedtest.net on a dual boot PC with Vista Ultimate X64 and XP
>>> ProSP2 X64.
>>>
>>> Here are the averages for 6 complete tests on each OS.
>>>
>>> 1) Vista 5725 down 485 up.
>>> 2) XPPro 5699 down 431 up.
>>>
>>> Vista is definitely faster!
>>> Frank
>>>
>>
>>
> =============================
>
> My observation is Vista works really well on a very fast processor and
> gobs of memory. If you use a machine two or three or more years old with
> a 2.4ghz or 2.8ghz processor and 1 gig of ram, Vista just bogs down.
> Also, one should have fast disk drives.
>
> I am running Vista Ultimate; first tried the o/s on two different
> computers one of 2003 vintage the other 2005 vintage, and had nothing
> but problems. Gave up bought a shiny new 2007 E7oo Acer Aspire with an
> Intel 6600 quad core 2.4ghz processor, 4gigs of ram dual channel, two
> SATA II HDs, a Nvidia 8800 GTS 320 ddr megs ram, 750 watt p/s and Vista
> runs like a dream. Connected to a extreme speed cable system and get
> 9800+ downloads and 800 uploads.
>
> Bought my son a dyi system AM2 mb, 4gigs of ram dual channel, SATAII
> hds, 450 p/s, ATI 1950 video with 256 mb ram, and it too runs Vista Home
> premium like a dream with uploads/doneloads slightly slower.
>
> I despised Vista when running on the older computers however clearly
> Vista shines on up to date equipment.
>
> ---

Well said.