Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked

this is a multipage article see the links numbered Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 on the
bottom of the post to go to the next pages

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=2

On the Bridge wrote:
> this is a multipage article see the links numbered Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 on the
> bottom of the post to go to the next pages
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=2
>
>
I find it amazing that the e-rag journalists fail to read or heed the
release notes for Vista SP1...specifically the part about Superfetch and
usage over time. Time of course being the operative word...time not
being something considered or used in these "tests".
Too bad...but the effect is definitely "flawed" test results.
Who really cares? Well...wannabe e-rag journalists of course.
Fukk'em!
Frank

"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On the Bridge wrote:
>> this is a multipage article see the links numbered Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 on
>> the bottom of the post to go to the next pages
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=2
> I find it amazing that the e-rag journalists fail to read or heed the
> release notes for Vista SP1...specifically the part about Superfetch and
> usage over time. Time of course being the operative word...time not being
> something considered or used in these "tests".
> Too bad...but the effect is definitely "flawed" test results.
> Who really cares? Well...wannabe e-rag journalists of course.
> Fukk'em!
> Frank

We have finally learned why Frank posts to this group. Please see the thread
Who is "nostop" ....?

In that thread Frank says he posts here because

"Same reason everyone else does dickhead!
Still wanna dance?
Frank"

I was mistaken as to why people post here. I thought it was to help people
with Vista problems, but by reading Franks posts you would think otherwise.
Does everyone else here like to use profanity every chance they get?
Do you like to demean people?
Have you anointed yourself as the Protector of Vista?
Then, according to Frank, this is the NG for you and this why people post
here.
__________________________________________________ ________
This part is for Frank.....I'll use simple words so that Frank can
understand.....

Frank; Vista is not a human being. It does not have feelings. It is not a
way of life. It is an Operating System. It does not need defending (let
alone from a boorish simpleton like you) it stands on its own merits or not
depending on your point of view. Vista is a thing. Please concern yourself
with something that a) you know something about and b) is worth defending.
I would like to thank you in advance.

Also for you reference and to help you understand this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boorish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

you are an imposter of yourself...

another clue that shows this.. is that you 2 always post simutainiously...
You both are doris da idiot.

For example if you doris posts as kevpan (the theoretically real one) at 2
pm your other enemy doris as kevpan fake or spanky shows up right after you
do..

You can see that there is no lag between the first poster and the fake
one... if there was that would show that you are really 2 different people
but you are not. 2 people cant be online all the time ...

I have not seen a post from one of you idiots and not a reply from the other
idiot

"On the Bridge" <> wrote in message
news:...
> this is a multipage article see the links numbered Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 on
> the bottom of the post to go to the next pages
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=2
>

did you see the nature of the tests done?

Superfetch works on launching of programs that are frequently used...
The test have very little to do with that

Have in mind reports say that SP3 for XP makes it even faster than XP with
SP2...

Superfetch is overated as a thing.. XP has prefetch that is similar, just
not that "smart"

and then there is a program called ebooster that does similar things for XP
as Vista has readyboost

I have tested this and there was no dramatic increase in speed
http://www.eboostr.com/

still those who are curious could try it on XP.

also on linux there is a better form of ram cache that is far superior to
superfetch.


"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On the Bridge wrote:
>> this is a multipage article see the links numbered Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 on
>> the bottom of the post to go to the next pages
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=2
> I find it amazing that the e-rag journalists fail to read or heed the
> release notes for Vista SP1...specifically the part about Superfetch and
> usage over time. Time of course being the operative word...time not being
> something considered or used in these "tests".
> Too bad...but the effect is definitely "flawed" test results.
> Who really cares? Well...wannabe e-rag journalists of course.
> Fukk'em!
> Frank

On the Bridge wrote:
> did you see the nature of the tests done?
>
> Superfetch works on launching of programs that are frequently used...
> The test have very little to do with that

My point exactly and therein lies the real difference between so-called
"benchmarks" and actual usage.
Benchmarks do not translate to actual longer term usage...which is what
happens in the real world.
>
> Have in mind reports say that SP3 for XP makes it even faster than XP with
> SP2...
>
> Superfetch is overated as a thing.. XP has prefetch that is similar, just
> not that "smart"
>
> and then there is a program called ebooster that does similar things for XP
> as Vista has readyboost
>
> I have tested this and there was no dramatic increase in speed
> http://www.eboostr.com/
>
> still those who are curious could try it on XP.
>
> also on linux there is a better form of ram cache that is far superior to
> superfetch.

It's all bullsh*t! If you do similar tasks in XP and Vista on two
similar computers you'd know what I'm talking about.
Vista is not XP+eye-candy.
It is a different and new OS. Some XP tasks take 4-6 clicks to complete
and only take 1 click using Vista. Once XP gets to the actual tasks,
Vista has already completed it!
These "benchmark" test are flawed and can be very misleading.
Anyway who really cares. Vista is the future and the future is
here...right now!
Frank

Spanky deMonkey wrote:
> you are an imposter of yourself...
>

I think you have been spanking your Monkey for too long. Give it a rest.
You'll go blind.

> Have in mind reports say that SP3 for XP makes it even faster than XP with
> SP2...

I've just read a comprehensive test of it, and there is nothing in SP3 that
speeds up XP. It is primarily just a roll up of the countless patches and
upgrades that have streamed out since SP2.

SteveT

other sources and tests show otherwise

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11...nce-gains.html

that compilation of patches was said for vista too, but its not like that in
the end..

Vista with SP1 is faster than vista without

and XPsp3 is faster than XPsp2


"Steve Thackery" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> Have in mind reports say that SP3 for XP makes it even faster than XP
>> with SP2...
>
> I've just read a comprehensive test of it, and there is nothing in SP3
> that speeds up XP. It is primarily just a roll up of the countless
> patches and upgrades that have streamed out since SP2.
>
> SteveT

"Since SP3 was supposed to be mostly a bug-fix/patch consolidation release,
the unexpected speed boost comes as a nice bonus," Barth said. "In fact, XP
SP3 is shaping up to be a 'must-have' update for the majority of users who
are still running Redmond's not-so-latest and greatest desktop OS."


via
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...rce=rss_news50


"Steve Thackery" <> wrote in message
news:...
>> Have in mind reports say that SP3 for XP makes it even faster than XP
>> with SP2...
>
> I've just read a comprehensive test of it, and there is nothing in SP3
> that speeds up XP. It is primarily just a roll up of the countless
> patches and upgrades that have streamed out since SP2.
>
> SteveT