Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

Although this article was published Jan 29, 2007, little has changed. Be
SURE to read the conclusion (last page).

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

Vic, the benchmarking presented by Toms Hardware is just about on a par
with what I've experienced in the real-world since using Vista x64 from
February of this year.

With one exception. Video Encoding (specifically, rendering to DVD) is
far better on Vista than on XP.

Taibear, pay attention. Maybe now you'll keep your trap shut about the
"crappiness" of Vista now you've been proving wrong by one of the most
respected sites on the 'net!


--
dzomlija

____________________________________
Peter Alexander Dzomlija
Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...

- ASUS A8N32-SLi-Deluxe
- AMD Atlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+
- 4GB DDR400
- ASUS nVidia 6600
- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Watercooled Chassis
- 1207GB Total Formatted Storage
- Vista Ultimate x64
- CodeGear Delphi 2007

dzomlija <> wrote:

>
>Taibear, pay attention. Maybe now you'll keep your trap shut about the
>"crappiness" of Vista now you've been proving wrong by one of the most
>respected sites on the 'net!

This only encourages him. Ignore him and he'll go away.

Sincerely,
Brian B


Please post replies here so everyone may benefit.

msdndotnntpdotnospamdot1atcomceptdotnet (replace dot with .)

dzomlija <> wrote in news:dzomlija.2ypdx3
@no-mx.forums.net:

>
> Vic, the benchmarking presented by Toms Hardware is just about on a par
> with what I've experienced in the real-world since using Vista x64 from
> February of this year.
>
> With one exception. Video Encoding (specifically, rendering to DVD) is
> far better on Vista than on XP.
>
> Taibear, pay attention. Maybe now you'll keep your trap shut about the
> "crappiness" of Vista now you've been proving wrong by one of the most
> respected sites on the 'net!
>
>

DOH!!!!

You didn't read the conclusion then did you.

Did you also fail to note the first Vista-specific test condition....

* Tweak the OS: turn off animations and AeroGlass for maximum system
performance.

It would have been nice if the rig was more common. What makes Vista look
so close in times is that this is powerful rig, with an $800+ CPU, and a
$200+ MB.

DanS, you got my point!
___
"DanS" <> wrote in message
news:Xns99CE8FDDE74F4thisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
> dzomlija <> wrote in
news:dzomlija.2ypdx3
> @no-mx.forums.net:
>
> >
> > Vic, the benchmarking presented by Toms Hardware is just about on a
par
> > with what I've experienced in the real-world since using Vista x64
from
> > February of this year.
> >
> > With one exception. Video Encoding (specifically, rendering to DVD)
is
> > far better on Vista than on XP.
> >
> > Taibear, pay attention. Maybe now you'll keep your trap shut about
the
> > "crappiness" of Vista now you've been proving wrong by one of the
most
> > respected sites on the 'net!
> >
> >
>
> DOH!!!!
>
> You didn't read the conclusion then did you.
>
> Did you also fail to note the first Vista-specific test condition....
>
> * Tweak the OS: turn off animations and AeroGlass for maximum system
> performance.
>
> It would have been nice if the rig was more common. What makes Vista
look
> so close in times is that this is powerful rig, with an $800+ CPU, and
a
> $200+ MB.