Hello
What value you might place on the articles below is up to you but I thought that you might want to give them a read....
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332
The conclusions on page six read...
So, onto conclusions. Looking at the data there’s only one conclusion that can be drawn - Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows Vista SP1. End of story. Out of the fifteen tests carried out, XP SP2 beat Vista SP1 in eleven, Vista SP1 beat XP SP2 in two of the tests, and two of the tests resulted in a draw.
The best result for Vista SP1 was in the single file drive-to-drive copy, while the best result for XP SP2 was extracting multiple files from a compressed folder. Given these results and taking into account the improvements that SP1 bought to Vista, if I was to go back and compare XP SP2 with Vista RTM, XP would have hammered Vista even harder.
the other article.....
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Part Deux
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1338
Conclusions from this one...
This is far more complicated than I’d hope that it would turn out to be, however the results are interesting. Let me summarize the results here:
* Tested using PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1, XP SP2 consistently achieves a higher rating than Vista SP1.
* Under file copy load, XP SP2 consistently achieves a higher rating than Vista SP1.
* When running a partial PassMark PerformanceTest run (a run where all disk tests are excluded), XP SP2 again achieves a higher rating than Vista SP1 when under copy load and under no copy load.
* However, if you look at the effect that file copy has on a partial PassMark PerformanceTest run, we see that the file copy operation on Vista SP1 has less of a detrimental effect on the overall rating than under XP SP2 system.
So, what this long-winded series of tests shows is that heavy file copy operations has less of an effect on the overall responsiveness when running Vista SP1 than when running XP SP2 (on the test system, all things being equal).
This benchmark, along with the one I posted last week, go to show how unsatisfying it can be to benchmark one OS against another. Even when you’re dealing with one system there are a huge number of factors to contend with.
Later in the week I hope to have a set of results that are far more conclusive and convincing - I’ll be testing each operating system and seeing which can deliver the best frame rates in some of my favorite games.
EDIT:
Just as a side note to the above articles as anyone else noted that whilst Vista is copying to or from a local network or a USB external drive then your Internet performance reduces quite a bit...?
What value you might place on the articles below is up to you but I thought that you might want to give them a read....
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332
The conclusions on page six read...
So, onto conclusions. Looking at the data there’s only one conclusion that can be drawn - Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows Vista SP1. End of story. Out of the fifteen tests carried out, XP SP2 beat Vista SP1 in eleven, Vista SP1 beat XP SP2 in two of the tests, and two of the tests resulted in a draw.
The best result for Vista SP1 was in the single file drive-to-drive copy, while the best result for XP SP2 was extracting multiple files from a compressed folder. Given these results and taking into account the improvements that SP1 bought to Vista, if I was to go back and compare XP SP2 with Vista RTM, XP would have hammered Vista even harder.
the other article.....
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Part Deux
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1338
Conclusions from this one...
This is far more complicated than I’d hope that it would turn out to be, however the results are interesting. Let me summarize the results here:
* Tested using PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1, XP SP2 consistently achieves a higher rating than Vista SP1.
* Under file copy load, XP SP2 consistently achieves a higher rating than Vista SP1.
* When running a partial PassMark PerformanceTest run (a run where all disk tests are excluded), XP SP2 again achieves a higher rating than Vista SP1 when under copy load and under no copy load.
* However, if you look at the effect that file copy has on a partial PassMark PerformanceTest run, we see that the file copy operation on Vista SP1 has less of a detrimental effect on the overall rating than under XP SP2 system.
So, what this long-winded series of tests shows is that heavy file copy operations has less of an effect on the overall responsiveness when running Vista SP1 than when running XP SP2 (on the test system, all things being equal).
This benchmark, along with the one I posted last week, go to show how unsatisfying it can be to benchmark one OS against another. Even when you’re dealing with one system there are a huge number of factors to contend with.
Later in the week I hope to have a set of results that are far more conclusive and convincing - I’ll be testing each operating system and seeing which can deliver the best frame rates in some of my favorite games.
EDIT:
Just as a side note to the above articles as anyone else noted that whilst Vista is copying to or from a local network or a USB external drive then your Internet performance reduces quite a bit...?
Last edited:
There is no good reason for copying files to be slower. The only right way is the other way round. Citius, altius, fortius, ocius as it were. 
