Latest posts by Michael Pietroforte (see all)
- Result of the 4sysops 2016 topic poll - Tue, Apr 5 2016
- New free eBooks for SysAdmins and DevOps – VMware NSX, Windows 10, SQL Server 2016 - Mon, Mar 14 2016
- Introducing the 4sysops IT pro network - Tue, Mar 1 2016
Their “Research Staff” writes:
After extensive testing of both RTM and SP1-patched versions of Windows Vista, it seems clear that the hoped-for performance fixes that Microsoft has been hinting at never materialized. Vista + SP1 is no faster than Vista from the RTM image.
However, I have serious doubts that their test methods allow conclusive assessment about Vista’s performance at all. It is not necessary to examine their methods in detail to come to the conclusion that their test is more or less useless since their test machine had only 1GB RAM. I think it is no secret that Vista needs at least 2GB.
This case is typical for the whole discussion. All those negative assessments about Vista are in one or the other way based on false assumptions. Of course Vista needs more hardware resources than Windows XP. Remember, XP is an old-fashioned OS that is more than 6 years old.
So it doesn’t make much sense to use hardware for a performance test that is sufficient for Windows XP if you want to find out something about Vista. In my view, it doesn’t even make much sense to compare the performance of Windows XP and Vista. If you want more evidence that Vista is slow, then you can also compare it with MS-DOS. And you know what? MS-DOS boots up much faster than Vista!