|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 11:52:28 -0600, you wrote:
>Gary wrote:
>>It sounds to me like W2k is faster than NT *server* for SERVER
>>operations. I don't see anything there that says it's faster for
>>standalone applications.
>
>I'm not sure W2k is actually faster than NT for standalone
>apps. In fact, benchmarks may be a bit lower since W2k
>drivers have not yet been tweaked. It does "feel" faster to
>me, though.
>
>My query was in response to a post which stated that an
>extra 200MHz was needed to equalize performance (with NT). I
>find that somewhat difficult to believe (unless the
>intention was to state that the minimum system requirements
>are higher for W2k). Other than that, I doubt one would
>need, for example, to run W2k on a PIII/800 in order to get
>the same performance with NT on a PIII/600.
>
>Best regards,
>Jim
PC Week may be one of the most read periodicals among computer
professionals, but you need to be careful about benchmarks published
by them and other ZDlabs reports in other ZD mags.
Microsoft frequently pays for the tests and sets the testing
parameters to get 'best results' for their product or whatever
marketing agenda Microsoft has at that moment. In fact, even
different ZD magazines, using the same test facility, will publish
conflicting reports because the parameters of the test/benchmark
requested are different.
Cooke
|