|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Not all that surprising. Every operating system Microsoft releases they
claim is 30% faster than the one it is supposed to replace. Yet strangely,
they up the minimum recommended platform each time as well. If their
marketing claims were true, we could all run rings around a Cray on a 12Mhz
386.
Microsoft has used legal threats against people who publish these types of
benchmarks before and doubtless they will again. The most recent instance I
remember was some numbers published by an independent company that
discovered a certain version of SQL Server ran 2 times as fast on NT4 as it
did on W2K. This was about 2 years ago.
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Simms" <prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Omega-List" <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 9:44 AM
Subject: Don't upgrade: WinXP slower than Win2K
InfoWorld Tests Show XP Slower Than W2K
I was quite surprised to see the results of this test by InfoWorld. It's
hard to believe. I'm sure that MS is extremely unhappy with these results,
and they commented they were not able to replicate them either. I'm sure
many more words will be written about this, but InfoWorld are a bunch of
smart cookies and they have done this for over 20 years, I have been reading
them for that long.
A lot of my industry knowledge comes from this mag. It's not like the first
bunch of rookies tells us that WinXP is actually slower than W2K. If it's
true, it's a black eye for some one for sure. As per "fair use" I'm copying
two paragraphs of the InfoWorld article, and then I'll send you to the
actual full article. This is pretty amazing. When I received the email with
this news I said to myself "WHOA NELLIE !!" Here goes:
"HOPELESS OPTIMISM must be a fundamental part of human nature, because we
want to believe that new operating systems truly represent an improvement on
their predecessors. It's easy to point to certain features in a new OS as
examples of progress, but end-users often find that a new OS performs like
molasses compared to the version they were using. As a result, CTOs wanting
to capitalize on the benefits of a new OS may find that new hardware
investments are necessary -- and expensive -- requirements.
"Unfortunately, Microsoft's Windows XP appears to be maintaining that
tradition, as indicated by results of independent testing performed by CSA
Research and confirmed by our work in the InfoWorld Test Center. Our tests
of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated
that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000
significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our
Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did
the Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined
to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs
to get the most out of the new OS."
Here is the article. This is a 'must read' my friends: And I'll keep you up
to date regarding the inevitable sequels of this saga.
http://www.w2knews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=110101-WaitingForXP
|