XP Performance

[Brian Densmore]

Tech Report. These guys are owned by Ziff-Davis aren't they?
Ziff-Davis, aren't those guys a M$ clone? Very biased report IMHO, 
and of course it just goes to show that hardware technology has 
surpassed software to the point that speed is now limited by hardware
(especially bandwidth) and not how big and klumsy your software is.

IMHO,
Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hutchins [mailto:hutchins at opus1.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 12:24 PM
> To: kclug at kclug.org
> Cc: colmstead at opus1.com; Face (Chris Janton)
> Subject: XP Performance
> 
> 
> We were discussing this a while back.  Still not many ideas about
> benchmarking XP against Mandrake 8.1.
> 
> InfoWorld's notorious test showing W2K is faster than XP:
> 
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml
> 
> They used a 1.5G P4 system and a 700MHz system.  The slower 
> system showed
> the differences better.  Given that the newest machines in my 
> office are
> 1.0GHz/128M RAM, and more than half are 400MHz or less, the 
> older hardware
> is more realistic.  We've just finished removing and 
> upgrading all systems
> that were three years old or older.
> 
> Tech-report.com did some extensive testing with 1.5G and 800MHz AMD
> Athalons, 512 and 256M RAM:
> 
> http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q4/os/index.x?pg=1
> 
>  With what I would consider very current high-end and 
> mid-range systems,
> they were able to show XP to be faster than W2K and ME.  I 
> think what we're
> seeing there is fast hardware overcoming the code bloat.
> 
> What I'd really like to see would be a mid-range system like 
> an Athalon 800
> against a realistic system from my office - either a 
> new-this-year P3 600 or
> a two-year-old PII 400.  Sure, give 'em all a RAM upgrade to 
> 256M, it's
> cheap enough these days that even we would spring for it if we were
> upgrading (which we're NOT).  And I'd like to see XP compared 
> to NT4, which
> we're actually running, rather than W2K which is a lot closer 
> in code to XP.
> I doubt all that many companies are going to upgrade to W2K, then
> immediately upgrade to XP before the license fees are 
> amortized (3 years).
> 
> In the TR Comments section there are a number of supportive 
> comments that
> say XP has benchmarked slower in the real world as well.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> majordomo at kclug.org
>