Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Jan 2007 19:22 UTC, submitted by Deathspawner
Windows "Does performance suck on Vista when compared to XP? That's what I was set out to find out. I was worried at first, since the performance in Beta 2 was quite bad. While there is indeed a performance decrease, it's quite minimal as you'll find out."
Permalink for comment 205825
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Re: Network Performance Not Covered
by Deathspawner on Thu 25th Jan 2007 20:20 UTC
Member since:

"I found the network performance (1G bandwidth, SMB file copy) under Vista is about 40%~50% lower that that of XP. I am not sure it's a NIC driver problem or the new TCP/IP Stack problem. Maybe Both?"

That's something I am working on... I wasn't sure if it was just me or not though, since my router and network cards seem sketchy half the time. I'm glad I am not the only one with the problem though. Although I found Vista to Vista transfers were less than ideal, transferring from my Gentoo rig to the Vista machine proved even -worse-, with speeds closer to 100KB/s. I did experiment with various configurations, including the latest version of SAMBA but it doesn't seem to help.

"These are all benchmarks I'd put my system through if I were testing hardware against hardware, not a new version of an OS against it's predecessor."

The goal was to show people immediate differences between common applications used on both versions of Windows. The usage of the OS itself is hard to benchmark, but I didn't have any real complaints. The entire OS is rather fluid. The biggest "slowdown" I've seen has been when I received a security prompt and agreed to allow it to change the configuration. For whatever reason, *that* seems to be slow (ie after giving permission to access another users account folder). You do make some good points though...

Thanks for the comments guys.

Reply Score: 3