Abarbarian
Acruncher
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,023
- Reaction score
- 1,221
Is this article telling me the truth ? Is me old XP faster than 7 ??
http://www.computerworlduk.com/tech...indows/in-depth/index.cfm?articleid=2026&pn=2
"Windows XP is the OS that simply will not die, and for good reason: It's mature, stable, and - - most important -- fast as the wind on today's hardware. In fact, Windows XP outpaced its younger siblings by a factor of two during multiprocess workload testing -- concurrent database, workflow, and multimedia tasks on our dual-core test bed and by up to 66 percent on our quad-core test bed."
"It should come as no surprise that Windows 7 performs very much like its predecessor. In fact, during extensive multiprocess benchmark testing, Windows 7 essentially mirrored Vista in almost every scenario. Database tasks? Roughly 118 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 92 percent slower) and 19 percent slower than XP on quad-core (identical to Vista). Workflow? A respectable 38 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 98 percent slower) and 59 percent slower on quad-core (Vista was 66 percent slower). "
"My own testing would seem to corroborate Microsoft's story. If anything, the company is underselling its multicore advantage. Clearly, the optimisations made to the Vista kernel -- both in its original incarnation and in its updated Windows 7 variant -- are having an impact even at the quad-core level.
However, better scalability still isn't enough to offset Windows XP's huge performance edge on today's hardware. In fact, it won't be until after Windows 7 has been replaced by the next Windows that the fruit of Microsoft's multicore optimisation labours will be fully realised. Then, as we boot our 32- or 64-core netbooks, we can all smile as Microsoft's foresight and perseverance finally start to pay off.
This article originally appeared on ComputerWorldUK's sister title InfoWorld."
This is not a kick 7 post but a genuine ask.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/tech...indows/in-depth/index.cfm?articleid=2026&pn=2
"Windows XP is the OS that simply will not die, and for good reason: It's mature, stable, and - - most important -- fast as the wind on today's hardware. In fact, Windows XP outpaced its younger siblings by a factor of two during multiprocess workload testing -- concurrent database, workflow, and multimedia tasks on our dual-core test bed and by up to 66 percent on our quad-core test bed."
"It should come as no surprise that Windows 7 performs very much like its predecessor. In fact, during extensive multiprocess benchmark testing, Windows 7 essentially mirrored Vista in almost every scenario. Database tasks? Roughly 118 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 92 percent slower) and 19 percent slower than XP on quad-core (identical to Vista). Workflow? A respectable 38 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 98 percent slower) and 59 percent slower on quad-core (Vista was 66 percent slower). "
"My own testing would seem to corroborate Microsoft's story. If anything, the company is underselling its multicore advantage. Clearly, the optimisations made to the Vista kernel -- both in its original incarnation and in its updated Windows 7 variant -- are having an impact even at the quad-core level.
However, better scalability still isn't enough to offset Windows XP's huge performance edge on today's hardware. In fact, it won't be until after Windows 7 has been replaced by the next Windows that the fruit of Microsoft's multicore optimisation labours will be fully realised. Then, as we boot our 32- or 64-core netbooks, we can all smile as Microsoft's foresight and perseverance finally start to pay off.
This article originally appeared on ComputerWorldUK's sister title InfoWorld."
This is not a kick 7 post but a genuine ask.
Strange indeed then that it's faster than Vista & Win7
