| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Slowing down Vista with SP1 | |
|
||
| Time: 15:03 EST/20:03 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Microsoft has been promoting Vista's SP1 as a big performance booster compared to pre-SP1 Vista, particularly when copying files. But my preliminary tests show that Vista SP1 can be as much as 20% slower than pre-SP1 when it comes to copying files. And XP's copying speed leaves both in the dust. I found that copying a large file -- 2.49 GB -- to a local folder under SP1 Vista was 20% slower than performing the same operation in pre-SP1 Vista. Copying that same file to a network folder took essentially the same amount of time in pre-SP1 and SP1 Vista. And copying a 256 MB folder full of files to a local disk and to a network folder took essentially the same amount of time in each as well. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 145 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:57:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 2/9/2008 3:59:02 PM |
| After reading the otherwise interesting article I conclude that Preston needs to spend $30 to get his test machine up to 2-GB of RAM. 1-GB of RAM is not enough to get top performance from Vista RTM or SP1. |
| #2 By 25030 (72.78.134.157) at 2/9/2008 4:56:28 PM |
| Gee, I guess my 6 Vista PC's are somehow misconfigured if SP1 greatly improves my file copy time. Why would anyone try to use a 1GB box to benchmark anyway? |
| #3 By 82766 (211.30.72.158) at 2/10/2008 3:27:14 AM |
|
He's a lost cause when it comes to reporting the truth... nearly all of the beta testers reported faster transfer times, thats almost 15,000 people saying its faster verses one person saying its not.
For me, on a 2Ghz PC with 1Gb, Vista SP1 consistently proves to be approximately 15% faster at copying "large" (500Mb+) single files to a 2003 SP2 server or another Vista PC. While its around 10% faster to a XP SP2 PC and a closer to 15% to the same XP PC with SP3 applied. All of my tests were at 100MBit connection. Here's a question, has anyone reported that copying files with Server 2008 is slower than Server 2003?? Nooo... and remember, Server 2008 has exactly the same network stack and code as Vista SP1. |
| #4 By 1896 (74.166.235.69) at 2/10/2008 10:52:20 AM |
|
My personal experience is that "File transfer speed" indeed increased dramatically with SP1, the overall OS operations did not increase as much though; snappier yes but the increase was not as much as for file transfer. It should also be pointed out that issue with files was extremely severe.
As for Server 2008 (Standard Edition) the OS seems to respond much quicker than Vista which is quite interesting. My observations are based on RTM release of both OSes. This post was edited by Fritzly on Sunday, February 10, 2008 at 10:53. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 145 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:57:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
