Update: Re-Testing Vista w/2GB RAM, Office 2003
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 28.11.2007
Many of our members have requested that we re-test Vista SP1 with 2GB of RAM instead of the 1GB we used in our original tests.
Analysis: By providing Vista (SP1) with an additional 1GB of RAM (that's a total of 2GB for those of you keeping score) we managed to achieve a "whopping" 4% improvement in OfficeBench throughput.
Note: We added the Windows XP (SP3) results to the chart to add further context to the Vista results. As before, all tests were conducted on the same Dell XPS M1710 system w/2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and DDR-2 667MHz RAM.
A few members voiced their concerns over the use of Office 2007 under Vista. They suggested we re-test using Office 2003 on both Vista and Windows XP. Here are the results:
Analysis: Moving from Office 2007 to Office 2003 definitely improved Vista's showing. Instead of being over 2x slower than XP on the same OfficeBench workload, Vista is now "only" 1.8x slower.
To quote Darth Vader: "Impressive...most impressive."
source:
exo-blog.blogspot.com
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Microsoft to push Office 2003 SP3 to users in February || Microsoft Takes Heat for Office 2003 SP3 File Format Blocking || Microsoft Office 2007 SP1 releasing to Automatic Update || Vista SP1 Installed System Memory RAM || Vista SP1 Won't Resolve the 4 GB RAM Limitation of 32-bit Windows Vista
Comments(20)
do you prefere eye candy only like (vista) or performance mixed with some eye candy like
(xp). try to be logic if vista was realy a revolution like many vista fan are saying so
why fixing errors that were discoverd sine years now again in xp or 2000 or win 98. if
vista was realy a revolution he would be actualy fastter relable professional attractive
funny usefull full of very advanced technology and crazy options we are interning in 2008
people wake up
next thing you know they'll be demanding that you run vista sp1 on a cray super
computer. ;-)
this dosen't mean that i prefer xp but it is the only os that seems to be working
without any problem so far..and spesialy for gaming. and i am very sure that directx 10
can run without any problem on xp or issue. the only thing that makes vista different from
xp is that directx 10 witch is actualy is a beta the real one will be the 10.1 and mac is
for girls and linux is for people that don't have anything to do
i would like to see how fast vista runs with 4gb of ram. then there would be no doubt as
to how vista compares to xp.
it won't make any difference, unless bare vista uses more then 2 gb :)
you will
only notice a difference between 2 and 4 gb if you running a huge number of massif
applications like photoshop etc simultanoiusly.
btw those results are about
what i experience.
i would be interested in a benchmark related to network access
time between xp and vista, think there would be some huge differences there also.
ussualy it takes me between 10 and 20 seconds to "connect" to a network drive with
vista, less then 1 second with xp.
regardless if the "network drive" is on a xp or
vista machine.
needing 2gb of ram just to run vista and office 2003 efficiently is ridiculous.
sure, every new os has it's problems xp included but by the time microsoft sort out the
many problems vista has, windows 7 will be here. let's face it, the sort of people that
think vista is good are the kind of people you could dangle a shinny object in front of
and they would think "wow, it's magical" or the kind of person that posts comments like
"xp users are dinosaurs and losers", or finish their posts with "hahaha".
vista runs fine, network drives connect instantly, the boot up is better than xp and the
games i've tried on work well. time to let go of rubbish like xp and move on to vista. xp
was rubbish that i had to use linux for a while. the number of problems it caused when
released.
but still for hardcore gamers he is some how far with all these problem that vista
generate during game play or even the performance hit. went you start gears of war on xp
the starting is very fast but with vista it is the opposite and with crysis at some point
the games start running in windowed mode and i don't want to talk about the performance.
even with high end hardware
i have no doubts anymore, vista users are being used as guinea pigs with a product that
was no near as finished.
well, if 1 officebench (???) benchmark by the well known firm devil mountain something
something says it, i guess its proved vista blows hard. case closed.
for our next
trick, we're gonna prove jesus was an eskimo and that aliens built the statue of liberty,
using last thurday's newspaper and a can opener.
do you people always believe
everything you read, or just when it's something you want to hear?
removed the hardware question with my system. q6600 at 3.15 ghz, 4 gigs memory, xfx
8800gtx 768 meg. benchies:
3dmark 06 vista 12,127 - xp 12,333
cinebench r10
vista: rendering single 3,199 multiple 11,117 shading (open gl) 4,387- xp: rendering
single 3,110, multiple 11,166 shading 6,188
cool tricks- can u do 'em on that bridge i just bought?
why not 10 gig? or 20? or a terabyte? i'll pay for it with the money i make off selling
a bridge i got at a real bargain.
people in brooklyn said i was crazy! hahahahahaha
i have a similar system: c2d 6750 at 3.2, 4gb pc8500 ram, xfx 8800gtx, and my 3dmark06 is
11500. havent tried it with xp yet. probably the same.
"needing 2gb of ram just to run vista and office 2003 efficiently is ridiculous. "
even poor people can afford 2gb of ram nowadays.. it's like.. $50... and actually
it should be standard on even the low end systems..
sort of? more when they are announcing windows 7
simple question; not sure it i missed it when reading. was vista's aero mode enabled
during this test?
even poor people can afford 2gb of ram nowadays.. it's like.. $50... and actually it
should be standard on even the low end systems..
you have to be kiding! no,
poor people can afford 256, 512, or if they have some money, 1gb. some of us(the vast
majority) live pay check to paycheck here with about $50.00 left over to spend.
the only annoying performance issue i've had with vista is working with it remotely over
a network. xp is super smooth, even on a 54mbps wireless connection, whereas vista chugs
on everything, including a wired gigabit connection.
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Wait a minute...
By TRAX 02 on 29.11.2007 - 01:11