KezNews.com
DownloadsOther NewsForumBlogsWallpapersJokewareSearch

News letter:


Enter Your E-mail:

Vista SP1 will deliver big network speed boost


section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 6.12.2007

I downloaded the release candidate of Vista Service Pack 1 yesterday and was prepared to wait till its public debut next week before writing about it.




But after upgrading a few machines here and doing some tests, I changed my mind. If Microsoft’s decision to ditch the WGA kill switch in SP1 didn’t convince you, would you be interested in a 300% increase in tripling your network file transfer speeds?

Forget the reports you might have read about SP1 resulting in no performance boost. That story was based on a silly artificial benchmark involving scripting of Office applications. Back here in the real world, where gigabit network connections are now commonplace, you’ll see at least one huge improvement when transferring files over network connections.

In its original release, Vista had some design problems with its networking stack, resulting in slow file transfers, especially when connecting to computers running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Home Server (all three of these products share a great deal of their code base, including core networking components). In Vista SP1, file transfer speeds are dramatically improved. In this post, I’ll describe what I saw.

I did two sets of file-transfer tests using two separate systems configured to dual boot between Vista RTM and the new Vista SP1 release candidate. Both systems have dual- or quad-core processors (both in the Intel Core 2 Duo family) The first group of files consisted of two large DVD images in ISO format, totaling 4.2 GB. The second group of files was a folder filled with more than 3,000 files of all types, in 299 subfolders, totaling roughly 6.5 GB.

For the first test, I transferred the two groups of files from a shared folder on an HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server to the two test systems running Windows Vista RTM, recording the total transfer time for each one. Then I rebooted the two systems into an SP1 installation and repeated the test. I converted the times into throughput rates; here’s the result (note that bigger bars equal higher throughput and thus better performance).

As you can see, the file transfers under Vista SP1 were dramatically faster than the Vista RTM times. For the directory full of many small files, the performance increase throughput was more than 300%; for the large files, the speed increase was roughly 260%. Note that you can expect similar results when transferring files from Vista to systems running Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.

For the second set of tests, I performed transfers between the two machines running equivalent versions of Windows Vista: RTM to RTM, SP1 to SP1. Here, the results were less dramatic. For the folder full of small files, the throughput rate increased by about 50% under SP1, and the large files transferred slightly slower, although still faster than the transfer from Windows Home Server.

source: blogs.zdnet.com

send email Send link 2 friend  |  Permalink
<< previouse article
Public Vista SP1 RC in a Few Days - XP SP3 RC Next?
next article >>
Microsoft Patch Day preview: 7 bulletins, 3 critical

MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Vista SP1 Gives Extenders a Speed Boost || Vista SP1 Evolves with New Reliability and Performance Boost || Boost Vista's Performance, Responsiveness, and Reliability ahead of Vista SP1 || Change and Speed Up the Read and Write Speed for DVD Writers - MediaCodeSpeedEdit || Vista sets 2007 land-speed record for copying and deleting

Comments(6)

Negative

By Negative on 07.12.2007 - 15:12
at this point microsoft got people money from vista so they can start using that money for the next budget.
they know that vista was not going to be the main windows that people will love compare to windows xp. by making sp3 they basically just admitted that vista is horrible. regardless if sp1 is out...no one will care even if they do try it they will notice they is no change at all. only people going to be stuck using vista is the one that has no clue how use windows.

See what?

By rucamx PT on 07.12.2007 - 18:12
"as you can see, the file transfers under vista sp1 were dramatically faster than the vista rtm times".

i cant see sh*t...lol,is it me or the graph isnt anywhere on the page.

Vista

By HerbalAbuse on 07.12.2007 - 19:12
what problems have people got with vista? i hear everyone saying its too slow and memory hungry but i use an athlon 64 3000 single core with 2gb ram and it runs very fast its never crashed in 2 years not once, xp crashed loads for me, vista looks better as well and has got more features, its more secure, and the 64 bit version is fast also had no driver issues, dx10 support for games, better firewall, ipv6 support, dreamscene backgrounds, the aero theme, readyboost, superfetch, media centre, plus it runs all pretty much all the programs xp runs i havent had any problems at all

Finally..

By RdZ on 07.12.2007 - 21:12
"forget the reports you might have read about sp1 resulting in no performance boost. that story was based on a silly artificial benchmark involving scripting of office applications. back here in the real world, where gigabit network connections are now commonplace, you’ll see at least one huge improvement when transferring files over network connections. "

they said it right there. those previous tests were ludicrous. xp is out, vista is in, get with it or get left behind! you all are living in a dream if you think your sticking with xp till windows 7! hah! when widows 7 finally does get released vista will be in its second service pack and will be flying (due increase in use on the hardware it was meant to be ran on and fixes in bugs ect.)

its you

By sirevan on 08.12.2007 - 05:12
you gotta click the link you tard....the graphs are on the source link...

Windows 7

By HerbalAbuse on 08.12.2007 - 21:12
when the new windows is out everyone will slay that as well


No new comments are allowed for this article.

For your questions use our KezNews Forum