XP is slower than Win2K
Meltsner, Kenneth
Kenneth.Meltsner@ca.com
Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:04:55 -0500
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C16258.13145BF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Same thing happened with Win 2K and Windows NT -- NT was somewhat faster on a couple of benchmarks and tied the rest. Clearly, we'd all be better off with NT 4. Or, I suppose, we should consider going back to NT 3.5.
Or DOS -- there was a speedy OS. Didn't do that much, but didn't get in your way either....
Ken Meltsner
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@cse.ucsc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:26 PM
To: FoRK
Subject: XP is slower than Win2K
Infoworld article: Waiting <http://www2.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml?Template=/storypages/printfriendly.html> for Windows XP by P.J. Connolly and Randall C. Kennedy. Details a test where an Office XP exerciser script was run on multiple PC configurations. The test suite ran slower on XP that W2000 in all cases. New and improved, only slower.
- Jim
------_=_NextPart_001_01C16258.13145BF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=189395321-31102001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Same
thing happened with Win 2K and Windows NT -- NT was somewhat faster on a couple
of benchmarks and tied the rest. Clearly, we'd all be better off with NT
4. Or, I suppose, we should consider going back to NT
3.5.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=189395321-31102001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=189395321-31102001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Or DOS
-- there was a speedy OS. Didn't do that much, but didn't get in your way
either....</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=189395321-31102001></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=189395321-31102001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=189395321-31102001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Ken
Meltsner</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=189395321-31102001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Jim Whitehead
[mailto:ejw@cse.ucsc.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:26
PM<BR><B>To:</B> FoRK<BR><B>Subject:</B> XP is slower than
Win2K<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Infoworld article: <A
href="http://www2.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml?Template=/storypages/printfriendly.html">Waiting
for Windows XP</A> by P.J. Connolly and Randall C. Kennedy. Details a
test where an Office XP exerciser script was run on multiple PC
configurations. The test suite ran slower on XP that W2000 in all cases. New
and improved, only slower.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>- Jim</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C16258.13145BF0--