------------------------------------- "The President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky's vagina, then put the cigar in his mouth and said: 'It tastes good.'" - Kenneth Starr '09 M-sport 135i '11 C300 '02 M3(sold) '01 330ci(sold)
At the time i did the tests i disabled everything could be disabled except superfetch. I streamlined the SP1 it into the Vista iso and burned the DVD. Then i compared the fresh installations performance with sintetic tests as well as common benchmarks and common operations (softwares installations, softwares launch times, file operations, etc). Vista RTM, updated Vista RTM (patched except SP1) and Vista SP1 have comparable results. I noticed Vista SP1 has a slightly higher memory "footprint" than the other two. Also patched Vista RTM has a slightly higher memory footprint (not as high than SP1 though) than Vista RTM as well. Those tests were made on Vista Ultimate.
------------------------------------- Dakar 95 M3 (4/95 manufacture) Techno Violet 97 M3 (12/96 manufacture) Alpine White 16 535i M-Sport (10/15 manufacture) _________________________________ "I have no idols. I admire work, dedication and competence." -- A. Senna Illegitimus Non Tatum C
I just can't belive that Microsoft drifts so far away from Performance in what they achived with 2000 and XP in system stability (sure performance also lacked but that's normal for more stability see the NX execution thing in software with XP SP2) compared to 98 and Me it's somehow unbeliveable for someone who watched the whole development and the improvements that where done to this OS over the years. Ok the Protected Media Path and all the Stability Loging + (how much Services are actually new introduced?) costs alot of new IO accesses and (Aero Memory) for sure but it shouldn't make a system with a enhanced Kernel that much slower then it's predecesor i just can't belive it, even if i hear it almost daily :). And especialy it shouldn't be slower if you count the fact that alot of the Shell is now GPU accellerated so the CPU gets even lower utilized now it should be faster not slower, someone should realy compare the final RTM of Server 2008 vs XP :D Someone should log especialy all IO accessing that takes place in Vista compared to XP (IO access is still something that can slow down subjective work speed and some could even think memory is the problem then)
I've being playing about with the sp1 release today, and on the whole I'd give it a thumbs up I'll take the slightly degraded performance of usb external drives for being able to change the network throttling while playing any audio, that was killing me until today Finally, back to xp performance, nice to have 50Mb/s back again
------------------------------------- Racing Development Gruppe_M
Search
Users
Entrance
RE: Vista SP1 performance.
