[[email protected]]

On Feb 9, 12:29*pm, wrote:
On Feb 9, 11:29*am, wrote:

There are certainly many factors beyond cpu that
have an effect on computer performance.

As evidence, consider that to build one of my client's
applications takes 01:13 on an 800 MHz P4 running
Windows 2000Pro SP4, takes 01:50 on a 2.4 GHz
running WinXP SP2, and 2:05 on a 2.8 GHz running
Vista. The first 2 machines have 1 GB RAM and the
Vista is running 4 GB. All three machines have been
sleaned up and are not running any untoward
background tasks like virus checkers and the like.

As a result of these tests, Vista is not permitted
anywhere near here. I have further made the strong
recommendation to my client that they NOT deploy
their system on Vista platforms.

And, it's interesting to note, the industrial applications
world, corporate IT and others that are Winders based
have pretty soundly rejected Vista. Further, Microsoft
has very quietly announced that XP licenses and support
will be available through to 2013 at a minimum.

The only way to make Windows a bigger piece of
**** than it already is is to make it bigger, which
Vista is, by a lot.

There can be surprising differences in other areas as well. I
remember benchmarking a database on two machines. One was an ibm
server and the other a compaq. (before hp bough compaq) The compaq
ran 60% faster even though both machines used an identical intel
processor and had the same memory and same os.