[Am-info] things went downhill from there...

[Gene Gaines]

am-info,


Quoting from TEST CENTER REPORT from InfoWorld.com,
Monday, October 29, 2001


HOPELESS OPTIMISM must be a fundamental part of human
nature, because we want to believe that new operating
systems truly represent an improvement on their
predecessors. It's easy to point to certain features
in a new OS as examples of progress, but end-users
often find that a new OS performs like molasses
compared to the version they were using. As a result,
CTOs wanting to capitalize on the benefits of a new OS
may find that new hardware investments are necessary
-- and expensive -- requirements.

Unfortunately, Microsoft's Windows XP appears to be
maintaining that tradition, as indicated by results of
independent testing performed by CSA Research and
confirmed by our work in the InfoWorld Test Center.
Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows
XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same
heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000
significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most
extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly
twice as long to complete a workload as did the
Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that
companies determined to deploy Windows XP should
consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs to
get the most out of the new OS.

...

Finally, our cross-generational testing, which measured
the performance of Windows XP and Office XP directly
against that of Windows 2000 and Office 2000, found
that once again, newer means slower. In every one of
our scenarios the combination of Windows XP and Office
XP took noticeably longer -- from 35 percent to 68
percent longer -- to complete the script than Windows
2000 and Office 2000.

Overall we are quite disappointed with Windows XP's
ability to pull serious weight when compared to
Windows 2000. We are not certain where the problem
lies. Our follow-up testing indicates that the
additional database and multimedia workloads are
breaking the proverbial camel's back. Microsoft claims
it's been unable to duplicate our results, but hasn't
supplied us with a better explanation or identified a
major flaw in our testing. Whatever the cause, until
the problem behind Windows XP performance is resolved,
we can't recommend Windows XP as a client for serious
database crunching.

In fact, until 2GHz desktop PCs become commonplace, we
have a hard time recommending widespread adoption of
Windows XP at all. Granted, it appears that for
light-duty service on the newest hardware, Windows XP
with Office XP is an acceptable choice -- if an 11
percent performance hit, or 53 minutes added to an
8-hour day, is acceptable. But beware of this
combination in more demanding environments, whether
the workload is greater or the equipment is older.

Barring the need for Windows XP-specific features, such
as the remote-control and management options, IT
departments should take advantage of license downgrade
provisions and continue to press forward with Windows
2000 deployments until the installed hardware base
catches up with XP. Shops lured by XP features should
weigh their options carefully. In many cases, these
features may not be compelling enough to justify
saddling your end-users with a slower OS. Although
differences between Windows XP and Windows 2000 can be
measured in seconds, what business can afford to put a
20 percent or greater bite on worker productivity?

For more see:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml


Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
Sterling, Virginia