InfoWorld:XP as bad as half as fast as 2K under heavy load.
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.
[...]
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.
(Emphasis added.)
The authors seem surprised that XP is slower. But it's good to see them follow where the facts lead them.
[link|http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.xml|Here's] the story.
Cheers,
Scott.
