I have been trying to compare the performance of Windows XP with that of Windows 2000 by running a very simple C program with clock() statements on Windows 2000 and Windows XP machines of identical hardware configurations and have found that XP outperforms 2000 significantly.
Just as a matter of curiosity, I tried to set the process priority to "realtime" using the "processes" tab in the task manager of both. I was surprised to find that in XP it seemed to slow down the process most of the times, while in 2000 the process ran significantly faster. I was measuring runing times for different kinds of operations and for some categories in fact, 2000 outperformed XP with "realtime" priority, while for all categories it was slower than XP when the process was run with "normal" priority (the default). I didn't experiment with any other priorities.
For those interested, I have attached a spreadsheet of the running times. Please remember to read the comments for each of the operation categories in order to understand what they mean.
Well...thank you very much, I will take a look and get back with you. I am in the process of doing similar tests since I experienced these kind of 'performance' problems under XP as well.
However, I am doing that aside my normal workload, thus, it might take a while (since I do not even have XP installed on my development machine)...
* The Best Reasons to Target Windows 8
Learn some of the best reasons why you should seriously consider bringing your Android mobile development expertise to bear on the Windows 8 platform.
Reply With Quote
