Hate to burst your superiority bubble gentlemen, but if you think these benchmarks show 2k3 to be a better desktop OS, you're an idiot. For the gaming benches -
the actual, real-world usage of the OS - the two OS's are already admitted to be functionally identical. That leaves Sandra...
Originally posted by: batmizang
now in sandra, there was a increase in performance in every benchmark i ran.
No. There wasn't. Look at your numbers.
Memory
XP: 5063/5128
2K3: 5121/5080
2K3 takes the first test, XP takes the second. And in both the margin is
absolutely insignificant, a whopping 1.1%. Congratulations.
CPU
XP: 9122, 2687/6002
2K3: 9394, 2755/5971
In the Dhrystone -
an integer test that has little to do with desktop performance - 2K3 wins by a staggering 3%. Run, don't walk, to the phone and order now. In the Whetstone, which has marginally more to do with gaming performance, the test goes both ways, again by miniscule amounts - 2.5% and .5%. That leaves us with...
File System
XP: 18233kB/s
2K3: 21362kB/s
You at least did a fresh install on the same partition of the same drive, right? Made sure to defragment the filesytem beforehand? Turned off background processes that might be reading the disk? Ran the benchmarks numerous times to report an average and standard deviation or coefficient of variation? Read Eugene's
Testbed Article? (Of course you did, it's the one that says MUST READ in big, bold letters.) And you did post these results at
Storage Review, right? And were told that Sandra is a completely worthless file system benchmark in practically every way? And then came over to Anandtech because you figured we were all just a bunch of suckers that would assuage your battered ego?
Sorry, try it again with your idiot friends that don't know any better. But it's not going to happen here.