Vista is tweaked for traditional spindle hard drives, not SSDs. Different latencies and transfer speeds. This is becuase SSD disks weren't considered mainstream enough when Vista shipped to tinker with perfomance optimizations for them.
The fact that SSDs on Win2k perform any faster is anecdotal at best.
Wait to try Win7 on an SSD.
Good News stury. I found lots of SLC driver issues as well. I feel there will me many woes before the problems are ironed out. From what little I know, most of the software problems should be fixed and SSD speed will get uncorked by Win7. What about UNIX/Linux?
my 2 cents worth..
[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]So was this just Windows? IF they tested 2000 I'm guessing they tested older Windows OSes. Did they do any Linux distros?[/citation]
[citation][nom]The linked article[/nom]That aging operating system, said Saeed Arash Far, engineering manager at SSD manufacturer Patriot Memory, is markedly faster than Windows XP, Vista, Mac OS X or Linux when using NAND flash memory.
According to Far, Mac OS X runs "a little faster than Vista" with an SSD drive, but Linux is "always faster" than Vista or Mac OS X -- to the tune of 1% to 2% -- because like Windows 2000, "it never runs anything in the background."
XP does not align the data in the most efficient way for an SSD -- in 4KB blocks -- while Vista and Mac OS X do, according to Justin Sykes, director of marketing for SSD products at Micron. (Linux, which wasn't tested, also aligns data in 4K blocks.)[/citation]
So whether it's because of processes (doubtful) or block organization (more likely), Linux is better than either OS X or Vista with SSDs, but not by much.
its really obvious, win2000 has the best kernel performance i've ever noticed in my life, you can even feel the stability by just looking at it without doing anything, it just works. It's one of the best OS's ever released, not just by MS. And its the only OS from MS where you can totally remove IE without having and bug, which speeds up the system even more. Ive used it till 2007 to be honest, i had to migrate in XP just because of the damn software that i needed didnt support Win2000 anymore.
[citation][nom]Tindytim[/nom]What build number?Would be nice to at least have seen a mention of 7 in this article.[/citation]
Build 6801 was the one that was used by the person who was talking about the performance.
[citation][nom]enewmen[/nom]Randomizer has been around THG a long time. I assume he knows what he's talking about.[/citation]
Never assume anything Just FYI, I am talking purely subjective "flying", no hard numbers. Unfortunately I can no longer find the thread on XS where it was mentioned.
[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]2000 is by the best OS they have ever built (next gen NT I guess). I would put any build of linux up against win2k.[/citation]
...everything after 2k is NT based, with 2k being NT 5.0 and XP being NT 5.1 (Vista is 6.0, and 7 will be 6.1 ironically).
The fact that 2k wasn't made for personal computers also lends to it's stability. But stacking NT up against a modern Linux Distro would be rather silly, while it may have a slight performance edge, the real question would be usability.