I read on one site,I think it was TomsHardware that Vista was slower on video transcodeing and encodeing than XP. My very un-scientific test would seem to agree. I installed VistaRC1 on Celeron D 3.33 CedarMill running at 4.0Ghz and it took 19 minutes to transcode a disk that took 18 minutes running XP. It was a 3 hour episode disk transcoded using DVD Shrink 3.2
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2
-
-
a. It's a releease candidate and not the gold version, so performance, while close to the final release, may not accuratelt reflect the final version
b. It is well known that Vista has higher system requirements than XP
c. DVD Shrink has not be tuned for Vista, and therefore may not be able to make use of smarter routines that may in fact increase performance
d. It is a about a 5% reduction in speed. On a single test thi sis not signicant or in fact meaningful. Repeat the test 100 times and it will start to have some meaning.
As with any new system, until it is the final release version, with optimised software releases, comparisons don't mean a lot.Read my blog here.
Similar Threads
-
PRO slower ???
By cgp in forum SVCD2DVD & VOB2MPGReplies: 0Last Post: 12th Jan 2011, 09:49 -
Firefox 3.6 RC1 is out
By pepegot1 in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 0Last Post: 8th Jan 2010, 07:55 -
Anand and Tom's Hardware - Windows 7 slower than Vista
By wulf109 in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 40Last Post: 30th Oct 2009, 16:48 -
VLC 1.0.0-rc1 and skins contest
By Brazil in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 0Last Post: 14th May 2009, 13:32 -
What is the difference between Vista basic and Vista home premium?
By davidsama in forum ComputerReplies: 18Last Post: 27th Oct 2007, 12:01