Windows Vista is a pig. A pig with lipstick and a wig, but a pig nonetheless. This is the conclusion presented after a Windows Vista benchmark performed in mid February 2007, following the commercial availability of the operating system.

TweakHound apparently tested the performances of Windows Vista and has come up with the "pig" comparison. Scientific and professional are terms that do not describe the benchmark that TweakHound performed. And there are a few clues pointing in that direction. First off, the introduction of the test reads: "unless you've had your head in the sand you've heard (or seen) that Vista is slower than XP. I thought I would run a few benchmarks too see just how much slower it is." Now, my view on this is that if you start with the idea that you want to demonstrate that Windows Vista is slower than Windows XP you're going to find a way to prove just that.

Second. If you are going to perform a Windows Vista benchmark, you might as well use a methodology that is equilibrated and that does not handicap one operating system over the other. Now Microsoft has promised to publish a methodology for Windows Vista benchmarking since late January 2007, but has failed to do so as yet. However, comparing a Windows Vista in a default configuration with a tweaked Windows Vista and a tweaked Windows XP, like TweakHound did and then claim that Vista is slower than XP simply won't do.

If you want to access two real Windows Vista benchmarks then you can choose between a Vista/XP comparison performed by Principled Technologies or by one put together by Tom's Hardware. I promise, you will not find any colorful metaphors.