Xp vid encode seemed faster bacause it didn't work (I encode vids, the torture has got to end some common sense day). Vista, even at toms hardware review of old shows it is indeed all the same hardware doing the same work...and here comes the astonishing complaint the h.264 encoding time is slower...ya wanna know why? because it is actually encoding inVista...Vids seem to be a slippery subject for hardware and it is repulsive to think about. Vista is slower there...because it is working.It is not much longer to windows 7 and to gain an actual unloading of nonused programs from memory. If that is all windows 7 did it is still an upgradable thought. For now, I am just diving into vista...just for a darn home video...
"We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue." -tomshardware
"No matter how hard we rant and scream about what a mess our predecessors made with their concept of reality, we can't get them to fix what they did. We just have to cope and move on. The best we can do is not to make the mess worse for our posterity."
from the link posted above. Interesting read. I still wonder why we have a leap year, no need of it. I never got over what I learned from a bunch of unix chat servers world wide linked together. Absolutely amazingly Wrong, when time and reality have to work in milliseconds or seconds around the world together. leap year is dumber than a carpocalypse..oh wait.
Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.