No it isn't, stop your PR babble. Maybe on your 2002 laptop there's speed gains but on a new PC with an SSD there is exactly nothing to gain.
Now tell me all about the added security as well.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Stardock just fixed Windows 8
- Thread starter MCD
- Start date
- Status
No it isn't, stop your PR babble. Maybe on your 2002 laptop there's speed gains but on a new PC with an SSD there is exactly nothing to gain.
Now tell me all about the added security as well.
cpp_is_king
Member
I'm guessing that implementation wise this works exactly the same way as Unity does for VMWare Workstation. Interesting, and pretty clever.
Right, because that is totally consistent with my previous posts in this thread complaining about Admin Approval Mode. I'm the other side of your binary world, whatever.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Thank god! I "accidently" opened some porn and of course the app version of media player opened. Good luck hiding that shit!
win8 is faster though... due to some optimizations such as delayed start and probably better registry management. just nothing to do with multicore.
The only area where Windows 8 was faster than Windows 7 for me, was the time between installation and removing it again - They really improved in that area.
I'm not talking about that. I've done stress tests at work with cores railed and I benchmarked apps execution time. Windows 8 beat Windows 7 considerably on Sandy Bridge. Without railing the cores with a separate app they matched.
My computers not horrible (Intel Xeon E5405 2.0GHz, GeForce GTX 275, 4.0GB of ram) and the gains were more than noticeable. I imagine most people who aren't hardcore computer enthusiasts, which is probably the majority of the population, could see some noticeable gains transitioning to Windows 8 from Windows 7. Whether its worth the current price of admission is debatable, but it's incorrect to suggest that there's nothing to gain.
well obviously you didnt use it enough
.i dont use metro and i think it is stupid and start menu or lack of, is also stupid... but it is zippy and zippier than Win7, especially after you install a lot of crap on it.
well obviously you didnt use it enough
i dont use metro and i think it is stupid and start menu or lack of, is also stupid... but it is zippy and zippier than Win7, especially after you install a lot of crap on it.
1,5 Month was more than enough time to try it out.
And I'm stunned at some of you people's installations of Windows 7? If mine was any faster, it would travel in time. On a high-end machine you will feel exactly NO gains whatsoever, so constantly harping on about performance like there's significant gains for everyone just doesn't work. Games run exactly the same, in some cases a bit worse plus a few games have compatibility issues. That right there is a massive nail in the coffin for my gaming machine. Then you can add the shitty hybrid tablet interface, weird way of doing even simple stuff, charm bars etc. all horrible.
Most people don't have a high end gaming computer. Vista was also fast on high end computers when it released, but that didn't change the fact that Windows 7 was faster than Vista.
cpp_is_king
Member
Are you sure these weren't the same gains that everyone in the world gets from reformatting their OS and starting over fresh? I can take my home Windows 7 installation, reformat it with the same Windows 7 distribution, and it too will be faster and more responsive
well stop thinking your usage of Windows is same as everyone else... i am high end user, i have fast SSD, I have i7 and yes after 1 year and few hundred applications installed, my Win7 slows down considerably.
Win8 so far it is a lot faster due to delayed start of services and it simply does not bog down after I install everything on it.
Metro and start menu are annoying... it is also not as reliable as Win7, although gazillion of patches make it better... but is it faster to use overall, yes. Speed is probably the best part of Win8.
I'm sure these people take such things into account. When doing tests, you're supposed to keep variables to a minimum if not completely non-existent outside of the objects being tested, so I think it's safe to assume that they weren't doing tests between a fresh Windows 8 machine and some abused Windows 7 machine.
Oh I know, that's why I keep saying people should stop telling me in a Windows 8 argument about performance gains, because they were non-existent between my installations. Yes, Windows 8 is well optimized for lower end machines which is great but again, it suffers from a heap of stuff I'd call "problems". When I say it's shit and has no gains over Windows 7 for me, I can't really use the argument that someone elses PC sees a benefit.
fatgamecat
Member
Looks good. Maybe MS will take note and add some desktop friendly features back to the next version of Windows.
You're the one tossing out hyperbole, suggesting that those transitioning from Windows 7 to Windows 8 will see a benefit if they're using a "2002 laptop." When in reality, they'll see gains on a modern system. Pretty much every test I've seen, on high end computers no less, shows that Windows 8 is faster than Windows 7 outside of gaming. If the latter quality of computing is what you're basing your argument around, then fine, but for overall computing speed, Windows 8 is factually superior.
They fixed Windows 8 by hacking it into Windows 7++. =P
I'll just disagree. I can't really use arbitrary benchmark numbers in useless PC benchmark software as they have no bearing on my user experience whatsoever. My Windows 7 installation starts just as quick as my Windows 8 installation. My programs open when I click them quite quickly. Everything is smooth, very fast and it just works. Windows 8 has so many nuisances and problems that I can't deem Windows 8 'superior' based on canned benchmarks that holds no correlation between what I've experienced and what they tell.
I've seen many people agree with that notion on high-end PCs, especially when owning a decent SSD.
The fact that it's now slower / worse at games nullifies any possible gains in the first place. Also the fact that everyone runs around in cheer and glee every time they turn Windows 8 a bit more into Windows 7 just goes to show the interface is shit.
If I were a mod I would have warned you a few posts ago because although your particular experience may not show improvements in performance over windows 7, pretty much any benchmark or others using windows 8 will tell you differently. And spewing crap like saying games somehow run worse in windows 8 just isn't true.
You may hate the start menu UI and experience, but windows 8 is leaps and bounds more optimized than windows 7, which was leaps and bounds optimized over Vista.
Yes, let's throw around warnings when we disagree with people. Great idea.
And you are right, Windows 8 must be so fantastic in every way and super fast that its adoption rate has sunk below Vista and is doing poorly. The consumer base is loving it.
cpp_is_king
Member
Well I mean there's something to gain by using Monster Cable instead of regular cable too, it's just that 99% of peoples' ears can't really notice the difference, unless you're a hardcore audiophile.
I don't really buy into all these website benchmarks who have an ulterior motive of trying to get people to visit their site, and possibly even being in the pocketbooks of the product they're benchmarking. People often read benchmarks and are like "oh, this thing is faster!" or "this thing is better!" because it was measured by some test to be better. Even if the test is reproducible by you in your own environment, if it's not better or faster to the point that it's noticeable to you without a tool measuring, then it's not really that much better IMO.
I mean don't get me wrong, I'm sure Windows 8 has made some improvements, and of all people in the world, I'm about as big of a Windows fanboy as you can be, but all I see are people posting benchmarks conducted in a controlled environment, and not much from people who have actually USED Windows 8 and personally noticed a difference. That's the people who I'm going to trust, although even then there is often a placebo effect.
Unfortunately, I don't even think I could trust those people (yet), because what I'm really concerned with is long term performance degredation as your OS install ages, and the OS hasn't been out long enough yet for that to really be an issue with anyone
BigEvilTurtle
Banned
I like Windows 8. It's fast and easy to use. Now bash me.
The only time these benchmarks are tossed around is when people say that Windows 8 is faster than 7 based on personal experience, and then someone comes into the debate with "Lol, only on TI-82!"
What "BS" argument, that fact that I'm using REAL LIFE experiences rather than clinging on to canned benchmarks from random websites that has no correlation between experience and what their numbers show?
as people with multi monitor setups have mentioned... and just.. in general. Its horrible design, and stupid.
Why do I need fullscreen Travel information? News stories...etc.
Much like my fear of hitting internet explorer accidentally..
I fear hitting the windows button :\
All my programs run fine, its just getting to them has been made silly for no reason imo.
To be perfectly honest, at the time of using them, I've almost always felt that my computing experience was fast since Windows 98, that is until I experienced the next iteration of computing/OS first hand.
Yes. I'd like to ask you guys how fast your windows 7 machine cold boots on startup to the login screen/desktop. My surface boots in about 10 secs. My windows 7 laptop with higher specs boots in about 20-25 secs.
BigEvilTurtle
Banned
How? It's as easy as it was in Windows 7. Either you put a shortcut on your desktop or you click the bottom left corner and choose the program from there. I don't get it.
Since when has anecdotal evidence been valued over something more scientific in nature?
For one you stated games run worse on windows 8, how do you come to this conclusion?
Angelus Errare
Banned
Strange, I sent a concept design just like this to Stardock 7 months ago lol....
I'd rather read and present anecdotal evidence rather than generic benchmarks from websites that most likely want hits, telling me Windows 8 starts 7 seconds faster despite them being identical on my machine. Telling me my programs that open instantaneous can open faster on Windows 8.
The fact that I had older games flat out not work. Games where I had to download all sorts of dodgy launchers to get working. Games with lower FPS compared to Windows 7. Their own GFWL doesn't even work properly without fiddling.
The fact that I had older games flat out not work. Games where I had to download all sorts of dodgy launchers to get working. Games with lower FPS compared to Windows 7. Their own GFWL doesn't even work properly without fiddling.
This argument against benchmarks make zero sense. If they wanted hits, they'd go against the grain, which in this case would be posting results that suggests that Windows 8 is slower than Windows 7.
You can get hits just as easily by hyping up the next big MS OS. People love that shit, you guys are linking their stuff pretty heavy handed in all these Windows 8 related threads lately.
Maybe even a proverbial pat on the back from mother Microsoft herself, gotta sell the OS.
It's honestly easier to believe that the data is legitimate, considering benchmarks across dozens of websites reinforce one another, than it is to believe that there's some kind of agenda across every computer hardware website in existence to cook the books for hits.
- Status