Windows 8 vs Windows 7 Performance

windows 8 is great. No ifs or buts. Start menu is way better than windows 7. Also luddites always look ridiculous in hindsight. So how many years did you clasp to xp whilst everyone else was using vista? Lol
 
dandragonrage said:
Know what's great for a power user? A regular mouse, a regular keyboard, a regular monitor, and Windows 7.
Click to expand...
And you have used Windows 8 with one of these peripherals extensively right? I'd wager my left nut you haven't even tried it out in the store for five mins.

Its one thing to try something and say "FAIL", but there are so many that get freaked out whenever something is different.

Remember the huge hissy fit about 2010 office suite and the ribbon? My users were all in an uproar about it, its so inconvenient, it takes ages to figure out what is where, etc. Well, its true there was a learning curve, but now that they know it they would kick and scream if I tried to put them on 07 and they blaze through the 10 interface like they are on fire.
 
gaspah said:
windows 8 is great. No ifs or buts. Start menu is way better than windows 7. Also luddites always look ridiculous in hindsight. So how many years did you clasp to xp whilst everyone else was using vista? Lol
Click to expand...

Wow you pulled out a thesaurus. I don't think anyone who skipped Vista looks bad at all, that would be like mocking those who skipped Windows ME. They eventually fixed vista to a reasonable os, but at least it was worthy of skipping.

Everyone uses computer for different reasons. Not everyone want to relearn an interface they have been using for decades. If they are in a production environment it simply ends up costing them a great deal of money while they switch over to a new interface which might be only slightly more productive anyways. It is not uncommon for most people or companies to choose to only pick up a product every other generation.

I think windows 8 is a bold move on Microsoft's part. They have learned that if something is optional it rarely gets used. They want to have everyone switch and use one OS/UI everywhere. I would have likely gone in the other direction. I would have made metro an emulator on Windows 8. Then have metro apps works across tablet, phone and OS. Build up the back-end. This way they can catch up to Apple with its itunes/apps leveraging. People want a seamless experience, but no reason to isolate long term users.
 
Metro is junk and intrusive, I don't keep everything blown up to fullscreen and huge fonts. I tried really hard for a week, just didn't work out.

Haven't used it ever since I installed classic shell and have no intention to ever use that trash again.
 
Ducman69 said:
its true there was a learning curve, but now that they know it they would kick and scream if I tried to put them on 07 and they blaze through the 10 interface like they are on fire.
Click to expand...

Learning curve is lost productivity time. Are they more productive now? if so how much of an increase? How long to get a return on investment for upgrading to the new UI? Just curious the gains realized. People in general dislike change and fight against increased work(IE learning curve), but that does not mean that every change is good either...

Microsoft does not have a great history with UI changes..Windows ME, BOB etc. SO because of this history most people question their choices. Vista was slower then XP, windows 7 corrected the issue. Windows 8 is pretty lean but at this point not everyone sees the reason for the new UI, does not make them bad people just means it is not for them. SO skipping a generation of OS every so often seems like a good choice atm to me. Saves people money and headache, there is a reason most businesses waited on new releases. If its the right choice for the long term they will likely buy windows 9 or 10, point to a few fixes and say they were right for waiting.
 
Ducman69 said:
Remember the huge hissy fit about 2010 office suite and the ribbon? My users were all in an uproar about it, its so inconvenient, it takes ages to figure out what is where, etc. Well, its true there was a learning curve, but now that they know it they would kick and scream if I tried to put them on 07 and they blaze through the 10 interface like they are on fire.
Click to expand...

I was the very first person in my company to run Office 2007, and the second to run 2010. I use Outlook, Word and Excel pretty often. And I still HATE the ribbon interface just as much as I did before. I'm mostly used to it, but I still hate it.

And I'm not mad that they added a new interface. I'm mad that they don't want us using the old interface. They should have given the option to totally disable the new interface.
 
I see minor differences either way except with regards to IE10 performing better than 9, and newer versions of built-in libraries like WIC, WMF. The benefits for AMD CPU's though, amazing. I wonder how much AMD and Microsoft worked together on the scheduler code to get that sort of improvement.
 
Monkey God said:
I see minor differences either way except with regards to IE10 performing better than 9, and newer versions of built-in libraries like WIC, WMF. The benefits for AMD CPU's though, amazing. I wonder how much AMD and Microsoft worked together on the scheduler code to get that sort of improvement.
Click to expand...

Huh? What amazing benefits?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-bulldozer-performance,3289-3.html

image008.png


image003.png


image013.png


image009.png


image010.png


image027.png


2% in A/V encoding is amazing to you?
 
I'm going to be building a AMD 8 core system pretty soon (gathering parts). All my productivity is done on linux but I will be gaming on this system so I'm interested in game performance and compatibility.
Are there issues with games for Win7 running on Win8?
I running XP now (last of the hold outs) and have resisted changing because the only thing I ever used Windows for was gaming and these days I have less and less time for it. But it is becoming a must upgrade OS deal because a lot of the newer games don't support XP.
I noticed you can buy a copy of Win 8 about the same as windows 7; so price isn't a big issue.
 
pelo said:
Huh? What amazing benefits?

[pics snipped]

2% in A/V encoding is amazing to you?
Click to expand...

You're posting AMD FX lineups. I think he's referring to the benefits for AMD's Llano and Trinity A-series APU lineups. The integrated GPU would have a field day with Windows 8 being entirely hardware accelerated, giving the CPU more breathing room.

Normal CPUs with powerful discreet graphics card wouldn't benefit much from Windows 7 to 8 transitions.
 
Azhar said:
You're posting AMD FX lineups. I think he's referring to the benefits for AMD's Llano and Trinity A-series APU lineups. The integrated GPU would have a field day with Windows 8 being entirely hardware accelerated, giving the CPU more breathing room.

Normal CPUs with powerful discreet graphics card wouldn't benefit much from Windows 7 to 8 transitions.
Click to expand...

That doesn't stretch itself to outside applications unless those applications are coded in openCL or whatever API you're looking at.

Metro and MS applications could see potential benefits, but if you're looking at software you were running on Win7 to get a boost from Win8 due to the GPU-acceleration features in Win8 then you won't see any change at all.
 
pelo said:
Huh? What amazing benefits?

2% in A/V encoding is amazing to you?
Click to expand...

Read the link in the OP. The benchmarks you posted are all hardware limited, of COURSE they are going to be the same no matter what OS you use.

Also using frames per second to compare games between OSes is not accurate enough to show a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top