Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 8 RTM Benchmarked

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the what's-the-word dept.

Windows 398

jjslash writes "Microsoft's PR machine has been hard at work over the past few months, trying to explain the numerous improvements Windows 8 has received on the backend. But are there real tangible performance differences compared to Windows 7? TechSpot has grabbed the RTM version of Windows 8, measuring and testing the performance of various aspects of the operating system including: boot up and shutdown times, file copying, encoding, browsing, gaming and some synthetic benchmarks." Lots of other sites are running reviews including: Infoworld, CNET, Computerworld, and Gizmodo, with very mixed opinions.

cancel ×

398 comments

Paid for (4, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 2 years ago | (#41003237)

Lots of other sites are running reviews including: Infoworld, CNET, Computerworld, and Gizmodo, with very mixed opinions.

You mean they're mixing the real opinions with the bought ones?

Re:Paid for (2, Insightful)

Zaelath (2588189) | about 2 years ago | (#41003293)

It's putting lipstick on a pig anyway. It would have to be orders of magnitude better "under the hood" to put up with driving something that fugly.

Re:Paid for (-1, Troll)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#41003433)

Given Metro (or whatever the UI is specifically called nowadays), the damned thing had better come with the ability to turn one's computer into a flying car, a washing machine, a working submarine, a microwave stuffed with all the foods I ever liked, and a fembot with a penchant for evil.

Seriously - using the Windows 8 UI is sometimes like pulling one's own teeth out with a rusty pair of tweezers. I don't even want to know what the few Windows-using relatives I have left are going to think (right before my phone line gets all jammed-up with questions and pleas for help, that is).

I know, I know - cue all the sycophants and astroturfers reminding me how allegedly easy using Windows8 will be. >:(

Re:Paid for (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 2 years ago | (#41004037)

I don't even want to know what the few Windows-using relatives I have left are going to think

They're all going to wonder why you're trying to run a tablet OS as a desktop. :)

Re:Paid for (5, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 2 years ago | (#41004423)

Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you is a sycophant or astroturfer. You speak the unimpeachable Truth and all others are Damned. Please spare me this BS. I don't disagree with you, necessarily, but I hate the demonization of those who disagree with you. Dissent is healthy.

Re:Paid for (5, Informative)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#41004689)

The biggest trouble I found was lack of documentation. Trying to figure out how to use Metro on your own is not trivial. While one article touted that you really didn't need start menu after all and that you could do the same thing with Metro, it took me a half hour to find a slow way to get up a menu, and another half hour to find a fast way to do this! If you're used to Windows or any other mouse based desktop system you may think that you can use the right mouse button, or maybe bring the mouse to the various sides of the screen, or click left or right on any blank spot on the screen (very few places not covered with "click here to buy stuff" icons).

I was baffled until I found a tiny spot to move the mouse where something happened (all the way to bottom right, size of a hanging chad). Eventually I found the _real_ way this is intended to be used. The Windows Key. You know, that key that most real computer users laughed at when they first found it and have not used it since. Just push it by itself and release and something happens. Sure some Windows experts may have memorized things like Windows+S for start menu or things like that, but most people I know never use it, or consider using it by itself and not as a modifier key. It's an extremely inconvenient key for touch typists as the placement is awkward. I always though it was a bit underused in most Windows versions, compared to the Command key in MacOS. But once you know to push this key all sorts of things can get done with metro, including popping up an amazingly ugly menu full of tiny black boxes. If you want to use Metro effectively you will need to learn a set of keyboard shortcuts!

That's the weird thing. How is anyone going to know based on their past experience to push this key as the primary means of UI interaction? On my android phone that came with zero documentation at least I saw three buttons at the bottom I could tap with my finger and eventually things would happen. Even the Nokia Lumia with the same basic look as Windows 8 comes with some buttons to push. But a windows user would naturally assume they need to click stuff with a mouse, and there's nothing to click except the default applications (not even real applications, they're more like smart URLs such as a "travel" icon with photo of eiffel tower, most of which no professional will ever use).

In the past people with visions were sometimes called mystics, sometimes called possessed, and sometimes locked up for their own safety. Today though people with visions are put in charge of product design.

Re:Paid for (2, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41003875)

It looks like a step back to Windows 3.1 (which I hated). Instead of the convenience of having all your programs in a nice listing (the start menu), they are hidden in a bewildering mess of program groups & overlapping windows.

Curses.
Back then I avoided the mess that was 3.1 by sticking with my Commodore Amiga until Win98 arrived, but now that option no longer exists.

Re:Paid for (5, Interesting)

SDrag0n (532175) | about 2 years ago | (#41003983)

Everybody keeps complaining about the interface. Really it's like it just opens the start menu on bootup. From there you can hang around the desktop all you want. I didn't like it at first but then once I realized that you could hit the start button and stat typing what you wanted, similar to the current start menu, who cares? PLEASE keep bitching about the same thing thinking it'll change. Thanks for your valuable input.

Re:Paid for (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41004035)

>>>you could hit the start button and stat typing what you wanted

Typing??? What is this? The time before mouse inputs? You shouldn't need to ever use the keyboard just to open programs.

And more BS from the review: "While it's possible to jury-rig some import vectors -- for example, exporting an Outlook Contacts database to a flat file and importing it to Google Contacts -- in general, there's no way I could find to get my existing stand-alone Office Outlook Calendar or Contacts, or Windows Contacts (Vista, Win7), into any of the Metro apps."

Nice. So you have to abandon all your previous work from Win XP/Vista/7 programs and retype everything fresh into the Win8 aps. What is this? 1979?

Re:Paid for (1)

SDrag0n (532175) | about 2 years ago | (#41004103)

>>>you could hit the start button and stat typing what you wanted

Typing??? What is this? The time before mouse inputs? You shouldn't need to ever use the keyboard just to open programs.

Don't worry, you can still do your click navigation.

Re:Paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004415)

You shouldn't need to ever use the keyboard just to open programs.

You don't.

Re:Paid for (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#41004771)

There is no "start button" to "hit" from what I saw. Instead there is a Windows key on your keyboard and you can hit that and release, if you know to try that. If you try to use just the mouse you will get nowhere for a long time. If you just start typing you won't get anywhere either. If you accidentally clicked one of those big square buttons and now you want to get back to where you were you will be in for a lot of frustration.

Everyone who says it's obvious only says that because they have learned the trick of how to get Metro to do something. People who are relying upon their past experience with Windows, MacOS, X Windows, Amiga, SunOS, etc, will not know what to do. Even people who say "aha!" and try to use it like a touch screen will be a bit lost as they try to flick things back and forth or use gestures. But you really don't get anywhere until you learn where that small spot on the screen is to click your mouse to get a menu, or realize to use the Windows key to open a menu. Things that are obvious only in hindsight are not obvious.

Re:Paid for (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41003995)

I could be convinced to sell you my old Amiga. It won't be cheap.

Re:Paid for (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#41004095)

>>>I could be convinced to sell you my old Amiga. It won't be cheap.

I'll buy it but only if it comes with the latest OS 4.1 installed. (And web-capable of course.)

Re:Paid for (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41004293)

It plays marble madness! Has the memory expansion that hangs off the side and two floppys. It's a pre-release. Shipped to SW companies early. Most of the docs too. Haven't booted it in a decade. Call it a barn find.

Re:Paid for (1, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41003905)

It's putting lipstick on a pig anyway.

New Windows 8 slogan: Kiss me, I'm Bacon!

Re:Paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004461)

I know this is just my experience (and limited at that), but I put Windows 8, 64-bit on an old Asus M2NPV-VM AM2 motherboard with an AMD X2 7750 (no overclock), 1.5GB of RAM (minus 128 for the onboard nVidia video), IDE-mode connected 74GB WD740ADFD Raptor, and a hinky 802.11g USB WiFI adapter. The system previously had Windows 7 Pro, 64-bit and just about everything worked better with Windows 8. If the interface wasn't so alien, I would be evangelizing Windows 8 upgrades like a madman. As it is, I'm telling people to wait, get a test system, and consider volume licensing for downgrade rights.

Re:Paid for (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41003295)

Hehehe, although it does look like WIndows 8 can "legally" claim faster.
I wouldnt call it an improvement though.

Re:Paid for (1, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 2 years ago | (#41003429)

So I read the article and only one thought went through my mind.

"Are you fucking kidding me?"

So here is the deal, I get a worse user interface, get to pay more for an operating system that offers virtually no benefit. Man I am so glad I shifting to OSX and Linux around the time Windows 8 was announced and released to devs. This is going to bite them in the ass and IMO with what I am experiencing with OSX and Linux, Microsoft really does suck!

And this is from a used to be Microsoft development author, Regional Director, and speaker.

BTW as a sidenote I actually really like Ubuntu Unity. At first disliked it, but have gotten quite accustomed to it. Now the other Linux distributions seem "old".

Re:Paid for (4, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 years ago | (#41003479)

BTW as a sidenote I actually really like Ubuntu Unity.

You don't, like, wear argyle golfing pants and a paisley polka-dot tie to work, do you?

I promise I'm not trying to be insulting, but I am curious now... :)

Re:Paid for (4, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41003631)

I would not insult Ubuntu Unity's style...if it had one.

Re:Paid for (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41003683)

BTW as a sidenote I actually really like Ubuntu Unity.

You don't, like, wear argyle golfing pants and a paisley polka-dot tie to work, do you?

I promise I'm not trying to be insulting, but I am curious now... :)

I'll just leave this here [apress.com]

Re:Paid for (0)

ppanon (16583) | about 2 years ago | (#41004625)

Hmm, generally your books' ratings on Amazon are not exactly stellar [amazon.com] , so Microsoft may not be panicking just yet. That said, any book is better than the 0 I have written, and I have not yet tried Windows 8. I'll try to download Win 8 RTM and install it in a VM soon. I thought I had heard Windows actively resisted that configuration, so I hadn't tried it until now.

Re:Paid for (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 2 years ago | (#41003903)

In all fairness, some of OSX 10.8's defaults irked me to no end... Just migrated from 10.6 (Snow Leopard) and have to say, the first 3 apps I wanted to install are not "From known developers on the Mac Store" ... then there were a number of apps I use (newest versions *only* on the Mac Store). As a developer, I expect a number of applications to not work well within the new sandbox rules, and to make the default to only allow Mac Store installs is infuriating.

If OSX gets any more big-brother, I'll probably be running Linux on my Macbook... I'm already planning on sticking with Win7 of my desktop for as long as feasible... I don't expect the Metro (Windows-8-like UI) to work at all well with multiple displays without extreme frustration. Win7 was probably my all-time favorite UI, now that's all over.

Re:Paid for (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | about 2 years ago | (#41004343)

I'm guessing you've not tried it. Win8 is actually better on multiple displays because the task bar is on both.

Re:Paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004685)

The grandparent's comment was: "I don't expect the Metro (Windows-8-like UI) to work at all well with multiple displays without extreme frustration." He's talking about the new style apps.

You commented on the taskbar. That's the old style desktop. Yeah, the multiple taskbars is nice. The gain from that is more than offset though by the loss of the proper start menu, and the requirement to get the mouse into a tiny corner of the screen to activate menus. On a multi-monitor setup, hitting those corner hotspots is rather rough.

Re:Paid for (1)

Windowser (191974) | about 2 years ago | (#41004713)

I'm guessing you've not tried it. Win8 is actually better on multiple displays because the task bar is on both.

you mean like it's been on my Linux box for years ?
Wow, seems like windows is finally catching up to some Linux features !

Re:Paid for (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | about 2 years ago | (#41004793)

Some of the features may seem like they are just catching up but in most of the important ways Windows is just plain better. Sorry but that's a fact. Linux is free while Win7 costs over $100. If something that is free still can't compete *at all* then there is very little room to say it's better or even nearly as good.
Maybe you like it better. A few people do. That's fine but you are not typical.

Re:Paid for (1)

boblaroc (1670576) | about 2 years ago | (#41003925)

I'm with you on Unity. Didn't like it before 12.04 but HUD has sold me. Sure I would like to configure the desktop a little more, but I am sure that will come with later releases. I think Unity wins as a Desktop/Tablet hybrid where Win8 fails.

Re:Paid for (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#41003979)

The improved file transfer dialog, task manager, and the glorious return of the "Go Up One Directory" button in Windows Explorer are more than worth the price of admission ($30 or $40). The huge improvement to boot and shutdown times, as well as general performance improvements are icing on the cake.

Unfortunately, Metro is a turd hidden deep inside that cake. But I fully intent to install a start menu replacement (there are 4 or 5 available already) and set my machine to automatically login and go to the desktop, as it should.

IE 10 is like the ice cream on the side. I'll rarely touch it myself, but IE 10, like IE 9 before it, is good, and I won't have to warn people not to eat it like I did with IE 6, 7, and to a lesser extent, 8.

Windows 8 is very good. Metro is shitty. You can experience Windows 8 without Metro if you want to.

Re:Paid for (3, Interesting)

Smauler (915644) | about 2 years ago | (#41004235)

So here is the deal, I get a worse user interface, get to pay more for an operating system that offers virtually no benefit. Man I am so glad I shifting to OSX and Linux around the time Windows 8 was announced and released to devs. This is going to bite them in the ass and IMO with what I am experiencing with OSX and Linux, Microsoft really does suck!

Don't fucking use it then as you obviously have done. Why the hell are you complaining about an OS you're not going to use?

I'm still running Vista, which was slated by just about everyone. It's stable, runs what I want, and I really can't complain about it. Dropping a few services makes performance comparable to 7, and I've got a decent system anyway that doesn't suffer from slowdown because of Vista being a hog. I've had about 6 months uptime on this system, which I use for gaming, work, surfing, etc.

If you don't want to use the software, why are you moaning about it? I'm not going to use it, either - there's no reason for me to upgrade at the moment.

Re:Paid for (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41004349)

And this is from a used to be Microsoft development author, Regional Director, and speaker.

Oh, a speaker.

Well, then, your opinion is worth at least five non-speakers.

Re:Paid for (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 2 years ago | (#41004537)

get to pay more for an operating system that offers virtually no benefit.

More than what?

Re:Paid for (2)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 2 years ago | (#41003407)

I don't know why you think MS's competitors would go to the trouble of _buying_ bad reviews for Windows 8. I mean, you're not just making stuff up out of your asshole, I know that much, so there must be some other explanation for the bought reviews!

Re:Paid for (0)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 years ago | (#41003549)

Their payment must've come up a bit short, because TFA included this [techspot.com] chart that seems to imply I.E. is a steaming pile, regardless of version or OS.

Re:Paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41003625)

you are looking at performance times their where even the worst performance is actually pretty good, hence it isn't a particularly useful benchmark except to show that they are all fast but the competition is still faster.

Re:Paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41003729)

Sorry but the "Oh, if you run this stuff on a quad-core it runs just fine" argument is what gets you Windows types the system you have. This really isn't a good argument. The fact of the matter is IE is taking almost twice the time (and so in a battery-powered envrionment twice the battery use) to perform this benchmark compared to either Firefox or Chrome.

Re:Paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004117)

What is the performance difference between Windows running Chrome and Mac OS or Ubuntu running Chrome? That's the real comparison.

Re:Paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004399)

You are talking about a browser, it spends very little of the time doing actual work. At most you are looking at a few minutes difference in battery life over the period of a day.

about what should be expected (0)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41003323)

from windows 7 sp2 with ie 10, better knows as win8

Re:about what should be expected (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#41003831)

Oh no. Are we going to start this crap again?

It wasn't funny after the first person did it for Windows XP (2000 SP), nor was it funny for Windows 7 (Vista SP). Chances are good that it's not funny now.

Re:about what should be expected (0)

Smauler (915644) | about 2 years ago | (#41004279)

It's not meant to be funny, it's meant to show the similarity between this and previous operating systems. No one claimed that Vista was XP SP4

Re:about what should be expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004751)

New version of Windows built off the previous version! Tune in at 8 for more details!

Stupid summary (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41003335)

What do we get here? The teaser! Just cut to the chase, would ya?

Worse for Games (3, Informative)

bobbutts (927504) | about 2 years ago | (#41003353)

Windows 7 won by a small margin on the 3d and gaming benchmarks.

Re:Worse for Games (4, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | about 2 years ago | (#41004313)

The new version of windows always sucks for games until nvidia and ati get around to tweaking things. Give it 6-8 months for everything to catch up. If you plan on installing Win8 on day one and expecting everything to work as good as, or better than the 36 month old Win7 ecosystem, you're insane.

Window 8 (0)

Goodyob (2445598) | about 2 years ago | (#41003421)

Not really "windows" anymore when you can only run one app at a time...

Re:Window 8 (4, Informative)

dhavleak (912889) | about 2 years ago | (#41003493)

You can run any number of apps you want, simultaneously.

Re:Window 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004085)

You can have any number of Metro apps visible at the same time too! (as long as that number is one). Or did they hack some weird-ass new window management into metro?

Re:Window 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004699)

You can have any number of Metro apps visible at the same time too! (as long as that number is one).

Yes generally you can only have one full screen application visible at once, that is the point.

Re:Window 8 (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 2 years ago | (#41004153)

You can't explain that.

Re:Window 8 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41003687)

Why does everyone assume Metro Apps are mandatory? Metro is only mandatory for the ARM version. The 64bit version I use on my laptop can run Desktop Mode, and it works great, much improved over Windows 7. Other than a Metro looking lock screen and wireless network connect screen, you could hardly tell the difference by looking.

Re:Window 8 (-1, Troll)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41003717)

troll harder

Re:Window 8 (0)

rhook (943951) | about 2 years ago | (#41004169)

Then tell us, how do you disable Metro and return to the regular start menu?

Re:Window 8 (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#41003841)

Well, most users rarely have more than one or two apps running at the same time anyway. Also those who use more generally have all of them maximized so that for all practical purposes they might as well only have one of them open. Considering how few people ever even try to multitask, what difference does it make if Windows 8 isn't good at it. (Assuming, of course, that it isn't. I only use Linux, so I've no idea how good Windows 8 is or isn't.)

Re:Window 8 (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41003941)

+1 insightful to you sir.

One benchmark, 4 reviews (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41003441)

And the benchmarking methodology is pretty fucking terrible. (Lets not do something interesting like Chrome W7 vs. Chrome W8)
As for the reviews, wasn't this about benchmarking?

Answer please (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 2 years ago | (#41003455)

- But are there real tangible performance differences compared to Windows 7?
- TechSpot has grabbed the RTM version of Windows 8, measuring and testing the performance of various aspects of the operating system

Expected a "... and" followed by the TechSpot answer!
What the point of TFS if one has to read up to TFA? /. writes interesting summaries based on interesting stories.

No Chrome on W7 (4, Informative)

QuantumBeep (748940) | about 2 years ago | (#41003463)

The sly omission of Chrome on Windows 7 from the browser benchmark is face-meltingly biased.

Re:No Chrome on W7 (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41003649)

Doesnt matter, Chrome is obviously kick ass on Windows 8.

Re:No Chrome on W7 (2)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | about 2 years ago | (#41003965)

I don't see how it indicates "bias". It does indicate an inability to produce a relatvely meaningful benchmark (as in one that allows comparison).

Similarly the "Windows logo to desktop" seems like a strange benchmark as the benchmark result would be improved by simply showing the Windows logo later. Why wouldn't you just compare the time from power on to desktop (which is presumably what people actually care about)?

Re:No Chrome on W7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004027)

That would include the BIOS boot screen. This could change depending on how much RAM you have installed (if it bothers doing a RAM check anymore =P), devices plugged in, etc.

Logo to desktop measures roughly how much of a boot time a clean install will take, especially if you have the same type of drive as the reviewer.

No real difference (5, Insightful)

linebackn (131821) | about 2 years ago | (#41003471)

So after reading through the entire article (wait, was I supposed to do that?) the bottom line is that there is no significant difference that any regular user would care about.

I don't think shaving a second or two off of boot time is going to impress people when they see the user interface is "all different" now.

Where is that first post (1)

ls671 (1122017) | about 2 years ago | (#41003473)

Where is the first post from a uid above 2600Hz uh, I mean 2600000 praising windows 8 ?

Did we get rid of them ? Slashdot will live for ever, forget about the 6 digits or lower uid posts that say /. has come so low they will never come back. They are lying. /. is too addictive and funny also.

Re:Where is that first post (2)

skipkent (1510) | about 2 years ago | (#41003615)

That's it /. has come so low... I'll never come back!

Re:Where is that first post (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41003807)

damn (1510) you can't be yelling at the kids :) you don't own the lawn at the retirement community

Re:Where is that first post (2)

DAldredge (2353) | about 2 years ago | (#41004429)

He has a 4 digit UID so don't trust a damn thing he says.

Re:Where is that first post (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41004433)

That's it /. has come so low... I'll never come back!

Goodbye cruel world.

Benchmarks don't really tell the story... (4, Interesting)

dhavleak (912889) | about 2 years ago | (#41003477)

  • Steep learning curve (nothing to 'learn' obviously -- it's just a new interface -- but it's very different from Windows 7 and definitely takes some getting used to)
  • Tangibly faster startup / shutdown / resume etc.
  • Tangibly faster switching between apps / windows etc.
  • Unfinished in terms of adopting to the new UI paradigms. Several places where you end up back in the old way of doing things, or going back to the control panel to look for settings. It's clearly still there as a catch-all.
  • Some awkwardness in terms of managing processes. Clearly, it's designed for you to not think about that stuff. But windows users of old aren't used to that and want to know how to exit an app. You can kill apps quite easily, but it's part of the so-called learning curve.

Well done, but job not finished.

Polish a turd, it's still a turd. (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41003507)

I don't really mean that. Wait. Yes, I do. Sort of.

Windows ME was awful. Windows 2000 was pretty much the first version of the platform I would call usable. Cairo was very buggy, then a little more buggy, then a little less buggy a degree at a time through SP3. Vista was the ME of NT (ie, bloody awful). 7 is a fairly decent platform. By that I mean, I haven't had a kernel crash in over a year of using it on a daily basis, and that is saying something - every single other OS I have ever used has had a kernel crash of some description in the time I've used it. If Windows 8 is going to follow the pattern, it's going to be another godawful abortion. I'll stick with 7 and probably wait for 9.

Re:Polish a turd, it's still a turd. (1)

dhavleak (912889) | about 2 years ago | (#41003667)

If Windows 8 is going to follow the pattern, it's going to be another godawful abortion. I'll stick with 7 and probably wait for 9.

There's certainly no need to switch.. I mean, OSes in general have been doing the same thing with only slightly incremental improvements for some years now..

But on the other hand, 8 is bad because it's not an incremental improvement -- it's a pretty big change, and with that change comes growing pains. It's also good, because it's not an incremental change -- for a change MS hasn't tried to support everything since 1853, and just worked on the task at hand instead.

I think for the most part it's going to get less sales than Win7, especially because corporate sales will be down -- they simply won't see value in the new UI. But I do see this as a positive step for Windows.

Re:Polish a turd, it's still a turd. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#41004563)

I'll stick with 7 and probably wait for 9.

That's reasonable. There's no reason everyone has to use the same OS, and no reason a user has to buy into every new version.

Lots of people skipped Vista.

I don't mind when companies swing and miss. I like to have lots of choices, and I don't think three is nearly enough for desktop operating systems, especially nowadays since desktop apps are a little less important.

Between my wife, my daughter and me, and all our different projects and careers, there are at least six different versions of three different OSs around the house. And you know what? It really doesn't matter to me which one I'm using at any given time. None of them are that hard to figure out and none of them are so terrible that I can't get work done or so great that I only want to use that one.

Maybe I'm just not that discerning as some of you. I'm sure if you're doing desktop support there are some that are better than others, or if you have to budget for hundreds of desktops, there are some that are more economical than others, or work with specific hardware better than others (thought I don't think so).

The desktop OS wars are kind of 1990s, you know? Or maybe I'm just not looking for a reason to get all exercised about something and don't have the energy to go to war over something like this.

Operating system lockdowns, on the other hand, do light my fuse. I really don't need an operating system telling me that I have to buy all my software from one vendor. I don't care if it's Microsoft or Apple. You want a walled garden, you're my sworn enemy.

Re:Polish a turd, it's still a turd. (3, Informative)

Smauler (915644) | about 2 years ago | (#41004589)

Vista was the ME of NT (ie, bloody awful). 7 is a fairly decent platform. By that I mean, I haven't had a kernel crash in over a year of using it on a daily basis, and that is saying something.

Did you ever use Vista? It got horrendously bad press because it was dog slow on crap machines. It should never have been installed on them.

I'm still using it, and have had over 6 months uptime. 7 might be better, but Vista was only catastrophic because it was run on low end hardware and had every possible service enabled as default. That's Microsoft's fault, completely, but Vista isn't the turd you make it out to be.

ME on the other hand, I agree with.

Real use of the OS (0)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about 2 years ago | (#41003531)

Like any self respecting Slashdotter I haven't read the article. Did they talk about the abortion that is Metro (or whatever it's called now)? Whatever they've done under the hood will be nullified by the interface, at least in terms of the user being able to get his work done. I swear, W8 is going to make Millennium and Vista look like resounding successes.

Re:Real use of the OS (2, Interesting)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41003621)

Have you actually tried to use Metro? It's very responsive and looks gorgeous, at least from the demo apps Microsoft has created. IE in Metro mode is an improvement over IE in Desktop mode. And, if you don't like it, Desktop mode is a click away, and you are safe back in Win7 style UI environment.

Re:Real use of the OS (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 years ago | (#41003843)

I shouldn't feed trolls but I'll bite. I've used Metro. It *is* a steaming pile of crap. This is coming from someone who is relatively OS agnostic. I use Win 7 and love it. I use various flavors of *nix and love them for various reasons as well. I have on OS X box, it's pretty cool. I'm not too fond of my iPad (it's mostly a lab device anways for me) but I love my Asus Transformer Prime. I use many OSes.

Windows 8 is OK on a tablet device. On a desktop it is a steaming pile of turd. There is absolutely no compelling reason for any Win 7 user on a machine with a keyboard and mouse to 'upgrade' to it.

Re:Real use of the OS (4, Insightful)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41003913)

How was I trolling, exactly? I'm not the one using the word "abortion" or the phrase "steaming pile of crap". I agree with you that this is not a compelling upgrade for the keyboard/mouse crowd, but then again, Metro wasn't really designed for that, was it?

Re:Real use of the OS (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 years ago | (#41004021)

You're right, nothing you said was an obvious troll. I just find Metro to be such a horrible interface that I tend to knee jerk when someone praises such an obviously bad upgrade option. There is not one compelling reason for any PC user to upgrade to Windows 8, but given Microsoft's track record Windows 9 will be out in a couple of years and will address that. I'm looking forward to it. Windows 8 is a non-starter. It won't gain much traction in the tablet market even though Metro is well suited to it, and I highly doubt many business users will switch to it.

Might as well be a BSOD. (2)

wild_quinine (998562) | about 2 years ago | (#41003573)

I don't consider myself a luddite. I usually have an open mind about change. I don't mind if the start menu changes. Heck, I don't need a start menu. I don't feel like there's something missing in Mac OS X when I use the Dock, Spotlight and Finder together to get where I need to be.

*But* the 'Metro' launcher is an abomination. Having something fill my entire screen with glaring colours and toybox tiles when I am looking to launch an application is the exact opposite of the discreet, unintrusive interface that I'm looking for on a workstation desktop.

What did users complain about with Vista? UAC. They hated that every five minutes all your colours went grey, and you couldn't continue without clicking yes on a box in the middle of the screen. But UAC did that because, love it or hate it, there was a reason for it to demand your attention and draw you out of whatever you were doing.

The 'Metro' launcher has no such reason. It completely breaks my flow of thought every time it swallows my desktop. It breaks the illusion that I am working on a constant surface. It is a jarring alteration to the consistency of the desktop experience. It causes the eye and the mind to pause, to catch, and to wonder what the fuck is going on. It might as well be a BSOD for the effect it has on my concentration.

Now with time, I accept that the 'where did all my stuff go?' feeling will dissipate. The interruption will become familiar and not shocking. We'll get used to it. But I fundamentally refuse to accept that a glaring fullscreen, interuption is a step forward in UI. Stick it on a tablet by all means. But it is simply not suited to genuine cognitive multitasking.

Re:Might as well be a BSOD. (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#41003655)

If you use OSX consider what OSX was like with regard to the Classic box. You are, using your metaphor, upset that your workflow with classic works worse on OSX than it did on OS9. Well yeah, of course.

And I would suspect for GDI applications Windows 9 is going to be even more uncomfortable. Where it will shine is Metro applications. And that's the point to start shifting the development community over to the new interface. Apple hit tremendous resistance as they moved people from Classic to Carbon to Cocoa every step of the way. But by constantly advantaging Carbon over Classic and Cocoa over Carbon they achieved the migration.

Re:Might as well be a BSOD. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41003915)

The difference is that it was clear with the OSX transition that the new APIs would be viable replacements for the old, whereas that is not true with Metro. Metro doesn't support overlapped windowing, multiple monitors, ClearType antialiasing, simultaneously running applications, or dynamically compiled code outside of .NET. There are entire classes of applications that simply are not supported by the current version of Metro and there is no indication yet as to whether Microsoft will update Metro to support that functionality in the future while the divisions they are causing in the user experience and development community are problems now.

Re:Might as well be a BSOD. (2)

Smauler (915644) | about 2 years ago | (#41004673)

What did users complain about with Vista? UAC. They hated that every five minutes all your colours went grey, and you couldn't continue without clicking yes on a box in the middle of the screen.

That never happened. It happened when installing drivers, programs, everything, because it should happen. Perhaps people got a bad impression early on because that's when they were installing the programs.

UAC is fine. It only throws up when you're trying to something you should need administration privileges to do. Which happens about once a week for me.

In my experience (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41003663)

boot is faster the windows 7, and file transfers, including torrents, are faster.
I have a dual boot with 7 and 8, so the machine is the same. Especially extremely large file, or large groups of files.

Weird benchmarks (4, Informative)

flimflammer (956759) | about 2 years ago | (#41003671)

Something feels wrong about comparing Windows 7 /w Office 2010 and Windows 8 /w Office 2013. Will Office 2013 not be available for Windows 7 or something? Why would you compare two different Office products in two different operating systems? Seems like an unreliable metric if you're trying to compare the performance between operating systems and not different versions of Office.

audio performance has improved (1)

CaptainPhoton (398343) | about 2 years ago | (#41003715)

I saw this cross-posted on ./ previously. Cakewalk benchmarked Win7 versus Win8 when running their digital audio software, and saw some significant improvements:
http://blog.cakewalk.com/windows-8-a-benchmark-for-music-production-applications/

The Cakewalk software runs in desktop mode, which is fine since we're all going to ignore Metro after we log in, right? :)

I've been running the Win8 developer preview with Metro disabled for months now in my engineering lab, and it got to the point that I forgot it was Windows 8.

Is the rumor true that the registry setting to remove Metro is gone in the RTM version? Now that will be annoying!

Re:audio performance has improved (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 2 years ago | (#41003837)

will be available again in sp1?

Some features i actually want (3, Insightful)

Espectr0 (577637) | about 2 years ago | (#41003737)

I hate the new metro interface, but i like some features like: easy restore (refresh and reset), windows to go, virtualization, shorter boot times and newer windows display driver model. Let's see how it does

any way to back port the core speed ups to 7? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#41003747)

any way to back port the core speed ups to 7? or get 8 without the new GUI?

Windows 8 is for post-PC world (2)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41003749)

Is it worth upgrading from Win7 for a standard desktop or standard laptop? For most users, probably not. Windows 8 is designed for hybrid tablets, Kinect-style PC-interfacing, unusual monitor configurations, etc. It's for "non-standard" computing, generally. If benchmarking were updated to capture "usability" in many different computing environments, this is where Win8 would leap ahead of its predecessor.

Re:Windows 8 is for post-PC world (1)

pegasustonans (589396) | about 2 years ago | (#41003791)

Is it worth upgrading from Win7 for a standard desktop or standard laptop? For most users, probably not. Windows 8 is designed for hybrid tablets, Kinect-style PC-interfacing, unusual monitor configurations, etc. It's for "non-standard" computing, generally. If benchmarking were updated to capture "usability" in many different computing environments, this is where Win8 would awkwardly hobble before falling over and obstructing the path while shouting and pissing itself ahead of its predecessor.

FTFY

Startup/shutdown? What about Windows Update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41003829)

I love how every review mentions how startup and/or shutdown times have improved slightly, as was the case when Windows 7 was released. However, they seem to miss two somewhat important aspects of this:

1. It is not very common for users to turn their PCs on and off several times during the day. Also, there's hibernate. I, for one, keep my PC on for weeks at a time unless I'm somehow forced to reboot, which brings me to...

2. While a regular startup has been getting a second or two faster with every release, the new Windows Update subsystem (introduced in Vista) means it takes BLOODY AGES TO SHUT DOWN THE DAMN OS if there happens to be updates pending, and if you're lucky IT WILL ALSO TAKE BLOODY AGES TO START THE DAMN THING UP AGAIN AFTERWARDS, as the update process is finished. And if you turn off the computer while this is happening, you will probably have to reinstall Windows.

I've hosed a few systems by shutting down a laptop after a meeting or presentation, only to find that Windows wanted to spend the next half an hour or so installing updates.

Re:Startup/shutdown? What about Windows Update? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#41003987)

I love how every review mentions how startup and/or shutdown times have improved slightly, as was the case when Windows 7 was released. However, they seem to miss two somewhat important aspects of this:

1. It is not very common for users to turn their PCs on and off several times during the day. Also, there's hibernate. I, for one, keep my PC on for weeks at a time unless I'm somehow forced to reboot, which brings me to...

2. While a regular startup has been getting a second or two faster with every release, the new Windows Update subsystem (introduced in Vista) means it takes BLOODY AGES TO SHUT DOWN THE DAMN OS if there happens to be updates pending, and if you're lucky IT WILL ALSO TAKE BLOODY AGES TO START THE DAMN THING UP AGAIN AFTERWARDS, as the update process is finished. And if you turn off the computer while this is happening, you will probably have to reinstall Windows.

I've hosed a few systems by shutting down a laptop after a meeting or presentation, only to find that Windows wanted to spend the next half an hour or so installing updates.

If you can even get the damn updates to install... I stopped using W7 when after several fresh installs it hung on a few critical vulnerability fixes. Fuck that, I already feel like I'm browsing around with a bullseye on my back, I'm not strapping dynamite on too -- Windows 8 sounds like adding blinders so I won't even know what hit me...

How do you tell you're on slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41003867)

Number of comments on the release of windows new kernal after almost a decade of work
Trolls: Eleventybillion
Insightful and nerdy: Err.. This is slashdot, burn Microsoft and their advancements!

Linux compared to Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004051)

What if Windows 8 was your lover? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004069)

Personally, in spite of using Windows 8 for several months, I'm still undecided if I like the new interface or not. It certainly takes some time getting used to and for that reason I'm not jumping to conclusions just yet.

Personally, in spite of going out with you for several months, I still don't know if I love you or not. It sure takes a lot of time to get used to you, so let's not jump into bed just yet.

This must be some new use of the word "fast"... (1)

arglebargle_xiv (2212710) | about 2 years ago | (#41004273)

So the article shows that Win8 gets from the Windows logo to the desktop in 18 seconds. On a Core i7-3960X. With a Kingston SSDNow V+ 200 256GB SSD. This is regarded as fast.

I have Win7 running on a several-year-old netbook. It has the cheapest SSD I could find, a Corsair 32GB. Time from hitting the power button to desktop is about 20 seconds.

(That's with a very stripped-down Win7 install, courtesy of RT Se7en Lite. So far I haven't noticed any loss of functionality in this lite version).

So it looks like the way to make Windows "fast" is to bloat it up to such ridiculous levels that something that'd have rated as a supercomputer some years ago crawls under it, and then to remove some of the suckage in a later release to make it appear... well, less sucky.

How about really stressing it? (2)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41004361)

The OS is supposed to manage the available resources. It's easy when you just run one thing at a time.. I want to know how Windows 8 performs when you have 3 number crunching jobs, each requiring 2 GB running at low priority, a different process which loads 6 GB of data into RAM, a steady stream of IO from each process, interactive use, and maybe some music or video too. Throw in a VM too, to really push it. Does it still manage to be responsive and interactive?

My Win 7 laptop with 4 GB RAM becomes unpleasant to use when I start a VM which uses 2 GB. My Linux box has 16 GB and it handled the above scenario pretty well, but adding another instance of the 6 GB fitting job caused it to crash! (I was swapping to something that wasn't meant to be used as swap, so my fault). Admittedly, testing OSes under stress isn't easy to do reproducibly, but I think a subjective opinion would be really interesting....

Re:How about really stressing it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41004593)

Don't push it. Windows is not BeOS.

Their Conclusions (5, Informative)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | about 2 years ago | (#41004641)

Since the summary is a teaser;

* Generally the same performance as Windows 7, sometimes marginally faster
* Faster startup and shutdown
* Games and web browsing the same (IE10 no better than IE9)
* Multimedia slightly faster (x264 encoding/decoding)

I'm sure corporate group policy will take care of the faster startup and shutdown times :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...