Originally Posted by Raven Dizzle
Originally Posted by bgtrance
Right but the difference between the two was substantial especially when it came to gaming performance. Sure they had relatively the same UI but that does not really make it SP3. Windows looks and feels almost the same as Windows 7 (minus all of the tile crap and the start button) but are we really calling it Windows 7 SP3?
As is with most service packs. Seriously, there was nothing wrong with Vista. It was just ahead of it's time. There are in the same category, 7 and Vista. 8 on the other hand is in it's own category. A new user interface, VAST improvements in speed (moreso than Vista to 7), a completely rewritten kernel, among a slew of other improvements. Some may not like it for one thing (I emphasize, one thing), but it is a huge improvement in every other aspect and NOBODY can deny it legitimately. Vista and 7 weren't nearly as different as people say. It wasn't this huge jump in speed like you claim, all that happened is by the time 7 came out, hardware in the consumer world had caught up with the Vista requirements.
BESIDES, this whole thread and the article it links to is a fallacy. How are you going to compare an older OS with 3 year old mature drivers vs a new OS that's pretty much on it's first set of "WHQL" drivers? Give 8 time to have some mature drivers.
1) Yes there were MANY things wrong with Windows Vista when it first launched.
a) File copy operations were slow sometimes. They had to issue a patch even before SP1;
b) From what I remember LAN connections were also slow because they had rewritten the network stack and it wasn't polished yet;
c) Compatibility with programs written in the days of Windows XP. They issued a lot of patches to improve compatibility with many programs;
d) GPU drivers were buggy. And yes, this is Nvidia's and AMD's fault, but also Microsoft's, after all they have a WHQL program for a reason and it's in their best interest to work with their partners to ensure that people have a good experience;
e) UAC was and is more intrusive than in Windows 7;
f) Many minor UI annoyances that were sorted out with Windows 7:
g) Windows Vista uses more RAM than Windows 7 and Windows 8. Hardware catching up doesn't mean you can't have a more efficient OS, especially in the mobile side of things, when a laptop will last longer on the battery if the OS is not constantly retrieving more stuff from the HDD like my Windows Vista laptop (a Core 2 Duo T8300 with 4 GB of RAM and a 200 GB 5400 rpm drive, which was always being accessed with Windows Vista and isn't with Windows 7 or 8);
2) There are no vast improvements in speed with Windows 8. Gaming benchmarks show it's a tie; productivity benchmarks show an improvement in some cases, but you can't call them VAST. Booting and shutting down faster is a clever trick, but you can obtain much of the same effect by using hibernation or sleep on Windows 7.
3. What is your definition of a completely rewritten kernel ? Windows 8 is a further enhancement of Windows 7's kernel, which was an enhancement of Windows Vista's kernel.
4. Neither the thread or the article it links to is a fallacy. Any test done objectively is valid. What you are arguing is a subjective feeling that has nothing to do with objectivity.
The objective truth is: Windows 8 came out, people want to know if they should upgrade right now - in case there are any clear improvements right away, or if there are no regressions, like there was with Windows XP -> Windows Vista, which is still in many people's minds and the reason this test is done. Some people might just be content with there being no regressions and will make the decision of upgrading, others will feel there aren't any improvements that they will take advantage of, and therefore decide to stay with Windows 7 at this point in time
. If Windows 8 is later patched and suddenly offers more gaming performance, then people will surely want another review to detail the progress made and see if then there is an advantage. People who rely on objective data are not going to buy Windows 8 and then "Give 8 time to have some mature drivers.", expecting to eventually see better performance (your argument implies to a certain degree that the performance may improve, but there is no objective data do back that up, for all we know performance might as well stay the same, with only the regressions being fixed), no, what people will likely do is stay with Windows 7 and yes, "Give 8 time to have some mature drivers.", and if those more mature drivers provide better performance, then they will re-evaluate the situation, just like any person using reason to weigh the pros and cons of spending time and money to upgrade will do.Edited by tpi2007 - 11/11/12 at 3:46pm