[HWI] Gaming in Windows 8 vs Windows 7: what's the difference in performance? - Page 9

Originally Posted by tpi2007 

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.

Originally Posted by Kaldari 

I know it has been said before in other threads, but you can get W8 to look and feel pretty much identical to W7 with Start8, minus aero. Even if gaming performance is identical, boot times, app launches, etc. are probably split seconds faster. I'm not claiming a renaissance here, but there are definite backend and UI improvements (minus "Metro" as your only Start menu, but that can be changed) improvements and some of the free Microsoft Store games are fun little time-killers if you get bored of your normal AAA or indie titles for a bit.
In fact, Start8 gives you the most customizable "normal" start menu Windows has ever had. You have far more settings to change what it does and what it shows than ever before. It also allows you to disable the Charm Bar in desktop mode. It's literally an identical experience with coding and UI improvements.
If it would have cost me as much as previous versions of Windows, I would be on the same boat that there really isn't enough of an innovative leap to be worth it, but it only cost me $20 for both the Windows key and Start8. I don't regret it in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Ecstacy 

If I can completely disable metro (even from running in the background) then I'll probably upgrade once I upgrade my rig, mainly due to backend improvements like thread management and better support for new hardware.. How do you get it for $20? I thought the upgrade price was $40.

Originally Posted by Ecstacy 

If I can completely disable metro (even from running in the background) then I'll probably upgrade once I upgrade my rig, mainly due to backend improvements like thread management and better support for new hardware.. How do you get it for $20? I thought the upgrade price was $40.

Originally Posted by Raven Dizzle 

And do you know why 7 was such a joy to those who SKIPPED Vista? Cause it was built UPON Vista. NOT a lot changed. Once drivers matured and bugs were worked out (as is required for ANY new OS, just like XP before it), Vista was fine, and 7 at launch was essentially Vista SP2 with a new taskbar. It even worked well with the very same drivers; and DRIVERS were Vistas downfall when it first came out.

Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er 

Well the thing was Windows 7 @ Alpha stages was smother faster and better drivers then Vista ever did. Thats why it was a good OS.

Originally Posted by dioxholster 

windows 8 is like the hot girlfriend who decided to get plastic surgery.

Originally Posted by Raven Dizzle 

And do you know why 7 was such a joy to those who SKIPPED Vista? Cause it was built UPON Vista. NOT a lot changed. Once drivers matured and bugs were worked out (as is required for ANY new OS, just like XP before it), Vista was fine, and 7 at launch was essentially Vista SP2 with a new taskbar. It even worked well with the very same drivers; and DRIVERS were Vistas downfall when it first came out.

Originally Posted by Kaldari 

I know it has been said before in other threads, but you can get W8 to look and feel pretty much identical to W7 with Start8, minus aero. Even if gaming performance is identical, boot times, app launches, etc. are probably split seconds faster. I'm not claiming a renaissance here, but there are definite backend and UI improvements (minus "Metro" as your only Start menu, but that can be changed) improvements and some of the free Microsoft Store games are fun little time-killers if you get bored of your normal AAA or indie titles for a bit.

In fact, Start8 gives you the most customizable "normal" start menu Windows has ever had. You have far more settings to change what it does and what it shows than ever before. It also allows you to disable the Charm Bar in desktop mode. It's literally an identical experience with coding and UI improvements.

If it would have cost me as much as previous versions of Windows, I would be on the same boat that there really isn't enough of an innovative leap to be worth it, but it only cost me $20 for both the Windows key and Start8. I don't regret it in the slightest.

Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er 


Well the thing was Windows 7 @ Alpha stages was smother faster and better drivers then Vista ever did. Thats why it was a good OS.