• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
SausageHack

Performance Improvements?

GeekBench (or equivalent) Results   17 members have voted

  1. 1. Which performed better?


Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

29 posts in this topic

A lot of us probably are curious how Windows 8 will stacks up to Windows 7 performance-wise. If you're dual-booting both systems and you have access to a benchmarking program like Geekbench, could you perhaps post some results?

If you don't, maybe share a bit about Windows 8 was faster (or slower) for a certain task (i.e. booting up, shutting down, etc). Of course, make sure that your conclusions are completely dependent on the OS difference (don't say that Windows 7 took longer to defrag for example, because that's 99% affected by your personal usage).

I probably don't need to say it, but obviously we won't be able to compare Windows 7 to the final product for a while- so this is just a rough analysis. If Win8 is faster now, there's a pretty good chance the final build will also be.

EDIT: I'll add in that I've been using the Public Preview very lightly, and so far have not been blown away by the performance. I'll benchmark when I get access to my old laptop where I have it installed later this week.

Edited by SausageHack
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W8 boots up and shuts down faster than W7 when I have dual boots. W7 starts rather fast when it is the only OS. But I still think W8 alone is faster than W7 alone.

And I notice that on my computer, W8 usage of memory is approximately 100 MB less than that of W7. I vote for W8.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Booting times

Roughly speaking, the older a given installation is, the longer the cold and warm boots will take. This is because in general the user profile(s) grows over time, particularly the registry, and now larger files need to be read and written to disk. It is possible for an installation not to grow much over time if they do not ever install software and perform lots of manual maintenance. Another thing that changes the boot times is the addition of devices and software that are started at each boot and must be terminated at each reset and shutdown. The variables that affect booting are many. Consequently it is a horrible method of comparison between any computers, installations, and especially Operating Systems. The only fair measure would be a retail CD/DVD media clean install on comparable systems with the boot times recorded immediately after installation. This is more apples to apples.

You should be able to figure out that the main problem here is that currently we have people comparing their several year old Win7 or Vista boot times with a freshly installed Win8. Compare that same several year old Win7 or Vista installation with a freshly installed Win7 or Vista or XP or 98 (... or anything) and the argument becomes a moot point really.

Something else to consider is that as Windows has progressed, Microsoft has pushed more Auto started software services and drivers into 'Delay Load'. This has the effect of blurring the boot time (think of a smoothing or anti-alias filter in graphics) so that when the computer has truly completed its boot sequence is more subjective than objective.

Anyway, a large part of the time at booting (when the first Windows logo appears) is spent enumerating and configuring devices and then doing a cursory validation to make sure that Windows 'hasn't moved' to another computer. I doubt Microsoft has any interest in shaving this time ;-) Making sure you're not a crook (in their eyes) is far more important than any mere inconvenience to the customer. Even if they improve boot times 100% (oh my!) we're really talking about the difference between 30 seconds and one minute. Instead of assigning the manpower to this non-problem, they could have concentrated on any of a hundred persistent bugs and nuisances that have carried forth in Windows for many years.

In other words, there was no pressing problem here to fix. If the cold boot takes one minute, then that is a perfect opportunity for me to practice Multitasking. Here's how: I pressed the power button one minute before I need to use the computer! I spend that one minute on another task, getting coffee.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree, I was hoping to get some data primarily from benchmarking utilities. Reallistically, your average user will rate a computer's "speed" based on superficial qualities such as snappiness and bootup time. So in a way, Windows 8 "feels" faster, but only because it hasn't necessarily been thrashed and modified the same way the Windows 7 partition has been.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Windows 8 feels faster because it does things differently (more efficiently), especially during boot and shutdown. It has little to do with the usual things in this case, but yes, registry and profile bloat will have some effect long-term.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this belongs in the current thread, but since we're talking performance --

The Developer and Consumer Previews can't read an optical disk in my test PC, unless it's already there at bootup. That's a significant defect in a certain type of performance, especially if one were to use Windows 8 on a regular basis as the primary OS.

This reminds me that I need to check on this for the Release Preview.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, Win8 is faster. It is what I've expected from Windows 7.

But the fasted OS is useless if it has an unusable UI like Windows 8 has.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its quite irrelevant to me if my win will boot in 7 or 15 secs

its the time it takes me to turn on monitor and sit down on chair

I'd say speed goes to 7 coz 8 UI sucks too much for any normal use

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Developer and Consumer Previews can't read an optical disk in my test PC, unless it's already there at bootup. That's a significant defect in a certain type of performance, especially if one were to use Windows 8 on a regular basis as the primary OS.

This reminds me that I need to check on this for the Release Preview.

In this regard, the RP behaves just like the other two preview editions in my test PC: it doesn't recognize an optical disk in the drive unless it's already there when the system is booted.

That PC has Windows 7 on it as well, and Win7 has NO problems finding a CD/DVD if I put it in there after the OS is up and running.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its quite irrelevant to me if my win will boot in 7 or 15 secs

its the time it takes me to turn on monitor and sit down on chair

I'd say speed goes to 7 coz 8 UI sucks too much for any normal use

That actually brings up a relevant point- raw speed is pointless if the user takes longer to operate the machine. A fast and efficient UI is just as important as a speedy platform.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, Win8 is faster. It is what I've expected from Windows 7.

But the fasted OS is useless if it has an unusable UI like Windows 8 has.

Thats one thing that is holding me back. But here I sit using my Win7 PC all day and sometimes wish it handled some things like Win8 does, such as USB keys.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

raw speed is pointless if the user takes longer to operate the machine. A fast and efficient UI is just as important as a speedy platform.

Good point!

But here I sit using my Win7 PC all day and sometimes wish it handled some things like Win8 does, such as USB keys.

What's different about the way Win8 handles USB keys?

--JorgeA

Edited by JorgeA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But here I sit using my Win7 PC all day and sometimes wish it handled some things like Win8 does, such as USB keys.

What's different about the way Win8 handles USB keys?

--JorgeA

Opens right away and doesn't keep prompting me to scan them. I use these USB keys multiple times a day and all that time wasted waiting for the dirs to open adds up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But here I sit using my Win7 PC all day and sometimes wish it handled some things like Win8 does, such as USB keys.

What's different about the way Win8 handles USB keys?

--JorgeA

Opens right away and doesn't keep prompting me to scan them. I use these USB keys multiple times a day and all that time wasted waiting for the dirs to open adds up.

3pp7ij.jpg

:) I think it's an option in explorer if I'm not mistaken. AutoRun is annoying and a security risk.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha great. Yes I know about that, but Win8 seems to pop open those file contents less than a second after inserting the key. The same key takes 5 seconds or so to open on Win7. Although... I would say that Win98 can use a USB key just as fast as Win8...

Oh the other thing I like... Event Viewer seems to be worlds faster.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win8 seems to pop open those file contents less than a second after inserting the key. The same key takes 5 seconds or so to open on Win7. Although... I would say that Win98 can use a USB key just as fast as Win8...

Huh -- I hadn't noticed a difference. Now I'll have to go and do some comparisons! :)

For whatever reason, though, none of the three flavors of Win8 that I have will read a CD or DVD if it's not already inserted when I boot up the system. Two of them are on VHD's and the third (the Developer Preview) is on its own HDD partition, along with Win7 which does see DVD's just fine. It's as if I hadn't put anything in the tray.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I've heard of this before... I think even seen it happen with Vista before. I don't think I've tried to use the ODD after having installed Windows 8 yet. I plan on doing some more development for Win8 on Monday so maybe I can try it if I remember.

I am only dealing with Windows 8 RP x64 tho, not touching 32bit version at all I don't think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only dealing with Windows 8 RP x64 tho, not touching 32bit version at all I don't think.

Yeah, my copies are all x64 too.

I'll be curious to hear how it goes with you.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to have to build an image with the RP, because handloading it off DVD and installing drivers every time is getting old fast. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For whatever reason, though, none of the three flavors of Win8 that I have will read a CD or DVD if it's not already inserted when I boot up the system. Two of them are on VHD's and the third (the Developer Preview) is on its own HDD partition, along with Win7 which does see DVD's just fine. It's as if I hadn't put anything in the tray.

--JorgeA

Don't know what to tell you... :(

th_dvdwin8.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know what to tell you... :(

Huh, how weird. Maybe Win8 is fussy.

(Just to be clear, for the sake of other readers: it's an HP machine brand-new last summer, so it's not like we're dealing with some obsolescent hardware here.)

Glad that it worked for you, though.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to mention that Event Viewer in Windows 8 is about the same speed as Windows 7 (slow) but is a lot faster in Server 2012 from what I can tell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use "my event viewer" from nirsoft (free)

its instant fast

windows one sucks too much :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use "my event viewer" from nirsoft (free)

its instant fast

windows one sucks too much :P

I thought I was the only one with these issues :lol:

The built-in one is so darn slow to initialize and there's just *so much* inane stuff to filter out (including what one could call "normal errors" which you'll never get rid of :realmad: ) that I wrote my own tool (using the EventLogReader class) to read our server logs... It only took mere minutes to write something better (using a basic EventLogQuery to remove most of the unwanted junk, then PLINQ to filter out the data using all CPU cores). Just reading all of the data (unfiltered) i.e. tens of thousands of entries using the EventLog only takes a handful of miliseconds... It's like 3 orders of magnitude faster than the MMC snapin takes to get to a usable state. That's kind of sad when you think about it really.

Instead of fixing issues like this, they spend their energy on their awful tablet UI and then they force it onto desktop users...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.