Jump to content

Why I find Windows 8.1 more suitable than Windows 7


xpclient

Recommended Posts

OK, here's what I did:

Started Process Hacker 2, then played this 5 minute UHD 60 FPS video from YouTube via Internet Explorer in full screen mode, which filled the 1920 x 1200 desktop displayed in the VMware window. 

The video looked pretty good in all cases.  There were the most visibly dropped frames, best judged during smooth panning or smooth movement of the camera, in the Win 10 playback.  Win 7 was better, but still a little stop-start was visible during smooth movement.  Somehow the distance of the jerks was smaller or something in Win 7 than in 10, because it wasn't as intrusive.  By contrast I found the Windows 8.1 playback smoothest.  The image quality seemed a bit better (cleaner/smoother/better interpolated) in the Win 8.1 and 10 VMs than in Win 7.

Here are the graphs for the various resources monitored during the playback...

Win 7:

Judge image quality:

ScreenGrab_NoelC4_2016_08_15_171434.png

ScreenGrab_NoelC4_2016_08_15_171722.png

Various Resource graphs:

ScreenGrab_W7VM_2016_08_15_171929.png

ScreenGrab_W7VM_2016_08_15_171932.png

ScreenGrab_W7VM_2016_08_15_171935.png

ScreenGrab_W7VM_2016_08_15_171938.png

ScreenGrab_W7VM_2016_08_15_171942.png

ScreenGrab_W7VM_2016_08_15_171944.png

Win 8.1:

Judge image quality:

ScreenGrab_NoelC4_2016_08_15_172657.png

ScreenGrab_NoelC4_2016_08_15_172943.png

Various Resource graphs:

ScreenGrab_W81EVM_2016_08_15_173150.png

ScreenGrab_W81EVM_2016_08_15_173152.png

ScreenGrab_W81EVM_2016_08_15_173154.png

ScreenGrab_W81EVM_2016_08_15_173157.png

ScreenGrab_W81EVM_2016_08_15_173159.png

ScreenGrab_W81EVM_2016_08_15_173202.png

Win 10:

Judge image quality:

ScreenGrab_NoelC4_2016_08_15_173736.png

ScreenGrab_NoelC4_2016_08_15_174023.png

Various Resource graphs:

ScreenGrab_W10VM_2016_08_15_174233.png

ScreenGrab_W10VM_2016_08_15_174234.png

ScreenGrab_W10VM_2016_08_15_174237.png

ScreenGrab_W10VM_2016_08_15_174239.png

ScreenGrab_W10VM_2016_08_15_174242.png

ScreenGrab_W10VM_2016_08_15_174245.png

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Since you run all these tests in a VM of each OS, I wonder if there would be any differences if the host OS was different.  I mean since your tests seem to favor 8.1, with a host of 8.1 running a VM of 8.1, I wonder if the overall results would be the same if the host was 7, or 10?  Maybe it would be the most fair if Linux was used as the host?  I realize that ideally the host OS shouldn't matter, but this has been nagging at me so I figured I'd throw it out there for consideration.

Another option would be if the three OS were separately installed on their own SSD that could be swapped out to run the tests.

No method would be absolutely perfect, and I really do appreciate that you are trying to compare apples-to-apples the best you can. I also very much realize that the setups and tests for each system take time that take away from your real work, and I thank you for putting forth the effort and sharing the results.

Cheers and Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if one machine has (vitual) SCSI and the other(s) have (virtual) IDE, the comparison is m00t, and most probably not only in the "disk" category as "resources" in use when using a SCSI controller (at least with real ones) are different form those used with an IDE controller, so it is very likely that the CPU category could be affected.

Mind you I am not saying that you should re-create a new VM with the same (virtual) hardware (or re-configure your existing one to use not the SCSI bus), only that you were (and are) comparing not corresponding setups.

About this:
 

On domenica 14 agosto 2016 at 10:40 PM, NoelC said:

My setup runs 24/7 without fault, providing a secure, rich computing environment I can rely upon to be able to do my work and run my business without worry.  A couple of nights ago I quit working at 3am, and I just left everything open and went to bed.  When I regained consciousness everything was just where I left it, and the system had done all its backups and maintenance activities.

With all due respect :),  it is not "news" or "exceptional" i.e. IMHO not anything to be particularly be "proud" of, it is the normal way machines running NT 4.0, or 2000 or XP have run for me in the last 20 years or so, possibly in a less rich environment than yours, though.

jaclaz
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising - it comes from applying a level of understanding and care to setting up and running one's computing environment.  You are one of a very few of us who actually think.  I'd say that folks here at MSFN try to think more than usual and at a higher level.

But bear in mind that most people don't experience - or expect - that same level of reliability.  Have a debate some time (and I'm sure you have, already) with a person who's convinced that it's necessary to reinstall Windows every few months.

Such sentiment is why Microsoft feels they can get away with forcing a reinstall of Windows (not to mention reverting user settings) every 6 months.  The number of folks who don't trash their OS in that amount of time is miniscule.  I'm sure Microsoft feels that this will improve the computing lives of the majority of people.

It's a matter of philosophy and approach to life.  I'll bet you drive your cars for longer than the payments last too.  In my garage/driveway:  One that's 7 years old, one that's 10 years old, one that's 19 years old, and one that's 34 years old.

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bphlpt said:

Since you run all these tests in a VM of each OS, I wonder if there would be any differences if the host OS was different.  

It's something I've thought of, certainly.  It's not hard to imagine that the VMware people could pass more requests directly through from a like OS to another like OS.

Really what's needed is to run different OSs on the exact same hardware.  In small part I've done that.  Over the past years I've had both Win 7 and 8.1 on my workstation.  I've also set up, for testing, Win 7 and 10 on my other system, a small dual core server system (Dell PowerEdge T20).

Observations:  I get about as good an experience from my Win 8.1 setup as I got from Win 7 on the same workstation.  A few numbers are worse and a few numbers are better in benchmarks on both sides of the OS change, and performance keeps up with my needs.  Overall I'd say I've gotten a bit more value from Win 8.1.

On the PowerEdge I measured a definite performance degradation in most areas when running Win 10 (build 10240)as compared to Win 7.  As I recall I even did a video test on that system, and saw about 10 degrees C higher temperatures when playing the same video in Win 10 vs. 7.  I haven't tried a later version of Win 10 on it because frankly the thing does its job with Win 7.  Perfectly stable, long-term - running for months at a time between reboots.

I have a fair bit of spare time because I don't spend much of it futzing with my main OS ("it just works"), but blithely installing each different OS on the same hardware to satisify curiosity about "what's better" (or having multiple identical systems side by side) is beyond even my threshold for the moment.  :)

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, but the "let's reinstall" people tend often to be the same that are often described as "clueless" ;).

As a matter of fact (though as you guessed) I NEVER reinstall, the approach wouldn't be so "wrong" - at least in theory - if the good MS guys had provided a simple straightforward way to separate (and keep separate) user data and settings from "system", i.e. making the install more "modular".

The "basic mistake" they made IMHO is having people put *everything* on a huge C:\ and have all the settings mixed up in the Registry.

Since you mentioned cars, once upon a time cars had distribution/timing chains (not belts) that lasted 180,000/250,000 km or so (and even then they never broke, in the worse case when the chain or sprockets worn down valves would be some half degree  out of sync), while now you have belts that you have to change every 80,000/100,000 km or so (and if you fail to replace them they WILL break, completely ruining your engine [1]).

Still in those years water pumps were driven directly or through an external belt, (nowadays they are connected to the timing belt in many engines), once if they leaked you could disassemble them and change the gasket and seals (and while at it maybe inspect bearings and replace them if needed), if a water pump broke no other damage would happen.

Nowadays every time you change the belt you replace the whole water pump because it cannot be disassembled nor internal parts replaced AND if it breaks it will also break the timing belt and will destroy your engine.

It's called progress. ;)

jaclaz

[1] Still once upon a time valves did not interfere with the pistons, so if the timing chain (or belt) broke you only had to replace it with NO damage whatsoever to valves or pistons.
 

Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...