Microsoft: Windows 8 Can Boot Up Too Quickly

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]ttg_avenged[/nom]Agreed, I'm under 15 (14) and feel the same way... screw tablets xD[/citation]
I'm 15 and think Windows 8's tablet-centric UI is crap. I'm not opposed to change, I simply hate bad change... like metro.
 
Why is everyone so opposed to Metro? Why dig for stuff when it can be readily available? It seems everyone has easily adopted nearly every smartphone interface, I'm not sure why people would be opposed to essentially bridging that interface to any desktop.

But that's off-topic... 7 seconds, that's speedy!
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]Don't care. I almost never turn off or reboot my computer, but I do use multiple screens and the Start Menu. I guess I'm one of those dinosaurs who's too afraid of change to ditch my PC and get a tablet instead.[/citation]Don't you have to restart to try to push your OC higher?
 
[citation][nom]dalauder[/nom]So why do people hate Windows 8 so much? An OS should be more focused on a search feature and tiles (like Google Chrome's start page) for the most used items.[/citation]
Eveyone has a differnet opinion all i want Mircosoft to do with Windows 8 is keep the start button and make metro the default but make it able to be turned off and an option to make a desktop enviroment the defualt for it in case the user wants the desktop instead of the Metro UI.
As except for the Metro UI Windows 8 is very much like Windows 7 and i see no reason to upgrade from anything besides Windows XP and maybe Windows Vista if you need newer hardware and/or are just getting a new machine as if Windows 8 allows you to not have Metro as the boot up graphical enviroment and allows you to use the desktop then it will be a good upgrade from Windows XP which btw i still use as it still works
 
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Now let me disable metro, have the start menu back, and this might be a good OS.[/citation]
Or... just stick with Windows7 for another 3-4 years. Move to Linux or MacOS?

I stayed with Windows98se until 2004... XP had its early issues and Win98se did everything.
What drove me to finally go XP is that drivers and games ran better on XP. The hardware technology I had was being held back by Win98se. By then, SP2 was on the market for a few months.
 
i tried win 8 and during a 2 hour trial, i was unable to start a program... the new UI is the most counter intuitive thing i've seen in years on computer. in the end, i found it that bad that i couldn't do anything (even remove it) that i just reformated the HD and installed win 7 again. no other OS ever made me do that.

give me back my start button and stick your new UI where the sun doesn't shine. i don't want change for the sake of change. nt4 UI works for me, don't take it away from me. i stuck with win2k untill games demanded graphic drivers that were not longer being made to work on 2k. this new UI might be cool, but i think it sucks. if win8 has the option to choose between their new UI and their old nt4 UI, i will switch.
 
i'm not even sure if i could call mac OS an OS. for me it's a shell on top of a custom linux. like win 95 was a shell on msdos.
 
Man this part is definitely true,
i just received a new net-book/Tablet from Nvidia as part of a settlement. i just installed the W8 CP. in it and after full installations and updates, and 3-4 restarts now it consistently goes from pressing the power button to login screen in less then 15 seconds. windows 7 takes atleast 30 seconds for the same task. and this with second rate hardware. Specs are : atom d570. 1gb ddr2. 250Gb 5400 RPM HDD. I am sure that if i were to get a touch screen monitor for my Desktop then i would achieve the 7 seconds target there.
so with W8 ms did do something right. I just wish that they hadn't decided that all people using W8 will have touch screen devices. Metro is cumbersome ad definetly a NO for the small screened netbooks. it needs 1024x768p res to just enable the apps. definetly not possible in most netbooks.
 
Also MS needs to learn that it is not Apple. apple can give a new Design to Sh** and sell it for hundreds of bucks claiming its a innovation.
MS cant do that. it should have learned the lesson with vista..
 
[citation][nom]Goldengoose[/nom]Is that 7 seconds with or without an SSD?[/citation]
The difference is not so big when sistem is loding an image. I belive that cpu and ram is also important for windows 8 startup. This implementation can be made in windows 7 with a service pack, but of corse microsoft want to sell, not to "get better".
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]I guess I'm one of those dinosaurs who's too afraid of change to ditch my PC and get a tablet instead.[/citation]

You're only a dinosaur if you're unwilling to ditch something that is less efficient than something newer. But that's not the case. Quite the opposite. Which is why I would argue that it is actually wise to cling to older, more efficient things.
 
7 seconds? Seen XP doing much better than that with iRAM long before the existance of SSD and with nowadays SSD I bet 5 seconds is feasible. Also back then people would measuse boot time from the end of POST until the taskbar appears.
 
I jsut wait for the info that in the final win8 You can disable metro completely and revert to menu start UI without any addons/cracks/mods.
 
I'd say that is pretty impressive. I'm still fine with My Windows 7 booting from SSD in 25 seconds though; this includes loading several server softwares, trackers, and services like remote software. And I don't turn my computer off very often because of these remote servers plus running torrents,
 
A fast boot time on window 8 hardly sounds just like a problem, but it's. But question is why. The startup may be so quick that you whiz by well-known sign post that motivate for input...
Read full article here,
http://www.geekscover.com/2012/05/window-8-boot-quickly-problem/
 
[citation][nom]dauntekong[/nom]Windows 3.1 = ehhh it's a startWindows 95 = getting betterWindows 98 = GoodWindows ME = BadWindows XP = GoodWindows Vista = BadWindows 7 = GoodWindows 8 = BadWait for the next Windows = Good I hopeThat's Microsoft's line of product.[/citation]

i like how you tried to make a pattern there but you missed alot of versions.

1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1 good for the time (first windows i used)
Win 95 fun at the time but buggy as hell
Win 95 Plus huge inprovement in stability but more of the same
Win 98 complete rubbish
Win98 SE perfect for the time
Win NT only used it at school but fine
Win 2000 awsumly stable but not so good for games
Win ME ok but had a bad habit of bsod when installing a unstable driver
Win XP complete crap until after sp2
Win 2003 never used it
Win Vista perfect if you have 2 gig + of ram, i personally didnt notice any of the bugs ppl were having
Win 2008 never used it
Win 7 pretty much the same as vista but had a new task bar (project mojave anyone?)
Win HS 2011 fracking awsum, dirt cheap and did i saw fracking awsum
 
[citation][nom]kaisellgren[/nom]I do wonder why most people do not turn their computers off. It seriously degrades the lifespan of your computer (especially the PSU). It also uses some power, unless we are using sleep/hibernate. I understand if we talk about servers though.[/citation]

I think you misunderstood what he was saying :) As Vista was such a crappy OS, people stayed on XP until Win7 was good enough.

I suspect the same, people will probably stay with Win 7 until a better OS comes along.

So windows 8 looks to be another failure like Vista (and Win ME). Although we might be proven wrong
 
Sorry was quoting the wrong message

[citation][nom]shafe88[/nom]Windows 8 is not the new vista and never will be. I bet 9 out of 10 people would choose VistaSP2 over Win8 any day just for the start button/menu alone.[/citation]

I think you misunderstood what he was saying As Vista was such a crappy OS, people stayed on XP until Win7 was good enough.

I suspect the same, people will probably stay with Win 7 until a better OS comes along.

So windows 8 looks to be another failure like Vista (and Win ME). Although we might be proven wrong
 
[citation][nom]spyfish[/nom]Sorry was quoting the wrong messageI think you misunderstood what he was saying As Vista was such a crappy OS, people stayed on XP until Win7 was good enough. I suspect the same, people will probably stay with Win 7 until a better OS comes along. So windows 8 looks to be another failure like Vista (and Win ME). Although we might be proven wrong[/citation]

I get absolutely baffled with people when they complain about vista, I think it was because all the manufactures release new computers with only 1 gig of ram at the time n that's why vista ran like crap, try it again today n I think you'll find it works fine.
Though I'm worried that the same FUD machine that crippled vista is now going after win8 for no other reason other then it is different, I'm using the rc on my laptop right now and the only problem I'm having is ati's drivers (cant switch between gfx cards) other then that I love it, nice crisp looking ui, the start menu is surprisingly similar to ubuntu's search menu which I liked, its a little bit faster then win7 & ran diablo 3 fine even with dodgy ati beta drivers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom