Windows 8 Even More Resource Efficient Than Windows 7

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]phatbuddha79[/nom]Microsoft always touts and hypes things up before release, but rarely do they ever come through. I'll believe it when I see it.[/citation]
I don't disagree with you, per se... But they lived up to the hype in Windows 7... Best OS they ever made, in that it was one of the most functional OSs they had ever made and reduced the hardware footprint below that of their 10 year old OS, while maintaining a good deal of backwards compatibility.

 

[jacobdrj]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Umm... they DO have regular updates besides the SPs.[/citation]
Patch Tuesday is there every month or so, and they do daily updates for MSE...

 

[Guest]

@dickcheney

windows 7 was more efficient with resources then windows vista, clearly the i7 is a much slower CPU then core 2 Duo.......

 

[felix666]

I'm glad to see that Microsoft is stepping in the right direction.
It is not only the games that drive the growing PC performance requirements, it is also all these anti-malware programs. They are taking more CPU usage at every new version, and to the difference of gaming just every PC needs these programs. See how your PC suddenly runs quick and smooth when the internet link is disconnected and that all these anti-everything are disabled.

 

[iamtheking123]

Interesting strategy...bloat up every other version of an OS so then in the next release you can kill the bloat and claim you improved efficiency.

How much does XP use per-chance?

 

[eddieroolz]

For me the difference between Windows 7 and 8 DevPreview has been minimal, though RAM usage does seem a bit lower.

 

[christop]

This will be a good thing. I can tell a huge difference moving from vista to win7.

 

[dread_cthulhu]

Yeah, seems like W8 may not be the failure everyone's already trying to pin on it... Don't underestimate MS, they do learn from their past mistakes. I gave them a second chance with Vista after ME killed everything, and I honestly did not dislike Vista. My primary system is still running it after all. But I do support improvement, and 7 definitely is, and I think 8 will be too.

 

[whysobluepandabear]

No way! You're telling me that future technology that has had years to be developed and compared to the past, can now become more efficient? Well color me pink!

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]phatbuddha79[/nom]Microsoft always touts and hypes things up before release, but rarely do they ever come through. I'll believe it when I see it.[/citation]

Apparently you missed Win 7.

 

[Thunderfox]

I wonder if this sort of efficiency will be enough to get the XP zealots to move on. I doubt it. They'll just upgrade to XP64 and call themselves modern.

 

[atikkur]

this is good.. used resources for os should be minimal. all the resources is meant to be used for programs or games. and how win8 would improve experiences in gaming? i never heard any news win8 will improving games departement. perhaps a much more effeciency in directX layer? or.. mightbe an exclusive mode or a shell purposed just for gaming.

 

[jimslaid2]

For all of you guys that say this will be bad for PC sales consider this:

Windows 8 is clearly mean to be a link between the Cloud/Tablet/Smart_Phone; Microsoft is keeping the Desktop relevant for the average consumer.

I've been using the Metro UI and I like it. A lot. The accomplishment Microsoft Team has done is let you get to work through the start button and back to social and entertainment features with just a push of the windows button, that I think has a bigger role than it had in all other versions of windows thus far.

Nay Sayers be Hate'n but the MS team has done a great job.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I wonder if this sort of efficiency will be enough to get the XP zealots to move on. I doubt it. They'll just upgrade to XP64 and call themselves modern.

That is impossible. Funny thing is, some of them even run modern gaming rigs and STILL don't upgrade... it's fine, at some point there'll be simply no more drivers released for it, thus no support for new hardware. XP is great, but it's time to move on.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

For all of you guys that say this will be bad for PC sales consider this:

Windows 8 is clearly mean to be a link between the Cloud/Tablet/Smart_Phone; Microsoft is keeping the Desktop relevant for the average consumer.

I've been using the Metro UI and I like it. A lot. The accomplishment Microsoft Team has done is let you get to work through the start button and back to social and entertainment features with just a push of the windows button, that I think has a bigger role than it had in all other versions of windows thus far.

Nay Sayers be Hate'n but the MS team has done a great job.

OMFG, don't you understand this is exactly what we DO NOT want? I, for one, don't need "social and entertainment features"... that's tablet bandwagon with their crapBook and Twitter BS apps! I want a DESKTOP OS, no BS cloud, and NO dumbing down the GUI so that I have it "all under Start button" - I never use the damn thing! Thumbs up for pure desktop awesomeness with no dumbing down in favor of an illiterate "common user"! :lol:

P.S. I'm not an MS hater - I'm a "dumbing down the interface" hater.

 

[jhansonxi]

[citation][nom]phate[/nom]Ubuntu is getting bloated and slower with Unity.[/citation]If you would like to have the same GUI experience on both there's a Unity skin for Windows.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

If you would like to have the same GUI experience on both there's a Unity skin for Windows.

I think it was clear from his post that he does not want the same experience 😀 Unity = major fail; all it adds is that BS panel on the left. Compiz effects are there without Unity.

EDIT: Actually, the whole interface is shamelessly copycatted from Mac OS, hoping it would get them more users. Poor Canonical doesn't realise people go for Mac not because of the GUI, which is horrible, IMO...

...oh no, now I've done it. Now this thread will slip into Mac flame war again. Forget I said anything. Just flame Canonical for being lame copycats - they should've at least copy the GOOD stuff from other OSs.

 

[razor512]

[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]Interesting strategy...bloat up every other version of an OS so then in the next release you can kill the bloat and claim you improved efficiency.How much does XP use per-chance?[/citation]


Windows XP uses under 100MB memory for my install with the services I don't need disabled and some useless preboot items disabled, windows xp uses about 40-45MB of memory at startup

Keep in mind that the minimum requirement for windows xp is 64MB ram and a 300MHz CPU

If microsoft wants windows 8 to work on a tablet, they need to do better, they need to bring the requirements down to windows 98 levels (ignoring CPU instruction sets and functionality, instead, just in terms of raw performance)

the goal of the OS should be purely to be a platform to to run the programs that you like and stay out of the way as much as possible and use as few resources as possible so that more will be left over to run your programs as quickly and efficiently as possible with the hardware you have.

other than that, it needs good file managementand abilities to customize, and if you feel a need to make it bloated, have a advanced option where before installing, you select what services you want, what gui elements you want and a whole host of other items.

Regardless of what some here might think, not everyone needs every single window service and GUI element and all of the other crap that it comes with. allowing a user to customize what gets installed will help with getting a OS that is as efficient as possible for the specific user of the system.

If you were one of the people who upgraded from windows XP to windows 7

The install size grew from 2.7-3GB to upwards of 20GB

Compared to what you regularly do on your computer, how much of that extra 17GB or so of bloat added into the OS are you using , how much of it do you need.

There are stripped down versions that only take 10GB and you generally cant tell the difference (I have tried one, though I wouldn't use it as I don't trust that nothing malicious was done)

Anyway, not everyone needs everything that comes with windows, and anything extra they don't need is simply a waste of resources.

If microsoft wants a truly good OS, restrict the developers to modern computers that have been downclocked to around 200MHz and only have 256MB ram and have them design a OS that supports the modern hardware but runs fast with the limited CPU speed and memory

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]legacy7955[/nom]More important to me is ..Has MS improved windows update?If so could they PLEASE stop with the service packs (which always seem to cause issues) and just implement a stream of regular updates![/citation]
You mean the second Tuesday of every month?
That kind of regular or differant?
[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]Interesting strategy...bloat up every other version of an OS so then in the next release you can kill the bloat and claim you improved efficiency.How much does XP use per-chance?[/citation]
I have a 6 year old Acer laptop that came with XP and has run through every service pack getting slower by the day until I installed Windows 7 and it now runs like a brand new machine, if Windows 8 runs even faster I could be going for 10 years with the same machine, how's that for value for money?

 

[triculious]

I'll try this windows 8 thingie on my laptop... did the same thing with windows 7 and the results were pretty good, so, why not? let's see what they've been working on to get my hard earned cash

which also reminds me that I really wish this iteration of windows to be under/around $50 (wild dreams, I know)

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Thumbs up for pure desktop awesomeness with no dumbing down in favor of an illiterate "common user"! P.S. I'm not an MS hater - I'm a "dumbing down the interface" hater.[/citation]
too bad the illiterate "common user" is the HUGE majority of the market
not that I disagree with you

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Windows XP uses under 100MB memory for my install with the services I don't need disabled and some useless preboot items disabled, windows xp uses about 40-45MB of memory at startup

Keep in mind that the minimum requirement for windows xp is 64MB ram and a 300MHz CPU

If microsoft wants windows 8 to work on a tablet, they need to do better, they need to bring the requirements down to windows 98 levels (ignoring CPU instruction sets and functionality, instead, just in terms of raw performance)

the goal of the OS should be purely to be a platform to to run the programs that you like and stay out of the way as much as possible and use as few resources as possible so that more will be left over to run your programs as quickly and efficiently as possible with the hardware you have.

other than that, it needs good file managementand abilities to customize, and if you feel a need to make it bloated, have a advanced option where before installing, you select what services you want, what gui elements you want and a whole host of other items.

Regardless of what some here might think, not everyone needs every single window service and GUI element and all of the other crap that it comes with. allowing a user to customize what gets installed will help with getting a OS that is as efficient as possible for the specific user of the system.

If you were one of the people who upgraded from windows XP to windows 7

The install size grew from 2.7-3GB to upwards of 20GB

Compared to what you regularly do on your computer, how much of that extra 17GB or so of bloat added into the OS are you using , how much of it do you need.

There are stripped down versions that only take 10GB and you generally cant tell the difference (I have tried one, though I wouldn't use it as I don't trust that nothing malicious was done)

Anyway, not everyone needs everything that comes with windows, and anything extra they don't need is simply a waste of resources.

If microsoft wants a truly good OS, restrict the developers to modern computers that have been downclocked to around 200MHz and only have 256MB ram and have them design a OS that supports the modern hardware but runs fast with the limited CPU speed and memory

Out of these 20GB, 8GB is a pagefile if you have 8GB RAM and 6GB is a hibernation file. Kill both (disable hibernation, disable pagefile) and you're down to 6 GB with no loss whatsoever.

Why do you even CARE how much it takes? Still running a 40GB IDE HDD or something? 😛

Of course they'll make the tablet version so that it actually works there. I just hope the desktop version won't suffer because of it.

And you're not just beating a dead horse... no, you're raping the bones of that old horse beaten to death by someone else long ago (wow... disgusting analogy. I need help). The topic of shifting from XP (which, as you have stated, has minimum requirements of 300 MHZ to run, though in fact it needs 1 GHz+ to run properly) is SO silly and has been discussed SO many times... if you're using your old PC, by all means, you DON'T need an upgrade, indeed. Just remember that eventually you'll run out of updates. Otherwise, remaining on WinXP is choking your hardware and your user experience. Win7 is NOT made for "common user", disregard MS's claims. It's for people with powerful hardware, who don't care whether it uses 40 or 400 MB... RAM is disgustingly cheap nowadays.

 

[bv90andy]

Even since they were releasing RCs of Seven I thought that Vista was the best marketing move M$ could have made. Now I am sure of it. They couldn't beat XP performance-wise so they made vista heavy on resources and now all their new operating systems for a few years will look better, it's a matter of contrast.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Maybe so, but if it is actually true, it'll be nice. Win7 is already resource-friendly and Win8 is promised to be even better. Let's see if it will be done.[/citation]
win 7 is resource friendly? lmfao. You mean compared to.....windows server 2008.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Even since they were releasing RCs of Seven I thought that Vista was the best marketing move M$ could have made. Now I am sure of it. They couldn't beat XP performance-wise so they made vista heavy on resources and now all their new operating systems for a few years will look better, it's a matter of contrast.

BS. Vista wasn't a marketing move; it was a beta of Win7 released as an OS to gather maximum feedback, which made Win7 really polished. I've tested Win7 on old machines, probably as low as you can go with their minimum hardware requirements. Pretty close to XP in terms of performance. Vista was dismissed after 7 came out and hence no one cares about how heavy Win7 is compared to Vista... Win7 is always compared to XP.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

win 7 is resource friendly? lmfao. You mean compared to.....windows server 2008.

No, compared to XP and considering they've stuffed in a lot of eye candy and other heavy things. See my previous post:

I've tested Win7 on old machines, probably as low as you can go with their minimum hardware requirements. Pretty close to XP in terms of performance.