[citation][nom]hunshiki[/nom]I already pointed this out at the other article, but I guess I have to cross-post.Please understand that there is no performance benefit. No. None.Boot speed, shutdown speed and the other yadda are just marketing buzzwords. If you ever used Windows 8 for a longer while (a week is enough) you will notice it's got the very same boot speed. Especially if you count that none of the benchmarks count the startup time as full boot. They count the time until Metro (Modern UI) shows up. Which means the desktop is not even loaded.[/citation]
All of this is untrue. Maybe if you used Win8 longer than a week for a reason other than to verify that you hate it, you might have actually learned something. Most specifically, the desktop
is loaded when you get to the Metro screen. Tap the windows key and you're there in a tenth of a second. Or launch your programs from the metro UI. The computer is perfectly usable when it gets to the Metro interface. Your insistence that they introduce greater variance by arbitrarily changing the point where they must stop measuring, and requiring human interaction to get there is as arbitrary as it is pointless.
Win8 boot times are
much lower. Cold boot to desktop (yes, desktop) is 14 seconds on my machine. Close to 30 on Win7. And yes, I've used Win8 for more than a week. More like ten months, starting with the Dev Preview last year.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/10/gentlemen-start-your-benches-measuring-windows-8s-performance/
Take a look at the boot time benchmarks. Excluding POST time (which the OS has no impact on), their three systems booted 27% faster, 69% faster and 68% faster. Even if you include the ridiculously long POST on their gaming board (my gaming PC POSTS in less than half that time), it's still 12% faster booting, and that's the
worst any of their systems did.
The UI is full of effects, animations, transitions. It's a fake sense of "snappiness".
Using a transition to create the appearance of greater responsiveness is an industry standard technique dating back to the early 90s when web browsers had to deal with pages that took minutes to load. It's used in pretty much everything now. Calling this out as deception smacks of you not knowing WTF you're talking about.
Gaming benchmark? Hah. Some of the games won't even work, and the rest just runs with the same speed. (See the recently posted review.)
I don't recall increased gaming performance being a selling point. In fact, I remember "Do not regress in performance" being the major goal, not an increase in performance. Seems to me like they delivered exactly what they said they would. More features for your computer without needing an upgrade. If you think those features are worth it, fine, just don't attack MS for not delivering on promises
you decided that they made.
Also, the fact that some games are buggy on launch day of a new OS is to be expected, and probably more the fault of the game publishers than Microsoft (though without knowing details of the developers' Win8 preparation anything anyone says about this is speculation). If they don't get fixed soon,
then it's a problem.
Look, Win8 has its problems and there are plenty of valid criticisms of it. Tablet centric UI. Loss of the most familiar method of interaction. Mandating use of an interface a lot of people don't like. Your post, however, did nothing but pretend the obvious advantages of Win8 (like the dramatically reduced boot time) were lies and set the bar so unrealistically high as to guarantee failure so you can attack it. Dishonest, uninformed and proud of it. Not something I'd personally like to be, but hey, live your life like you want to.
hahaha.
. But even on a traditional desktop, Im sure its going to be a interesting experience none the less. 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram