Windows 8 to Have Greatly Improved Wi-Fi Connection Times

[alidan]

i dont use wireless for my main computers. my wireless experiance comes from my parrents tech, the ipod touch, the ipad, the laptop, and a kindle, my little brothers 360 (wifi bridge thing) and my ps3, connection time on the laptop with win 7 64bit is kind of annoying, but its a one time thing its up its up till i close the laptop, the rest is... well... i dont know, i barely use them for online.

*a bit ranty from here on*

and to the people brining up xp... i wish win 7 used less than what... how much space does it take up? and i only use it for the same crap that xp did... you know what i would like... an inturnal sd card reader built into the mother board, you hook up a 32gb or 64gb card, its slow as hell but it stores all of the non you need it data... when you actually need it, it pulls it from the card and adds it to your ssd/hdd... but my space issue with win 7 comes more from haveing an ssd than me complaining for no reason.

and for the record, i prefer xp to windows 7 and i still miss key features that were in xp that are missing in 7, like native gif support. yea i can use external programs, but i dont like doing that if there is an inturnal solution and there was for xp... i also dont like how files are handled where i can click on when it was made and select the files, i prefer needing to click the name like xp, and resent when people tell me to get separate program for moving files... its like they are telling me that they know windows 7 is broken, and here is the work around.

 

[blazorthon]

I have noticed how the WiFi connection time is much slower than I'd like. Hopefully there is some truth to Microsoft's claim.

 

[godnodog]

[citation][nom]juanc[/nom]Windows7 flow1) Scan all networks for a long time2) Is the preferred network around?---Yes3) Connect to preferred networkWindows8 flow1) Is the preferred network around?---Yes2) Connect to the preferred network.WOW! Really improved![/citation]

You do have a pont, but nevertheless it is an inproved algorithm, and sometime all it takes is the simpliest approach to get better results, for me, in this case it should be why did they not do this in the first place?

Also, sometimes it´s the simplicity if the algorithms that shows the difference between programmers.

 

[Guest]

Very funny the part that has still left me bewildered is how lan to wifi and wifi to lan transfer are almost always limited to 1mb per second even when the device is placed right next to the router and connected on lan at 100mbps anyways with atleast 54mbps on the wifi device too😡

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]deltree86[/nom]Very funny the part that has still left me bewildered is how lan to wifi and wifi to lan transfer are almost always limited to 1mb per second even when the device is placed right next to the router and connected on lan at 100mbps anyways with atleast 54mbps on the wifi device too😡[/citation]

Being too close to the router can be just as bad as being several floors above or below the router, maybe even worse.I transer files on my 54Mb WiFi G and I get much more than a few Mb/s.

[citation][nom]juanc[/nom]Windows7 flow1) Scan all networks for a long time2) Is the preferred network around?---Yes3) Connect to preferred networkWindows8 flow1) Is the preferred network around?---Yes2) Connect to the preferred network.WOW! Really improved![/citation]

The steps are more or less the same but the individual steps are faster than they used to be. Did you not look at the picture provided? It shows this.

 

[soccerplayer88]

Why can't they just fix this in Windows 7? Aren't Win8 and Win7 (as with Vista -> Win7) based on the same architecture?

 

[juanc]

[citation][nom]jacobdrj[/nom]I thought the zenith of speed was Windows 98, reliability, Windows 2000... XP was a resource hog![/citation]

XP is much lighter than 2000. Just disable the extra crap like the Firewall and the Themes and you are done. I've been using it in a Dual Proc PIII w/128 or 256MB for a long while.

[citation][nom]godnodog[/nom]You do have a pont, but nevertheless it is an inproved algorithm, and sometime all it takes is the simpliest approach to get better results, for me, in this case it should be why did they not do this in the first place?Also, sometimes it´s the simplicity if the algorithms that shows the difference between programmers.[/citation]

That was my point. The Google approach we can call it. But I've been doing that before they existed.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The steps are more or less the same but the individual steps are faster than they used to be. Did you not look at the picture provided? It shows this.[/citation]

That's how they sell you that... and it seems YOU are buying.

What you see is a FASTER scanning. And what I see is a SHORTER scanning. You will not get the same results. You just look for the preferred network and you are done. When you are OUT, you'll have the same scanning time OR will have less available networks on the list.

The IP time is more or less the same. And the Network ID is completely out of the picture. It's not something that belongs to WiFi. I believe it will broadcast for a shorter time. If you are at Starbucks you really don't mind discovering computers.

 

[blazorthon]

XP is much lighter than 2000. Just disable the extra crap like the Firewall and the Themes and you are done. I've been using it in a Dual Proc PIII w/128 or 256MB for a long while.



That was my point. The Google approach we can call it. But I've been doing that before they existed.



That's how they sell you that... and it seems YOU are buying.

What you see is a FASTER scanning. And what I see is a SHORTER scanning. You will not get the same results. You just look for the preferred network and you are done. When you are OUT, you'll have the same scanning time OR will have less available networks on the list.

The IP time is more or less the same. And the Network ID is completely out of the picture. It's not something that belongs to WiFi. I believe it will broadcast for a shorter time. If you are at Starbucks you really don't mind discovering computers.

Ah, good explanation. So it only connects faster because current Windows scans for everything it can reach before connecting to the desired network while Win 8 will only scan for the desired network before connecting to it. I'll also vouch for XP since my old laptop has XP Home and only 256MB of RAM, Dell Inspiron 1100 with a 2.4GHz Pentium 4.

Besides, I don't buy Windows I get the evaluations from Microsoft's website. They last around a year and then I format my drive, install a different version. I get a clean system every year or so and it's free, strait from Microsoft's own website and I don't crack them so it's not pirating. Of course, if Windows didn't cost upwards of $300 for versions worth getting then I wouldn't mind buying it, but I can't afford to keep buying it at the price points Microsoft wants it at.

 

[mellaby]

Since I installed win 8 everything is faster (boot up, unsleep, control panel, etc). Plus this is just the developer edition. Get the beta and microsoft will probably offer you a win 8 retail disc for $ 50 just like they did with win 7.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

This enhancement makes sense considering they are entering the tablet arena.

 

[Anomalyx]

... And the REAL improvements in Win8 are....?
This is quite low on the list of ACTUAL improvements. Improvement to startup times are nowhere near as important as stability and speed when you're actually using the thing.
Car analogy: would you consider "faster engine startup time" to be a valid selling point on a car? NO! You care about how well it runs after it starts.

 

[juanc]

[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]... And the REAL improvements in Win8 are....?This is quite low on the list of ACTUAL improvements. Improvement to startup times are nowhere near as important as stability and speed when you're actually using the thing.Car analogy: would you consider "faster engine startup time" to be a valid selling point on a car? NO! You care about how well it runs after it starts.[/citation]

Agree. But if you had, or someone had those old diesel engines that had to be pre-heated before starting and blown a terrible fume when FINALLY started, and had to change a battery each 6 months, you'll change them for a new one.

Remember that today the focus is mobile. You need to sleep to the deepest available point to not drain the battery (Suspend mode is out of the picture today). And if so, you need to wake up fast. You can't spend 1 minute to shutdown and 2 more to wake up. It need to be instant.

And there is another factor. Actual "sleep/wake" technics are only profitable when the system is stable. If not. The issue of avoiding restarts (because the true fact is the computer never restarts) will hunt you down. So I believe that Windows is much more stable than before.

For my desktop PC... yes... I agree with you. I remember people complaining about it taking like 1/2 minute to discover SCSI devices and checking lots of RAM. But after it booted... it stayed on for a year or so.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]... And the REAL improvements in Win8 are....?This is quite low on the list of ACTUAL improvements. Improvement to startup times are nowhere near as important as stability and speed when you're actually using the thing.Car analogy: would you consider "faster engine startup time" to be a valid selling point on a car? NO! You care about how well it runs after it starts.[/citation]

The list of improvements is longer than you seem to think it is or you have ridiculous expectations.
Yes, stability and speed are more important than start up time, but that doesn't mean that start-up time isn't important as the poster above stated. Besides that, stability and speed were also improved, especially speed.

Other improvements include the task manager, highly reduced RAM overhead, the improved WiFi connection time stated in this news article, and more. I assume that the OS folder is also smaller than Windows 7/Vista, making it more friendly with low capacity drives like a cheap SSD, but that's just an assumption.

 

[blazorthon]

Disregard tfgyhjnmjkh's spam post that has a hidden URL for avufo . info/g . gif

You have been warned.