Early Windows 8 build leaks

So is this ME 3.0 or are they actually going to deal with performance issues? I mean if they gut 32bit a bit more leave that for the virtual PC mode and focus on making windose leaner/faster /better it would be nice.

Me 3.0? Stop using a Celeron or P4 to run current software. :p

Originally posted by NeoandGeo:

---

Me 3.0? Stop using a Celeron or P4 to run current software. :p

---

Vista was ME 2.0 FYI. :P

And a 2 core P4 runs XP and win7 even vista well enough the sad thing is a newer 4 core with DDR 2 or DD3 ramm show little improvement in over all performance. Windose is still slow and stuttery like a savant.

Sounds like a Zippy issued to me. I have flawless performance across a wide variety of computers for XP/Vista/7.

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Originally posted by NeoandGeo:

---

Me 3.0? Stop using a Celeron or P4 to run current software. :p

---

Vista was ME 2.0 FYI. :P

And a 2 core P4 runs XP and win7 even vista well enough the sad thing is a newer 4 core with DDR 2 or DD3 ramm show little improvement in over all performance. Windose is still slow and stuttery like a savant.

---

Vista was a dog out of the gate but so was XP before it. But Vista SP1/2 is a very usable and stable OS and would never put it in the same category as Windows ME

As far as your performance comparison to a dual core P4 class processor vs a quad I have to wonder what you are running on it to say that a quad does not run faster. Maybe a slow 5400RPM Hard Drive? Low Memory? What? Because while Windows 7 performs admirably on a dual core p4 class processor and even decent on a single core processor there is a very noticeable difference when jumping to a quad core. Of course if you are only using the internet or some basic apps as a test then you are not going to notice. The reason being is those apps generally do not require high performance and the little tasks they need to run are processed and calculated before the processor can be at full speed even. Try something a bit more intense like a 3D game or some video rendering. Or try running many applications at one time instead of just a couple. There you will notice the difference. Of course RAM plays a role too just like it has in all computing past and present. Run Quad Core with only 2GB and you may run out of Ram to effectively multi-task.

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Windose is still slow and stuttery like a savant.

---

i dont know about your pc setup but i will say windows runs Total War Shogun2 faster then any flavor of linux/unix you can find. i'll put $5 on that.

Ya some programs run great some not so much and windose itself is wishy washy, explorer likes crashing alot....I guess a bad install, going to redo win7 and install XP mode since I can not get it to install XP mode right now >>

PS:Zippy haz issues :P

Originally posted by NeoandGeo:

---

Sounds like a Zippy issued to me. I have flawless performance across a wide variety of computers for XP/Vista/7.

---

Vista was crap...and by the time there was a patch that made it stable enough to use as a basic email/internet device, Windows 7 was already commonplace. Windows 7 is not perfect, in fact it still has some very serious issues if you don't stick to tasks that you can do with a cell phone, but it is way better than Vista.

As for windows 8, I am not expecting much...Microsoft alternates between bad OSs (like XP and windows 7) and terrible OSs (Like ME and Vista). Then again, we might get lucky...maybe they consider windows 7 mobile to be their terrible OS, and they can release windows 8 in a somewhat functional form!

Windows XP has always been a very good OS (although its a bit of swish cheese from a security point of view), which is why its still on so many systems. Vista on the other hand, virtually every machine ive seen with vista has eventually gone back to xp and those that didnt have now moved onto 7 instead.

Vista was stable, eventually. Pre RC used to eat its self if let un upgraded for more than 8 months on most systems. SP1 fixed this but still had a few issues and by SP2 they had worked out most of the kinks. Problem was largely the cores performance, but it was sooo slow to boot and ate ram like it was made out of chocolate cakes.

7 on the other hand runs as well on a system with 512mb as xp does as long as you can build the drivers on, stick a gig in an 7 thrashes xp on the same system.

Windows 8 wont be much more detached from 7, largely most of this update will be making the kernel run with arm and i dont see many new features appear, other than better support on tablets.

Any running SP1 of Windows 7 and having slowness issues, i dont know what your configuring or installing but it always sings for me.

Install
- Turn of windows search (unless required)
- Pre SP1 i got better performance from my disks with write cache buffering turned off, however in SP1 the speed increase with it turned off is not as much and it just sounds like it thrashes the disk more. I've talked to many people with SP1, everyone i talk to with a variety of different controllers reported increased disk performance after sp1 went on.
- Turn of UAC, it was a good idea, but largely causes far more problems than its worth.
- Ensure all un required boot programs are removed.
- Ensure 1GB for x86 (will work with 512mb, but big improvement at 1gb mark), although x64 will work with less i would advise only installing when you have 3/4gig plus or you wont see real gain from x86
- Low on memory, if you have more than one hard disk set the page file to the second drive, partition to one drive to create two doesn't apply here, its physical only, set the page file to the second drive.
- Finally this doesnt always apply as the drive catalogue is pretty good for windows 7, but double check your chipset drives, generic drives can really rather seriously drag system performance.

If you have the money stick in a 32 - 64gb SSD drive 4GIG or more ram and install x64 to that, these days largely the bottle neck is the data accusation / commit speed of the disks.

I SAY magnetic medium has almost had its day, ok use a normal drive for large file storage for now, but hell when you can ebay a 64gb 300 meg a second drive for £80 its almost practical.

I give all customers now the option to have the boot drive from SSD for an extra £100, most people are to tight to spend the cash, the ones that do realise it was well worth the investment.

As a final thought if you like, it makes me wonder what the public view will be when they buy a windows 8 tablet and it loads like lightening due to the SSD and then install windows 8 on a desktop pc with a classic hard disk, but a chip thats far more powerful than the tablet. Look to the novice user, who doesnt really put load on the cpu the tablets going to be far far faster due to the solid state drive (assuming that dont try using class1 memory or something stupid). Thing is people who dont understand computers just see it as speed, people who know how they work know the desktop would have far more power, but under the right conditions the end user would see the tablet as quicker.

May make for some interesting support questions...

I wonder if they will still require windows search to be turned on just to use the f**king media center...a good media center has lots of media, and a system with lots of media makes windows search come to a crawl. Too bad...it worked really well on my laptop (because I didn't have any media to play).

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

I wonder if they will still require windows search to be turned on just to use the f**king media center...a good media center has lots of media, and a system with lots of media makes windows search come to a crawl. Too bad...it worked really well on my laptop (because I didn't have any media to play).

---

You turn off windows search and use media browser (wmc plugin) instead ;) like everyone else does problem solved ;)

Never had a single serious problem with either my own XP or Win 7 and my Mrs loves her Vista Home basic laptop.

when i found out this news i went to pirate bay and got it. not much to see now, however the system only uses about 372MB RAM.

lol i wonder if the win7 install on any memory level patch still works for install.

I think the record for windows 7 was installing on 28meg 286 rig if memory serves.

From what I've read and seen, this "Windows 8" release just installs an unreleased build of Windows 7 Enterprise.

I have lost most of my faith in anything Mike Row$oft can produce, I currently dual boot win7 and snow leopard (hackintosh), but I mainly stick with osx, it's not 100% functional and it still outperforms windows, so I don't expect the next installment to be much better!