A closer look at just how badly Windows 8.x is failing

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by KeyPer4Life, May 10, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KeyPer4Life

    KeyPer4Life Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Posts:
    974
  2. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    90% of everything bad posted about Windows 8.1 are from haters, and not based on any real substance whatsoever.

    Windows 8.1x is the fastest, lightest, and most stable operating system Microsoft has ever developed. It rivals some Linux distros in size, speed, and efficiency. Gaming wise, there is 'noticeably' less stutter, and slowdowns in games under 8.1x which many gamers prefer now as a result, especially in modern DX11 games. Windows 8.1x is like a hardware upgrade for computers. My wifes older WindowsXP laptop felt so much better under 8.1x that she asked me if I 'upgraded' it..

    Stability wise, 8.1x is unmatched by any OS. In 8 months of running 8.1x on 6 machines here we have not registered a single crash, lockup, or required reboot. My security system server has a current uptime of SIX WEEKS under 8.1, and the best I could do under Windows7 was 6 DAYS(max) before it would crash, bluescreen, or spike CPU. Anyone using XP is really just a stubborn luddite. I feel bad for folks ignoring Windows 8.1x, it's that much improved that they are simply hurting themselves over this stubbornness. With Classic Shell installed, you basically get a 'far superior' version of Windows7.. Why not take advantage of that? It makes no sense to me.
     
  3. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
  4. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
  5. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,050
    Location:
    USA
    Agreed. The best OS I have ever run. Let the haters miss out.
     
  6. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    it's been very stable and fast for me.
    faster than any Linux distros i've tried save perhaps those running XFCE.

    though I admit coupling a tablet interface in a desktop environment was I mistake I think which probably cost them quite a few sales..
    one that Microsoft has been fixing slowly in the last updates.

    personally, I would not go back to any previous Windows OSes at this point.
    I been very happy with Windows 8/8.1
     
  7. Veeshush

    Veeshush Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Posts:
    643
    I think a lot of it is just decline of people buying new computers, because if they've already got a Vista/Win7 machine chances are their hardware is good enough for what they use it for. That, and the rise of tablets.

    If I used something like Classic Shell and finally decided to grab an SSD- I'd give Win8 a go. I'd just hope that after I got Win8 they wouldn't pump out "Windows 9" or the like for a few more years.
     
  8. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    that makes sense.
    the days are long gone where you could buy a new computer every 6 months and feel the performance boost.
    all the young folks these days go for smartphone or tablets.

    i'm ok with having to pay for a new OS every 3 years or so.
     
  9. DoctorPC

    DoctorPC Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Posts:
    813
    Windows 8.1x is quite a bit faster than most Distros these days, and smaller than some like KDE. Which I find pretty remarkable. I haven't seen the metro interface in any Windows 8.1x box I work on, we basically eliminate it, and the OS is absolutely fantastic.

    These haters are so fixated on 'numbers' as to proving 8.1 is bad, however none.. NONE OF THEM have offered up any real examples or evidence of 8.1 being bad in any way. That's something few tend to acknowledge, yet they keep talking 'numbers' saying 'numbers don't lie'.. That logic is ridiculous, and I wonder if it's regional logic - uniquely American? Not sure.. Sales seldom, if ever is a bellweather for quality.. My dinning room table is made by a tablemaker that sells less than 100 tables a year, that must mean it sucks compared to IKEA right?? Baffling logic.
     
  10. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,187
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    Hybrid boot of Win8 own Win7 just by itself,

    Not adding its built-in security, low resources usage (no aero crap) and other featurrs that were improved since Win7
     
  11. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    Note that the OP and the linked article don't say Windows 8 is a bad OS, only that it has been less successful in terms of sales. Assuming the numbers are accurate what they mean is still open to interpretation. I beta tested Windows Vista and switched to it immediately when it was released because I felt it was superior to XP, but Vista came to be perceived by the public as a failure because of poor marketing and other factors. I feel the situation with Windows 8 is similar in that it improves on Windows 7 technically, but has been sabotaged by the Start Screen/Metro apps issues. Windows 8.1 Update 1 turns things around significantly, but we'll have to see if public perception will change or if it's going to require a fresh start with Windows 9.
     
  12. ams963

    ams963 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Posts:
    5,965
    Location:
    Parallel Universe
    Couldn't agree more.:thumb:
     
  13. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,069
    Me too. After half a year of Windows 8, I could hardly go back to 7.
     
  14. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,698
    If you had crashes with Windows 7 every six days, it's you who had the problem - and probably caused it.
    And the fact windows 8 accidentally fixes it makes no difference.

    Mrk, from 2001 till 2014, Windows crashes:
    XP - 2 bsod, due to gpu overheating
    7 - a few bsod, because of gpu drivers

    Speed wise, same argument, taking firefox start time as an example:
    XP - 1-2 seconds
    7 - 1-2 seconds
    8 - 1-2 seconds

    Boot time, same thing.

    Big advantage 7 > XP - Proper 64-bit support.
    Big advantage 8 > 7 - Nothing at all.

    A few things under the hood, who cares.
    GUI - disaster. Just try deleting a wireless access point, and see what happens.

    Mrk
     
  15. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,187
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    even if you pay i will not go back ^^

    seriously ? i am not sure if you enabled and tried hybrid boot (aka Fast Boot)
     
  16. oliverjia

    oliverjia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Posts:
    1,517
    I started running Win8/8.1/8.1Update1 the day they were out.
    A few things at least: native support for opening ISO files, improved security features, more efficient memory management, etc.
    I wouldn't go back to Win7 at this time point.
     
  17. Wroll

    Wroll Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Posts:
    549
    Location:
    Italy
    To update from 8.1 to 8.1 update 1 you need to download 800+ mb. How is KDE bigger than 8.1 when Kubuntu install image has 1 gb?
     
  18. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    Finally, someone who actually talks from experience and not from MS propaganda. I did start-up tests, app start-up time tests and various other benchmarks (mostly gaming related) on my computer and came to the same conclusion. There is no visible difference between 7 and 8.1 (and XP for that matter). All three OS are doing their job as they should and that means MS did a good job with all of them from this point of view (I'm not talking GUI here). Choosing one of them based on speed criteria is simply a subjective choice, without any base in reality.
     
  19. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,187
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    Fast Boot must be enabled (if not by default) and doesn't work if you restart; it is only valid if you boot after a shut down made via metro menu and not by the win8.1 desktop start icon.
     
  20. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    5,069
    I did not find Windows 8 to start any faster then 7 either (I have fast boot disabled). But I did notice that it shuts down faster than 7.
     
  21. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    2,187
    Location:
    in a remote land :)
    if disabled it is indeed almost the same boot time
     
  22. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
    On my Machines and Setups,

    -Windows 8.1 runs slightly smoother than Windows 7.
    -Windows 8.1 runs slightly faster than Windows 7.

    Overall, I prefer Windows 8.1 :thumb: over Windows 7.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2014
  23. Nebulus

    Nebulus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,582
    Location:
    European Union
    I wasn't talking about Fast Boot, because it is something I don't normally use...

    That's what I am talking about! :thumb: Testing on your own setup and make a choice that is specific to your system configuration!
     
  24. Banzi

    Banzi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Posts:
    368
    Location:
    Scotland
    I'm one of the so called luddites that had issues with Win 8x although they were mostly visual issues there were a few that were caused by the OS itself, things like the metro live tiles just deciding to stop working, issues with fast boot on dual boot systems where Win 8x put a dirty bit on the drives so when you booted back into Win 7 it wanted to run chkdsk all the time saying the drives were corrupted, services.msc losing all text in the description colum, the store corruptions that take a run of DSIM to fix & even then it 50-50 if it can fix it, the fact Win 8.1 makes out the windows account is the only way to login & hides the local account options, I could go on. Despite those issues I have been running Win 8.1 on my main system for months now.

    I have used Win 8x since it came out on both physical systems & in VM's & being honest there not that much difference in speed between them, the desktop is maybe a few milliseconds faster than Win 7 due to aero being removed, most benchmarks put them pretty much on equal footing speed wise, I'm also a hardcore gamer & to me there not much change speed wise there either, some games are very very slightly smoother on Win 8x (Battlefield 4) while others are smoother on Win 7 (Bioshock Infinite, Borderlands 2, Outlast, Dishonoured etc) Remember most gamers that use Steam are still on Win 7, App startup speeds are the same on my systems, browsers load pages at the same speed etc.

    We are all entitled to our opinions, some love Win 8x while others hate it, the haters feelings & opinions are just as valid as the folk that love the OS. I respect those that like it or hate it & unlike DoctorPC don't go around slagging off & insulting those that have issues with Win 8x or just don't like it

    BTW Doc as has been pointed out to you before, a fresh clean install of any OS with no apps installed is faster than a well used OS install that has loads of apps & startup items, something you with all your qualifications should know by now :)
     
  25. arsenaloyal

    arsenaloyal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    507
    The reason for Windows 8's initial failure I believe was the lack of a start menu.Now with the start menu coming back (hopefully) it would signal a revival in the sales of 8.1
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.