# Windows 8 faster boot: cold boot / hibernate combo



## qubit (Sep 12, 2011)

> Microsoft has commenced a series of blog posts on the fundamentals of its upcoming Windows 8 OS - beginning with the attention it's paying to delivering faster boot times.
> 
> The new solution to reducing boot times, represents a fusion of the traditional cold boot process, and resuming from hibernate. Currently, in a traditional shutdown, all user sessions and kernel sessions (services, devices e.t.c) are closed, resulting in a complete shutdown. With Windows 8, whilst all user sessions will be closed, the kernel session will be hibernated - and upon system boot - Microsoft claims that this will deliver an improvement of between 30 and 70 per cent in boot times.
> 
> ...



Sounds interesting and I look forward to it. 

HEXUS


----------



## Frick (Sep 12, 2011)

My system with a pretty old sata HDD (7200 RPM) takes about 1m 20s to web. When I shut it down that is, I usually use hibernate.

So it's not really an issue for me.


----------



## qubit (Sep 12, 2011)

Yeah, that is quick and it did occur to me. Tell you what, if you think that's quick, you should try Suspend mode. Dangerous, but leaves any other boot in the dust!  (Just don't use it on a laptop on batteries.  )


----------



## Bundy (Sep 12, 2011)

Interesting. I wonder if they are signaling an end to mechanical HDD support for OS. Defrags and system images need shut downs to work. Solid drives don't need the defrags so don't need the shut downs. Good move IMO.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 12, 2011)

So, correct me if im wrong....


SSD+W8(boot time) = 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 Riiiiiggggght?


----------



## Drone (Sep 12, 2011)

Never cared about boot time, frankly. PC runs 24/7 anyway. It doesn't matter to me does it take a minute or a second to boot. As long as system is stable and works I'm fine with it.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Sep 12, 2011)

Drone said:


> Never cared about boot time, frankly.



Frankly, I said the samething too until i replaced my boot drive with an SSD.

cold boot to desktop in about 10seconds.

Ive gotten so used to it, working on anything slower (especially my laptop with a 7200rpm WD scorpio black) just makes me cringe.

trust me, its a life changer


----------



## Red_Machine (Sep 12, 2011)

Try this with a top-of-the-line OCZ Revo PCIe SSD, it'll be like dividing by zero.


----------



## bostonbuddy (Sep 12, 2011)

windows 7 w/ a ssd is already pretty dang fast, from hibernation its pretty much instant, cold boot is maybe 20s.


----------



## cheesy999 (Sep 12, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Frankly, I said the samething too until i replaced my boot drive with an SSD.
> 
> cold boot to desktop in about 10seconds.
> 
> ...



10sec?

it takes about 7 seconds on mine before the bios has finished

still, i can boot in about 50 seconds from pressing the button to google chrome being opened which isn't bad for a mechanical HDD + Windows Vista


----------



## t_ski (Sep 12, 2011)

This is the video I saw last week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcH8n_oFf0c&feature=player_embedded

IIRC, it was about 8 secs from power button to the desktop, including POST.


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2011)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Frankly, I said the samething too until i replaced my boot drive with an SSD.
> 
> cold boot to desktop in about 10seconds.
> 
> ...



I dunno. Clean (XP/7) system would also boot less than a minute. Just add all that crapware and antivirus and all those myths about fast boot will evaporate. It's Microsoft Windows afterall ...


----------



## trickson (Sep 13, 2011)

Hey windows 7 was my idea what is with this windows 8 crap ?!


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> I dunno. Clean (XP/7) system would also boot less than a minute. Just add all that crapware and antivirus and all those myths about fast boot will evaporate. It's Microsoft Windows afterall ...



So.. It's Microsofts fault you're installing a lot of autostarting programs?


----------



## n-ster (Sep 13, 2011)

Personally, I disable most of the autostarting programs and enable them when I need them (ie: print spooler)


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> I dunno. Clean (XP/7) system would also boot less than a minute. Just add all that crapware and antivirus and all those myths about fast boot will evaporate. It's Microsoft Windows afterall ...



If you defrag and clean all the garbage, boot times improve a lot.

Anyway I use hibernate most of the time.


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> So.. It's Microsofts fault you're installing a lot of autostarting programs?



*I* don't so your assumption is wrong. And second, I don't think other OSs even with loaded programs are slower than windows, and third I didn't say it's their fault.




Derek12 said:


> If you defrag and clean all the garbage, boot times improve a lot.




I wasn't talking bout fragmentation (it's inevitable anyway, it just happens sooner or later). I just said that why there's garbage in the first place. I wouldn't say that nix'es are cluttered.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

the more ram a machine has the less strain, but use services.msc with blackviper.com to disable uneeded services


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> *I*
> I wasn't talking bout fragmentation (it's inevitable anyway, it just happens sooner or later). I just said that why there's garbage in the first place. I wouldn't say that nix'es are cluttered.




When you install programs = fragmentation & garbage = slow boot and responsiveness.

garbage=temp files used during software installation or update procedures that in most cases they aren't removed, mostly.

That's why it's neccessary to defrag (Mydefrag) and clean regularly (CCleaner), in my case it improved noticeabily boot times and performance in general after installing all the software & the Windows updates. Alo taking care to remove non-essential boot programs as commented before.

What do mean "nix'es"?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

Derek12 said:


> When you install programs = fragmentation & garbage = slow boot and responsiveness.
> 
> That's why it's neccessary to defrag and clean regularly, in my case it improved noticeabily boot times and performance in general.



other big notion, keeping the machine patched and updated as of OS n other software (drivers not so much a big concern)


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2011)

Derek12 said:


> That's why it's neccessary to defrag (Mydefrag) and clean regularly (CCleaner)


Nobody doubts it however the efficiency of all those cleaners is debatable 



> What do mean "nix'es"?


 unix, linux


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> Nobody doubts it however the efficiency of all those cleaners is debatable
> 
> unix, linux



Careful of Crap Cleaner, n then careful of 3rd party defrag programs, they not anybetter than Windows built in stuff


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Careful of Crap Cleaner, n then careful of 3rd party defrag programs, they not anybetter than Windows built in stuff



That's right. They won't clean all the crap plus they can delete something which they shouldn't.
The best thing is to delete restore points, turn off hibernate (if you don't use it), clean history, software distribution folder and so on. And leaving Prefetch alone is also a good idea.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> Nobody doubts it however the efficiency of all those cleaners is debatable
> 
> unix, linux




Well true, but at leats they make anything  in my case CCleaner cleaned 500  MB of temp files once 

About Linux, more or less but in my case Ubuntu took a bit more time to boot after installing & updating software but it (well ext3) has a "bult-in" real time defrag if I inderstood well 


eidairaman1 said:


> Careful of Crap Cleaner, n then careful of 3rd party defrag programs, they not anybetter than Windows built in stuff



Well, if you configure them (CCleaner) properly thery shouldn't cause trouble, in my case they didn't made anything wrong, except once CC  cleaned firefox profile but I think was my fault!

About Mydefrag, it is totally safe as it uses Windows API for defragging but with better algorithms 

IMO windows defrag utility is so-so, the best of it is the multiple passes it does when defragging, about the disk cleaner, in my experience didn't clean but memory dumps and IE cache lol





Drone said:


> That's right. They won't clean all the crap plus they can delete something which they shouldn't.
> The best thing is to delete restore points, turn off hibernate (if you don't use it), clean history, software distribution folder and so on. And leaving Prefetch alone is also a good idea.



Well they aren't 100% effective but I don't think they could delete something they shouldn't, at least CCleaner is extremely configurable and you can select what do you want to clean and what don't.
About the restore points, that's a good point, I always do that 

Also I move the pagefile to another partition, and I don't know if with hiberfil is possible


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> That's right. They won't clean all the crap plus they can delete something which they shouldn't.
> The best thing is to delete restore points, turn off hibernate (if you don't use it), clean history, software distribution folder and so on. And leaving Prefetch alone is also a good idea.




Paging file dont need tuning if you have tons of ram


----------



## Drone (Sep 13, 2011)

Derek12 said:


> Well true, but at leats they make anything  in my case CCleaner cleaned 500  MB of temp files once
> 
> About Linux, more or less but in my case Ubuntu took more time to boot after installing & updating software but it (well ext3) has a "bult-in" real time defrag if I inderstood well


Yes, I know ccleaner can even clean up to 15GB for people who never cleaned their history lol. Especially if they use Google Chrome. A lot of cached data ... But I prefer to it with one click from browser itself. I've seen slow ubuntu tho it got fast again after installing updates.  



> IMO windows defrag utility is so-so, the best of it is the multiple passes it does when defragging, about the disk cleaner, in my experience didn't clean but memory dumps and IE cache lol





eidairaman1 said:


> Paging file dont need tuning if you have tons of ram



Defragmenters won't defrag pagefile anyway. The best thing is to delete pagefile (when it's fragmented) booting from live cd time after time and recreate it.


----------



## xBruce88x (Sep 13, 2011)

My comp always seems to run unstable after resuming fron standby. It acts like its outta ram then bluescreens and restarts. This actually caused some issues with directx files that were in use and now im probably gonna have to reinstall and just not use standby or hibernate. Ill probably need to run a disc scan too. This is with win7

Yet it works fine on my ibm laptop with xp sp3 and an old 40gb pata with 1.5gb ram


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 13, 2011)

As it stands right now, Im not getting Windows 8 at all. I dont like what they're doing to it. Putting the ribbon in explorer. Hate it. Having that new interface that basically makes you turn your desktop PC into a tablet. Hate it. 

Ill pass.


----------



## Derek12 (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> Yes, I know ccleaner can even clean up to 15GB for people who never cleaned their history lol. Especially if they use Google Chrome. A lot of cached data ... But I prefer to it with one click from browser itself. I've seen slow ubuntu tho it got fast again after installing updates.




Well in my case was temp files I think from installing Office 2007 lol

About Ubuntu, well I will try the last version


----------



## cheesy999 (Sep 13, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> As it stands right now, Im not getting Windows 8 at all. I dont like what they're doing to it. Putting the ribbon in explorer. Hate it. Having that new interface that basically makes you turn your desktop PC into a tablet. Hate it.
> 
> Ill pass.



A place i spend a lot of time at has recently upgraded from word 2003 to 2010, at first i thought it was worse,2 weeks later however now i've got used to the controls i can see why they did it

the ribbon interface is really good when you get use to it, i can actually do things really quickly that used to take a while, and i've discovered features i didn't even know word had

I actually have got vista to the point where it boots at the same rate as ubuntu and a lot of other linux distro's

it's not an OS problem, is people loading their PC up with crap


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> As it stands right now, Im not getting Windows 8 at all. I dont like what they're doing to it. Putting the ribbon in explorer. Hate it. Having that new interface that basically makes you turn your desktop PC into a tablet. Hate it.
> 
> Ill pass.



They're showing desktop use right now here.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't see any point to this at all.  If you want a faster boot, hybernate the system.  All this does is log you off first, then hybernates, big freaking deal.  Just leave me logged in and it goes even faster!



Bundy said:


> Interesting. I wonder if they are signaling an end to mechanical HDD support for OS. Defrags and system images need shut downs to work. Solid drives don't need the defrags so don't need the shut downs. Good move IMO.



The traditional shutdown system is still in the OS for things that require true shutdowns.  Otherwise installing programs and drivers and stuff that required a shutdown wouldn't work.

I think this is really confusing people, especially when they are comparing it to the Win7 true shutdown and cold boot.  They are comparing a Cold Boot to a Hybernation and trying to pass it off as the same thing.



Frick said:


> They're showing desktop use right now here.



I like how he points out that they added an "Up" button to explorer.  Yeah, they removed it after XP just to put it back in as a feature in 8 after people bitched about it being gone from Vista and Win7.  Next they are going to completely remove the start button for a few versions then add it back in and talk about how amazing it is!


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

Multiple taskbars. At least that is a good thing.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> They're showing desktop use right now here.



Watched 20 seconds of it and I already hate it more.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> Multiple taskbars. At least that is a good thing.



Yeah, but I already do that with Ultramon(samething with the wallpaper).  In fact, did Microsoft buy Ultramon and just integrated it into their OS?


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Watched 20 seconds of it and I already hate it more.



Yeah it wasn't as much of desktop view as I thought it would be. But it seems like it's not gimped, everything pretty much looks like Win7.

Also, 20 seconds of video is a lot to go on. 



newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, but I already do that with Ultramon(samething with the wallpaper).  In fact, did Microsoft buy Ultramon and just integrated it into their OS?



Me too but it's nice to not have to buy another program to do it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

Drone said:


> Yes, I know ccleaner can even clean up to 15GB for people who never cleaned their history lol. Especially if they use Google Chrome. A lot of cached data ... But I prefer to it with one click from browser itself. I've seen slow ubuntu tho it got fast again after installing updates.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is there anyway of verifying your last statement, cuz ive had the paging file moved to another partition which was completely paging, n defragged it just fine.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 13, 2011)

Why the hell does anyone want this OS on their desktop? They're trying ot turn out desktops into tablet pc's. If I wanted a tablet, id just buy one.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Why the hell does anyone want this OS on their desktop? They're trying ot turn out desktops into tablet pc's. If I wanted a tablet, id just buy one.



They are pretty much only demoing tablet stuff. The short glimpses of desktop we see looks just like Windows 7.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 13, 2011)

From what I understand reading about Windows 8 on various websites, its not just for tablets, for this touch screen stuff, but for the desktop as well. Which is really pointless IMO.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 13, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> From what I understand reading about Windows 8 on various websites, its not just for tablets, for this touch screen stuff, but for the desktop as well. Which is really pointless IMO.



Not really, it still has all the traditional Windows experience.  However, they've just included the tablet stuff in the Desktop versions for people that like that experience better.  It is like an extension of Media Center that includes programs as well now.  I don't personally use Media Center, I don't like it, but I know a lot of people that do use and like it.  I'm not going to not use the OS because I don't like one feature that is optional to use anyway.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Sep 13, 2011)




----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> Yeah it wasn't as much of desktop view as I thought it would be. But it seems like it's not gimped, everything pretty much looks like Win7.
> 
> Also, 20 seconds of video is a lot to go on.



Its enough for me. Granted not for most people. Doesnt take long for me to look or listen to something for me to gauge whether or not I will like something. 



newtekie1 said:


> Not really, it still has all the traditional Windows experience.  However, they've just included the tablet stuff in the Desktop versions for people that like that experience better.  It is like an extension of Media Center that includes programs as well now.  I don't personally use Media Center, I don't like it, but I know a lot of people that do use and like it.  I'm not going to not use the OS because I don't like one feature that is optional to use anyway.



If its an optional install then I could deal with that. If I can cut it out using a n/vlite type program then thats even better. 

Ive stopped watching the keynote so I dont know for sure, but before anything was really official or announced for this OS officially, rumors were flying around that Win8 would be heavily cloud based. How true is that?


----------



## cheesy999 (Sep 13, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Ive stopped watching the keynote so I dont know for sure, but before anything was really official or announced for this OS officially, rumors were flying around that Win8 would be heavily cloud based. How true is that?



i'd imagine it has good cloud support but when you look at the internet connection of people worldwide i'd imagine it would be completely optional, otherwise they've lost 70% of their customers


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Ive stopped watching the keynote so I dont know for sure, but before anything was really official or announced for this OS officially, rumors were flying around that Win8 would be heavily cloud based. How true is that?



It will be easy to add the possibility to share stuff with others through social media and whatnot. So yes, if you're into that sort of thing.

And I just read the anand article and it seems like this metro thing goes deeper than I thought. But then everything we see now is completely design for tablets as tablets will be the primary target, so that could very well change. Somehow I can't see them alienate everyone with a mouse/keyboard, those are their main customers. We'll see.


----------



## CyberDruid (Sep 13, 2011)

Seems to me that the main issue with Windows is too many features...it's a scattergun approach of "pleasing everybody" that ends up pleasing very few entirely. Adds to the ever expanding bloat of the installation. What I want is a slim OS that does just the things I need it to do. Not a butt load of features aimed at other users that I won't ever use.

And is it productive to roll out a new OS before the last OS is even fully adopted? Do we even need a Windows 8 yet? That right there would keep me on Vista another year or two...as expensive as these Windows Installation Disks are I am not interested in buying one every year.


----------



## Frick (Sep 13, 2011)

CyberDruid said:


> Seems to me that the main issue with Windows is too many features...it's a scattergun approach of "pleasing everybody" that ends up pleasing very few entirely. Adds to the ever expanding bloat of the installation. What I want is a slim OS that does just the things I need it to do. Not a butt load of features aimed at other users that I won't ever use.



Most people just want things to work from the start. You can always slipstream your discs. 



> And is it productive to roll out a new OS before the last OS is even fully adopted? Do we even need a Windows 8 yet? That right there would keep me on Vista another year or two...as expensive as these Windows Installation Disks are I am not interested in buying one every year.



If MS want to get in the tablet race they could use a new OS right about last year. For desktops it's a resounding no, but tablets is the target with this one.


----------



## cheesy999 (Sep 13, 2011)

Frick said:


> Most people just want things to work from the start. You can always slipstream your discs.
> 
> 
> 
> If MS want to get in the tablet race they could use a new OS right about last year. For desktops it's a resounding no, but tablets is the target with this one.



What windows 8 will do it make those tablets that transform into laptops (http://www.asus.com/Eee/Eee_Pad/Eee_Pad_Transformer_TF101/ etc), go from good, to amazing, imagine if i could just swap between andriod tablet and full windows whenever i needed too, windows 8 for work, android for fun


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 13, 2011)

CyberDruid said:


> And is it productive to roll out a new OS before the last OS is even fully adopted? Do we even need a Windows 8 yet? That right there would keep me on Vista another year or two...as expensive as these Windows Installation Disks are I am not interested in buying one every year.



Win8 isn't expected until next year at the earliest, that is a good 3 years.  If you haven't adopted Win7 by then we aren't waiting for you.  I certainly don't want another Win XP or Win 98, where people got so used to them because nothing new came out in a long enough time that no one wanted to change once something new finally did come out.  I'm perfectly fine with a 3-4 year developement cycle between OSes.  And I really don't mind paying the ~$100 to move to the new OS every 3-4 years either.  I put more than that into hardware in a month, I can put it into software every few years.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 13, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Win8 isn't expected until next year at the earliest, that is a good 3 years.  If you haven't adopted Win7 by then we aren't waiting for you.  I certainly don't want another Win XP or Win 98, where people got so used to them because nothing new came out in a long enough time that no one wanted to change once something new finally did come out.  I'm perfectly fine with a 3-4 year developement cycle between OSes.  And I really don't mind paying the ~$100 to move to the new OS every 3-4 years either.  I put more than that into hardware in a month, I can put it into software every few years.



major problem is upgrade transition between windows, to tell u the truth the Code should be the same as Win 7 pretty much.


----------



## Kreij (Sep 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> And I really don't mind paying the ~$100 to move to the new OS every 3-4 years either. I put more than that into hardware in a month, I can put it into software every few years.



I don't either as long as there is a compelling reason to do so.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Sep 14, 2011)

Kreij said:


> I don't either as long as there is a compelling reason to do so.



Take example Windows Vista to 7 n ME to XP


----------



## Kreij (Sep 14, 2011)

I never had any problems with Vista. I upgraded to 7 only because I knew that MS was bailing on it because of the bad rap it got due to the crap drivers available.

Windows ME was an abomination that we really should try not to mention ... ever again ... in any context ... or someone may have flashbacks and take a hostage.
Windows XP (pre-SP1 and 2) was just painful (however not quite the abomination that was ME)


----------



## qubit (Sep 14, 2011)

Kreij said:


> I never had any problems with Vista. I upgraded to 7 only because I knew that MS was bailing on it because of the bad rap it got due to the crap drivers available.
> 
> Windows ME was an abomination that we really should try not to mention ... ever again ... in any context ... or someone may have flashbacks and take a hostage.
> *Windows XP (pre-SP1 and 2) was just painful (however not quite the abomination that was ME)*



That's interesting. I ran XP since it came out and I always found it ok. It was kinda slow on the hardware of the day (at least on my low end stuff) but I always found it to be broadly stable and well behaved. But yes, it could play up at times.

Of course, it all depends on what kinds of usage you put your PC through and mine was distinctly average, lol. I have to say that since I moved to 7, I noticed how quirks and glitches I'd seen with XP and had grown to view as "normal" were actually absent. In fact, I've found 7 to be so stable, that if someone has stability problems or other issues with a 7 rig, first thing I suspect is third party software or hardware and the OS comes a distant third.

Microsoft really has come a long way from the unstable garbage of a decade ago.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 14, 2011)

eidairaman1 said:


> Take example Windows Vista to 7 n ME to XP



Honestly, for a normal user, I see no reason to move away from Vista.  Since SP2(and partly SP1) it has been a very good OS, especially now that hardware manufacturers have had time to get proper driver support out.  I would say XP users have a compelling reason to move to something newer though.


----------



## qubit (Sep 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Honestly, for a normal user, I see no reason to move away from Vista.  Since SP2(and partly SP1) it has been a very good OS, especially now that hardware manufacturers have had time to get proper driver support out.  I would say XP users have a compelling reason to move to something newer though.



While I agree Vista has worked well since SP2, I think its still worth having 7 for the following reasons:

- Product support. It's Microsoft's current OS and Vista is not being sold any more, so support will tend to be that much better for 7 and the difference only increases with time
- Better security
- 7's GUI is tangibly faster and snappier than Vista's, especially on lower end PCs
- The GUI has some nice improvements over Vista. Sure, not worth upgrading just for this, but it all helps
- General under the hood improvements. One may not realize them explicitely, but they are still providing a benefit
- Uses less RAM. However, with the retrofit of DX11 onto Vista, I don't know if that's still true


----------



## Kreij (Sep 14, 2011)

To any Microsoft HR people who might be reading this and looking for PR people ...


> Windows 8 is going to usher in a new era of immersive, one-touch computing experience that not only the user but the whole family can gather to enjoy in a way not see since the discovery of fire. With an interface that goes beyond intuitive and opens the realm of thought based ingenuity, people will no longer have to diverge themselves from their daily routines to use their computers to their maximal potential. With a glance and a touch, Windows 8 will take away from the mundane exercise of mouse clicking to the full power of the cloud that will wrap you in the effervecent purity of going beyond your dreams to the fullfilment of all life has to offer in the digital age and beyond.



Can I has job?


----------



## qubit (Sep 14, 2011)

Kreij, was that a real quote, or you made that up with your usual humour?! 

It sounds like marketing drivel worthy of a Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.


----------



## Kreij (Sep 14, 2011)

I made it up. You should know me by now Q. lol

Read it slowly ... what does it tell you about Windows 8?


----------



## qubit (Sep 14, 2011)

Kreij said:


> I made it up. You should know me by now Q. lol



Yeah, I should.  It was awesome.


----------



## Kreij (Sep 14, 2011)

Qubit ... Read what you wrote defending Window 7 and then read my Windows 8 PR piece again.
Did either of us list any substantial, meaningful *documented facts* that someone could point to in an argument for the OS?

Just wondering? rofl


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> While I agree Vista has worked well since SP2, I think its still worth having 7 for the following reasons:
> 
> - Product support. It's Microsoft's current OS and Vista is not being sold any more, so support will tend to be that much better for 7 and the difference only increases with time
> - Better security
> ...



- I don't really agree with better.  Yes, Win7 is set to be supported by Microsoft through 2015, Vista will be supported 24 months after the next service pack, and with SP3 supposidly coming in 2012 that puts it at 2014.  So if they already have Vista, they might as well stick with it until 8 comes out and get the benefit of even longer support than Win7.  And any new software that works on Win7 will work on Vista since they are essentially the exact same core.
- Security isn't really any better with Vista and Win7.
- For normal users the minor GUI improvements won't be noticeable.
- The "under the hood" improvements won't be noticed by a normal users either, so it is useless to them.
- 4GB of RAM is $25 right now, and that is all you need to run Vista(actually it runs just fine on 2GB), so again normal users aren't affected by the minor memory use improvement.


----------

