The Windows 8 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
18,022
Location
London & Singapore
Well this was my point as the video cut away during initialisation. :p

That wouldn't have been the case because those background services would have already been initialised. The resume from hibernation would have restored them to their previous state.

The only software that is reinitialised by Win8's "fast startup" hibernation is device drivers.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
11 Aug 2004
Posts
1,814
Location
London
Not as impressive as watching Chrome OS or Joli OS boot.

I run Joli OS on my laptops and have zero desire for an SSD :D

They cant be quicker? On another site i just see someone say Chrome OS takes about 40 seconds...
But the actual loading of Win 8 was about 1 - 2 seconds in that vid :o The rest was the EMFI/BIOS post which has nothing to do with Windows.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Posts
6,972
Location
London
They cant be quicker? On another site i just see someone say Chrome OS takes about 40 seconds...
But the actual loading of Win 8 was about 1 - 2 seconds in that vid :o The rest was the EMFI/BIOS post which has nothing to do with Windows.

Vanilla hardware and Chrome OS/Joli OS fly together - The drivers initialise super quick.. I might as well install bootchart and see what the true picture is like.

WRT Win 8 - Yes 1-2 seconds but it's not full loaded ;)
 
Associate
OP
Joined
11 Aug 2004
Posts
1,814
Location
London
Yes 1-2 seconds but it's not full loaded ;)

What makes you think that? In the comments on the blog the guy mentioned that Metro UI and the Desktop are exactly the same for boot times, so it didn't load quicker because it was Metro that was booted in to.

Anyway Chrome OS is about as simple as you get for an OS :p It's probably worse than comparing Android to Windows. Having a full OS load in no more than 2 secs is just crazy.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Posts
6,972
Location
London
What makes you think that? In the comments on the blog the guy mentioned that Metro UI and the Desktop are exactly the same for boot times, so it didn't load quicker because it was Metro that was booted in to.

Anyway Chrome OS is about as simple as you get for an OS :p It's probably worse than comparing Android to Windows. Having a full OS load in no more than 2 secs is just crazy.

Sorry I'm a Joli OS user :p Let's not troll a windows vs linux thing here as I'm not interested

WRT Win 8 - Does Metro UI/Desktop loading in 2 seconds imply a fully functional OS ? :rolleyes: Come on get with the program mate
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Oct 2006
Posts
6,972
Location
London
Well no one will know for sure until the BETA. But even if it continued to load i doubt it's going to add more than a few seconds.

As with all operating systems, the issue being knowing when the OS has completed boot ... It's more or less cheating or fooling the consumer by booting a compiled version of the GUI first.

Here's a chart of the boot process for my Joli OS laptop as an example - No SSD, crappy old pentium dual core ...

http://imageshack.us/f/823/bg45jolicloudrobby20110.png/

Key milestones ...

9.5seconds - samba fileserver and sshd are already up
14seconds - the OS core has booted
17seconds - wireless network is up
23seconds - Login screen presented (machine is fully booted right ?)
28seconds -> 1 minute Enter uid/pwd and am logging in to my desktop
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Posts
2,867
Location
~/
^ So by the look of it Windows 8 boots much faster than Joli OS.

And Android is painfully slow at booting. Hell, my Macbook (running 10.5.8) boots much faster than my HTC desire, and Windows 7 isn't far off. IIRC iOS isn't much better than Android.

p.s. this is on a 2Ghz C2D and 5400rpm HDD, no doubt a new system with SSD would be even quicker.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
29 May 2009
Posts
2,085
I dont find anything wrong with windows 7, why are they bothering updating it? glad i didnt have to spend money on my os. Would have been annoyed they are making changes so soon.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
I wonder if it will be MacOX Lion. As in pay about 20 to 30 quid and download and update. I just bought Windows 7 retail for 95 quid and would appreciate a download update and not have to pay 130 for a new retail DVD which is just an interface update.

Aside from what has already been mentioned you are paying £30 a year to download the latest update whereas instead with windows you pay £90 (if you are unlucky, th price can range from around £40-70) every 2-3 years. Not really much difference in overall cost. Then add in the yearly service packs and that means you get 3 updates (at least) for you money.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
18,022
Location
London & Singapore
I dont find anything wrong with windows 7, why are they bothering updating it? glad i didnt have to spend money on my os. Would have been annoyed they are making changes so soon.

What?

Windows 7 is cheaper than an Xbox Live subscription.

By the time W8 is out, you'll have got 3 years of use out of W7. ~£60 / 3 years = £20/year.

Seems awesomely good value to me?
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
I dont find anything wrong with windows 7, why are they bothering updating it? glad i didnt have to spend money on my os. Would have been annoyed they are making changes so soon.

because otherwise it would go stale? People had nothing wrong with their Win 3.1 installs yet MS still updated it...:confused:

Whatever, you don't need to buy it or update from win 7 if you don't want to for at least 10 years probably so just think of it as new software for new computer buyers. Most licences come from new computers rather than people upgrading existing computers.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Posts
2,867
Location
~/
I wonder if it will be MacOX Lion. As in pay about 20 to 30 quid and download and update.

I hope not as OS updates rarely work as well as a clean install. Plus OS X Lion is more like a service pack then a new OS (OS X Leopard and Snow Leopard were arguably the last properly new Mac operating systems, and IIRC they require clean installations from a DVD).


I just bought Windows 7 retail for 95 quid and would appreciate a download update and not have to pay 130 for a new retail DVD

You don't have to, just upgrade when/if you want. I'm still running OS X Leopard despite it being two releases old, because it does exactly what I want and I don't see the point in upgrading. Just upgrade when you want to, not when Microsoft wants you to. Also £130 is good value considering how much people use OSs (although admittedly bad value compared to OS X, but then you'd expect Microsoft to be more expensive as there a software company).

which is just an interface update.

Well thank god Windows 8 is so, so much more then just an interface update.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
11 Aug 2004
Posts
1,814
Location
London
Also £130 is good value considering how much people use OSs (although admittedly bad value compared to OS X, but then you'd expect Microsoft to be more expensive as there a software company).

Win 7 Premium sells for about £60 on average. Then you usually get around 3 years of use until a new OS from MS is out. And you get the service packs free. In the same 3 year time frame that works out cheaper than £30 each year for small OSX updates. Like with everything Apple you pay more for less.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Posts
2,867
Location
~/
Win 7 Premium sells for about £60 on average. Then you usually get around 3 years of use until a new OS from MS is out. And you get the service packs free. In the same 3 year time frame that works out cheaper than £30 each year for small OSX updates. Like with everything Apple you pay more for less.

I was just using the price from the quote, didn't know Windows had gotten so much cheaper now :eek::)

TBH OS X has gone downhill with the introduction of Lion. Snow Leopard (and everything before it) has been a full OS update with revisions similar to that of a new Windows OS (but for £25), but Lion has let the side down being more like a service pack (albeit a large one) :( Also OS X get's a major update (i.e. 10.x.0) every two years, no idea why people think it's every year :confused: Oh and Mac OS X minor updates (i.e. 10.x.x) are free and fairly regular (Leopard got eight in two years).

Apple software actually tends to be reasonably priced (and sometimes even cheap :eek:), but then being primarily a hardware company they make the money back on, err, hardware ;) Microsoft, being primarily a software company, generally charges more (which is fair enough, and they do have some damn good student discounts :D).

Anyway before I completely derail this thread into another Mac vs PC argument I was thinking would it be possible to play old Windows games on an ARM tablet? I read somewhere (can't find the link ATM) that Microsoft's Hyper-V could be used to provide some kind of backwards compatibility and would run much quicker than normal virtualisation (no idea if this is true, I know literly nothing about how virtualisation works :(). Obviously you'd need some kind of overlay keyboard (like the various Android emulators have). Woud be pretty sweet to play a bit of Sim City and Roller Coaster Tycoon on a little ARM tablet :D
 
Associate
OP
Joined
11 Aug 2004
Posts
1,814
Location
London
Anyway before I completely derail this thread into another Mac vs PC argument I was thinking would it be possible to play old Windows games on an ARM tablet? I read somewhere (can't find the link ATM) that Microsoft's Hyper-V could be used to provide some kind of backwards compatibility and would run much quicker than normal virtualisation (no idea if this is true, I know literly nothing about how virtualisation works :(). Obviously you'd need some kind of overlay keyboard (like the various Android emulators have). Woud be pretty sweet to play a bit of Sim City and Roller Coaster Tycoon on a little ARM tablet :D

I want to do that too... but no one knows yet how the ARM support in Win 8 will work exactly so it's hard to say. Hopefully MS will make it clear at the BUILD conference in a few days. But i think Hyper-V wont help because as far as i know it only runs on the 64-Bit version of Win 8 for Intel and AMD CPU's. Dont think it's possible to run Hyper-V on ARM and even if you could run it i doubt a version of windows for a completely different CPU architecture would run on ARM even under virtualization :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom