Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Windows Technology

Early Speed Tests For Windows 8 242

adeelarshad82 writes "You often hear in the software industry that performance optimization is one of the last steps in the software development process. That bodes well for Windows 8, considering at the early stage of Developer Preview—even before we've seen an actual beta—the nascent operating system is getting widespread praise for its performance, particularly in startup times. Anecdotal evidence is always encouraging, but PCMag decided to run some very early tests on the OS to see if the reports were wishful thinking or if there was a real, measurable boost in speed. Along with startup and shutdown times, they used several standard industry benchmarks to compare Windows 8 performance with that of Windows 7 running on the same machine."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Early Speed Tests For Windows 8

Comments Filter:
  • Performance (Score:3, Insightful)

    by andresa ( 2485876 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @03:08AM (#37788210)
    There are actually two kind of performances, which are both important. The real, actual performance, and how well the OS can make the system feel even under load. It's important to have a snappy feel even if the system underneath is working hard, and this is especially true now that the amount of cores in CPUs and multithreading are increasing. Say what you want, but just the feel of speediness is an important factor. This is why the boot up time is looked at so much too - it's great to quickly get to the desktop, and let the OS load up while you're already started working.

    One thing I've noticed with boot up times (and this applies to all operating systems) is that the OS tries to load all programs at once. Usually the limiting factor to this will be hard drive. It's less true with SSD drives, but it's really noticeable with 7200 RPM and slower drives. It usually leads to the whole system crawling for a few minutes after desktop shows up. It would be great if the OS would measure the different loads and UI response times, and actually limit the startup programs. This way you could open your browser and other tools and those would be given priority upon startup process.

    I tested the developer preview version briefly and it sure seemed a lot faster and snappier. The startup time is remarkably faster. And according to this PCMag test, seems like the overall speed has been improved a lot too. Good job MS!
  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @03:29AM (#37788300) Homepage Journal

    You often hear in the software industry that performance optimization is one of the last steps in the software development process. That bodes well for Windows 8, considering at the early stage of Developer Previewâ"even before we've seen an actual betaâ"the nascent operating system is getting widespread praise for its performance

    Not necessarily. It wouldn't be the first time things have been performance tuned before they're actually working properly.

    Anecdotal evidence is always encouraging

    I heard the opposite.

    Does anyone else detect a whiff of shill in the air?

  • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @03:45AM (#37788352)

    ...you boot the bastard on a desktop machine, and then it goes to that horrid Metro screen which makes navigating with a mouse and keyboard painful? It may be fine for touch, but without touch, man....it makes you want to break things.

    Then you talk to a Microsoft turfer, as seen on here and other places, they will bald-faced lie to you and say "well, it's not finished yet, who knows what it will be like?"

    Then you go to the Microsoft fora and ask Microsoft employees about Metro as being standard for the upcoming desktop, they double-down on it.

    Guys, get your friggin' stories straight. All I know for sure is that Metro without touch is a steaming load of bovine excrement backlit by the morning sun so you can see the vapors wafting off it. Fix it.

    --
    BMO

  • by Knuckles ( 8964 ) <knuckles@@@dantian...org> on Friday October 21, 2011 @04:08AM (#37788458)

    You often hear in the software industry that performance optimization is one of the last steps in the software development process.

    No you don't, not among sane people. You don't do performance optimization as "one of the last steps" shortly before shipping.

    What you hear is that "premature optimization is the root of all evil" (quoting Donald Knuth). What he meant is that you should not bother with complicated performance optimizations when designing the code. Rather, create and implement a good clean design, then test performance and optimize where needed. On the other hand, algorithm choice is one of the biggest performance contributors and initial choices will often be made quite early, so one cannot apply this quote blindly. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization [wikipedia.org]

  • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @04:38AM (#37788582)

    What burns my shorts these days is not the Windows reboot.

    It's the automatic updates that only get applied at the end. "PLEASE PLEASE OH PLEASE DON'T TURN ME OFF BECAUSE I WILL FUCK YOUR COMPUTER IF YOU TURN ME OFF IN THE MIDDLE OF UPDATES"

    For 20 minutes.

    --
    BMO

  • Re:Performance (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MareLooke ( 1003332 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @04:40AM (#37788592) Homepage
    IMHO the time to desktop means nothing, especially on Windows as you note, the system isn't usable for minutes after the desktop's shown up. Adding in a faster drive (eg, an SSD or a hybrid drive) will cut down on the startup time, but the issue remains. So whether you load everything before showing the desktop or after will only make a difference in perceived bootup time, not in actual "time until the system is actually usable". In other words, it's just a cheap way to appear to boot faster without any actual benefit to the user.
  • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @05:52AM (#37788910)

    Spoken like a true Windows shill.

    My personal experince is that Windows is fragile during updates. YMMV, but I have learned the hard way not to fuck with Windows updating itself or shutting it off while it's doing something "important." Many other people have been conditioned over the years by the exact same things.

    I don't care if you say the beach is safe to surf, Kilgore. I don't trust you and nor do I trust Windows.

    >Comparing Windows and Linux updates

    There is no comparison. Package managers for Linux are quite robust and will pick up exactly where you left off if you so much as hit control-C and then restart. Powering down in the middle would likely fuck /something/ temporarily, but unless you're doing a kernel update, there is likely no reason for a machine to be unbootable. And even then there are the backup kernels you can pick on boot from the handy-dandy boot screen.

    >Losing power during write, forcing a fsck
    >taking a long time

    I haven't had a fsck take longer than a minute since I went to a journaling file system last century, and journaling file systems on Linux are standard issue now. I also noticed when I did an install of Ubuntu 11.10 that btrfs is available. This is spectacular, but I'm sticking with ext4 for now because it's thoroughly debugged and I can trust it.

    Sorry to break it to you, shill, but you're full of hot air and you need a tic-tac.

    --
    BMO

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21, 2011 @06:43AM (#37789108)

    "Does anyone else detect a whiff of shill in the air?"

    No, I can't smell it due to the overpowering stench of knee-jerk anti-MS zealotry.

    FFS, there'll be plenty of things to hate about 8 when it comes out, attacking it while it's still in the womb is a bit unnecessary, don't you think?

It appears that PL/I (and its dialects) is, or will be, the most widely used higher level language for systems programming. -- J. Sammet

Working...