I wonder why people say 8 is faster than 7. It's only true if you have a new, cutting-edge PC. If you don't have an SSD and an UEFI compatible motherboard, 8 actually boots slower. There's a trick built inside to confuse people as the boot logo disappears faster than the boot logo of 7, but you'll see a short period of black screen before the login screen shows up. Also let's not forget that both 7 and 8 has another trick built in to make you think they boot faster (compared to Vista and XP). The login screen shows up when windows is only partially loaded. When you log in, it will be unusable for several seconds. The best way to see this is configuring an account for automatic login.
Keep in mind that Windows 8.1 hasn't been released yet, so compatibility problems like with Kaspersky and with drivers is considered a non-issue. No doubt between now and when Windows 8.1 is officially released for the general public proper Windows 8.1 support will have been added.
for me on my laptop with windows 7 felt kind of sluggish, but with windows 8 or 8.1 it feels really snappy
I humbly disagree. I would only go with Windows 7 if any of the following are true: 1. You are inextricably tied to the Start menu (no third-party alternatives suffice). 2. You have a CPU *older* than LGA775 or Athlon64. 3. You have a GPU older than GeForce 500 series or AMD HD5xxx/Mobility HD5xxx. Working from the last point up, the bottom-most GPU families I referred to are supported directly by both Windows 8 and 8.1 with included drivers - which makes for a great starting point. Secondly, the reason for my LGA775/Athlon64 (and derivatives) floor is rather simple - if you are going to run an x64 Windows OS, you should at least be running Windows 8, if not 8.1. Yes - the performance of x64 applications is that much improved compared merely to 7 x64. Now, if you are running any CPU later than that (and this is especially true of AMD APU fans - let alone FX series, and any post-LGA775 Intel CPU family), you also get Hyper-V to play with (From using it, Hyper-V leaves every desktop virtualization alternative completely waxed.) Lastly, while I have - literally - no love whatever for the Start menu, and miss it not at all, I do get the disquiet over it being excised in Windows 8. However, there ARE the third-party alternatives, both free and paid. Unless every one of them completely fail for you, why stall?
eydee, I've been saying that Windows 8 has better performance than 7, and that 8.1 performs even better than 8.0, and my PC is anything BUT new OR cutting-edge. In fact, I call it the Dead Hardware Express. CPU - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6000. (Kentsfield - two Core 2 Duos sharing a single die. Despite the scathing jokes from AMD engineers, Kentsfield, not Phenom, defined truly affordable quad-core performance. Kentsfield is older than Windows 7; however, each succeeding x64 iteration of Windows has managed to wring yet more performance out of the Old Man of Intel Quads.) Motherboard - ASUS P5G41-M LX2/GB. (MicroATX consumer/corporate stable staple circa the launch of Windows 7. However, the self-same Intel G41 chipset (as long you don't rely on the integrated graphics) still is viable because it supports USB 2.0, SATA-3g, etc. Baseline features, sure - however, Windows 8 and 8.1 do better at that baseline than Windows 7 did. ) GPU - NVidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti. (Yet another veteran of the Windows 7 era. Like the AMD counterpart - HD57xx - DirectX 11.1 support is included at both the GPU and driver levels. Sometimes, it is about bang for buck, and a quality GPU of this generation can be had at a bargain price.) You budget is strapped. Believe me - I get that. (That GTX 550 Ti cost me all of $64USD - including taxes - because it was a factory-refurb.) However, you don't have to replace everything at once to get better performance building my own desktops since 1993 taught me that.
Has nothing to do with hate the thread asks for an opinion on which os people would like to use 7, 8 or 8.1 While I believe that people should just use what os they like best no matter what anyone else thinks what they feel most comfortable using is what they should have. At the same time there is so many things going around about why this os is better or that os is better it's good to stick with facts though and that old saying that just because it's new does not always mean it's better. Windows 8 being faster then 7 is a myth, the only time I have found win 8 or 8.1 to be faster then 7 is on boot with an ssd (with a mechanical drive they are the same) on the ssd though the speed is just a minimal 2-3 seconds faster which makes that pretty well moot as it's way to minimal. We do full out benchmarking on both intel and amd rigs and using fresh installs also same os's as people comparing a win 8 or 8.1 pro to the previous os they were using win 7 usually ultimate is not the right way to run the test. Win 8 or 8.1 does not have an ultimate version (which is a pro version with more bloat) or comparing a fresh installed win 8 or 8.1 to a win 7 install they have been using for quite a long while. Running tests using win 7 pro which is what I use myself against win 8 or 8.1 is the way you have to run any benchmarks as your using the same comparable os's. The point here though would be is windows 8 for a desktop user an improvement over windows 7 and no matter how you slice it, it's not an improvement the design is not made for desktops if you like it or not either way with a start menu or without. The os could have been made without a start menu sure and have it be great for running on a desktop computer but it's not. It's Best is to check out Mr. Windows himself Bill Gates the guy who created windows to begin with. Now that he has left the company and spends his time doing charity work and being on the leading cusp of innovation developing new technologies for the world today has to say about Windows 8. Check out Bill gates interview with the french magazine Micro Hebdo where he speaks of windows 8. Bill gates says he has 2 surface tablets he uses daily with windows 8 and likes the os on them, but he refuses to upgrade his desktop computer from windows 7 to windows 8 as he said in the article that the guys at windows keep sending him copies of windows 8 for his desktop machine and he won't make the upgrade. This is his comment "Yeah, the IT guys over at Microsoft keep sending me free copies of Windows 8 for my ultrabook. But honestly I don't see the point. I'd lose my start menu and have to keep switching between the interfaces.". "It's not that Windows 8 is a bad operating system. Conceptually, it's actually quite brilliant. But I grew up in the PC era, and I'm more comfortable with the traditional windowed environment." "I encourage everyone looking for a new tablet or a touch-enabled notebook to upgrade to Windows 8. But if you're already on Windows 7, I would wait until Windows 9 to upgrade, by which time some of these kinks will have been worked out." It was this comment of his though as I have seen others make the same kind of comparisons that hit's the nail on the head "What's the point of having a touchscreen interface on a non-touchscreen computer? Doesn't that seem weird to you? We don't put clutches on automatic cars."
murphy78, cowardice has become the New Bravery. If you take any risk at all, you basically get slapped for it - this is especially true in computing; even Apple isn't immune. (Apple has only been praised relative to Microsoft for not taking as many risks; it has gotten slapped itself for the risks it has taken.) It is as if when Steve Jobs passed on, risk-taking also was deemed unacceptable.
Do not make this a personal quarrel as it is nothing of the sort. Apple has not taken a risk in the last 2 years because it has been copying android since the death of Steve Jobs. And even before that they judged that battery life outweighed giving the phone better guts. Lets get back on subject though Windows 8 is buggy from the experiences I have had with it. The file extensions do not save to the proper application. Windows 8.1 will hopefully improve on Windows 8 but those are just hopes and prayers. You are entitled to your own opinion but your facts are not your own. Steve Jobs is not that great. He is not a saint and if I were to judge who a saint was it was the man who died on the same day who created the C programming language. Windows 8 simply was not ready when it was released if it was then I wouldn't site my issues with it. However I am doing so even though I modded the hell out of it to get it the way I wanted it now Steve Jobs had his greatness in marketing that is all he had.