I disagree a bit with the boot test. All though in real life we'll most of the time use hybrid boot and take advantage of a faster boot, it's nothing more than a smart but dirty trick. It's an additional feature that windows 7 just doesn't have, so it can't be compared to windows 7. To see the real optimizations that MS did, the test should boot windows 8 cold, like it does when restarting. This way it has to load the complete OS from scratch just like windows 7 needs to do. I think that if we could hack hybrid boot into a contaminated and slow vista install, vista could still very well boot faster than windows 7 without hybrid boot, although we all know that windows 7 is faster when it comes to raw optimized code performance. So comparing hybrid boot time against classic boot time is like comparing 2 cars where one is tuned and the other not. Say that at stock configuration both cars cost the same. When we don't look at how much the tuning with nitrous and stuff costs, the tuned car A will be faster than the non-tuned car B. It could however very well be that the stock configuration of car A is still slower than the stock config of B. So when comparing the 2 cars, all advantage car A gets from the tuning may not be taken into account when calculating it's performance score. It would also be nice to see wcp compared to Windows 7 beta btw.