The results may change as the newer OS is tweaked, but it's what a lot of us have felt from early on. Thanks for the re-post.
Windows 8 is better than Windows 7. End of story. You can cry all you want but it won't change the facts.
I think a lot of people who install 8 fresh see a "change" because it's a new install without the registry and other detritus that (can) bog down a Windows box after a few months. That appearance will change over time as Win 8 too gets cluttered with software remnants.
They always test everything with the bests setups. I wonder what would be the difference with a lower end setup.
The video and audio transcoding differences makes sense, since Windows 8 supposedly has better thread handling, and the i7 has 8 threads. It's likely the difference in performance between the i5 (2500k/3570k) and i7 (2600k/3770k) is greater on Windows 8 than Windows 7, now that is something that would be interesting to see!
"8 is a 7 with a new interface. No performance increase at all" NO WAY who cares abt benchmarks,just stick with your win7, i will enjoy win8
C'mon, few new improvements and they want us to pay more than 100€? No way, MS fanboys will pay for it anyway, but it's their money. Silly things they included, I mean some restore functions, Ribbon function in Explorer, ISO support, native USB3.0, they all can be made under Windows 7 for free. I think the problem is with MS CEO, Ballmer is not and will not be at the same level as Gates. During last 15-20 years I read many articles, where people were angry at Gates for his vision, but now I understand that this guy was just brilliant. Windows 95, Windows 98 and at last Windows XP were all great OS. Vista had main disadvantage, it was high hardware requirements, nevertheless, after installing SP2 it was really good OS. Finally, Windows 7 has all necessary components that a good OS should have. They should focus on making SP2. Windows 8 is worthless for PC users, both for gamers and business users.
OP said: "tl;dr 8 is a 7 with a new interface. No performance increase at all. Dont blame to "beta" drivers, are the same working now on 7" That's not true.
Microsoft have already said the upgrade to Windows 8 from Vista and 7 will be $40?, and the upgrade for new specific OEM computers will be $14.99. At least Microsoft don't charge for service packs, unlike their fruity rival Still don't know what the rumoured Windows 'blue' is, whether it's Windows 8 SP1 or effectively Windows 8.5, but it's supposedly a noteworthy 'thing'. I would love to see what I discussed in the previous post, the i7 may be more attractive to some on Windows 8.
That 'Blue' thing is similar to Windows Phone 7 and 'Mango' 7.1 as far as I know. Probably just more fixes, better compability, etc. Plus, Windows 8 is better in performance when comparing with Windows 7, but its interface makes it inoperable for normal home user. Worth getting 8% performance and a few seconds to boot time for loosing intuitive interface?
Am I going stupid or is everyone else going blind ? Looking at the graphs of those benchmarks, 8 RTM beats 7 in nearly all of them
I agree ,the benchmarks show win8 ahead of windows 7 in almost all scenarios , how can he not see that . however i did a "not very scientific" series of tests a few days ago testing speeds for startup ,photoediting(rendering speeds) video transcoding and audio, and I must say I got almost identical scores for win8 pro ,and win7 pro . no more than a second either way ,and not allways in favour of win8 both OSs were installed and used as installed ,no updates were applied to windows 7 (that would be unfair) the only noticeable difference was a faster boot time for win8 (about 4 secs) @ 32 secs. I cant live with the Metro UI s**t though ,I hate 3g mobiles for the same reason. but as soon as the members here have a foolproof way to blitz the metro and have a fully functional "conventional interface" I would happily change .
the choice is yours That or you can learn to read graphics. For example: Startup windows 8 RTM : 23 seconds 7: 28 seconds 5 seconds (!!) faster? Audio transcode time: 8 RTM : 41.2 seconds 7: 49.3 8.1 seconds faster? And so on. There isnt a significative difference, like say 5 times faster (500% faster) or even 2 times faster. Its not even noticeable. But to be honest, I like 8 in memory management, where 7 is a lot worse. Nothing more.
Are you implying OS X version differences are akin to service packs to be ironic or are you just daft?