Maybe or maybe not! It's depend on any single user how it works for him. And for sure also depend on the used applications etc. For me in many ways better and in some not. Downward compatibility didn't goes as far as Windows 7. But that were expected because is a newer OS. So, no minus point in this regard.
I don't understand why so many people looking for the time of boot the system?! Did it really matters? Not for me and I really don't mind to wait a bit till all is loaded. Even in fast boot, is that boot really fast? I doubt that because of the hidden processes to load everything finish which running just hidden! So, the actual boot time seems to be much longer as you realizing just by looking! I've only one IDE Hdd running now, with XP on it on an 10 year old MB. On my "Dinosaur", the Apple SE from 1986 it's a 20MB SCSI HJDD and the other old computer (386) I still have to use 1 or twice a year, has also SCSI and NOT IDE! Personally I didn't like that huge space of GB's on HDD's and us them only for Data Storage. The System Drives are max 500GB except the Laptop which has 750GB. Instead of DVD I use in the same slot an 2. HDD in Laptop because I hardly ever used the DVD in Laptop. I'm also not a friend of Multi-Partitioning and except the OS HDD's all other having just 1 partition. For Raid I use Raid 1 only and backups are done to 50GB BD and 80GB Tapes. With 4 Remove Racks (2 x 3.5" and 2 x 2.5") I just to change the HDD's no the fly if need more space.
Ah, mirroring. Wow, I forgot how small hard drives was back then and I can imagine that SCSI port looks a lot like Centronics ports back in the days. If I remember correctly internal SCSI uses 50 or 68 pins ribbon cable or was it 80 pins SCA connector? Gosh, it has been a long time. Hot swapping FTW. That would explain the space gain if needed. Since you mentioned on having drive bays, I guess you would be running a server for a workstation? If you are, are your CPU passively cooled or actively cooled? If passively cooled, then is an air shroud needed or could I get away without it? The reason I am asking is I have a Supermicro computer with 4 Xeon CPU in it and there is no active heatsink available for Supermicro. It did in the instruction manual about an air shroud, but did not say it was required or not.
Those old SCSI HDD's were just SCSI 1 with max 12MB/s transfer speed and used thoose centronic like cables 50 pin! Next SCSI generation were the SCSI 2, also called SCSI Wide, with up to 40MB/s transfer speed and mainly 68pin cables followed by the SCSI 3 (Ultra Wide SCSI) with up to 320MB/s transfer speed. Those were using the 80pin connection and also supported Hotplug in full extend. But those 80pin connection were also used on special HDD editions for SCSI 2 in server system like the Proliant 2500 and many others. Also the latest edition of the IBM AS400 were using the SCSI2 HDD's, mainly 9.1GB Seagates in 3.5" full size format. At the moment I run Windows 8 Pro as Client and plane to change to Server 2012 if I found that the features of Windows 8 didn't gives what I need. The MB I use is an ASRock 990FX Professional Fatal1ty with 6 Core AMD Phenom 2 1100T/BE CPU. Case is an NZXT with separate cabninets for PSU, HDD & DVD etc and MB. Day temp in Thailand is mainly above 30°Celsius and I didn't use Aircon in my office. While using an Thermaltake Heatsink with 2 fans, the CPU temp just come up to 48°Celsius while the MB is 46°celsius. So, that's just fine and runs well. Don't understand: 4 Xeon CPU's? Did you mean 4 separte CPU's or 4 Core?
Thank you for such an informative read, I enjoyed that and it refreshed my memory. As for the 4 Xeon CPUs, I meant 4 physical Processor each having 10 hyper threaded cores. So in essence it's a 40 hyper threaded cores and Windows sees it as 80 cores. I believe the only time you will need a server version of Windows if you have more then two socket on your motherboard and go beyond 512GB of RAM for Pro version. Just make sure to get the Datacenter version of server as that has unlimited virtual machine support and RAM up to 4TB. btw, nice setup you got there.
I used both and truth be told windows 8 isn't a bad OS. That said its basically nothing more then a filler OS without any major improvements. It not like going from vista to windows 7..when vista came out it was a unstable buggy mess and windows 7 was a smooth experience with many improvements. The bootup is nice but somewhat misleading since though you do get into windows quickly its not actually finished booting for sometime after that in the background. The UI is functional but basically a step backwards since it requires more steps just to do basic things like shutdown. Its new but that's about it and in the long run unless your getting a great deal its a pointless upgrade. It wont make the pc faster/more stable or more secure in any major sense. Upside though like other filler OS from MS its not a buggy mess..like windows ME
Is this what you are talking about? Microsoft denies Windows 8 app spying via SmartScreen theregister.co.uk/2012/08/25/windows8_smartscreen_spying
I go for Windows 8. After months of using it seems much better than Windows 7. To me Aero interface is useless, Metro is lighter and more user-friendly.
They clearly had paying customers in mind with Win8. They also clearly had those new laptop/touch-screens in mind. They're just trying to make an updated windows that keeps up with the times. If you want a super-fast OS, just go load XP-sp2. They're trying to do quite a lot of new things, and I give them credit for it. I don't like the privacy invasion stuff, but at least they don't brick your system. I personally like looking at the lil' weather app occasionally when I think it might rain, or when there's some big senate bill I see listed on the news app. I think, if anything, I severely under-use the app-end of win8. The apps are all fairly responsive. I've never had one lag at all. The little live tile teasers kind-of give you incentive to click on them. I still spend the most time in the desktop-mode, but that's just because I'm lazy. I'm sure I could find an internet app that had adblocker. Or perhaps some hosts file updater. I did notice that win8 doesn't seem to have the cache that win7 and vista had. Perhaps they simply display file transfers differently, but it seems as if file transfers were a little faster overall in win7. I guess I'm a little like an Office or Nero user now. I've gotten so used to the bloatware, I don't even mind it that much anymore.
Windows-8 is running faster / more stable on the same hardware. Games are running smoother or / and even with more fps. Tested with my system: ... and my old / my wife's system:
How someone really could tell that as example Windows 8 is better, and special faster than Windows 7? Objective that is only possible if you compare the 2 OS's on the same computer with the exact same installation on the same HDD and with the same config! Therefore it's every time wrong if compare with 2 or more different systems, Hardware, Installation and config! It's just a joke to compare Windows 8 running on an 2 year old Laptop with an high end Desktop Computer running Windows 7! I run both systems on the same computer on same type/brand/size HDD's and can truely tell that Windows 8 is better and faster than Windows 7, for ME on MY computer! Period! And I'd stopped to use some of those Benchmark Apps for years now because they're just freaking BS! Compare the real and exact same work on both system, and than you get the real live result! And that's the only one which really count's!
You don't need a benchmark app for simple things like responsiveness, file transfer rate, fps, decoding, NZB-Repairs, WinRAR etc.pp. Plenty games let you display the fps simply via console command or somewhere in the settings of the game. Why would I spend money to upgrade from Windows-7-Ultimate-SP1-x64, if there was no improvement ? I don't play Facebook or Hidden Object Games. As a member of TOG I play games more in a competitive way. My computer "career" started back in the days with the VC-20, but even my wife with far less computer knowledge recognises the improvements and she doesn't even like Windows-8 on her machine (yet), but she dumped her iPhone-5-64GB for the Lumia 920 and is more then happy with it after years of been a iPhone-FanBoy. Don't get me wrong as there is nothing really wrong with Windows-7, but it doesn't really matter if the improvement of Windows-8 vs. Windows-7 is 1% or 100%, as an improvement is still an improvement.
That's what I'd mean! And I like Windows 8 not because of the increased speed, it's just more stable and smooth! I'm not a gamer so that doesn't matter for me.