Windows 10: Windows 8, 8.1 & 10 versus Windows 7

If I put 2 of my machines with Toshiba SSD which dual boot 8.1 and 7 the Hybrid boot of 8 is quicker than the full boot of 7. The full boot of 8 and 7 is the same. If you put 7 into hibernate it resumes in not time at all. We have had all these discussions in the past and they are meaningless. It also depends how much you load onto your system. My 7 and 8.1 Windows are duplicates and have the same versions of progams on them. I simply prefer the look of 7 to 8/10. I have said if they put out an aero pack to make it look like 7 I would upgrade the non media canter PC's but they being M$ are not listening to the feedback.

 

^
Great post, I like this input and information. I agree with you on this.

Not just Xbox 1. Add to that Surface Pro, (tablet no one wants), Windows Phone (phone no one wants), Bing (defunct search engine). Yahoo gets more usage over Bing.

 

I never use Fast Start with Windows 8/10. Makes HD unusable when dual booting. I've found Win8/10 more responsive then 7, though. Not really talking about boot times, but general system performance.

 

Daw thank *Biggrin.

Yeah MS should've made their products incentivizing purchases before releasing a version of Windows saying "HEY GUYS REMEMBER ALL THOSE MICROSOFT DEVICES YOU DON'T HAVE? NOW THEY CAN DO MORE WITH WINDOWS 10"!

That said, I am enjoying the W10 TP *Smile. And MS does have an audience, gamers. They've always been forced to upgrade before everyone else since new DX versions are tied to Windows releases.

MS better be careful that Vulkan doesn't overtake them, though. Source 2 will be using it, and it's multiplatform unlike DX12. Will work on stuff besides 10.

 

I found the opposite - Win 7 is much more responsive than a fresh barebones Win 10 on my test bed.

Regards,

 

Reading some of the posts I'm under impression that good OS means pretty pictures and stuff like that. Like I should sit whole day and look at desktop with bunch of thingies churning numbers or text. I gave up on gadgets in W7 because I have seen desktop only couple of times a day for about 3 seconds.
I also wouldn't give a rats tail for popular thinking if this or that device is good for me or not or how popular or not they are. Nokia used to make some of the best mobile phones and now they are "lost cause" ? Why, because of windows on them ? Android is as clunky system as they come and iPhone is overvalued piece of garbage.

 

Hey Mike I like my pretty pictures on my desktop....buried beneath Firefox, VMWare Workstation, Directory Opus and Winamp, another machine Outlook and Yahoo Gadgets and on another desktop chat windows Winamp and another Firefox browser. Nokia made fine TV's and satellite receivers in the 80's too. What everyone is saying is we want it the way we want it not the way it is served.

 

He he, you got that right, buried under useful stuff, not being a goal upon itself. I have 3 monitors on this machine, one has TV running all (most of) the time, another for messages, Facebook and few other things and main one for anything I'm doing at the time. The screen with TV and secondary screen get started with computer while only main one gets started with a program I want too work on. With all of that, it's imperative that system itself runs good and smooth and darn the looks be. Now if I heve been listening to all of those liking and/or not liking these or those windows, I'd have to give up on computers because of all of those personal preferences are so contradictory that I would be hard pressed to make my mind and use computer at all.
My ideal OS would be just bare essentials with ability to ad to it what I want or need. Like this I spend more time cleaning, uninstalling and deleting stuff than adding programs and Apps after OS installation.

 

That's your opinion.. I don't agree. Each person will have a different opinion on what is atheistically pleasant.

 

That's why I don't pay attention to beautiful and ugly commets (except about girls). simple can be more beautiful than overdone.

 

And so does the overall topic of this thread.. It's all subjective based on what each user wants from an OS. This is not a contest and no one wins anything. *Wink

 

Off topic, but somewhat relevant. If you peruse topics in academic disciplines such as epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of logic and philosophy of consciousness, you may arrive at the conclusion that subjectivity is the dominant feature in the human experience; perception is everything.

For me, I subjectively perceive the Windows 7 system design to be vastly superior in comparison with subsequent releases of Windows; however, I am acutely aware that my perception cannot be regarded as "univeral truth". We can utilise statistical a priori methods to quantify what a user may perceive to be the more useful and/or aesthetically pleasing operating system; however, I believe this to be meaningless since voluminosity is not the measure of importance.

 

I go for function and not aesthetics.. running my programs/software and apps is job one of any OS. How it looks is a distant second. And this is not a contest between the three. Each has it's good points and bad points and Win7 was far from perfect to be honest.

Jeff

 

I absolutely agree with your first point, Jeff. I actually editied my post to include both system functionality and aesthetics; I inadvertently focused on the visual aspects of Windows 7 in my original post. Unfortunately, you replied just before my edit was submitted.

 

Ok.. no issue. And there is an option of using a third party theme to get the look that you want with Win8.1 and Win10. I admit that I really liked Win7 when it came out but now I like Win10 more.. but as usual Your millage may vary.

Take care
Jeff