Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 8 Even More Resource Efficient Than Windows 7

Last response: in News comments
Share
September 14, 2011 6:04:42 PM

Microsoft always touts and hypes things up before release, but rarely do they ever come through. I'll believe it when I see it.
Score
-21
September 14, 2011 6:08:16 PM

I am little more skeptical than some are now days but then again from their tablet demo even a chicken or pigeon could use.
Score
-20
Related resources
September 14, 2011 6:08:56 PM

phatbuddha79Microsoft always touts and hypes things up before release, but rarely do they ever come through. I'll believe it when I see it.


Maybe so, but if it is actually true, it'll be nice. Win7 is already resource-friendly and Win8 is promised to be even better. Let's see if it will be done.
Score
21
September 14, 2011 6:09:05 PM

... and this is why "pc sales are going down the drain" even though i personally don't believe that they are necessarily. It is because the avg. user does not need any i-series cpu's, much less bulldozer amd cpu's or anything. All you need is that beat up old, 5 year old computer sitting in the cornere to be able to use Windows 8 (the latest and greatest in the eyes of the avg consumer). Why would you ever need to buy a new computer, then, if you can check your email, use facebook and watch online movies without much problem?


gg
Score
22
a c 255 $ Windows 7
a b * Windows 8
September 14, 2011 6:13:28 PM

Betas always start out this way. Wait until the "good idea fairies" get done adding all of their cool features and then measure resource requirements.

Been there, done that, all the way back to NT5/W2K and every version since then.
Score
-10
September 14, 2011 6:16:07 PM

I'm less concerned with this than I used to be, now that greater system resources are commonplace. Especially memory. Memory is so cheap now that any system can have 8GB for only $35. Based on this, why not make everything faster even if it is at the cost of memory usage? People with 3-year-old netbooks aren't going to spend the $100 to upgrade to this from XP, they would just buy a new netbook for about the same cost.
Score
4
September 14, 2011 6:18:46 PM

How much of that windows 7 is from windows updates?
Score
-4
September 14, 2011 6:20:22 PM

Phishy714... and this is why "pc sales are going down the drain" even though i personally don't believe that they are necessarily. It is because the avg. user does not need any i-series cpu's, much less bulldozer amd cpu's or anything. All you need is that beat up old, 5 year old computer sitting in the cornere to be able to use Windows 8 (the latest and greatest in the eyes of the avg consumer). Why would you ever need to buy a new computer, then, if you can check your email, use facebook and watch online movies without much problem?gg



Are you seriously moaning that the new OS from microsoft is TOO efficient.

Some people will find something wrong with everything.
Score
24
September 14, 2011 6:25:25 PM

MS is getting more efficient and demands fewer resources with Windows 8.

Ubuntu is getting bloated and slower with Unity.

WTF just happened, it's like some sort of bizarro world.
Score
39
September 14, 2011 6:30:54 PM

phate said:
MS is getting more efficient and demands fewer resources with Windows 8.

Ubuntu is getting bloated and slower with Unity.

WTF just happened, it's like some sort of bizarro world.


I like it. And Unity can be switched off ;) 

It's logical... no matter how much people flame MS, I'm sure they have enough sane people there to make a good OS (Win7 is, after all, a great one!). I just hope they don't pull a Vista on us, when they released a beta of Win7 as a full OS.
Score
14
September 14, 2011 6:32:57 PM

TheCapulet said:
I don't think he's moaning, but instead reflecting. The more efficient windows becomes, the less new hardware the average consumer needs.

I doubt we'll see a PC sales revival until there's new software that both requires heavy system performance and enables the consumer to do something they absolutely can't live without.

This is in no way a bad thing though.


More PC gaming is all it takes. I hope that hardware companies will eventually realize that they'll make moar profit if they shift half of console n00bs to PC.
Score
12
September 14, 2011 6:35:19 PM

Just make the resources usage to XP level and the power usage level to Windows 7 level.
Score
-3
September 14, 2011 6:36:23 PM

Test machine:
Toshiba Sat A300-177
230Gb hard drive
2Gb ram


9.08Gb - Initial used space
63 - running services
528Mb - In use

Not bad considering a bran new HP 6460b/HP 5330m/HP 8640p will ship with OVER 100 processes straight out of the box! I'd expect a tablet to kick the above 63 to near the 70 mark but of course this is the DEVELOPER PREVIEW SO ANYTHING CAN CHANGE! It's amazing how people can't seem to understand that.

Fewer resources as in memory use can also appear that way due to tweaking superfetch ("Oh no my laptop is using 2.7Gb ram and I'm worried but then again I have no idea what superfetch is" brigade would scream if they left it how it was)

P.s. In this day and age 4Gb is VERY cheap while 8Gb is hardly going to break the bank
Score
-1
September 14, 2011 6:37:51 PM

I think they learned a thing or two from WP7.
Score
6
September 14, 2011 6:43:49 PM

With how much of a resource hog Vista was, I wouldn't be surprised if computers that could run Vista could run Windows 10!
Score
5
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
September 14, 2011 6:46:32 PM

I think already I'm getting Windows 8 fatigue after hearing so much about it. I just bought Win7 less than a year ago, so there's no way I'm forking over $100 - $200 for Windows 8, no matter how much these "amazing features" are touted on all these tech sites.
Score
0
September 14, 2011 6:47:12 PM

internetladAre you seriously moaning that the new OS from microsoft is TOO efficient.Some people will find something wrong with everything.


Increasing resource consumption by the OS is what has driven Moore's law... I dont want to see P4s in 10 years from now.
Score
-7
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
September 14, 2011 6:51:37 PM

Not to old mind you. one or the requirements is WDDM (Windows Display Driver Module) Some early DX9 chips do not conform, such as Intel GMA 900.

Win 7 will work without WDDM but you lose all the gloss like Aero, which is non essential, Windows 8 leverages the GPU in Metro to the extent of WDDM class DX9 GPU!

So don't get your hopes up for reviving that 5yr old Laptop if its running a crappy Intel GPU!
Score
0
September 14, 2011 6:52:35 PM

i think windows 8 has new Direct X that support newer games on pc ,for now there is few DX11 games and win8 will bring new DX ...so what will happen ?
Score
-5
September 14, 2011 6:54:10 PM

"Increasing resource consumption by the OS is what has driven Moore's law... I dont want to see P4s in 10 years from now."

What are you smoking and where can I get some? People care about the programs that run on TOP of the OS, not the OS itself. Especially people that are concerned about speed. The less resources the OS uses the more I can utilize for whatever I actually want to ACCOMPLISH ie gaming, folding proteins, database queries, whatever.
Score
8
September 14, 2011 7:03:09 PM

People have taken my comments waaay out of context. I love Windows 7 over Vista any day. I think it's great they're touting better efficiency, but this is still too early in the game to brag about it. We've seen too many promised features about past versions of Windows that do not make it into the retail product.
Score
-1
September 14, 2011 7:11:19 PM

COLGeekBetas always start out this way. Wait until the "good idea fairies" get done adding all of their cool features and then measure resource requirements. Been there, done that, all the way back to NT5/W2K and every version since then.


Clearly you skipped Windows Vista and 7. Did you even look at the graphic above? Clearly Windows 7 with SP1 ran with fewer resources than Windows 7 preview did.
Score
6
September 14, 2011 7:13:12 PM

More important to me is ..Has MS improved windows update?

If so could they PLEASE stop with the service packs (which always seem to cause issues) and just implement a stream of regular updates!
Score
-11
September 14, 2011 7:19:02 PM

legacy7955 said:
More important to me is ..Has MS improved windows update?

If so could they PLEASE stop with the service packs (which always seem to cause issues) and just implement a stream of regular updates!


Umm... they DO have regular updates besides the SPs.
Score
10
September 14, 2011 7:21:36 PM

phatbuddha79Microsoft always touts and hypes things up before release, but rarely do they ever come through. I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't disagree with you, per se... But they lived up to the hype in Windows 7... Best OS they ever made, in that it was one of the most functional OSs they had ever made and reduced the hardware footprint below that of their 10 year old OS, while maintaining a good deal of backwards compatibility.
Score
4
September 14, 2011 7:24:48 PM

amk-aka-phantomUmm... they DO have regular updates besides the SPs.

Patch Tuesday is there every month or so, and they do daily updates for MSE...
Score
3
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
September 14, 2011 7:26:18 PM

@dickcheney

windows 7 was more efficient with resources then windows vista, clearly the i7 is a much slower CPU then core 2 Duo.......
Score
-5
September 14, 2011 7:43:03 PM

I'm glad to see that Microsoft is stepping in the right direction.
It is not only the games that drive the growing PC performance requirements, it is also all these anti-malware programs. They are taking more CPU usage at every new version, and to the difference of gaming just every PC needs these programs. See how your PC suddenly runs quick and smooth when the internet link is disconnected and that all these anti-everything are disabled.
Score
1
September 14, 2011 7:53:05 PM

Interesting strategy...bloat up every other version of an OS so then in the next release you can kill the bloat and claim you improved efficiency.

How much does XP use per-chance?
Score
-6
September 14, 2011 7:56:59 PM

For me the difference between Windows 7 and 8 DevPreview has been minimal, though RAM usage does seem a bit lower.
Score
-1
September 14, 2011 8:05:36 PM

This will be a good thing. I can tell a huge difference moving from vista to win7.
Score
2
September 14, 2011 8:08:25 PM

Yeah, seems like W8 may not be the failure everyone's already trying to pin on it... Don't underestimate MS, they do learn from their past mistakes. I gave them a second chance with Vista after ME killed everything, and I honestly did not dislike Vista. My primary system is still running it after all. But I do support improvement, and 7 definitely is, and I think 8 will be too.
Score
4
September 14, 2011 8:14:40 PM

No way! You're telling me that future technology that has had years to be developed and compared to the past, can now become more efficient? Well color me pink!
Score
-5
September 14, 2011 8:19:13 PM

phatbuddha79Microsoft always touts and hypes things up before release, but rarely do they ever come through. I'll believe it when I see it.


Apparently you missed Win 7.
Score
1
September 14, 2011 8:22:21 PM

I wonder if this sort of efficiency will be enough to get the XP zealots to move on. I doubt it. They'll just upgrade to XP64 and call themselves modern.
Score
1
September 14, 2011 8:32:54 PM

this is good.. used resources for os should be minimal. all the resources is meant to be used for programs or games. and how win8 would improve experiences in gaming? i never heard any news win8 will improving games departement. perhaps a much more effeciency in directX layer? or.. mightbe an exclusive mode or a shell purposed just for gaming.
Score
0
September 14, 2011 8:35:10 PM

For all of you guys that say this will be bad for PC sales consider this:

Windows 8 is clearly mean to be a link between the Cloud/Tablet/Smart_Phone; Microsoft is keeping the Desktop relevant for the average consumer.

I've been using the Metro UI and I like it. A lot. The accomplishment Microsoft Team has done is let you get to work through the start button and back to social and entertainment features with just a push of the windows button, that I think has a bigger role than it had in all other versions of windows thus far.

Nay Sayers be Hate'n but the MS team has done a great job.
Score
1
September 14, 2011 8:44:51 PM

Thunderfox said:
I wonder if this sort of efficiency will be enough to get the XP zealots to move on. I doubt it. They'll just upgrade to XP64 and call themselves modern.


That is impossible. Funny thing is, some of them even run modern gaming rigs and STILL don't upgrade... it's fine, at some point there'll be simply no more drivers released for it, thus no support for new hardware. XP is great, but it's time to move on.
Score
-1
September 14, 2011 8:48:57 PM

jimslaid2 said:
For all of you guys that say this will be bad for PC sales consider this:

Windows 8 is clearly mean to be a link between the Cloud/Tablet/Smart_Phone; Microsoft is keeping the Desktop relevant for the average consumer.

I've been using the Metro UI and I like it. A lot. The accomplishment Microsoft Team has done is let you get to work through the start button and back to social and entertainment features with just a push of the windows button, that I think has a bigger role than it had in all other versions of windows thus far.

Nay Sayers be Hate'n but the MS team has done a great job.


OMFG, don't you understand this is exactly what we DO NOT want? I, for one, don't need "social and entertainment features"... that's tablet bandwagon with their crapBook and Twitter BS apps! I want a DESKTOP OS, no BS cloud, and NO dumbing down the GUI so that I have it "all under Start button" - I never use the damn thing! Thumbs up for pure desktop awesomeness with no dumbing down in favor of an illiterate "common user"! :lol: 

P.S. I'm not an MS hater - I'm a "dumbing down the interface" hater.
Score
0
September 14, 2011 9:02:53 PM

phateUbuntu is getting bloated and slower with Unity.
If you would like to have the same GUI experience on both there's a Unity skin for Windows.
Score
-4
September 14, 2011 9:08:37 PM

jhansonxi said:
If you would like to have the same GUI experience on both there's a Unity skin for Windows.


I think it was clear from his post that he does not want the same experience :D  Unity = major fail; all it adds is that BS panel on the left. Compiz effects are there without Unity.

EDIT: Actually, the whole interface is shamelessly copycatted from Mac OS, hoping it would get them more users. Poor Canonical doesn't realise people go for Mac not because of the GUI, which is horrible, IMO...

...oh no, now I've done it. Now this thread will slip into Mac flame war again. Forget I said anything. Just flame Canonical for being lame copycats - they should've at least copy the GOOD stuff from other OSs.
Score
3
September 14, 2011 9:19:58 PM

iamtheking123Interesting strategy...bloat up every other version of an OS so then in the next release you can kill the bloat and claim you improved efficiency.How much does XP use per-chance?



Windows XP uses under 100MB memory for my install with the services I don't need disabled and some useless preboot items disabled, windows xp uses about 40-45MB of memory at startup

Keep in mind that the minimum requirement for windows xp is 64MB ram and a 300MHz CPU

If microsoft wants windows 8 to work on a tablet, they need to do better, they need to bring the requirements down to windows 98 levels (ignoring CPU instruction sets and functionality, instead, just in terms of raw performance)

the goal of the OS should be purely to be a platform to to run the programs that you like and stay out of the way as much as possible and use as few resources as possible so that more will be left over to run your programs as quickly and efficiently as possible with the hardware you have.

other than that, it needs good file managementand abilities to customize, and if you feel a need to make it bloated, have a advanced option where before installing, you select what services you want, what gui elements you want and a whole host of other items.

Regardless of what some here might think, not everyone needs every single window service and GUI element and all of the other crap that it comes with. allowing a user to customize what gets installed will help with getting a OS that is as efficient as possible for the specific user of the system.

If you were one of the people who upgraded from windows XP to windows 7

The install size grew from 2.7-3GB to upwards of 20GB

Compared to what you regularly do on your computer, how much of that extra 17GB or so of bloat added into the OS are you using , how much of it do you need.

There are stripped down versions that only take 10GB and you generally cant tell the difference (I have tried one, though I wouldn't use it as I don't trust that nothing malicious was done)

Anyway, not everyone needs everything that comes with windows, and anything extra they don't need is simply a waste of resources.

If microsoft wants a truly good OS, restrict the developers to modern computers that have been downclocked to around 200MHz and only have 256MB ram and have them design a OS that supports the modern hardware but runs fast with the limited CPU speed and memory

Score
-2
September 14, 2011 9:23:18 PM

legacy7955More important to me is ..Has MS improved windows update?If so could they PLEASE stop with the service packs (which always seem to cause issues) and just implement a stream of regular updates!

You mean the second Tuesday of every month?
That kind of regular or differant?
iamtheking123Interesting strategy...bloat up every other version of an OS so then in the next release you can kill the bloat and claim you improved efficiency.How much does XP use per-chance?

I have a 6 year old Acer laptop that came with XP and has run through every service pack getting slower by the day until I installed Windows 7 and it now runs like a brand new machine, if Windows 8 runs even faster I could be going for 10 years with the same machine, how's that for value for money?
Score
3
September 14, 2011 9:25:31 PM

I'll try this windows 8 thingie on my laptop... did the same thing with windows 7 and the results were pretty good, so, why not? let's see what they've been working on to get my hard earned cash

which also reminds me that I really wish this iteration of windows to be under/around $50 (wild dreams, I know)

amk-aka-phantomThumbs up for pure desktop awesomeness with no dumbing down in favor of an illiterate "common user"! P.S. I'm not an MS hater - I'm a "dumbing down the interface" hater.

too bad the illiterate "common user" is the HUGE majority of the market
not that I disagree with you
Score
1
September 14, 2011 9:39:47 PM

razor512 said:
Windows XP uses under 100MB memory for my install with the services I don't need disabled and some useless preboot items disabled, windows xp uses about 40-45MB of memory at startup

Keep in mind that the minimum requirement for windows xp is 64MB ram and a 300MHz CPU

If microsoft wants windows 8 to work on a tablet, they need to do better, they need to bring the requirements down to windows 98 levels (ignoring CPU instruction sets and functionality, instead, just in terms of raw performance)

the goal of the OS should be purely to be a platform to to run the programs that you like and stay out of the way as much as possible and use as few resources as possible so that more will be left over to run your programs as quickly and efficiently as possible with the hardware you have.

other than that, it needs good file managementand abilities to customize, and if you feel a need to make it bloated, have a advanced option where before installing, you select what services you want, what gui elements you want and a whole host of other items.

Regardless of what some here might think, not everyone needs every single window service and GUI element and all of the other crap that it comes with. allowing a user to customize what gets installed will help with getting a OS that is as efficient as possible for the specific user of the system.

If you were one of the people who upgraded from windows XP to windows 7

The install size grew from 2.7-3GB to upwards of 20GB

Compared to what you regularly do on your computer, how much of that extra 17GB or so of bloat added into the OS are you using , how much of it do you need.

There are stripped down versions that only take 10GB and you generally cant tell the difference (I have tried one, though I wouldn't use it as I don't trust that nothing malicious was done)

Anyway, not everyone needs everything that comes with windows, and anything extra they don't need is simply a waste of resources.

If microsoft wants a truly good OS, restrict the developers to modern computers that have been downclocked to around 200MHz and only have 256MB ram and have them design a OS that supports the modern hardware but runs fast with the limited CPU speed and memory


Out of these 20GB, 8GB is a pagefile if you have 8GB RAM and 6GB is a hibernation file. Kill both (disable hibernation, disable pagefile) and you're down to 6 GB with no loss whatsoever.

Why do you even CARE how much it takes? Still running a 40GB IDE HDD or something? :p 

Of course they'll make the tablet version so that it actually works there. I just hope the desktop version won't suffer because of it.

And you're not just beating a dead horse... no, you're raping the bones of that old horse beaten to death by someone else long ago (wow... disgusting analogy. I need help). The topic of shifting from XP (which, as you have stated, has minimum requirements of 300 MHZ to run, though in fact it needs 1 GHz+ to run properly) is SO silly and has been discussed SO many times... if you're using your old PC, by all means, you DON'T need an upgrade, indeed. Just remember that eventually you'll run out of updates. Otherwise, remaining on WinXP is choking your hardware and your user experience. Win7 is NOT made for "common user", disregard MS's claims. It's for people with powerful hardware, who don't care whether it uses 40 or 400 MB... RAM is disgustingly cheap nowadays.
Score
0
September 14, 2011 9:42:26 PM

Even since they were releasing RCs of Seven I thought that Vista was the best marketing move M$ could have made. Now I am sure of it. They couldn't beat XP performance-wise so they made vista heavy on resources and now all their new operating systems for a few years will look better, it's a matter of contrast.
Score
-5
September 14, 2011 9:50:22 PM

amk-aka-phantomMaybe so, but if it is actually true, it'll be nice. Win7 is already resource-friendly and Win8 is promised to be even better. Let's see if it will be done.

win 7 is resource friendly? lmfao. You mean compared to.....windows server 2008.
Score
-3
September 14, 2011 9:53:58 PM

bv90andy said:
Even since they were releasing RCs of Seven I thought that Vista was the best marketing move M$ could have made. Now I am sure of it. They couldn't beat XP performance-wise so they made vista heavy on resources and now all their new operating systems for a few years will look better, it's a matter of contrast.


BS. Vista wasn't a marketing move; it was a beta of Win7 released as an OS to gather maximum feedback, which made Win7 really polished. I've tested Win7 on old machines, probably as low as you can go with their minimum hardware requirements. Pretty close to XP in terms of performance. Vista was dismissed after 7 came out and hence no one cares about how heavy Win7 is compared to Vista... Win7 is always compared to XP.
Score
-1
September 14, 2011 9:56:24 PM

iam2thecrowe said:
win 7 is resource friendly? lmfao. You mean compared to.....windows server 2008.


No, compared to XP and considering they've stuffed in a lot of eye candy and other heavy things. See my previous post:

Quote:
I've tested Win7 on old machines, probably as low as you can go with their minimum hardware requirements. Pretty close to XP in terms of performance.
Score
0
!