Jump to content

Why does Win 8/7 suck so much?


eatup
 Share

Recommended Posts

Those who are dual or even triple booting Windows XP/7/8...  I urge you to download Unreal Tournament GOTY demo (1999) from FilePlanet now.  Turn on console ([~] or [Esc]) during the game and enter STAT FPS.  You'll see why XP is still the King!

 

What can I do about Windows 7/8's slowness?  I want to continue using XP forever b/c it's just the fastest thing out there, only lack of USB 3.0 and Advanced Format HDDs support are keeping me back...

Edited by eatup
Link to comment
Share on other sites


You're testing a game developed at the time of XP - of course it's going to run very well on XP.  But there are no doubt features in new games it doesn't have - things you may not even be able to run on XP - that will run well on newer systems.

 

And no, XP is not really the king any longer.  WIndows 7 now has just over 50% adoption, and has been ahead of XP for quite some time.

 

A lot of folks just buy more powerful hardware and keep moving forward.  I imagine there's a computer/video card combination that will run whatever you're doing much faster than what you're seeing on the newest OS.

 

Don't get me wrong - I agree that it's irritating when the newest version of an OS is slower than its predecessor, but the additional features that perhaps you don't use but others do take extra cycles to implement. 

 

Personally I'm not into games, but rather using Windows for professional engineering activities, and the fact that the file system in a well-tuned Windows 8.1 is not quite as fast or responsive as that in a well-tuned Windows 7 system still gets my goat.  

 

By the way, Windows versions newer than XP are likely to be more reliable.  XP wasn't bad, but it's been getting consistently better.

 

Windows 7 or 8 don't suck if you set them up adeptly.  But it takes some work.  All that you've learned in 15 years of tweaking XP won't apply, and there are bunches of other things to learn.  That's why forums like this one are great.

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of games being designed for the XP era.  If Microsoft made DirectX 11 available on XP, it would blow 7/8 out of the water!  Just b/c 7 has the greater market share doesn't make it the King of Windows OSes!  People were forced into upgrading b/c of the annoying EoL message on MSE...

 

Like I said, lack of USB 3.0 & AF support are XP's short comings (I couldn't care less less if XP doesn't have native multi-core support.  It just means I can run many apps simultaneously and have each thread spread on different cores).  When you combine XP + 7 in a multi boot scenario, you essentially have a killer PC running XP most of the time (switch to 7 if you need things done on USB 3.0)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not a matter of games being designed for the XP era

 

I submit that the people willing to go out and open their wallets care less about running a circa 1999 game now than a lot of other things.

 

You can wish for new hardware support all you want, but XP's basically dead.  With declining market share and zero support from Microsoft what company is going to be spending money and time creating new solutions for XP?  In my company our next product releases are going to be compatible only with Vista and above.

 

And we haven't begun to discuss 64 bit vs. 32 bit (yes, I know there was an XP x64 - I used it for years).  64 bit computing is not the future, it's already here.

 

For what it's worth, I have XP Pro (among others) in a VMware virtual machine for when I need to do testing or evaluations.  I don't feel dual/multiple-boot is a good way to go if you want a system to be stable long term.  Even NTFS is moving on, so dual-booting e.g., Win 8.1 and XP brings some peril.

 

By the way, you argue that XP gives greater performance than a modern system.  I don't agree with that.  You may have one game designed for XP that delivers greater FPS in XP, but there's a lot more to computing than that one game.

 

With a bit of tweaking and 3rd party tool installation one can bring back a lot of the goodness of the XP desktop to even Windows 8.1 (I know it's possible - I'm living that dream, and have even written a book on it).  And there's goodness from Windows 7 - e.g., desktop composition - that's here too that makes it all the more pleasant to use, and which XP can't dream of having.

 

XP was a landmark, a watershed, a Great System, and now it's over.

 

-Noel

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I don't care for Windows NT 6 either. I feel it's laggy and slow. What needs to happen is the entire OS needs to be torn down and built back up from scratch. It feels too overly patched up to me. You can see XP a lot in Vista and even a bit in 7. But what needs to happen is to just completely restart the code from scratch and rebuild Windows. Aero, while it's kind of cool, it slows the OS down way too much. Windows 8 in my opinion is a bit of a joke and their adaption of the word 'apps' *shutters* is ridiculous. No way should a hybrid OS exist. It should either be for a tablet or PC, not both. The fact that a desktop environment and metro environments exists together is quite redundant and unnecessary. Microsoft is trying too hard to be cool in my opinion. Instead, they should go back to the Windows NT 4/ Windows 2000 days when you had an OS that was purely functional and solid in performance. I've had more crashes from NT 6 than the NT 5 series. I personally think Windows 2000 is king but XP isn't too far behind. The fact 3 desktop OSs supersedes it, doesn't mean that it's less than the best. I think Microsoft and possibly others have lost their way on desktop computing, and how many people truly utilize the *rolls eyes* 'cloud' as much as MS tries to say they do? Sure, you have file sharing services and the like but how many people store everything they own online? My bet is mainly the die-hard tech users. Everyday users, probably not much at all. I'll stop now, I've said what I had to.

 

Also, anything utilizing DirectShow I believe it is will suck in Vista/7. I have games that use DirectShow and they either don't work at all, or very very poorly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, I FULLY agree with the statement that "Apps" have no business in a desktop OS.  I haven't seen a Metro/Modern screen since just after I installed Windows 8.1, and indeed (because I've disabled UAC) I can't run such things.  Windows 8.1 can be a fine desktop system when run this way.  Like I said, it just takes a little setting up.

 

By the way, if you're experiencing laggy operation on any system you really do need to consider getting some better hardware.  It's not expensive nowadays to achieve instantaneous responsiveness.  One of my first suggestions would be to look into something like the Crucial MX100 SSD (512 GB for 200 bucks!).  Oh, that's right - XP doesn't know about SSDs.  They may work, but it's because the SSD makers bent over backwards to emulate hard disks.  Another suggestion is to get a happenin' video card.  Anyone can afford a GPU that screams if you save your pennies for just a little while.

 

-Noel

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, I FULLY agree with the statement that "Apps" have no business in a desktop OS.  I haven't seen a Metro/Modern screen since just after I installed Windows 8.1, and indeed (because I've disabled UAC) I can't run such things.  Windows 8.1 can be a fine desktop system when run this way.  Like I said, it just takes a little setting up.

 

By the way, if you're experiencing laggy operation on any system you really do need to consider getting some better hardware.  It's not expensive nowadays to achieve instantaneous responsiveness.  One of my first suggestions would be to look into something like the Crucial MX100 SSD (512 GB for 200 bucks!).  Oh, that's right - XP doesn't know about SSDs.  They may work, but it's because the SSD makers bent over backwards to emulate hard disks.  Another suggestion is to get a happenin' video card.  Anyone can afford a GPU that screams if you save your pennies for just a little while.

 

-Noel

 

I have never tried an SSD but I can only imagine how it can fly since there are no moving parts. I shake my head at the 5,400RPM hard drives because NT5+ just cannot operate well on them. I always choose at least 7,200. Even though there are better things, it's the least I recommend for anyone on a budget.

 

Apps to me sounds like something a high school drop out makes. Applications or Programs sounds much more professional. I know it's nitpicky but I feel the word is too slang to be used mainstream.

 

I fixed a Windows 8 computer for my cousin who complained horribly about how it would jump from Metro to desktop all the time. I was able to bring back the start menu and bypass metro. And I'm sure there is a way to bypass it, but the lock screen is just stupid. There is no way having a lock screen you must shove up with your mouse is productive by any means.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you use a system that runs from SSD, you'll never be able to stand working on anything else.  Everything is just...  Instantaneous.  And it's blessedly quiet.

 

Well, okay, Photoshop still takes 3 seconds to come up.  But everything else happens right now.  The only wait is for the brief animation of windows bending into and out of position. 

 

And it multitasks amazingly well without loading up, because applications aren't waiting for I/Os from other applications to seek the drive.  Switching to SSD may be the single most effective thing you could do to make your computer much more responsive.  Even better, build an array of the little suckers.

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I don't care for Windows NT 6 either. I feel it's laggy and slow. What needs to happen is the entire OS needs to be torn down and built back up from scratch. It feels too overly patched up to me. You can see XP a lot in Vista and even a bit in 7. But what needs to happen is to just completely restart the code from scratch and rebuild Windows. Aero, while it's kind of cool, it slows the OS down way too much. Windows 8 in my opinion is a bit of a joke and their adaption of the word 'apps' *shutters* is ridiculous. No way should a hybrid OS exist. It should either be for a tablet or PC, not both. The fact that a desktop environment and metro environments exists together is quite redundant and unnecessary. Microsoft is trying too hard to be cool in my opinion. Instead, they should go back to the Windows NT 4/ Windows 2000 days when you had an OS that was purely functional and solid in performance. I've had more crashes from NT 6 than the NT 5 series. I personally think Windows 2000 is king but XP isn't too far behind. The fact 3 desktop OSs supersedes it, doesn't mean that it's less than the best. I think Microsoft and possibly others have lost their way on desktop computing, and how many people truly utilize the *rolls eyes* 'cloud' as much as MS tries to say they do? Sure, you have file sharing services and the like but how many people store everything they own online? My bet is mainly the die-hard tech users. Everyday users, probably not much at all. I'll stop now, I've said what I had to.

 

Also, anything utilizing DirectShow I believe it is will suck in Vista/7. I have games that use DirectShow and they either don't work at all, or very very poorly.

 

Basically, I try to avoid the 'cloud' as much as I can.  'Cloud' is good for backing up your passworded/encrypted files (in case someone breaks into your house and steals your hardware).  Even then, I do this from within a browser at my own choosing, not some 'cloud' automated service running in the background.  Other than that...  Can you imagine how stupid 'cloud' computing actually is?  Most people have their internet bandwidth capped on a monthly basis.  Good luck with that and people's concern about their privacy storing their whole setup and private lives online, which may be accessible by virtually anyone!  There's a reason why we have cheap USB pen drives --- so people can go from computer to computer and still have access to their files... offline!  So, let's see...  afford 3-4 USB pen drives/year (or pay a one-time offline software cost) versus pay the same recurring annual dollar subscription for some 'cloud' service I don't really need...

 

Personally, I don't think 9 will be as successful as 7 (b/c seven ate/eats nine --- 7, 8, 9)!  This might be pre-ordained as people pretty much hate Modern-anything UI 1.0.  So, I don't see how ver 2.0 will change people's mind!

 

The way I see it, Windows X, XI will then be purely be based on 'cloud' and will be close to the end of Microsoft.  Then, they backpedal and get reborned/get it right again with Windows 12 offline-edition-only!

 

IMHO just a little speculation on my part, I'd LOL if anything like that ever happened!

Edited by eatup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many reasons why NT6 sucks. Two of my pet peeves are:

- Explorer continually sorts your files while you're still working with them

- Windows takes ages to install updates and gobbles up disk space, which takes ages to clean up too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi xpclient,

 

I don't find it so bad that Explorer sorts while I'm working - assuming it does so consistently, which (for me at least) it seems to do.   I do agree with you that having the option not to sort the list would be far better than not having the option.

 

What I can't seem to get used to, however, is the pop-behind "Do you want to overwrite" prompts that to this day often appear behind open windows.  If you don't notice the flashing yellow button in the Taskbar you might proceed with other operations without realizing you're using the old file.  I've done that a few times.  You'd think Microsoft could figure out how to pop a notification dialog to the top.

 

And regarding updates...  I'm not sensing the things you're saying.  Updates seem quick enough (I guess I have a fairly powerful system), and of course overprovisioning storage in computer ensures a time of usage that is not burdened with constantly trying to figure out how to get more disk space. 

 

When you buy a new computer you should of course consider your future space usage, in addition to what you need right now.  Don't just try to minimize cost.

 

Example:  In 2012 I bought 2TB of SSD storage, even though I only needed 700GB to restore my existing system, applications, and files.  Now I've used a little over 1TB of it and there's still near a TB free.  Sure, it was more expensive, but by spending extra at the time I've completely eliminated any ongoing exceptional expenditure of time and effort to "clean up".

 

Further regarding updates...  Those of you who haven't done so may want to consider disabling the automatic installation of updates and just have the system notify you (or even turn it completely off and instead get a freeware notification tool like WUNotify).  Then you can do your Windows Updates when it's convenient for YOU, not for Microsoft.

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, for those of you considering flaming me for actually liking the new systems, consider this:

 

I think the latest systems right out of the box actually DO suck. 

 

It's only after the reconfiguration of many, many things, and installation of some great and mostly free 3rd party software that Windows 7 and 8 can actually become quite likable.

 

Consider installing these very good 3rd party applications, many of which are free, that restore functionality lost in recent versions of Windows:

 

  • Classic Shell
  • Aero Glass for Win 8.1
  • Vista Shortcut Overlay Manager
  • Send To Toys
  • WizMouse
  • ShellFolderFix
  • grepWin
  • Scanner
  • HWMonitor
  • 7-Zip
  • WUNotify
  • Folder Options X
  • The XP Calc application
  • Autoruns
  • ShellExView
  • ProcExp
  • Z-VSSCopy

 

-Noel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the latest systems right out of the box actually DO suck. 

 

It's only after the reconfiguration of many, many things, and installation of some great and mostly free 3rd party software that Windows 7 and 8 can actually become quite likable.

 

Yep :), i.e. you are not running Windows 8.1 :w00t:, but rather the Windows 8.1 how it should have been made by MS (and was not). 

 

Xpclient might find of interest this previous thread ;):

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/171607-why-does-ms-marketing-still-try-to-mislead-everyone/#entry1076024

 

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep :), i.e. you are not running Windows 8.1 :w00t:, but rather the Windows 8.1 how it should have been made by MS (and was not). 

 

That might be a significant point, except that every version of Windows has needed a great deal of reconfiguration and augmentation.  XP was no different.  I was doing a hundred things to reconfigure XP to be more functional back in the bad ol' days. 

 

Though arguably there's MORE of that reconfiguration and augmentation needed than ever before, things actually end up better now.

 

It's my opinion that, because of the ubiquity of the Internet and the greater capacity of the modern systems, a current system (let's say Windows 7 or 8 x64) can be reconfigured and augmented to be the best OS the world has seen yet.  You can do a lot to a current Windows system and still have it be 100% functional and stable.

 

-Noel

Edited by NoelC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find it so bad that Explorer sorts while I'm working - assuming it does so consistently, which (for me at least) it seems to do.

And regarding updates...  I'm not sensing the things you're saying.  Updates seem quick enough (I guess I have a fairly powerful system), and of course overprovisioning storage in computer ensures a time of usage that is not burdened with constantly trying to figure out how to get more disk space. 

Auto sorting is not consistent at all. Explorer doesn't sort when you copy-paste, rename or create new item on the root of a local drive, on a removable drive or on a network share. It auto sorts only inside subfolders on local drives. Auto sorting of files in Explorer is like a evil bully b***h snatching something from your hands and running away with it.

 

As for the updates issue, you may not be finding them slow probably because you use an SSD. I was using HDDs until now, I recently ordered a Samsung SSD, once it comes maybe the time it takes to install updates, configure the component store and do cleanup will be significantly faster. That doesn't change the fact that it IS several orders of magnitude slower than XP (remember the terrible servicing stack underwent a rewrite in Vista, when SSDs were nowhere near popular), doesn't do aggressive automatic cleanup on its own and delays logoff/logons with its "Please wait while Windows configures" nonsense.

 

I remember reading somewhere that Microsoft developers are all given very fast machines with SSDs to write code on. Maybe their performance testing gets okayed on the hardware THEY have. They do claim that they test on a wide variety of hardware but I find it impossible to believe that anything like the abominable NT6 servicing stack can get okayed from their performance team. Its truly pathetic, probably the most regretful technical "improvement" over NT5 if you excuse the abominations in the user experience and the GUI/shell/Explorer which can be fixed by Classic Shell, 7+ Taskbar Tweaker, StartIsBack etc.

Edited by xpclient
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...