Anyone Else Noticed The Newer Windows Versions are SLOWER?

[NoelC]

One of the things that bothers me is when people in general, relying upon their feelings, report that the newest versions of Windows are faster.   From my perspective, based on my own actual experience, the newer versions are almost universally slower.

 

There could be many reasons for the disparity...

 

• People tend to compare new, freshly installed software with old, loaded-up, malconfigured software.  Almost no one keeps their Windows system running as well as when it was first installed.
   
• People run different things.  It's possible certain specific things do run better with a particular new version than with a particular old version.  Windows is complicated; it's hard to generalize.
   
• People have different hardware.  It's possible that because the implementation of a driver for particular hardware has gotten better, the new version feels faster.
   
• People WANT to find something good about the new version, and are thus overly optimistic.
   
• Almost no one has systems they can test side by side, with equivalent power and resources, to objectively determine what's faster than what.  Thus they often compare their old computer running Windows Old against their new computer running Windows New.
   
• Many folks generally don't tweak Windows for best performance, and so they may be comparing the performance of out-of-box configurations.  Some configuration options are changed by default in newer versions.  Others (e.g., myself) compare tuned-up software from old and new versions.
   
• Newer versions tend to have more stuff running (leaving less power for the user's work), because they strive to provide ever higher levels of functionality to users (though it's debatable whether they succeed).  Even an aggressive system tweaker can't always make a new system as trim as an older one.  My best Win 7 configs run thirty-something processes when sitting idle, Win 8.1 forty-something, and Win 10 fifty-something processes.
   

Every objective measurement I make on well-tuned setups shows Windows 7 virtually always does tasks faster than Windows 8.1 or Windows 10 on equally provisioned systems.  Benchmarks show this, and timing of real-world computing operations match the benchmarks.

 

In particular the 2D display logic is getting slower, as well as the file system (and especially when accessed via Explorer).

 

Just some recent measurements...

 

 

-Noel
 

[bphlpt]

Noel, you have usually been an early adopter, with the exception of Windows 8.0, and you have maintained that there is value in having a more current OS.  You have also been very successful in beating the OS into submission to the point that you are able to work comfortably with it and all the other software that you need/want to use.  As you often say, it works for you.

 

And I acknowledge that it can be convenient for a software developer to use the latest OS, at least in a VM, and it might even be required if you are developing apps for Windows Phone and/or the Windows store.

 

But, with that exception, from your post above it seems you are saying that, from a user's standpoint, with the same hardware and assuming that the user has properly tuned their system and kept it up to date, there is no reason from either a performance or features perspective to update from a Windows 7 OS that meets the user's needs.  Correct?

 

Cheers and Regards

[jaclaz]

One of the things that bothers me is when people in general, relying upon their feelings, report that the newest versions of Windows are faster.   From my perspective, based on my own actual experience, the newer versions are almost universally slower.

...

Really?

 

... My best Win 7 configs run thirty-something processes when sitting idle, Win 8.1 forty-something, and Win 10 fifty-something processes.

...

Are you saying that unexpectedly adding any number of largely useless processes and have them running at all times does not speed things up?

 

I will then also surprise you with the fact that (generally speaking) the less bytes you juggle around (from disk to RAM, from RAM to disk, etc.) the faster the overall performance of the system is , no matter the speed of the involved subsystems, smaller is faster (whether this will be noticeable in every day use, outside a benchmark  test, is another thing).

 

"They"  (the good guys at MS, but also many of the OEM's and hardware makers) are trying their best to make this kind of fair (same hardware different OS) comparisons  more difficult, by removing (or not providing) suitable drivers for the actually faster/better hardware.

 

As a matter of fact software development has since a long time leveraged on the ever increasing performance of hardware to produce more bloated and insanely slower software when compared to a previous version of the same program.

 

And yes , most people are either opinionated when they report of a new (more bloated) OS being faster than the previous ones (for the same activities) or they make the comparison on incomparable different hardware or between their (half botched) "old" install vs a fresh, new, pristine install, or they are simply plainly wrong (i.e. they fail in making correct tests). 

 

@bphlpt

The point is - I guess - on the "meets the user's needs", given as established that a newer, more bloated, OS with a zillion added processes is slower than a previous, leaner one, we need to define the "user's needs", even if some of them make no sense whatever these added processes and stuff have the scope to offer to the user "added features".

Now, which of these features (the ones that make sense) are actually a "need" and which are just "cool" or are just "what everyone else is usng then I must have it as well"?

There is not I believe a one-size-fits-all answer, even because some of the "needs" may arise by stupid or senseless choices of third parties, like (say) sites refusing to work on your not-the -latest-version of a browser, or someone sending you a document in a needlessly changed/updated file format (as an example AutoDesk has been known to change the Autocad file format every year or so for several years).

 

jaclaz

Edited March 22, 2015 by jaclaz

[StefansART]

I always shut down all services and autostartobject i don't need, even superfetch. I always tweak it for performance.

The newer OS the more C**P running by default. That is also one of the reasons why i have choosen to stay with XP x64.

On my dual core 3,33 Ghz, UEFI, 16GB ram, Samsung EVO 840 500GB, XP x64 is the fastest to start, the fastest to respond when desktop is running. All other are slower.

[NoelC]

Noel, you have usually been an early adopter, with the exception of Windows 8.0, and you have maintained that there is value in having a more current OS.  You have also been very successful in beating the OS into submission to the point that you are able to work comfortably with it and all the other software that you need/want to use.  As you often say, it works for you.

 

And I acknowledge that it can be convenient for a software developer to use the latest OS, at least in a VM, and it might even be required if you are developing apps for Windows Phone and/or the Windows store.

 

But, with that exception, from your post above it seems you are saying that, from a user's standpoint, with the same hardware and assuming that the user has properly tuned their system and kept it up to date, there is no reason from either a performance or features perspective to update from a Windows 7 OS that meets the user's needs.  Correct?

 

Cheers and Regards

 

Hi bphlpt,

 

It's hard to say "no reason", but generally speaking, if your needs are desktop centric you would have substantially all of what you need in a well-tuned and augmented Windows 7 system today, yes.  And it would be the best performing and most elegant desktop ever made, in my opinion.

 

The answer may differ from user to user and system to system.

 

When Windows 8, then later 8.1 came out, I set about reconfiguring and augmenting the system to meet my particular combination of needs - desktop centric engineering and business work.  I did so in a VMware VM, and because I have such a big system I was able to provision the VM to be powerful enough to do real work, not just a limited subset.

 

Once I had achieved a very decent desktop-centric setup, I did a full, multi-week "return on investment" analysis where I reviewed all the activities I do and software I use, and whether Windows 8 / 8.1 would provide me any additional value over my then quite nicely set up Windows 7 system. 

 

For part of that time - a bit less than a week in both cases - I ran the VM full-screen across all my monitors and immersed myself in it.  I did all my work, noting whether the features of the newer system helped or hindered, whether things were stable, whether things were better or worse, and made notes, which turned into a report.  I made some subjective judgments as I went along then, once I felt I'd done enough to start building a conclusion, I went over everything and tried to assign value.

 

Windows 8 failed the test.  I could not find enough additional value in what I could do with Windows 8.0 to offset the additional irritation of using its degraded user interface and dealing with its quirks - even considering I do place a value on keeping current.  At that point I reverted to Windows 7 and kept running Windows 8 in a virtual machine for testing.

 

When Windows 8.1 came out, I went through the whole thing again, starting from a fresh install.  By late 2013 Big Muscle had polished up his Aero Glass tool and many other programs had been tidied up to work well with it, to the point where my value judgment came out in favor of upgrading.  Honestly, I don't think the things Microsoft changed had much bearing on what I decided.  In fact, some (e.g., removing the backup UI) were negative, but I found a workaround (scheduling a wbadmin command).

 

Looking back on the past 17 months of hard daily Windows 8.1 use (I'm a workaholic), I can definitely say I made the right decision.  It's been a solid, reliable system that has facilitated my work quite well.

 

A side effect is that I have been building the information I've learned on how to set up and augment Windows into a series of eBooks, which I am updating for Windows 10 as well.

 

Bottom line answer to your question:  It's practically impossible to make a general judgment about whether it would be viable for anyone else to remain on Win 7 or upgrade to a later version.  There are no "gee whiz, must have" type features that make the answer a slam dunk.  You really have to judge for yourself, based on YOUR needs, what YOU value, and YOUR skills in achieving a good setup.

 

Pressed into an answer, I'd have to say that a decision to stay with Windows 7 would not be overtly wrong.  For now.

 

-Noel

 

 

 

 

P.S., If I had to predict the future, I'll say that I probably will ultimately upgrade to Windows 10, but most likely not the day after release.  It may be another case of waiting for the first or second big update before the value judgment turns positive.

 

P.P.S., the slowdowns in more recent versions have not changed my user experience enough to notice - much.  I still do find irritation in how long it takes Windows 8.1 to do operations on large trees of files with Explorer.  Why do we ever see a "Delete Progress" dialog, when even XP could delete or move trees of files in an eyeblink.  Something's definitely been hobbled there, on purpose.

Edited March 22, 2015 by NoelC

[TELVM]

... Samsung 840 EVO ...

 

Just in case you weren't aware: http://techreport.com/review/27727/some-840-evos-still-vulnerable-to-read-speed-slowdowns

 

After ~3 months read speeds begin going south, ultimately reaching good ole UDMA-33 levels    :

 

[ZortMcGort11]

No. I haven't noticed that they are slower... just stupider. If they made them less stupid, they might appear faster.

I mean, a JPEG is gonna load faster on a newer version of Windows, simply because the OS requires more processing power and RAM. The unfortunate thing is that the newer versions of Windows lack the grace, elegance, and simplicity (and therefore speed) of the Windows ME and Windows 2000 interfaces. XP was the beginning of the stupidness.

Just my two cents. Naysayers can waste their time calling me a blankety blank. Will not listen because I don't care.

Edited March 22, 2015 by ZortMcGort11

[NoelC]

Just goes to show, everyone has their favorite way of working with the OS. 

 

The world would be boring indeed if everyone had identical preferences.  But maybe everyone would be happy. 

 

-Noel

[bphlpt]

Noel, I truly appreciate your thoughtful response.
 
The only trouble I have with it is trying to  understand exactly what "additional value", other than the undefinable value of "staying current", that Windows 8.x+ has provided you over what you were able to achieve with your well tuned installations of Windows 7.  It's not performance, given the same hardware, and the main "feature" that the new OS have that Windows 7 doesn't is the "Metro Modern" apps that I know you don't use.  I'm not aware of any feature that the new OS have that you didn't already have with Windows 7.  Yes, thanks to your experiments and hard work you have learned enough to be able to extend your eBook series, but I believe you could have learned all of that using the OS in a VM while taking advantage of the performance advantages of Windows 7 as your host OS, but just maybe not as quickly as having it installed on metal full time.  Is it measurably more stable?  Does any of your other software require the newer OS?  Hardware compatibility issue?  Or what?
 
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just really trying to understand.  The fact that you have been able to manipulate the OS and add enough 3rd party apps to make the resulting OS installation meet your needs in a very functional and stable manner is not in question and is not the point.  I also realize, as both you and jaclaz have said, that everyone's circumstances and needs are different and the decision of which OS to use is an individual one and often a personal matter.  And I also realize that decision can change over time as things change.  But, if you don't mind saying, what was the "additional value" you found?  That undefinable value of "staying current" is the only thing you have consistently stated that I can't give an argument against or that you haven't measurably disproved yourself.
 
I have seen the various UI changes, continued code bloat, diminishing user control over the update process, etc that I don't like without any value added to the OS at all.  Like you, I see absolutely no value to any of the Windows store apps at all.  So I have just not seen any reason to change from Windows 7.  For now.
 
Cheers and Regards

Edited March 22, 2015 by bphlpt

[NoelC]

Man, you do ask the hard questions.    Without digging into my notes, off the top of my head...

 

No, Windows 8.1 is not more stable, inasmuch as Win 7 and 8.1 both just run for as long as needed without complaint between reboots mandated by Windows Updates.  I seem to be able to do as intensive operations as I'd like without failure.  Any reduction in reliability would have been a show stopper right there.

 

In testing, Win 8.1 overall did all I needed and worked equally as well, so that when I factored in "keeping current" it came out ahead.  Any performance loss seemed inconsequential.  My system is quick to do what I want with either OS.

 

Though I wouldn't prefer tabs in general, I liked that there was less boilerplate at the top of Windows 8's File Explorer windows than on Windows 7's Explorer windows.  That makes a little more room for files.  Similarly, there are things (what was it?  Favorites or Libraries) I can hide overtly in Win 8.1 from the Navigation Pane that I found problematic hiding in 7.

 

I do like that I can mount ISOs.  That helps with things occasionally.  I would have either have continued to use VMware to help with that (I would mount an ISO as a virtual DVD drive), or get some other 3rd party application.

 

Having several ways to look at what's running vs. just one - e.g., new Task Manager and​ old Task Manager (resurrected from WinRE) running - has been helpful on occasion.

 

Once I replaced the theme atlas, courtesy Big Muscle's software, I found I had achieved a look and feel I liked better than Windows 7's stock Aero Glass.  A lot of folks like Win 7's look better - more power to them - but I like mine better.  Call it "cleaner" or "plainer".  That's pretty minor, but I do value comfort as I sit in front of this thing a LOT.

 

Things learned since, which tend to support the "intangible value of keeping current"...  Developers of modern (not Metro/Modern per se) software are likely targeting the latest Windows most strongly in their development and testing.  So far I have seen Windows 8(.1) display drivers work in a few cases where Windows 7 drivers were reported to fail.  I've seen Photoshop releases that have worked flawlessly on my Win 8.1 setup where people with Win 7 complained of failures.

 

-Noel

 

 

P.S., it seems to me that there's no better way to keep on top of what's happening on the "bleeding edge" than to immerse oneself in the latest system.  For example, it may well be that I will warm up to "Apps" now that Win 10 allows them to run on the desktop.  It may be the first Windows where I don't disable UAC, though I'll certainly pull the slider to the bottom.  One day, should a Metro/Modern App come out that strikes my fancy, I'll be able to run it.

 

Call me a "conservative early adopter" I guess. 

 

P.P.S., don't feel funny about pushing this.  I love these sorts of conversations.

Edited March 22, 2015 by NoelC

[R4D3]

The Graphic Speed (2D & 3D) - belongs to the Graphic Driver (Amd/Nvidia/Intel)

 

- with every driver version some detailed stuff in 3D and 2D get slower, and other faster, sometimes, just slower....

 

this is: cause the Companys (particularly AMD) tune their drivers always for their newest product, and dont care for the older one anymore !

 

Its not their target, to make drivers for all cards, without bugs, and with a good overall performance...

 

- it is the same stuff with OpenGL, - my old HD4770 got more performance in OpenGL & 2D than my actual HD7790 - cause AMD decide to drop down the OpenGL Performance by 75% in their customer productline... - before some years it was just dropped by 50%....

Edited March 22, 2015 by R4D3

[NoelC]

Not everything is about the driver implementation, and besides, that wouldn't really explain why graphic I/O got generally slower with Win 8.1.  Perhaps there are limitations in the newer driver models that AMD couldn't quite get around as well as with their prior releases, I don't know.

 

FYI, I've managed to crash Internet Explorer with experimental mode enabled in Win 10 build 10041 twice while typing responses into this thread.  Glad the forum has auto-save capability.  :-)

 

-Noel

Edited March 22, 2015 by NoelC

[R4D3]

I am sure my friend - i have tested more than 50 AMD Driver Versions (even selfmodded and mixed, on XP and Windows 7), on 4 Generations of cards...

 

here one example

 

- wait: i am wrong - sorry - it depends on the energy profile and screen resolution too...

Edited March 23, 2015 by R4D3

[bphlpt]

Man, you do ask the hard questions. 

...

P.P.S., don't feel funny about pushing this.  I love these sorts of conversations.

 

At least you have identified specific things you actually like better about the new OS.  Whether those same capabilities could have been added to Windows 7 through tweaks and/or 3rd party apps, I don't know.  As to whether those added values are worth switching OS, I guess we'll agree to disagree, for now.

 

Cheers and Regards my friend

[NoelC]

I wish there were things about the new versions we could point to and say, "That's better!", but sadly there are not.

 

Pretty much they're service packs with some things removed or degraded, which we can work around.

 

As far as disagreement, I simply don't see one.  For your needs, you're making the right decision for you, and for my needs, I've made the right decision for me.  It's an issue that defies being oversimplified, because the devil is in the details.

 

-Noel