Windows 10 - First Impressions

[jaclaz]

 

Frankly I find it INCREDIBLY frustrating that they keep talking out their butts about Windows 10 being faster.  The ONLY friggin' way it's faster than Win 7 is that computers today are generally faster than computers of 2009.  Even relabeling hibernation as shutdown and bootup is a scam.  My new system boots to the Windows 7 desktop just as the swirling parts of the flag come together.  Under 15 seconds, and within 1 second of the speed of booting up Windows 10 with hybrid boot disabled.

 

Actually, when you actually take the time to measure it, Windows 10 is slower or no faster than Windows 7 across the board, and runs the processor measurably hotter to do the same things.  I just did more Passmark benchmarking.  The desktop doesn't seem any more responsive, and in fact less. 

And you are doing your testing on the "wrong" hardware

 

I mean you have a prolly fastish system with a very fast storage subsystem, I believe heaps of RAM and what not and have the Operating Systems "tuned" and "optimized".

 

If you try testing "default", "untouched" installs on a slower (you would call it outdated) hardware, with only a little more than the minimum requisites MS asks for the given OS, think at a "low-end", or "budget" office machine like - say - a 2011 mini-desktop or in a (slowish) VM like Qemu it is very likely that you won't even need any sophisticated benchmark to see the performance degradation that took place over the years.

 

jaclaz

[NoelC]

It kind of doesn't matter how big or small the hardware is when the relative measurements on the same hardware show a slowdown.

 

And I kind of disagree that it's important how a "default" or "untouched" install runs?  What seems to matter most to me is how well it can run when well set up.  Yes, you could argue that most folks' experience is with un-tweaked systems.

 

For what it's worth, way back when I did find some things faster on a (well-tuned) Win 7 x64 system vs. its predecessor, (a well set up) Vista x64.  On the other hand, Vista ran like a pig by comparison to XP x64, and I had to throw out a $1,000+ workstation video card and buy a newer gamer card just to support it.  I don't care to compare Win 7 x64 against XP x64, as I really never did head to head testing.  I suspect you're right, since XP was trimmer it probably did many things more efficiently.  On the other hand, a modern Win 7 or 8.1 system supported by a good GPU is arguably more responsive than XP ever was on the systems of its day.

 

There is no question each new operating system version requires more resources - by absolute measurement.  But by cost?  By performance?  Not so much.  A modern $1,000 computer packs a LOT more RAM, disk storage, and processor speed than a similarly priced machine from a decade ago. 

 

And while I agree that the code is getting "fluffier" I don't think it's all fluff.  There actually ARE some things the new systems do better than the old ones did.  Depending on point of view, quite a few things.  Consider advancements in display tech, for example.  Or the fact that, while XP was pretty stable, it still did exhaust its resources after a time and need at least a log off/on, if not a reboot every so often.  Some of those bugs have been fixed since then.

 

We can pine for a system that "might have been", but sadly Digital Equipment Corp. is long gone.  What we have today are the two architectures (derived from VMS or derived from Unix) to choose from, and little likelihood of anything to replace them any time soon.  It's really a value proposition where "the lesser of the evils" must be evaluated.  I figure the best thing to do is try to make the best of what we have.

 

-Noel

 

 

Edit:  Microsoft would like us to believe that the elegance (e.g., glass effect) has been removed from the desktop to enhance performance.  Why, then, do we see these kinds of results?  This is a test of a mostly-stock Win 7 vs. mostly-stock Win 10 build 10074 on a 2 core 4 GB machine with Intel on-chip graphics I've recently acquired.  This shows a pretty significant degradation between Win 7 x64 (red) and Win 10 (blue) that can actually be felt in the UI.  In 6 years of OS development only the display of images has gotten better; everything else is noticeably worse.

 

 

Of course a Marketeer would focus on the Image Rendering result above and say, "See?  Windows 10 IS faster!"

 

 

-Noel

Edited May 16, 2015 by NoelC

[jaclaz]

It kind of doesn't matter how big or small the hardware is when the relative measurements on the same hardware show a slowdown.

Sure, data is data (objective), what I was saying was that - say - operation "x" causing a a "lag" of 1.5 ms accurately measured through a benchmark on your "powerful, modern machine" may be less noticeable or not noticeable at all (though still measurable) while the exact same operation "x" on a low-end machine could create a 30 ms lag and become a noticeable sign of sluggishness.

And I kind of disagree that it's important how a "default" or "untouched" install runs?  What seems to matter most to me is how well it can run when well set up.  Yes, you could argue that most folks' experience is with un-tweaked systems.

There is nothing to agree or disagree, they are simply different method of analysis, IMHO both valid and - ideally - that should be compared to provide a better context.

If I measure a "default", "plain", "untouched" install on a plain, common, OEM PC I get an idea of what the good MS guys do and what most people will get and how good the (say) HP or Dell engineers have managed to make a "balanced" machine for a competitive price.

If I measure your "fine-tuned" system I get an idea of what the good MS guys do summed together to your fine tuning and to the (comparatively) more expensive hardware you have.

It's similar with cars, the model that is tested/reviewed on a car magazine (and that "normal" people can "normally" buy with a "normal" amount of money) is usually the actual "mass product" and not the finely tuned and customized car that a racing team puts together using it as "base" and that actually wins (say) the world rally championship.

jaclaz

[NoelC]

By the way, the system from which I published the PerformanceTest results above cost a whole $299.  Not exactly high end.  The GPU is whatever one the Pentium G3220 has in it - pretty much the definition of a low end system.  

 

And, while the OS install is not bone stock, both Win 7 and Win 10 have the SAME level of tweaking, and they're not augmented with much of the litany of 3rd party software I normally use on my workstations as its intent is to sit quietly in a corner and serve files.

 

-Noel

[jaclaz]

.... as its intent is to sit quietly in a corner and serve files.

 

So specifically you won't even get the advantage of the faster image rendering!

 

jaclaz

[NoelC]

Well, given that I probably won't ever actually run Win 10 on that system except for testing, it doesn't really matter. 

 

I put Win 10 TP on the internal backup drive before I received the SSD hardware from which it now boots Win 7, just to have something to run and test the system with.  Depending on which drive I put first in the BIOS boot order, I can boot it up on either system now.

 

-Noel

[TELVM]

Behold the wonders ahead.

 

W10 will automatically install Candy Crush Saga, bundleware comes to Redmond

 

[Formfiller]

Behold the wonders ahead.

 

W10 will automatically install Candy Crush Saga, bundleware comes to Redmond

 

 

 

What is the world coming to?

 

No, really:

It's no secret that Microsoft has had trouble filling its app stores with quality games and other content, so when the company announced Candy Crush Saga would be coming to Windows 10, it sounded like good news.

 

But it's not. Apparently, Microsoft has struck a deal with the devil to make this happen as the company has also said that Windows 10 will automatically install this game during the launch period of the new OS.

 

Cleary, this is the deal Microsoft had to make to get this game brought to its stores.

 

 

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

 

Microsoft has to bow down to Candy Crush?! Oh boy, metro was truly worth it!

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Ha, and I'm a conspiracy nut...

[NoelC]

Don't feel bad.  Earlier today I was told to "take off my tin foil hat".

 

Then KB3035583 (the "GWX" shill update), which I had previously hidden when it was an optional update magically reappeared today as an important update.

 

So let me get this straight, if I avoid upgrading to Windows 10 in the initial rush, I don't have to deal with an infantile game?  Sounds good to me.  Waiting - possibly a year or longer - to move to Windows 10 has been my plan all along and this just reinforces the efficacy of that plan.

 

What's next, Microsoft paying customers to upgrade?

 

-Noel

[Formfiller]

Don't feel bad.  Earlier today I was told to "take off my tin foil hat".

 

Then KB3035583 (the "GWX" shill update), which I had previously hidden when it was an optional update magically reappeared today as an important update.

 

It's actually an important update for quite some time. I think they labeled it to important three weeks ago.

[NoelC]

Perhaps not for Win 8.1 until now...  I have kept my system up to date, and the last set went in just 2 days ago.

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

Here's a great article on how business customers are increasingly p***ed off by Microsoft's "cloud first, mobile first" and licensing policies. Unfortunately it's only in German but the translator does a good enough job.

It's a must read, even in its auto-translated form.

Part 1

Part 2

part 3

 

Here's a quote that jumped out at me from Part 2:

 

CIO.de: Microsoft's new main strategy is: Mobile First - cloud first. What does this mean for your investments?

 

Ehbauer: From the perspective of the licensing policy, this cloud strategy is even a weapon. Previously, Microsoft was dependent, but not version-dependent. We have about an Office version completely omitted, thus saving hundreds of thousands of euros. In the rental model is not possible.

 

Yup, the idea is to turn you into a serf paying rent for your license every year, where before you paid for it once and then owned it forever. I fire up my MS Office 2000 suite once in a while, for one reason or another. And my main work machine has Office 2007 on it, works just fine and I don't miss any of the new features that have been added since.

 

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Behold the wonders ahead.

 

W10 will automatically install Candy Crush Saga, bundleware comes to Redmond

 

 

OMG, is that a hint as to their view of Windows users? Or maybe it's a hint as to the kind of audience they're going after.

 

Wonder how long before one of the AV vendors interrupts an installation of Win10 over Win7 as a PUP...

 

--JorgeA

Edited May 15, 2015 by JorgeA

[NoelC]

 

-Noel