8.1 to 10

Curious and considering it.
Recent custom build with Intel core 17 4790, 16 gigs of ram, 256 gig
ssd for c:, 2tb drive for docs and such. Also using several externals
for backups and other storage.
On this type of system where 8.1 seems to run well and very fast. The
question is would win 10 be the same or better?

Currently running win 10 on 2 other machines that belong to the wife and
she likes it.

I understand people not wanting to lose win 7 and also for the "other"
generation that does not have the ability or want to change. I am not
looking to start a flame war but I have noticed that there has been a
huge drop off in posts on alt.comp.os.windows-8 since 10 came out.

On 14/05/2016 01:15, Drew wrote:
Curious and considering it.
Recent custom build with Intel core 17 4790, 16 gigs of ram, 256 gig
ssd for c:, 2tb drive for docs and such. Also using several externals
for backups and other storage.
On this type of system where 8.1 seems to run well and very fast. The
question is would win 10 be the same or better?

Bette. I have installed Windows 10 on this machine:

Upgraded MAchine Spec
http://content.screencast.com/users/JT19560819/folders/Jing/media/e6850cf6-d755-4390-a411-572e1268ed73/2016-05-14_0125.png


Currently running win 10 on 2 other machines that belong to the wife
and she likes it.

Fantastic. You'll have more good time with her!

I understand people not wanting to lose win 7

they are idiots.

and also for the "other" generation that does not have the ability or
want to change.

Just ignore them. Treat them like other nutters on your high street.

I am not looking to start a flame war but I have noticed that there
has been a huge drop off in posts on alt.comp.os.windows-8 since 10
came out.

Windows 8 has died long time ago. the only person still using is that
octogenarian by the name of Keith Nutter.

On 5/13/2016 8:27 PM, Good Guy wrote:
On 14/05/2016 01:15, Drew wrote:

I understand people not wanting to lose win 7

they are idiots.

Not if you like using Windows Media Center.


I also installed Win 10 on a Win 7 machine (Dell Inspiron N5110) and it
runs faster with Win 7...and that includes boot times.

On 14/05/2016 02:09, Ron wrote:

Not if you like using Windows Media Center.




What is Media Center? How do you use it in business to make profits?
Can a Tax/Accounting practise use it? what about employee
productivity? does it go up or down by using Media Center?




--

/*This post contains rich text (HTML). if you don't like it then you can
kill-filter the poster without crying about it like a small baby so that
you don't see this poster's posts ever again.*/

/*This message is best read in Mozilla Thunderbird as it uses 21st
century technology.*/

On 05/13/16 18:25, Good Guy so wittily quipped:
On 14/05/2016 02:09, Ron wrote:

Not if you like using Windows Media Center.




What is Media Center? How do you use it in business to make profits?
Can a Tax/Accounting practise use it? what about employee
productivity? does it go up or down by using Media Center?

you really ARE an clueless asshole, aren't you?


Would you like a CLUEBAT applied to the seat of knowledge? Or how about
a CAT5-o-9-tails - I got some laying about, gladly will apply them as
needed. In PERSON even!

Drew wrote:
Curious and considering it.
Recent custom build with Intel core 17 4790, 16 gigs of ram, 256 gig
ssd for c:, 2tb drive for docs and such. Also using several externals
for backups and other storage.
On this type of system where 8.1 seems to run well and very fast. The
question is would win 10 be the same or better?

Currently running win 10 on 2 other machines that belong to the wife and
she likes it.

I understand people not wanting to lose win 7 and also for the "other"
generation that does not have the ability or want to change. I am not
looking to start a flame war but I have noticed that there has been a
huge drop off in posts on alt.comp.os.windows-8 since 10 came out.

It'll be "same".

Both Win8 and Win10 reserve cycles for
their own purposes. This is most noticeable
if you benchmark something on Win7 on a dual
core, then test Win8 or Win10 and see how
the benchmark compares. Win8 and Win10 should
be within a hair of one another.

Win10 has a slightly faster program loader,
when under a computing load. If you run
7ZIP with 2x threads as there are
virtual cores, then try to start Firefox,
it takes 60 seconds for Firefox to start
on Win8, and 10 seconds for Firefox to
start on Win10. On WinXP, it takes two or
three seconds to start (unloaded, at least).
Both the program loaded and the Task Manager
on WinXP, are better than anything that comes
afterward. So they would be my "reference point"
for benchmarking. An OS that worked...

*******

I give my standard warning I give someone
interested in testing 500 Linux distros. Back
up the computer. Install something. Test it.
If you don't like it, restore the computer
from backup. This is especially the case,
when setting up multiboot OS drives. I
had three Linux OSes on a drive, and was
aiming to add my fourth, when the fourth OS
erased the other three OSes. And I didn't
have a backup. (Debian did that. Be careful! )

Do not rely on the "reversion" capability
of Win10 installations, to get back to the
Win8.1 qualifying OS. Tiny details will get
missed if you do that. If you make a backup
first, however, everything gets put back
the way you had it.

The other general rule of thumb, is *only*
the disk which is the installation target,
should be connected to the computer during an
OS installation. This applies no matter what
OS is involved. This prevents "accidents" from
happening, where later, unplugging the second
disk seems to magically cause the first
disk to stop booting. If the second disk is
not even present during the installation
phase, it's pretty hard for such "accidents"
to happen.

Paul

On 5/13/16 6:58 PM, Paul wrote:
Do not rely on the "reversion" capability
of Win10 installations, to get back to the
Win8.1 qualifying OS. Tiny details will get
missed if you do that. If you make a backup
first, however, everything gets put back
the way you had it.

+1

I work 9 hr./wk at a PC shop, and we see people bringing in their
systems where the reversion from 10 to X has not gone well.

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 44.0
Thunderbird 38.0.1
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 05/14/16 02:28, Ken Springer so wittily quipped:
On 5/13/16 6:58 PM, Paul wrote:
Do not rely on the "reversion" capability
of Win10 installations, to get back to the
Win8.1 qualifying OS. Tiny details will get
missed if you do that. If you make a backup
first, however, everything gets put back
the way you had it.

+1

I work 9 hr./wk at a PC shop, and we see people bringing in their
systems where the reversion from 10 to X has not gone well.


not surprised. even within the 30 days, sometimes it gets screwed up
[seen too many horror stories online already].

Drew wrote in :

Curious and considering it.
Recent custom build with Intel core 17 4790, 16 gigs of ram, 256 gig
ssd for c:, 2tb drive for docs and such. Also using several externals
for backups and other storage.
On this type of system where 8.1 seems to run well and very fast. The
question is would win 10 be the same or better?

I am not a fan of some of the new features, but on my system Win10 seems to
run faster than 8.1 did.

My System: AMD A10 5700K four core CPU, 24 GB of RAM (this will probably be
the last PC I build, so I wanted to be ready for anything!), had a 128GB
SSD for boot drive that was very nice till it died one day without warning.
Am leary now of replacing it with another SSD. I have three WD Black 2TB
drives, two in a RAID 1 array and one standalone, plus several other
drives. I have a big honking CPU cooler, and have been able to run two
video transcodes at the same time without raising the CPU temp more than a
degree or two, and without maxing the system. Win10 works for me.

Tim wrote:
Drew wrote in :

Curious and considering it.
Recent custom build with Intel core 17 4790, 16 gigs of ram, 256 gig
ssd for c:, 2tb drive for docs and such. Also using several externals
for backups and other storage.
On this type of system where 8.1 seems to run well and very fast. The
question is would win 10 be the same or better?

I am not a fan of some of the new features, but on my system Win10 seems to
run faster than 8.1 did.

My System: AMD A10 5700K four core CPU, 24 GB of RAM (this will probably be
the last PC I build, so I wanted to be ready for anything!), had a 128GB
SSD for boot drive that was very nice till it died one day without warning.
Am leary now of replacing it with another SSD. I have three WD Black 2TB
drives, two in a RAID 1 array and one standalone, plus several other
drives. I have a big honking CPU cooler, and have been able to run two
video transcodes at the same time without raising the CPU temp more than a
degree or two, and without maxing the system. Win10 works for me.

There are some benchmarks here, which cover more areas
than I'd be able to cover. What I really want to see,
is this suite run on a dual core processor, because
I feel the dual core highlights the details of the
OSes better.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-...-vs-windows-7/

Tomshardware did a test a while back, where they used a
hex core processor overclocked to 4GHz, and then benchmarked
it. Which tends to swamp out any details of "wasteful-ness"
in any particular OS tested. Their conclusion at the time
is that gameplay wasn't affected by OS used. It's so hard
to find someone willing to test with gutless hardware.
More people own gutless hardware, than own $2000 computers.

Paul

On 05/14/16 00:34, Paul so wittily quipped:
There are some benchmarks here, which cover more areas
than I'd be able to cover. What I really want to see,
is this suite run on a dual core processor, because
I feel the dual core highlights the details of the
OSes better.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-...-vs-windows-7/

when I saw that they compared 8 and 7 and said '8 was on par, and
sometimes a little faster' I just about fell off the chair.

EVERY! OTHER! MEASUREMENT! I! HAVE! SEEN! (and made myself) shows that
for some rather CRITICAL timings [like application load times], "Ape" is
a LOT slower than 7.

THIS page, however, was consistent with that:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-...s-7/page3.html

where it matters - APPLICATION PERFORMANCE [like I mentioned already] is
SLOWER in "Ape", but about the same between 7 and 10, with 10 being
"slightly slower" than 7, with the interesting exception of firefox...
10 was slower than 8, which was slower than 7.

IE11 was the exception, being slower on 7 than 8 or 10, and WAY slower
than their new 'edge' (not surprising since MS browsers *SUCK*)

(they're disk performance did NOT compare any 'spinny' drives,
interestingly enough, so it was pointless to proceed)

in any case, things that matter and frustrate people the MOST are
"application slowness" issues, and NOT 'all that other ****' that makes
the BENCHMARK FANS cream their jeans. In fact, you could build an
adaptor or software or even an operating system "to pass the test with
flying colors", and YET have it COMPLETELY SUCK with REAL WORLD
performance. it happens, AND has been written about more than once.


In short, I think my observations stand: 7's performance (overall) is
faster than "Ape", and slightly faster than Win-10-nic. And that would
be based on USER PERCEPTION, which makes the BIGGEST difference in the
OS and platform that people choose.

incidentally - the 2D FLUGLY affects USER PERCEPTION also, which is why
7 machines (up until October of 2014) *FLEW* off of the shelves when
compared to "Ape" machines, because the PERCEPTION was that 7 is, just,
BETTER than "Ape". And Win-10-nic is like APE with spyware, adware,
forced updates, yotta yotta.

Micro-shaft HAS to give it away! Otherwise, who would BUY it [except
fanbois] ???

Paul wrote:
Tim wrote:
Drew wrote in :

Curious and considering it.
Recent custom build with Intel core 17 4790, 16 gigs of ram, 256 gig
ssd for c:, 2tb drive for docs and such. Also using several externals
for backups and other storage.
On this type of system where 8.1 seems to run well and very fast. The
question is would win 10 be the same or better?

I am not a fan of some of the new features, but on my system Win10
seems to run faster than 8.1 did.
My System: AMD A10 5700K four core CPU, 24 GB of RAM (this will
probably be the last PC I build, so I wanted to be ready for
anything!), had a 128GB SSD for boot drive that was very nice till it
died one day without warning. Am leary now of replacing it with
another SSD. I have three WD Black 2TB drives, two in a RAID 1 array
and one standalone, plus several other drives. I have a big honking
CPU cooler, and have been able to run two video transcodes at the same
time without raising the CPU temp more than a degree or two, and
without maxing the system. Win10 works for me.

There are some benchmarks here, which cover more areas
than I'd be able to cover. What I really want to see,
is this suite run on a dual core processor, because
I feel the dual core highlights the details of the
OSes better.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-...-vs-windows-7/

Tomshardware did a test a while back, where they used a
hex core processor overclocked to 4GHz, and then benchmarked
it. Which tends to swamp out any details of "wasteful-ness"
in any particular OS tested. Their conclusion at the time
is that gameplay wasn't affected by OS used. It's so hard
to find someone willing to test with gutless hardware.
More people own gutless hardware, than own $2000 computers.

Paul

I ran off a set of my own benchmarks.

Time in minutes. 7Zip of Win81 System32 folder in TAR format
(a 3,062,530,048 byte test.tar -- test.tar.7Z).
7ZIP 7Z "Normal" setting used. Shorter times are better.
"Normal" was used, so the dictionary size needed for
large thread counts wouldn't be an issue. And it was
getting too slow to benchmark with "Ultra" settings.

SuperPI computes PI, and is used by hardware enthusiasts
as a benchmark of single-thread performance. Allowing hardware
with "turbo" behavior to excel. An OS that schedules a
thread to stay parked on one core, might be able to
disable the other cores (C state optimization). I
don't think my hardware has the necessary prerequisites
for this. Someone running an AMD processor might see
more SuperPI differentiation versus OS version.

SuperPI 7ZIP 1T 2T 4T (on 2C 2T E8400 CPU)
1.5XS 9.34

(WinXPx32) 3:19.546 21:32 12:09 11:16

Win7SP1x64 3:18.791 21:01 11:48 10:46
Win81x64 3:19.656 20:59 11:59 10:44
Win10x64 3:21.813 21:08 12:10 10:52

1T 12T 24T (on 6C 12T 4930K CPU)
Win7SP1x64 1:59.028 15:22 2:09 2:00
Win81x64 1:59.197 15:29 2:09 1:58
Win10x64 2:00.044 15:38 2:10 2:01

Strictly speaking, the WinXP set isn't part of the
results, because we're comparing a 32 bit OS, to the
other six 64 bit OSes. But it's interesting anyway,
to see that WinXP gives a bit more horsepower, when
over-subscribed.

The "1T" case, is one thread of execution. A single
core does the 7Z compression in that case.

The middle column in the results (2T/12T), is
when every logical core has a thread of execution.
This is the default choice the GUI in 7ZIP makes
when you run a compression of this type (7Z).

The right-most column, is when over-subscribing
the logical cores. The 7ZIP menu allows running
two threads per logical core. If an OS "holds back"
cycles, you might see the right-most column give
a bit more performance than the middle column.

When you compare these two rows, you can see
that Win10 does a better job when over-subscribed.
And the ratio of 21:08 to 10:52 is almost exactly
double the performance.

(WinXPx32) 3:19.546 21:32 12:09 11:16
Win10x64 3:21.813 21:08 12:10 10:52

Yet, when you compare these two rows, Win7 is
winning. Win10 still seems to be holding back
a bit. Across the board.

Win7SP1x64 3:18.791 21:01 11:48 10:46
Win10x64 3:21.813 21:08 12:10 10:52

In the last three rows, if any CPU cycle reservation
is going on, it's not apparent on a 6 core machine.
This is why you shouldn't benchmark on monster machines,
hoping to find "nuances". The 2 core machine (first four
rows) is a better place to study behaviors.

Two threads per logical core -----------+
One thread per logical core -----+ |
(Reference for scaleup) ---+ | |
| | |
v v v

1T 12T 24T
Win7SP1x64 1:59.028 15:22 2:09 2:00
Win81x64 1:59.197 15:29 2:09 1:58
Win10x64 2:00.044 15:38 2:10 2:01

With the six core processor with hyperthreading,
you would expect 6x faster operation without
hyperthreading, and a bit more with hyperthreading
enabled. The result is around 7.5x, so the hyperthreading
adds around another 1.5 cores of performance (20%).

I would have liked to run Cinebench, but without
a video driver for the "2 Core machine" video card
in Windows 10, I couldn't run a full matrix of
test results.

Paul

On 05/13/16 21:31, Tim so wittily quipped:
Drew wrote in :

Curious and considering it.
Recent custom build with Intel core 17 4790, 16 gigs of ram, 256 gig
ssd for c:, 2tb drive for docs and such. Also using several externals
for backups and other storage.
On this type of system where 8.1 seems to run well and very fast. The
question is would win 10 be the same or better?

I am not a fan of some of the new features, but on my system Win10 seems to
run faster than 8.1 did.

interestingly enough, this has been measured. Win-10-nic is still a bit
slower than 7 and XP, though, from the measurement results I've seen.
And made. SPINNY drives have the worst comparison, since Win-10-nic
seems to be a bit unfriendlier to them. Too much registry crap compared
to earlier versions, WAY slows things down due to internally 'paranoid'
cacheing like "I gotta re-re-re-re-read that AGAIN because it *might*
have changed, even though that's impossible". I'm pretty sure that with
the registry, THAT is happening [which is why an SSD makes such a huge
difference, even though it shouldn't be THAT huge, because spinny disks
have latency due to the 'spinning' thing, and I'm right about the
'paranoid cacheing'].

On 14/05/2016 8:15 AM, Drew wrote:
I understand people not wanting to lose win 7 and also for the "other"
generation that does not have the ability or want to change....

This belief enable Window$ 7 to be sold at higher prices.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
�借貸! ��騙! ��交! �打交! �打劫! �自殺! 請考慮綜� (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa

On 05/13/16 22:02, Mr. Man-wai Chang so wittily quipped:
On 14/05/2016 8:15 AM, Drew wrote:
I understand people not wanting to lose win 7 and also for the "other"
generation that does not have the ability or want to change....

This belief enable Window$ 7 to be sold at higher prices.


funny, I bought a 7 machine recently for $150 and it's a dual core 3Ghz
Lenovo running 7 Pro 64-bit.

"higher prices" indeed...

How about USER PREFERENCE because "Ape" and Win-10-nic *SUCK* by
comparison to 7???