Even if you Want Metro this is totally CRAZY

[windude99]

I do prefer windows 8 as it is faster than 7. I just read an article saying that they wanted to make windows 8 more user-friendly. That's probably why business wouldn't upgrade. I mean besides the fact that they JUST upgraded and they would probably wait until 9 or 10 since upgrade would mean a lot of money being used again. But also because at this point they have actually made it more difficult to use and overall it would be a bit of a departure for windows 7 users. While some functions remain intact there are certain things that would inevitably be new to users and would not be as easy to learn. But the reason would probably be more for the fact that business JUST upgraded so it would be pointless unless there was a huge advantage with windows 8 while performance wise it is better than windows 7 there isn't anything that makes it a much more marketable product. Unless business people are given a really good business metro app that they can't live without or a really good touch based program of some sort.

If you want better performance on Windows 7, then get an ssd. Those things make Windows 7 so fast! Since I have an ssd, i don't really care about the performance inprovements in Windows 8.

 

[tseven]

I know that would make performance better on windows 7. But I don't have the money and SSD is expensive for the amount of space you get although I hear you it will make it faster I've seen the difference. But that's what I mean the performance improvement is good for the average user who cannot afford the solid state drive because it works much faster without having to get something else to fix the performance. I am in no way saying windows 7 is bad. I'm just saying performance wise it's actually better that performance can get better with windows 8 because that means users can use a much better performing machine without having to change out certain parts. For those who cannot afford it this will mean even on cheaper computers it won't perform sluggish. But yeah the performance alone is not enough for me to just upgrade.

 

[mart4494]

I do prefer windows 8 as it is faster than 7.

That's not my experience although I'm sure speed varies according to what rig you've got. Several have posted about boot times being shorter in Win8 but again that's not my experience and a few seconds here and there on boot is of zero interest to me personally.

So what I'm looking at are real world benefits which will of course vary from user to user. If you're in to downloading apps or subscription cloud computing then I suppose Win8 could be the way to go. Most of my work is design so I prefer to store everything locally. 99.9% reliability regarding cloud computing is not good enough and there are plenty of 'dead' spots where cloud computing is killed stone dead. Plus of course there is always the security issue and I for one would never store client information irrespective as to it's relevance with a third party.

 

[mart4494]

I know that would make performance better on windows 7. But I don't have the money and SSD is expensive for the amount of space you get although I hear you it will make it faster I've seen the difference.

The only good thing is SSD's are falling rapidly in price and you only require a small capacity one for the programs. I store all my data files on a conventional SATA drive. But of course many laptops can only hold a single HD so that could be the deciding factor.

 

[whs]

I don't see any performance improvement either. I run all my systems on SSDs and there Windows8 is about the same as Windows7.

And SSDs are no more expensive if you use them for the OS in a desktop. I just bought a 60GB SSD for $69.95 - and 60GB is ample for the OS. All my desktops run on 60GB SSDs and I never ran out of space - even with 2 virtual partitions for Ubuntu and Windows8.

In a laptop the story is more complicated because you cannot put the user files on the spinners - unless you have one of those rare laptops with 2 disk bays.

 

[ManofGod]

I don't see any performance improvement either. I run all my systems on SSDs and there Windows8 is about the same as Windows7.

And SSDs are no more expensive if you use them for the OS in a desktop. I just bought a 60GB SSD for $69.95 - and 60GB is ample for the OS. All my desktops run on 60GB SSDs and I never ran out of space - even with 2 virtual partitions for Ubuntu and Windows8.

In a laptop the story is more complicated because you cannot put the user files on the spinners - unless you have one of those rare laptops with 2 disk bays.

The key to the improved boot time is that Windows 8 must be the default OS for booting. That way, when you shut it down, it will be ready to boot quickly using Windows 8's booting method. I find that even if Win7 is the default, Win8 gets to the login screen in under 10 seconds well Win7 takes about 20 seconds for that.

I use 2 Seagate 500GB Hybrid harddrives, Win7 on one and Win8 on the other on my HP laptop. Although, at home, I still find the same results as far as boot time goes. I used 1TB Seagate harddrive on my computer Desktop and it takes about 30 seconds for Win7 and 15 seconds for Win8 to get to the login screen.

Win8 also uses multiple cpu cores well booting up.

 

[Kat]

I don't see any performance improvement either. I run all my systems on SSDs and there Windows8 is about the same as Windows7.

And SSDs are no more expensive if you use them for the OS in a desktop. I just bought a 60GB SSD for $69.95 - and 60GB is ample for the OS. All my desktops run on 60GB SSDs and I never ran out of space - even with 2 virtual partitions for Ubuntu and Windows8.

In a laptop the story is more complicated because you cannot put the user files on the spinners - unless you have one of those rare laptops with 2 disk bays.

Like this one.....

I have two 750GB spinners in this, and its speed is more than adequate.

Will toss an SSD into it when prices in Australia come down to something acceptable.

I went looking at SSDs the other day, and the prices being asked are truly mindblowing.

 

[BillWindows]

@kat, how can you call SSD prices mind blowing, I paid about $90 for a 60g Kingston SSD. Around 17 years ago I paid $350 for a 250 mb HDD and thought that was cheap.

I also paid about $850 for a 17" monitor around the same time.

 

[FuturDreamz]

@kat, how can you call SSD prices mind blowing, I paid about $90 for a 60g Kingston SSD. Around 17 years ago I paid $350 for a 250 mb HDD and thought that was cheap.

I also paid about $850 for a 17" monitor around the same time.

You can get a 60GB SSD for $60 now...

 

[BillWindows]

@kat, how can you call SSD prices mind blowing, I paid about $90 for a 60g Kingston SSD. Around 17 years ago I paid $350 for a 250 mb HDD and thought that was cheap.

I also paid about $850 for a 17" monitor around the same time.

You can get a 60GB SSD for $60 now...

I know, but that was over 6 months ago. Actually in total between my NAS and other HDD's I think I have about 6 terabytes or over. But all I really need for my PC is the 60g SSD, as I can access my NAS from all over the house.

 

[whs]

I don't see any performance improvement either. I run all my systems on SSDs and there Windows8 is about the same as Windows7.

And SSDs are no more expensive if you use them for the OS in a desktop. I just bought a 60GB SSD for $69.95 - and 60GB is ample for the OS. All my desktops run on 60GB SSDs and I never ran out of space - even with 2 virtual partitions for Ubuntu and Windows8.

In a laptop the story is more complicated because you cannot put the user files on the spinners - unless you have one of those rare laptops with 2 disk bays.

Like this one.....

I have two 750GB spinners in this, and its speed is more than adequate.

Will toss an SSD into it when prices in Australia come down to something acceptable.

I went looking at SSDs the other day, and the prices being asked are truly mindblowing.

I really do not know what the prices down under are. But you must have been looking at SSDs with a large capacity. For the OS, you really only need a 60GB model if installed in a desktop where you can offload the user files to the spinner. And those 60GB models should not be that much more expensive than in the US.

 

[lehnerus2000]

$1 per GB

My supplier's SSD prices (MSY Adelaide):

• Patriot 60 GB = ~$65
• Intel 60 GB = ~$90

I can still easily get 8x as much storage on a HDD though.

 

[whs]

My supplier's SSD prices (MSY Adelaide):

• Patriot 60 GB = ~$65
• Intel 60 GB = ~$90

I can still easily get 8x as much storage on a HDD though.

Sure you get more storage per Dollar on a HDD. The question though is whether you want a Pickup truck or a Porsche. The whole idea of a SSD is speed - not storage space. There is no component in the PC where you can get a similar performance boost with a $70 investment - and which is so easy to install.

 

[lehnerus2000]

It depends on your priorities

I mentioned the prices, because there has been some discussion about $AUS prices (in earlier comments).

Sure you get more storage per Dollar on a HDD. The question though is whether you want a Pickup truck or a Porsche. The whole idea of a SSD is speed - not storage space.

Agreed.
We've debated this before.
It depends on your priorities.
In my case, capacity and convenience (tape drives need not apply ) trumps speed and convenience.

There is no component in the PC where you can get a similar performance boost with a $70 investment - and which is so easy to install.

They come with install kits?
I don't have 2.5" bays in my desktop.

The last 3 HDDs I've bought, didn't even have screws.

 

[whs]

No need for 3.5" installation kits (although some SSDs come with it). I use self adhesive Velcro dots to install the SSDs in the 3.5" bays. That works better than taking the whole thing apart to get the screws in.

 

[BillWindows]

No need for 3.5" installation kits (although some SSDs come with it). I use self adhesive Velcro dots to install the SSDs in the 3.5" bays. That works better than taking the whole thing apart to get the screws in.

Kits? Screws? I just leave mine dangling on the cables on the bottom of the case. I've got one SSD and 2 HDD's, I'm forever swapping drives, so I don't ever have a side on my cases, just makes it all quicker. I used to use caddies but found they got a bit too hot.

 

[Kat]

Sounds like my P4 desktop machine.

More drives than bays to take them, but some foam-rubber
on the case-floor and it's good to go.

Each drive has a different OS and progs on it (everything from DOS 6.22/WfW 3.11
to the 32-bit Win 8 CP, with an Ubuntu drive thrown (literally) in as well).

 

[BillWindows]

Sounds like my P4 desktop machine.

More drives than bays to take them, but some foam-rubber
on the case-floor and it's good to go.

Each drive has a different OS and progs on it (everything from DOS 6.22/WfW 3.11
to the 32-bit Win 8 CP, with an Ubuntu drive thrown (literally) in as well).

DOS 6.22/WfW 3.11 my first Operating system on a 486 dx266, that was my first PC after a Commodore 64, Amiga 500 and Amiga2000. I wrote over a drive with Vista on it to install Windows 8CP.

 

[Kat]

I went from the C64/A500 (both of which I still own) to an
Osborne 386 SX20. 4 MB RAM, 256KB graphics and an 80MB
HDD the size of a shoebox.

Those were the days....

 

[mart4494]

I went from the C64/A500 (both of which I still own) to an
Osborne 386 SX20. 4 MB RAM, 256KB graphics and an 80MB
HDD the size of a shoebox.

Those were the days....

No they weren't Kat.

I remember replacing a huge 20mb HD which cost a fortune and then going through all the bits just to get it set up before even thinking about any operating system.