bit-tech.net

Windows 8 to use less RAM than Windows 7

Windows 8 to use less RAM than Windows 7

Click the above image to see the difference between Windows 7 (left) and Windows 8 (right).

Microsoft is striving to reduce the memory footprint of Windows 8, saying that RAM usage represents a 'key engineering tenet' of the new OS.

In a post on the MSDN blog page, Microsoft's Steven Sinofsky, president of the Windows Division, outlined the company's aims to improve memory usage compared to previous versions of the OS.

On the blog, Sinofsky claimed that 'fundamentals such as memory usage represent a key engineering tenet of Windows 8. In building Windows 8 we set out to significantly reduce the overall runtime memory requirements of the core system. This is always good for everyone and especially in a world where people want to run more and more apps at the same time or run on systems with only 1 or 2GB of memory.'

The reduction in memory usage is the result of several aims that Microsoft has for the OS, from reducing power requirements for portable devices, to making the OS less demanding and friendlier to these devices, which typically have far less power on tap than a desktop PC. The blog goes on to outline various methods for reducing the operating system's memory footprint compared to Windows 7's.

One example is memory combining, which refers to Windows 8's ability to assess the contents of RAM in a PC, some of which is likely to be held in reserve or duplicated. The OS can delete duplicate versions, freeing up space, and can also create additional versions if programs then require their own private versions. Services also now receive a maker in Windows 8. Many, such as Plug and Play and Windows Update are now trigger-started, only starting up when required, whereas they started with the OS in Windows 7.

As well as consolidating memory use, the OS has been further optimised for use in the Metro UI mode, likely to be used with tablets. While users will also have the option of using Windows 8 in a traditional desktop mode, components for this will only be loaded when necessary.

Further improvements have also been made by adding more granularity to the prioritisation of memory. If memory is running low, the application you're currently using will have a higher priority than background tasks, to keep that application as responsive as possible.

What do you make of Windows 8 so far? Are you pleased to see Windows 8 potentially using less memory as standard? Let us know in the comments.

52 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
3lusive 10th October 2011, 14:07 Quote
Only a good thing I suppose, not that it will affect me that much when ill be sitting on 16gb ram when 8 arrives.
TWeaK 10th October 2011, 14:23 Quote
A new Windows version that's less bloated than the last? I'll believe that when I see it, Microsoft.
Jack_Pepsi 10th October 2011, 14:54 Quote
Hopefully I'll get an evaluation copy from work once it's ready for release.
MajorTom 10th October 2011, 15:20 Quote
Didn't 7 use less RAM than Vista? or was it just less of a hog to run on netbooks?
schmidtbag 10th October 2011, 15:22 Quote
even in the screenshot they took i'm not impressed. windows 8 is about equally as memory consuming as xp sp3. a lot of the enhancements MS is advertising are things that i don't understand how are possible. you can't just simply prioritize memory for 1 program over the other without stopping the process. thats like being required to carry a box full of items to a car and you decide you don't want to carry some silverware. the silverware then gets forgotten and if you wait long enough, it will get forgotten, so you go back to get it.

ms should not have to make these weird optimizations that are likely to hurt performance. if they just cleaned up their code for once the os as a whole would be much smaller and less memory consuming, resulting in faster loading times.

my linux netbook does everything i would want windows 8 to do but probably runs faster and uses 60MB of ram when fully loaded to desktop.
neocleous 10th October 2011, 15:23 Quote
When is Windows 8 due roughly?
Krikkit 10th October 2011, 15:32 Quote
I don't understand why everyone gets such a massive boner on about idle RAM usage - it should be using MORE RAM at idle so when I'm ready to start programs and services they're ready and waiting for snappy responses.

What matters to me is when the RAM is full, how does it work then? If it's efficient at freeing up space for programs when the chips are down then that's the best route.
leexgx 10th October 2011, 15:43 Quote
superfetch (that runs in the background filling the cache up) and RAM use is not the same thing
Hakuren 10th October 2011, 16:10 Quote
Seriously, RAM issue is mostly important for people running 32-bit systems or old laptops. Today RAM is dirt cheap. With X79 as a standard we will see 16GB systems, maybe even 32.

MS can easily solve performance problems with Windows. Just remove IE from interface and allow user to setup it own GUI view (95% of stuff is completely useless for me but it is loaded every time you open any window). It is the main culprit of everything what is wrong in Windows since XP (at least for older Windows there was LitePC).

W8 is NOT less bloated than W7. In fact it is quite the opposite. It contain even more useless "improvements" & "optimizations". RAM usage is lower because OS loading process is much different.

My message to MS over Windows 8: [censored]!
GoodBytes 10th October 2011, 16:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krikkit
I don't understand why everyone gets such a massive boner on about idle RAM usage - it should be using MORE RAM at idle so when I'm ready to start programs and services they're ready and waiting for snappy responses.

What matters to me is when the RAM is full, how does it work then? If it's efficient at freeing up space for programs when the chips are down then that's the best route.

More memory Windows use, the more manufacture will add into their Tablet device memory chips. And the more memory chips you add, the more power consumption the device takes.
RAM is always powered fully.

Sure larger memory chip could be used.. but PC manufactures, as we can see right now, is all about making mass profit, and don't care about anything else, destroying their brand name, annoying the consumer with poor cooling design, cheap quality, junk madness, heck even CD's are too expensive. But who cares.. everyone does it, right? (And people are wondering why Apple sales are up), but that is just my opinion on the current market of today (and a little rant, sorry). Probably because of the recession. Hopefully it will change.

Anyway, here is Microsoft comment:
Quote:

Something that might not be obvious is that minimizing memory usage on low-power platforms can prolong battery life. Huh? In any PC, RAM is constantly consuming power. If an OS uses a lot of memory, it can force device manufacturers to include more physical RAM. The more RAM you have on board, the more power it uses, the less battery life you get. Having additional RAM on a tablet device can, in some instances, shave days off the amount of time the tablet can sit on your coffee table looking off but staying fresh and up to date.
[...]
We wanted to ensure that people running on Windows 7-era hardware would have the option to easily upgrade their existing machines to Windows 8 and take advantage of the functionality it has to offer. We also expect that many machines that predate the Windows 7 release will run Windows 8 based on the experiences we’ve had with older machines we intentionally keep in our performance test infrastructur
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8.aspx

The articles explains the different things they have done, so that Windows 8 consumes less memory.
GoodBytes 10th October 2011, 16:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hakuren
Seriously, RAM issue is mostly important for people running 32-bit systems or old laptops. Today RAM is dirt cheap. With X79 as a standard we will see 16GB systems, maybe even 32.
So why I see Windows 7 tablet with 512MB and 1GB of RAM? Apparently manufactures think otherwise.
Quote:

MS can easily solve performance problems with Windows. Just remove IE from interface
Already done since Vista.

Quote:
and allow user to setup it own GUI view (95% of stuff is completely useless for me but it is loaded every time you open any window). It is the main culprit of everything what is wrong in Windows since XP (at least for older Windows there was LitePC).
I don't even think a Linux distribution has something to fit your needs.

Windows 7/Vista, and even more so 8 (the whole Start Screen in fact) GUI is GPU rendered in any case, it doesn't affect anything. All you are seeing as animation in Win8, can't even push my laptop Quadro NVS 160M with 256MB of memory (equivalent: Geforce 9300M, but with 256MB of memory), above 10% usage. I see no problem. The GPU is not even clocking faster to do the job, so battery life consumption is the same.
Quote:
W8 is NOT less bloated than W7. In fact it is quite the opposite. It contain even more useless "improvements" & "optimizations".
You sir, are funny. You are complaining on stuff you have no idea what you are talking about.
Stop trolling please. Do your research.

Quote:
RAM usage is lower because OS loading process is much different.
How so? Does it load the process on the left? on the right? Ahh at the bottom! That's the key!
Seriously though, no it not. And if you cared to read the Windows 8 blog article (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8.aspx) on the topic, you can see that both environment is the same, the only difference is that Windows 8 has an A/V and malware pre-installed (updated Windows Defender aka: Security Essential), while Windows 7 has just the basic Windows Defender. Both condition and both are at the desktop level.
Quote:
My message to MS over Windows 8: [censored]!
Yes yes yes... and able will declare bankruptcy, and that the previous version of Windows will be the last. I know the speech perfectly well. You said that on Windows 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, XP, Vista, and Windows 7. So far your reputation says that you are often wrong on this particular mater.

People want change, but don't like change. This is the problem. Anything that is changed, is a downside. Even complaints on Vista instant search feature. "Bring XP search back" was said a lot. People people thought that the HDD will be in heavy consent usage 100% of the time.. and in reality it showed no sign of anything. And in XP days... "I don't care about the stupid dog, I want Windows 2000 search back", Yet people like the XP search now, and now based on comments on Win8 dev preview and the lack of the start menu, people freaked out, and that they want Windows Vista/7 search back in the normal traditional start menu.

I also remember how Windows 7 will NEVER be purchased because of the new task bar. Hey look everyone is enjoying it now.

My point is, don't complain until you tried SERIOUSLY the product for several month, with an open mind.

Beside, back in the old days, people said that the mouse was a gimmick, and just a fad gadget for computer illiterates, and that they will never use a GUI based OS, as it consumes too much computer resources and actually makes it slower to use, and harder too. Ahh how wrong they were.

Ok now I know I am sounding like Windows ultra fanboy... it's just to balance things out. My point is, always keep an open mind. When you'll use it seriously and pass over the learning curve , and see how properly it works. NOOOOWWW your can start complaining, if you have anything to complain about by then.
GoodBytes 10th October 2011, 16:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
even in the screenshot they took i'm not impressed. windows 8 is about equally as memory consuming as xp sp3. a lot of the enhancements MS is advertising are things that i don't understand how are possible. you can't just simply prioritize memory for 1 program over the other without stopping the process. thats like being required to carry a box full of items to a car and you decide you don't want to carry some silverware. the silverware then gets forgotten and if you wait long enough, it will get forgotten, so you go back to get it.
XP memory management involved moving EVERYTHING, no mater what, to your HDD. This is not optimization, this is crap. But needed crap (Microosft admitted this in Vista blog), because at the time, gamers had 256MB of RAM, as RAM was super expensive. And those with money trees, or waiting a year and half or 2 years after XP was released, they could get 512MB at "affordable" (read: computer enthusiasts can afford), quantity in their system. Heck even motherboards where limited to 512MB of RAM for a while. Microosft had no choice (and this was the system since Windows 95, and possibly even before that, but I am not aure at 100% so I am not going to say it)

Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8, all provided memory optimization improvements.
Keyword here: OPTIMIZATION, not minimizing.
Vista was ahead of it's time, as manufacture still provided crappy quantity of memory with their system, and abysmal Intel GPU's. But any "Gamer PC" of 2005 and up, could perfectly enjoy Vista, and experience a nice, large, visible, speed and system responsiveness improvements.

Microosft explains on the article here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8.aspx
What they did to optimize memory, and there is nothing of what you are saying.

Quote:

ms should not have to make these weird optimizations that are likely to hurt performance. if they just cleaned up their code for once the os as a whole would be much smaller and less memory consuming, resulting in faster loading times.
I am sure their code is clean. It has nothing to do with this. Beside compilers do the clean up, and deep optimizations. Not saying that code wise optimization can be skipped. Of course not, the compiler isn't THAT smart, and won't do the work for you. But it does simplify your code to best performance and lowest memory consumption.

Basic example, if you have a for loop that repeats 5 times to get values on an array. The compiler will break apart the for loop in 5 separate code lines to do get the 5 values, as it is less resource intensive this way.

Quote:
my linux netbook does everything i would want windows 8 to do but probably runs faster and uses 60MB of ram when fully loaded to desktop.
You know that you can never measure memory usage correctly?
-> Do you include Cache on memory?
-> Do you include Superfetch?
-> Do you include Heap and Stack area of every process (running programs), that is not being used, but reserved?
-> Do you include the consumption of the onboard sound chip and other hardware that uses the system RAM as being memory consumed, or just reduce the total usable amount?

And they are many more to this (especially on the GPU area, as it's blasted with technologies like superfetch, but for textures, and duplicated objects created, that is why GPU memory usage measurement are totally wrong).

My guess is that your Linux distribution, decided to to exclude A LOT of stuff from the memory consumption, to show fancy low values. Windows includes Superfetch, Heap and Stack area, and any caching space used.
GoodBytes 10th October 2011, 16:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorTom
Didn't 7 use less RAM than Vista? or was it just less of a hog to run on netbooks?

Both, actually.
B1GBUD 10th October 2011, 17:37 Quote
Wake me up when they can run it on just 640k.....

/sarcasm
Nexxo 10th October 2011, 17:52 Quote
GoodBytes is on the money. This is all about Microsoft's long term strategy to make Windows the de facto OS on all mobile, as well as desktop devices. On tablets, a lean OS footprint makes a difference.
willyolio 10th October 2011, 18:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWeaK
A new Windows version that's less bloated than the last? I'll believe that when I see it, Microsoft.
it's called windows 7.
ssj12 10th October 2011, 18:10 Quote
The main reason for this is they are using a phone OS... Windows 8 doesnt even have ap proper desktop. It is an freaking app like Nvidia Tegra Zone.
Yslen 10th October 2011, 18:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWeaK
A new Windows version that's less bloated than the last? I'll believe that when I see it, Microsoft.

Did you miss the whole Vista --> 7 thing?
Aracos 10th October 2011, 18:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
The main reason for this is they are using a phone OS... Windows 8 doesnt even have ap proper desktop. It is an freaking app like Nvidia Tegra Zone.

You do realise that you can switch between the tablet interface and the Win 7 interface?
JA12 10th October 2011, 19:04 Quote
[QUOTE=GoodBytes]
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Ok now I know I am sounding like Windows ultra fanboy... it's just to balance things out.

Yes, you are. Using Microsoft marketing terms to ask about Linux and doing guesses while commanding others to do their research. Nice going there.
rogerrabbits 10th October 2011, 20:29 Quote
Quote:
'In the past we never gave much of a **** about this kind of thing, but now that we have some semi credible competition sniffing around our heels we decided to put in some effort.

Ftfy Microsoft.
GoodBytes 10th October 2011, 21:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA12

Yes, you are. Using Microsoft marketing terms to ask about Linux and doing guesses while commanding others to do their research. Nice going there.

I just reverted what you did.
blohum 10th October 2011, 21:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aracos
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
The main reason for this is they are using a phone OS... Windows 8 doesnt even have ap proper desktop. It is an freaking app like Nvidia Tegra Zone.

You do realise that you can switch between the tablet interface and the Win 7 interface?

It still wouldn't surprise me if they made a "tablet only" version without the standard desktop behind it.
schmidtbag 10th October 2011, 21:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
XP memory management involved moving EVERYTHING, no mater what, to your HDD. This is not optimization, this is crap. But needed crap (Microosft admitted this in Vista blog), because at the time, gamers had 256MB of RAM, as RAM was super expensive. And those with money trees, or waiting a year and half or 2 years after XP was released, they could get 512MB at "affordable" (read: computer enthusiasts can afford), quantity in their system. Heck even motherboards where limited to 512MB of RAM for a while. Microosft had no choice (and this was the system since Windows 95, and possibly even before that, but I am not aure at 100% so I am not going to say it)

ok, your point being? i was just stating windows 8 is now about as memory consuming as xp.
Quote:
Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8, all provided memory optimization improvements.
Keyword here: OPTIMIZATION, not minimizing.
Vista was ahead of it's time, as manufacture still provided crappy quantity of memory with their system, and abysmal Intel GPU's. But any "Gamer PC" of 2005 and up, could perfectly enjoy Vista, and experience a nice, large, visible, speed and system responsiveness improvements.

Microosft explains on the article here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8.aspx
What they did to optimize memory, and there is nothing of what you are saying.

What I was talking about was what this article was referencing, so I'm not sure what you mean by "there is nothing of what you are saying". Vista and 7 do stuff like prefetching, superfetching, and other forms of caching. This doesn't optimize your memory, it just increases overall system performance because memory is a lot faster than just about any drive. that results in higher memory usage. these forms of caching aren't necessarily a bad thing, but even if you turn off ALL of them, the OS is still bloated. What makes it bloated is the fact that they didn't clean up the code.
Quote:
I am sure their code is clean. It has nothing to do with this. Beside compilers do the clean up, and deep optimizations. Not saying that code wise optimization can be skipped. Of course not, the compiler isn't THAT smart, and won't do the work for you. But it does simplify your code to best performance and lowest memory consumption.

As I just stated, no, the code ISN'T clean. Compilers can only clean up so much, even you admitted that. The reason I even made this post in the first place was to show that a Linux setup with more features than what windows xp, vista, 7, or 8 offer built-in can run uncached programs in less time (cached in about the same amount of time) while being less memory consuming. keep in mind, if the code was cleaned up and OS itself was revised, stuff like caching wouldn't be necessary.

Also note that some of the measured ACTIVE memory usage in windows is actually cached memory. But, since it's active, that makes the memory inaccessible to other programs.
Quote:
You know that you can never measure memory usage correctly?
-> Do you include Cache on memory?
-> Do you include Superfetch?
-> Do you include Heap and Stack area of every process (running programs), that is not being used, but reserved?
-> Do you include the consumption of the onboard sound chip and other hardware that uses the system RAM as being memory consumed, or just reduce the total usable amount?
ok, if I include cache then I use about 130MB. The particular linux setup I'm talking about doesn't use prefetching or superfecting because that would slow down startup time and offer a very minimal performance difference later. And yes, I include all 100+ processes owned by all users, active and inactive. I'm not sure how DMA devices are measured, even in Windows.
Even still, an argument like this would favor windows even less, because when you look at all the stuff you just mentioned, that makes windows use over 500MB on a fresh new install while being just booted.
Quote:

And they are many more to this (especially on the GPU area, as it's blasted with technologies like superfetch, but for textures, and duplicated objects created, that is why GPU memory usage measurement are totally wrong).

My guess is that your Linux distribution, decided to to exclude A LOT of stuff from the memory consumption, to show fancy low values. Windows includes Superfetch, Heap and Stack area, and any caching space used.

I measure my memory usage with CLI programs that come with every distro like "free -m". Also, I have no swap partition at all (swap is like a paging file in windows). Considering linux is generally used by power-users and servers, memory accuracy is important.
Boogle 10th October 2011, 22:21 Quote
GoodBytes, you've made some excellent points and I fear they're falling on deaf ears. Some people learn a little scripting / find out what 'heap' means and think they're experts. You will never win this 'discussion' :(
Snips 10th October 2011, 22:37 Quote
Well Done Microsoft, improving the already pretty damn fine Windows7 is a fantastic achievement.

and Good point well made GoodBytes!
Nexxo 10th October 2011, 23:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by blohum
It still wouldn't surprise me if they made a "tablet only" version without the standard desktop behind it.

Pretty unlikely, given that this would be diametrically opposed to their stated long-term ambition to have one and the same OS running on all devices, mobile and desktop.
thehippoz 11th October 2011, 00:06 Quote
messed with it a bit.. I'm holding out until retail to make an opinion- I went through the vista pains and in the end it turned up a good os..
bulldogjeff 11th October 2011, 00:23 Quote
If you wanted to be a cynic you could say that Microsoft are going forwards to go backwards as XP used less RAM than Vista 7/8.. How much progress is it really when W7 is what Vista wanted to be and W8's just going to be tuned up some more and have a few new toys. I'm happy with W7 for now so I can't see me rushing out to buy it in the way I did with W7 in order to escape from Vista.
impar 11th October 2011, 00:42 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
This is all about Microsoft's long term strategy to make Windows the de facto OS on all mobile, as well as desktop devices.
Not Windows, Tiles.
schmidtbag 11th October 2011, 02:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogle
GoodBytes, you've made some excellent points and I fear they're falling on deaf ears. Some people learn a little scripting / find out what 'heap' means and think they're experts. You will never win this 'discussion' :(

You could say the very same thing about him. The points he made that you're implying are "excellent" are interesting and true, but irrelevant to my original point. I'm not saying he's wrong, its just what he said doesn't relate. If there's hidden types of memory such as "heap" memory or other forms of caches that both OSes use then thats a void argument. Its simple algebra - if both variables are the same on both sides then you remove them from the equation. So, if both windows and linux use up memory in ways that may not be visible to the user or active, then its not a valid argument.

If you STILL don't understand why, it's because what I've been trying to say is linux is more efficient with ACTIVE memory. Maybe I should have specified that before, but I thought that was kind of obvious, especially considering that you and GoodBytes feel that non-active memory isn't easily measurable. Non-active memory doesn't matter, because as far as I'm aware it's readily replaceable and modular.

BTW, I actually didn't look up heap, and I can outwardly admit I don't know what it is. I wasn't trying to act like I knew what it was. I also don't know what the "stack" is. But based on the phrasing of the sentence. I've also created dozens of shell scripts (some over 500 lines) so I know how to use a command line.

Nearly everything you said in your post was either presumptuous, opinionated, or could easily be directed toward GoodBytes if you look at my perspective. Although GoodBytes blatantly showed disagreement and did make some interesting points, at least he wasn't a complete condescending ass about it.
Blackshark 11th October 2011, 08:25 Quote
My take on this is that Win 8 is 'slightly less' than Win 7. Its mostly marketing speak, why? Well, Win 8 will load almost as many services once everything that runs automatically in Win 7 is running. But this is no bad thing, they have done a reasonable job and heck, in a world where every device I can think of has as much or more memory than early XP machines, its an impressive task to get a much better operating system running at the same memory footprint.

Why are people harking back to the XP days? Windows 7 and 8 give us so much more, support so much more. yes it seems people who like to be heard keep rambling back to the XP days. Its no different in the Linux world, Ubuntu forums are full of idiots who keep telling us they run Arch-linux. Well good for them and good for you XP fan boys!

Schmidt - hear hear, nice post
PingCrosby 11th October 2011, 08:30 Quote
Talking about memory........erm, what was I saying again?
Nexxo 11th October 2011, 08:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Not Windows, Tiles.

No, Windows.
Snips 11th October 2011, 08:48 Quote
I think we saw in the Developer launch that Microsoft are calling them "Windows"
impar 11th October 2011, 11:45 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
I think we saw in the Developer launch that Microsoft are calling them "Windows"
Windows can be maximized, minimized and adjusted.
Metro apps cant. They are just tiles.

The most important Win8 Blog articles, so far and by far, were the two published last week about the StartScreen:
- http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/03/evolving-the-start-menu.aspx
- http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/04/designing-the-start-screen.aspx

MS is serious in this Metro UI, they want it to become THE UI for MS OSes. Even if it offers nothing worthwhile and hinders productivity.
hrp8600 11th October 2011, 12:03 Quote
If they feel the need for a mobile OS fine make one
But dont make desk top PC's hamstrung.
I dont think there can ever be ONE OS for phones, tablets, laptops and desk tops.
I have TB's of hard drive space and loads of ram, use it thats what its there for.
r3loaded 11th October 2011, 12:25 Quote
Thanks for the multiple posts GoodBytes. You've pretty much said what I wanted to but I didn't have time for it. :p

There is a parallel here with Android's own memory management and how people install task killers to "improve their performance". Remember, even if 70% of RAM is cached application processes, that memory can be freed up in an instant by the system if it's needed by a memory hungry process. Loading from storage (even if that is a fast SSD) is achingly slow in comparison to loading from RAM.
Denis_iii 11th October 2011, 13:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWeaK
A new Windows version that's less bloated than the last? I'll believe that when I see it, Microsoft.

WinPho7. Believe! M$ has really changed in the last few years with all there OS's, Applications and services. Proof that competition is good.
Denis_iii 11th October 2011, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWeaK
A new Windows version that's less bloated than the last? I'll believe that when I see it, Microsoft.

+ Windows 7, believe.
Culinia 11th October 2011, 15:23 Quote
I would hazard a guess in saying that purchasing more RAM for an old computer will be indeed cheaper and more beneficial than to buy Windows 8 in its own right. Not amused. EOM.
Bauul 11th October 2011, 15:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
There is a parallel here with Android's own memory management and how people install task killers to "improve their performance".

I thought those task killers were for shutting down apps that might be using your data connection without you wanting them to?

At least that's what I use them for.
fingerbob69 11th October 2011, 16:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aracos
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
The main reason for this is they are using a phone OS... Windows 8 doesnt even have ap proper desktop. It is an freaking app like Nvidia Tegra Zone.

You do realise that you can switch between the tablet interface and the Win 7 interface?

So if win8 is just win7 with a mobile/tablet interface ....and I already have win7 ....why do I need win8? Why should I have it on the desktop?

I currently have still use Xp at work ...it creaks audibly! I have Vista on the laptop...no,no,no! And win7 on the gamer tower. It's clean, minimalist and smooth ...changing it would seem like going from an iPhone 4 to an iPhone 4S ....a pointless waste of time and money.
GoodBytes 11th October 2011, 17:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerbob69
So if win8 is just win7 with a mobile/tablet interface ....and I already have win7 ....why do I need win8? Why should I have it on the desktop?

I currently have still use Xp at work ...it creaks audibly! I have Vista on the laptop...no,no,no! And win7 on the gamer tower. It's clean, minimalist and smooth ...changing it would seem like going from an iPhone 4 to an iPhone 4S ....a pointless waste of time and money.

Yup, pretty much.
But Windows 8 is being worked on, all we saw so far, is a cut down alpha version, barely tested.
The idea if to give developer access to Windows 8 new API code, new infrastructure to do Metro style app.
ssj12 11th October 2011, 22:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aracos
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
The main reason for this is they are using a phone OS... Windows 8 doesnt even have ap proper desktop. It is an freaking app like Nvidia Tegra Zone.

You do realise that you can switch between the tablet interface and the Win 7 interface?

You do realize that even if you arent using the tiles Microsoft stated that the desktop is a simple app running on top of the actual OS?
Yeoo 11th October 2011, 22:48 Quote
When is W8 roadmapped for?
leslie 12th October 2011, 02:51 Quote
Windows 8 is MUCH more than just Windows 7 with a new interface.

It runs pretty fast, but Metro, forget it. They need some serious work or something completely different. Even on a 13in notebook it is insanely clunky and lame to work with. God help you if you are using a touchpad or looking at it on a 25in monitor.

If it was just Win7, it wouldn't be so crash happy or failure prone. If you try it, beware, it will crash and when it does, many times it will not be recoverable. I ran it for a few days but it was way too unstable. Yes, I do know it is beta/alpha, it's got a very long way to go to fix that UI and stability.
Tangster 12th October 2011, 03:29 Quote
They should call it Windows 7 Tablet and add the useful features as a service pack for 7.
play_boy_2000 12th October 2011, 07:06 Quote
RAM is so cheap that I don't care anymore.
Nexxo 12th October 2011, 18:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
You do realize that even if you arent using the tiles Microsoft stated that the desktop is a simple app running on top of the actual OS?

You do realise that it has always been that way? (That's why they distinguish between the kernel and the shell, peeps!)
NuTech 12th October 2011, 18:28 Quote
Windows 8 is, IMO, shaping up to be something really special. I know not everyone is fond of the new touch UI (personally I love Metro/Live Tiles, long live Zune!), but implemented correctly, they could make some truly impressive tablet/laptop hybrids.

With the iPad and (soon) the Amazon Fire dominating the consumption/light productivity tablet market, I think Microsoft has an angle here to make slightly more expensive, but highly productive tablet devices.
TFSakon 14th October 2011, 22:57 Quote
How is this news (not a Bit-Tech insult), surely if a new OS isn't using at least the same amount of RAM, Processing cycles, etc, it's going backwards, and so the creators will have pretty much failed in making something worthwhile.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums