Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 for new build


Recommended Posts

The way you said it made it sound like a negative.

Not negative, factual. Each version of windows brings fixes to the kernel and many other low level parts of the OS. Its not always the visual that counts for those who care about how it performs. It has always been true for each windows release, yes, including vista over xp. XP was a fragile girl when a driver crashed or went unstable when viewed from next gen standards. Sure, it was light, but it was the king of BSODs. Vista, not so much, 7 is a concrete structure, and 8 is like 7 reinforced with stainless steel. May not be better in UI for some, may not be in colors, may not be in price. But in low level fixes and improvements it is. Thus 7 is outdated already. Granted, I'm talking when the OS has matured with some time on the market. Not when it was in beta or 1 day after release.

 

It's funny how everyone mentions the UI aspect but fail to review stability, kernel improvements and what not after the OS has matured. It's all about resisting change, and dem pr0bloggerZ & friends can't stand change. Nearly no one follows the development of windows and what is added and changed or removed in the non visual zone.

 

No start menu? emagawd #worstOSevah *tweet tweet tweet*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the kernel is not outdated.

 

Infact besides talking to hardware and scaling CPUs there is no reason to ever upgrade at that level.

 

 

 

Windows 7 is very modern and up to date for just running desktop apps. If I weren't semi interested in seeing applets I never would leave 7 as there is no reason too.

 

 

 

Vista broke things for security and modularity reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8.1 hands down. It has a ton of new features and is better in almost every way.

 

If you dislike the start screen and don't want to take a few minutes to learn it there are very many third party solutions which take a couple minutes to set up. And don't forget they're bringing the start menu back in either an update or in Windows 9. The rumor is also that Windows 9 will be free for 8.1 but maybe not for 7 users. 

 

If you already own a copy this shouldn't even be something worth considering. Once you actually use for a few minutes and learn how the modern UI works you don't even need to install a third party start menu.

 

The first thing I do after signing in is go to the "Default Programs" control panel and set desktop programs as default for everything. That way you'll never be thrown into Modern UI other than the start screen. Just pin things to it and treat it like a big start menu.


Nah, that was Vista. Win 7 will properly recognize a SSD, disabled defragmentation on it. Enable trim, and a few other smaller changes to file system indexing. No real difference in how Win7 vs 8 handles SSD.

 

As for Win7 vs 8, like Metro, plan to use Touch input frequently? Dislike Aero Glass?
Use Windows 8

Dislike Metro?  Like Aero Glass?  Touch isn't a concern?  Use Windows 7.

Other differences are marginal, and won't make a huge difference. Newer version of DirectX but that's meaningful. Shadow Volume Copy/Previous versions is restricted to only desktop/libraries rather then entire HDD as in Win7. Win8 uses hybrid boot for quicker start times, but that comes with some draw backs so it's a bit of a trade off, and easily disabled if it doesn't suit you. You lose desktop gadgets in Win8, but gain Metro apps. etc.
For most people it's essentially going to come down to whether you like the UI changes.

I prefer 7, other people like 8. Just preference, largely determined by whether your using touch and how you like the UI changes. There are a million heated arguments on this and every other forum over Win8. I suggest avoiding it all and picking whichever one has the UI you prefer.

 

The differences for multi-monitor use are pretty good. You can set different desktops per-monitor. You can have a taskbar per-monitor and choose what shows on what taskbar. The new file manager ribbon is awesome to use. The file operation (copy/move/delete) dialogs are consolidated, pausable, and have an awesome graph. The task manager is much nicer. There are a lot of improvements in 8 for the desktop. It's not just the modern UI. And don't forget he already owns a copy of 8.1!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the kernel is not outdated.

 

Infact besides talking to hardware and scaling CPUs there is no reason to ever upgrade at that level.

 

 

 

Windows 7 is very modern and up to date for just running desktop apps. If I weren't semi interested in seeing applets I never would leave 7 as there is no reason too.

 

 

 

Vista broke things for security and modularity reasons.

Compared to 8 it is, or well, lets not call it outdated, lets say, its an older version. Or are you going to tell me that both use the same kernel now?

Its not just CPU scaling and the simple phrase of talking to hardware, there is a lot more going on.

If you have been running 7 for a while, there may be no reason to upgrade, be it monetary or time, or the tediousness of it. But 8/8.1 is still an upgrade over 7, with fixes and blabla, whether you want to take advantage of it or not is another matter.

 

But last I read this was a "new" build. Not something that has been running 7 for a year already. In the same sense, XP, vista and 7 are all fine to just run desktop apps. What would compel you to install an older version knowing there is a newer one for around the same price point? You have no reason to leave what works, but this is a new build, and as of now I can tell you that windows 8.1 works. I've done some "dark" shady crap to it, crap that would have given me an unbootable OS, BSOD or a loss of config in 7. In reality, I never heard anyone saying 8.1 does not work apart from the "no start menu". Which is probably 0.0001% of an entire operating system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 8.1 for future proofing due to the sheer fact that newer motherboards and graphics card and systems might be released with uefi only and also native 4K drivers will mostly be supported by 8.x plus natively

 

Also newer ssds and hdd support uefi only as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence which its why it's 6.4 and not 9. Yes it is a vista kernel running same driver model with a few twinks like more wwdm video options and WiFi extensions. XP on the other hand is practically a different beast.

 

 

Compared to 8 it is, or well, lets not call it outdated, lets say, its an older version. Or are you going to tell me that both use the same kernel now?

If you have been running 7 for a while, there may be no reason to upgrade, be it monetary or time. But 8/8.1 is still an upgrade over 7, with fixes and blabla, whether you want to take advantage of it or not is another matter.

 

But last I read this was a "new" build. Not something that has been running 7 for a year already. In the same sense, XP, vista and 7 are all fine to just run desktop apps.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, Windows 8.1 is more modern; if Metro's added value is dubious on a non-touch computer, the plumbing in Windows 8.1 has been significantly improved. The system uses less power (especially during idle), it boots up magnitudes faster than Windows 7 whether Hybrid Shutdown is on or not, and is generally snappier. The code has been tightened and a lot of unnecessary cruft has been removed.

 

The new Desktop interface might be plain for some, but give it a try and its elegant minimalism might grow on you. Operating systems are not immune to trends, and currently flat blocks of colors are in: that's the direction chosen by virtually every OS as of late (Mac, iOS, Android). Interestingly, compatibility with older desktop apps is excellent, certainly not worse than Windows 7. The Metro start panel is a tough sell, but you've got a myriad of quality (free) start menu replacements, so a single add-on software and you'll never even see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Install Windows 7 (highly recommended).

 

You can always do an in-place upgrade to Windows 8.1 later if you need it (no real reason just yet).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would stick to Windows 7.. That's my thought.. Stable, clean, fast.. Windows 8.1 is ok.. but, for me, on a desktop, even with the third party add-ons, I just didn't like  it. I use my Desktop for mostly gaming and photoshop. This is my option, if a "fan boy" reads this, and wants to start a ###### war, please don't waste your time.. I just like Windows 7 better for a desktop OS. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Thread cleaned]

 

This is a support forum. If you want to discuss ideology about operating systems there is a Soapbox forum for that.

Ideology? if anyone asks you new vs older on a new purchase/usage, when new works just fine and has fixes, how would you answer? I understand the "want", but, is there anything else?

 

Would you really feel compelled to purchase a new 2013 vehicle compared to a new 2014 vehicle simply because the 2013 used warm interior colored lights? But the 2014 has improvements on the cylinder block and steering pump?

 

It's support, but in the same way that there is no point in upgrading from 7 to 8 if the installation has been there already for a while. There is no point to purchase a new 7 license when you can purchase an 8 license for the same price and have a better OS overall. The "want" subjective aspect is the only one to be mentioned, because there is no other argument about it and we can't really fight about it, which we are not doing. It's the older is better because it has one thing, ooone thing different that is user preference, is quite out of form. Either way, this is not a support question. It's everyone post an opinion to make a decision.

 

If anyone follows the windows 8 or msdn development channels, they will see its not just the vista kernel with two more things :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.