Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 15:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542161
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Unfortunately I have to agree.
by lucas_maximus on Mon 12th Nov 2012 19:28
in reply to "RE[2]: Unfortunately I have to agree."
RE[3]: Unfortunately I have to agree.
by Gullible Jones on Mon 12th Nov 2012 19:39
in reply to "RE[2]: Unfortunately I have to agree."
A couple things:
- First of all, the test computer was an EeePC, which performed reasonably well under Windows 7. I know I'm supposed to expect an EeePC to run like a sloth, but the fact is it works well enough under 7, and much less well under 8.
- The interface was slower than 7's even with transparency and other eyecandy disabled, so it's not like I was just boggled by the eyecandy-heavy defaults. Technically the video driver may be more to blame than the OS, but what do you think users will blame?
Also the sluggishness is kind of secondary IMO to the interface being really annoying.




Member since:
2005-06-29
Don't be so quick to judge; it is entirely possible that Jones was testing on unsupported or older hardware. When I tried the Windows 8 Release Preview several months ago, it was on a machine with an older Radeon onboard video processor. Windows 8 not only didn't recognize the hardware or provide a driver, it also wouldn't let me install the Windows 7 driver. This made the machine agonizingly slow, as most of the GUI in Windows 8 requires video acceleration.
Installing a modern Radeon HD 6570 card instantly solved the issue, and for the short time I used it, Windows 8 on supported hardware blew the pants off of Vista, the factory installed OS.