How to decide: should you upgrade to Windows 8?

[McDougal]

I'd say the most obvious performance improvements are boot times. It could just be my SSD, but now my system boots up in 15-20 seconds and programs instantly open afterwards. And there's also the price. If Windows 8 cost $200 then I would never upgrade, lol.

I'm really curious to try 8 on my older laptop, but sadly the license says I can only install it on one PC .

 

[linnemeyerhere]

McDougal,
Cheers for the details. Personally with the prices falling on top notch SSD's they are the single most transformational upgrade one can add to their system.

 

[King Arthur]

I can't help but say that a well-maintained Windows installation of any version will almost always boot up immediately, and regardless of HDD/SDD. Every single instance of Windows booting up slowly that I've seen to date had to do with underlying hardware or software issues, like HDDs going south or too much stuff loading on startup.

Besides, if we're going to talk about boot up times on a properly maintained installation of Windows on equal hardware, any of the Windows 9x operating systems (not to mention any of its predecessors) would smoke Windows 8 completely.

 

[Dave76]

Besides, if we're going to talk about boot up times on a properly maintained installation of Windows on equal hardware, any of the Windows 9x operating systems (not to mention any of its predecessors) would smoke Windows 8 completely.

Don't disagree with the first part of your statement, with a clean install all Windows OS will boot quickly.

'would smoke Windows 8 completely'
How do you come to that conclusion?
Personal experience or some other source, just curious.

I find the startup and shut down on Windows 8 to be very fast, even on older hardware.

 

[McDougal]

Sorry for getting slightly off-topic, but I don't think it's entirely true that a well-maintained install always boots instantly.

Back when i had 7 and a regular HDD, my boot time was around a minute (on a clean install), and the older family PCs are longer (of course weaker hardware, but OS is still maintained properly).

 

[bigmck]

I'd say the most obvious performance improvements are boot times. It could just be my SSD, but now my system boots up in 15-20 seconds and programs instantly open afterwards. And there's also the price. If Windows 8 cost $200 then I would never upgrade, lol.

I'm really curious to try 8 on my older laptop, but sadly the license says I can only install it on one PC .

It isn't Windows 8 that boots quick, it is the SSD. I have Win 7 with an SSD and I get the 20 second boots also. I just looked at your specs, we have the same CPU.

 

[McDougal]

I'd say the most obvious performance improvements are boot times. It could just be my SSD, but now my system boots up in 15-20 seconds and programs instantly open afterwards. And there's also the price. If Windows 8 cost $200 then I would never upgrade, lol.

I'm really curious to try 8 on my older laptop, but sadly the license says I can only install it on one PC .

It isn't Windows 8 that boots quick, it is the SSD. I have Win 7 with an SSD and I get the 20 second boots also. I just looked at your specs, we have the same CPU.

Interesting. I haven't tested Win7 on my SSD yet because I feel like 120GB isn't large enough for a dual-boot. I've heard some people say that if you fill an SSD to the rim it loses performance. Considering I've only got 36GB free, I don't think a dual boot is worth it.

And the i3-2120 is a great CPU, isn't it ?

 

[bigmck]

And the i3-2120 is a great CPU, isn't it ?

Yes, it is great. I got my whole rig in July. It is really fast. In November I got a i5 laptop with Win 7 and a HDD. It is very slow compared to the i3 with the SSD. I was surprised at that. I am going to have to breakdown and get a SSD for the i5 I guess.

 

[McDougal]

Only thing I'm worried about is if I start playing CPU-intensive games. Being only a dual-core, it might struggle a bit. But I'm not doing much of that, so it's not an issue.

I've got a 4 year old ASUS with a Core2Duo that could really use an SSD, but I don't use it much and it doesn't have a battery anymore (went through two dead batteries lol) so I don't think it's worth it.

 

[King Arthur]

'would smoke Windows 8 completely'
How do you come to that conclusion?
Personal experience or some other source, just curious.

I find the startup and shut down on Windows 8 to be very fast, even on older hardware.

I came to that conclusion owing to the fact operating systems were inherently simpler back then. They simply had less stuff that needed loading on startup. Assuming newer hardware like today's CPUs and HDDs worked with Windows 9x, which from their POV are magnitudes faster than hardware of their era, Windows 9x probably will smoke Windows 8 in a head on bootup match.

Sorry for getting slightly off-topic, but I don't think it's entirely true that a well-maintained install always boots instantly.

Back when i had 7 and a regular HDD, my boot time was around a minute (on a clean install), and the older family PCs are longer (of course weaker hardware, but OS is still maintained properly).

Both my Windows 7 machine (in my system specs) and my Windows XP machine running on a Pentium 4 2.66GHz and 1GB RAM boot up in at least under 20~30 seconds from the feeling I get with daily use, I admit however that I never actually timed them with a stopwatch. I might do that some time if I don't feel lazy about it.

Both Windows installations (both HDD-based by the way) also have a couple non-essential stuff that I have set to run at startup for convenience reasons, but otherwise they're both well-maintained and fast as ever to the point I don't notice too much of a difference with my dad's Windows 7 desktop which uses an SSD.

Of course, YMMV and factors like older or underpowered hardware will definitely negatively impact Windows bootup times. I just wanted to point out that the perk of of Windows 8's fast boot times that everyone is touting around isn't something that is unique to Windows 8 alone. Regardless of HDD/SSD, all versions of Windows (even Windows ME and Vista!) can achieve fast boot times and answer one's calls for performance if they're taken care of properly.

 

[Dave76]

So your statement is based on your 'feeling' and you have never tested or timed any OS boot up, well OK, then it is your opinion.

It is a strong statement to base on 'feelings', since they have been tested before with different results.

 

[whs]

This is the best option in my book.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. When it's time to do an operating system reinstall, then consider Windows 8 (but buy it now, while it's on sale).

 

[bigmck]

I came to that conclusion owing to the fact operating systems were inherently simpler back then. They simply had less stuff that needed loading on startup. Assuming newer hardware like today's CPUs and HDDs worked with Windows 9x, which from their POV are magnitudes faster than hardware of their era, Windows 9x probably will smoke Windows 8 in a head on bootup match.

Both my Windows 7 machine (in my system specs) and my Windows XP machine running on a Pentium 4 2.66GHz and 1GB RAM boot up in at least under 20~30 seconds from the feeling I get with daily use, I admit however that I never actually timed them with a stopwatch. I might do that some time if I don't feel lazy about it.

Both Windows installations (both HDD-based by the way) also have a couple non-essential stuff that I have set to run at startup for convenience reasons, but otherwise they're both well-maintained and fast as ever to the point I don't notice too much of a difference with my dad's Windows 7 desktop which uses an SSD.

Of course, YMMV and factors like older or underpowered hardware will definitely negatively impact Windows bootup times. I just wanted to point out that the perk of of Windows 8's fast boot times that everyone is touting around isn't something that is unique to Windows 8 alone. Regardless of HDD/SSD, all versions of Windows (even Windows ME and Vista!) can achieve fast boot times and answer one's calls for performance if they're taken care of properly.

I started posting my disagreements with the above, but it was taking up a lot of space since there are many, many, so I stopped.....................

 

[JerometheGiraff]

I have a 3 1/2 year old laptop, which has a 5400 RPM HDD do you think I should upgrade the HDD to a SSD or 7200 drive ? It still runs fairly well, my opinion is "yes", just thought of asking It's a Core2Duo.

 

[bigmck]

I have a 3 1/2 year old laptop, which has a 5400 RPM HDD do you think I should upgrade the HDD to a SSD or 7200 drive ? It still runs fairly well, my opinion is "yes", just thought of asking It's a Core2Duo.

It would have to have SATA hookups. If it does get a SSD. It will make the Core2Duo fly.

 

[whs]

I have a 3 1/2 year old laptop, which has a 5400 RPM HDD do you think I should upgrade the HDD to a SSD or 7200 drive ? It still runs fairly well, my opinion is "yes", just thought of asking It's a Core2Duo.

Absolutely. I put SSDs into a couple of laptops from 2007 and it is a world of difference. They are now faster than 2012 systems with spinners.

 

[McDougal]

I have a 3 1/2 year old laptop, which has a 5400 RPM HDD do you think I should upgrade the HDD to a SSD or 7200 drive ? It still runs fairly well, my opinion is "yes", just thought of asking It's a Core2Duo.

I have a laptop about the same years old and with a Core2Duo also. I'm also considering if I should upgrade it to an SSD. The problem is there's a problem with the electrical stuff, I've gone through two dead batteries and now it has no battery at all. Maybe when SSDs get even cheaper, but now, I don't think it's worth it.

 

[whs]

I have a 3 1/2 year old laptop, which has a 5400 RPM HDD do you think I should upgrade the HDD to a SSD or 7200 drive ? It still runs fairly well, my opinion is "yes", just thought of asking It's a Core2Duo.

I have a laptop about the same years old and with a Core2Duo also. I'm also considering if I should upgrade it to an SSD. The problem is there's a problem with the electrical stuff, I've gone through two dead batteries and now it has no battery at all. Maybe when SSDs get even cheaper, but now, I don't think it's worth it.

If you never owned a SSD, you really don't know what it is. After I bought my first SSD, I went out and bought 5 more for my other systems - and that was years ago when they were still expensive. Would not want to live without them. And now they are cheaper than ever.

 

[McDougal]

Very true. After installing an SSD into my new desktop, it's the fastest computer I've ever owned. But the main reason why I don't think my laptop is worth it (although I'm pretty sure the performance would be greatly improved), is the fact that I don't use it much anymore. It really is just a backup PC in case something goes wrong with my desktop.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there

Just want to add this Caveat about SSD's. - Remember this thread is about should you upgrade to Windows 8 -- not whether an SSD is good or bad.

I've often posted about the biggest single bottleneck in Home computers was abysmally poor I/O from disk devices -- at least SSD's show people that I/O bottleneck was indeed the biggest hindrance to getting decent computer performance (always assuming you didn't have a really stupid small amount of RAM installed)..

BUT : Don't let's get carried away here -- If you can get a SATA controller with an XP driver an old PENTIUM IV XP machine will really fly as well !! probably faster than a 2012 Laptop with a slow 5400 r.p.m spinner in it !!

Don't upgrade just because you can use an SSD -- you can use an SSD in earlier OS'es too --with dramatic effet -- in some cases even more of a performance gain than on some modern hardware !!.

If you ARE updating buy an SSD anyway but don't use an SSD as your reason to upgrade to Windows 8.

Cheers
jimbo