SASinUtah wrote:kg4, is there a performance gain with Win8, and does it correspond to a performance gain with F@H? Better scheduler, reduced software overhead, etc? Have you heard in any Win8 forums if the AMD FX series is better supported?
When Windows and Linux perform on the same scale, then Windows is not getting in the way of folding performance. Windows 8 will not perform any better than Windows 7. The fahcore, which does all the folding work, is the same for all versions of Windows.
As for the the AMD FX, only AMD knows if it will get any better, or not.
It's also easy to do the opposite for your argument.angelin wrote:It's easy to forget, particularly when it's convenient to your argument to do so.
Microsoft's progression of OS's is really much more like:
Windows 95 (lasted about 4 years)
Windows 98 (lasted about 4 years)
Windows 2000 (lasted about 4 years)
Windows XP vanilla (lasted about 4 years)
Windows XP SP2 (lasted about 4 years)
Windows Vista (lasted about 4 years)
Windows 7 (currently holding at 2 years)
Windows 8
The market didn't come any where close to following that 4,4,4 year timeline. You also forgot Windows ME (conveniently
). It was completely different code (like XP SP2), but it was a chargable product, unlike Windows XP SP2, which was completely free. And let's not forget the market completly shunned Windows Vista. Vista never really overtook Windows XP.Microsoft is the one always yelling change, spend, more, money.
As popular as Windows 7 is, it was dumb to release Windows 8 so soon afterwards. MS could have milked it a while longer. And since Win 7 was just Win Vista SP2, Win 8 better be a big change, or it's just going to be Vista SP3.