I don't think he realized that when he did this he was doing a hybrid boot on Windows 8, and now doing a full boot... So firstly, that test is a bit flawed unfortunately. :lol:
He's using different versions of Word, the versions of Adobe Reader he was using weren't mentioned, but he was also evidently using different versions of IE. He's not really testing Windows 8 vs. XP here, but rather old software vs. new software, in which it should be pretty fair to say that the newer software will more often than not prosper over it's older predecessors.
So with the exception of the boot test lol, and the uncertainty of the version equality between Adobe Reader software he had installed for XP and Windows 8 there... The program tests are really not a reliable test for this hardware, running Windows 8, and Windows XP to show contrast in aspects of performance for the either OS in comparison with one another.
The installation time also depends on how fast he reacts to clicking the buttons for each Window that pops up for user input. Windows 8 seems to have less dialog and keeps it's installation fairly minimal, whereas old-school Windows, seems to provide you with every little option available to configure manually.
Interesting at least, for what he tried to do, but this is nowhere near reliable sadly.
This is where good reliable benchmarking can be a bit tricky. With different operating systems other things may be at place in the background that you do not know about. So you have to think of ways to test the performance with assuming as least things as possible. This is something that you get the knack of in programming. If you're doing a benchmark test for various methods, you may want to make sure that all allocations and object instantiations are done outside of the timings, in order to make sure that you're only measuring a particular aspect of a piece of code. Then there's other things to consider like cleaning up, whether you're using stack allocation vs. heap allocation. These practices for being careful about your considerations for how a test is done, apply to things like this though as well.
Really, I might be most susceptible to believing the results passed back from PassMark, but nothing else in the rest of the test...
Those PassMark ratings show that Windows 8 skyrockets in comparison to XP in 2D graphics though, I didn't know the difference was this significant, but I did know that Microsoft has worked on the visual side of things for most of Windows 8. That was something Microsoft really seemed to focus on for this new operating system. DirectX is something that was put into the spotlight when Microsoft released Windows 8.
>> Needless to say, I don't care about XP lol. I always thought it was ugly, but back when it was new, I still preferred Windows 2000. I will stick with Windows 8, because I know what my advantages and disadvantages are by now for having Windows 8, and by my personal final verdict, I like it.
What this test does show however, is that people like to assume things before they give something "new" a try. People just don't like change, so it's like pulling teeth at first. That's one of the reasons for why I think Windows 8 got such a bad rep from others' feedback at first: they would rather not be forced to adapt to the change that Windows 8 brings with all of it's idiosyncrasies, and these assumptions are simply just excuses for why they think they should not take that next step. Of course, I understand that what's best for some people is based on many personal needs and preferences, but there's absolutely nothing bad about Windows 8.
Edit: I've posted a comment to raise awareness about what he was doing with the boot tests. Never used that site before, but I believe I'll get an email when he replies. We'll see what he says. :thumbsup2:
