Windows 8 running PS CS6 and LR 4 much better than Win 7

My setup: Dell workstation with two quad-core Xeon processors, 12 GB memory, NVIDIA Quadro NVS 420, two Dell U2711 monitors. Boot disk is a 256 GB Samsung SSD. Photo data is stored on an internal 2TB HDD.

Until a couple weeks ago I had only Win 7 Pro 64-bit on this machine. At that time I created a second partition on the SSD and installed Win 8 Pro 64-bit on that, so now I have a dual-boot system. Programs, like CS6 and LR are installed on each OS, but data is shared, including the LR catalog.

This setup allows me to run LR and PS on both systems with the same hardware and compare performance. Both of these programs, but especially PS, is slow and unresponsive on Win 7. The difference is amazing when compared to Win 8. Truly night and day. I don't have the delays, slow rendering, etc. that I had come to live with in Win 7.

It should be noted that the Win 7 install is also new, as I just recently added the SSD and reinstalled everything on that side from scratch.

Of course, if Win 8 is unusuable, as some have suggested, then this performance boost is irrelevant. Like many others, I find the Start (i.e., Metro) screen to be a major PITA. I hate it, although I have learned to use several smart phone OSs over the years and I am sure that I could become used to the Start screen.

However, I chose to install one of several free third-party Start Menu replacements for the Win 8 desktop (Classic Shell), and I never have to look at the Start/Metro screen any more. Win 8 boots directly to the Desktop, and I have a very configurable Start menu that can look like the one in Win 7, or Vista, or XP, or whatever you want to to look/behave like. Except for the "Charms" appearing when the mouse gets near the right edge of the screen (which can simply be ignored), my Win 8 install works just like Win 7. Except that PS and LR run much better in Win 8, at least for me.

Also, FWIW, I have an Epson R1900 printer, and while Epson is promising Win 8 drivers, they are not yet available. I installed the Win 7 drivers in Win 8, and the prints I make in the two OSs are indistinguishable.

So, for those who are willing to dismiss Win 8 just because of the Start screen, consider that the Start screen can be made truly optional, and that there is more going in Win 8 than a new interface. You may see some serious performance differences.

pknight wrote in post #15496197
It should be noted that the Win 7 install is also new, as I just recently added the SSD and reinstalled everything on that side from scratch.
Are you talking about vanilla installations on both OS? No third party bloatware loaded on Win 7?

Are these OS only installations? No other bloatware installed on Win7 boot?

pknight wrote in post #15496197
However, I chose to install one of several free third-party Start Menu replacements for the Win 8 desktop (Classic Shell), and I never have to look at the Start/Metro screen any more.

Sadly, Microsoft does not care about the good old Start menu. I wish they'd back down and offer it as a configurable option on the next service pack. Forcing everyone to use Metro style interface is just plain dumb.

morph2_7 wrote in post #15496755
Are these OS only installations? No other bloatware installed on Win7 boot?

There is little but the OS on either install. All of the data, user files, ect. for both systems are on another internal drive.

morph2_7 wrote in post #15496755
Sadly, Microsoft does not care about the good old Start menu. I wish they'd back down and offer it as a configurable option on the next service pack. Forcing everyone to use Metro style interface is just plain dumb.

Nothing is forcing anyone to use Metro. It took me all of three minutes to install Classic Shell and I never see Metro.

The only thing I really don't like about Win 8 is getting to the shutdown menu.

As far as LR4 running faster than on Windows 7, I've noticed that as well. Everything just seems a bit faster on my Win 8 system, even though the specs are somewhat similar.

Win 8 system = i5 3750K at stock speeds, 16 GB 1333 DDR3 RAM, 120 GB SATA3 SSD, GTX 460
Win 7 system = i7 2600K at 4.5 GHz, 16 GB 1600 DDR3 RAM, 120 GB SATA3 SSD, GTX 660ti

Both computers had fresh installs of the OS as well, so not much extra junk clogging up the registry either.

Honestly, I've been using Windows 8 for so long now that when I get on my wife's Windows 7 laptop I find it annoying NOT to have the Start Screen; I don't like the old Start Menu anymore.

But I agree with others, on my non-touch enabled desktop I hardly ever see the Start Screen, and on my Surface I hardly ever see the desktop.

CincyTriGuy wrote in post #15502807
Honestly, I've been using Windows 8 for so long now that when I get on my wife's Windows 7 laptop I find it annoying NOT to have the Start Screen; I don't like the old Start Menu anymore.

But I agree with others, on my non-touch enabled desktop I hardly ever see the Start Screen, and on my Surface I hardly ever see the desktop.

I don't mind the new Start screen when I first boot up. It's kind of convenient now that I'm used to it. I HATE the new Start screen when I put myself into the desktop mode. I'm in there for a reason, dangit.

patrick023 wrote in post #15502319
The only thing I really don't like about Win 8 is getting to the shutdown menu.

I have a traditional Win 7/Vista/XP shutdown button in Classic Shell. No need to go to the Start Screen/Metro.

BTW, I am not pushing Classic Shell necessarily. There are probably a dozen or more free/almost free Start Menu add-ons for Win 8. They all make Win 8 operate like Win 7 in terms of program and file access.

morph2_7 wrote in post #15496755
Sadly, Microsoft does not care about the good old Start menu. I wish they'd back down and offer it as a configurable option on the next service pack. Forcing everyone to use Metro style interface is just plain dumb.

pknight wrote in post #15501405
Nothing is forcing anyone to use Metro. It took me all of three minutes to install Classic Shell and I never see Metro.

Does Microsoft offer Classic Shell? If they don't, they are forcing users to use Metro style interface. Not everyone likes third party add-on.

morph2_7 wrote in post #15505446
Does Microsoft offer Classic Shell? If they don't, they are forcing users to use Metro style interface. Not everyone likes third party add-on.

I guess I see it differently. Classic Shell is simply a software program. Microsoft doesn't offer Photoshop or Lightroom or DPP, but I don't view that as them forcing me to edit my photos in Paint! Everything that isn't on the Windows distribution disk/ISO is an "add-on." Most of the value of an OS is determined by the "add-ons" that it will run.

Apple is not even an option in many businesses because those businesses can't get the software they need that will run on OS-X. Programs like the one I am using are simply add-ons that happen to remove the single most common complaint about Windows 8. That, combined with the performance boost that I, and others, have seen make Win 8 a very viable option for me.

pknight wrote in post #15507749
I guess I see it differently. Classic Shell is simply a software program. Microsoft doesn't offer Photoshop or Lightroom or DPP, but I don't view that as them forcing me to edit my photos in Paint! Everything that isn't on the Windows distribution disk/ISO is an "add-on." Most of the value of an OS is determined by the "add-ons" that it will run.

Apple is not even an option in many businesses because those businesses can't get the software they need that will run on OS-X. Programs like the one I am using are simply add-ons that happen to remove the single most common complaint about Windows 8. That, combined with the performance boost that I, and others, have seen make Win 8 a very viable option for me.

I don't view software the same as I do user interface. Or perhaps I should say I don't consider the UI to be software per se. It is, but it isn't. To me, not including something like Windows Shell is forcing the Metro interface on me...considering that Windows Shell simply brings back what used to be there. Not including Photoshop or Lightroom is simply not including Photoshop or Lightroom. Photoshop and Lightroom were never there.