Windows 8 runs like a charm on tablets, it's meant for those machines.

but on a traditional desktop? meeh.

Originally posted by skydiver12

 

The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :)

In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.

 

Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?

Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

---

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

---

Originally posted by skydiver12   The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :) In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.  

---

Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?

Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

---

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?

Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.

And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.

But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.

---

Originally posted by skydiver12

---

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

---

Originally posted by skydiver12   The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :) In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.  

---

Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?

Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

---

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?

Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.

And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.

But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.

---

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

Originally posted by skydiver12

---

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

---

Originally posted by skydiver12   The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :) In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.  

---

Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?

Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

---

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?

Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.

And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.

But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.

---

The developers have to choose the Metro interface for it to apply to their application. There are two application development paths you can take. One is Metro, which can be sold through Microsoft's store and which can run under Windows RT and is geared towards tablet users...one screen at a time. The other is the normal, "legacy" method where you have Windows that are designed however the programmer wants them to run. You can have full screen applications or multiple screens at a time.

Microsoft doesn't determine the application interface, the developer does.

---

And i still disagree about multiple screens.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/21/enhancing-windows-8-for-multiple-monitors.aspx

Multiple desktop got better and finally multiple wallpapers., however even the design sheet clearly shows, Metro only runs on one of these monitors! The Metro environment is fundamentally single-screen. All Metro-style applications, including the Start screen itself (though it is not quite an application), have to reside on the same screen. It doesn't matter so much which screen, and you can freely switch, but it has to be the same screen. If you move the Start screen, by invoking it on a different monitor, then every Metro-style application will be moved alongside.

---

Originally posted by skydiver12

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

Originally posted by skydiver12

---

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

---

Originally posted by skydiver12   The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :) In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.  

---

Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?

Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

---

Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?

Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?

Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.

And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.

But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.

---

The developers have to choose the Metro interface for it to apply to their application. There are two application development paths you can take. One is Metro, which can be sold through Microsoft's store and which can run under Windows RT and is geared towards tablet users...one screen at a time. The other is the normal, "legacy" method where you have Windows that are designed however the programmer wants them to run. You can have full screen applications or multiple screens at a time.

Microsoft doesn't determine the application interface, the developer does.

---

I did merely stated what metro design is about. What developers choose to design doesn't change it. Neither does running your old application on the Desktop.

And i still disagree about multiple screens.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/21/enhancing-windows-8-for-multiple-monitors.aspx

Multiple desktop got better and finally multiple wallpapers., however even the design sheet clearly shows, Metro only runs on one of these monitors! The Metro environment is fundamentally single-screen. All Metro-style applications, including the Start screen itself (though it is not quite an application), have to reside on the same screen. It doesn't matter so much which screen, and you can freely switch, but it has to be the same screen. If you move the Start screen, by invoking it on a different monitor, then every Metro-style application will be moved alongside.

---

---

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Lizard:For now devs have a choiceIf enough suckas buy win 8, they won't have the choice with win 9Yep that's right gamers buying win8 are suckas, well done for helping Microsoft bend you over like xbox gamers

---

win 8 will  win for 2 reasions 

1 its faster  win min is the dll tech of win8  it has the same core of win7 but every dll file and driver has hundred of lines of code removed  thay are strimlined

2 the new pc market  win8 for free

most gamers will switch just because of the speed  win8 is 20 to 30 % faster the win 7 on the same hardware  and i am talking about the normal desktop and win core not win rt the new flash like start menu  its even faster

bottom line is win8 is well made and the fastes pc os it even faster then win xp

Originally posted by VoreDock

win 8 will  win for 2 reasions 

 

1 its faster  win min is the dll tech of win8  it has the same core of win7 but every dll file and driver has hundred of lines of code removed  thay are strimlined

2 the new pc market  win8 for free

 

most gamers will switch just because of the speed  win8 is 20 to 30 % faster the win 7 on the same hardware  and i am talking about the normal desktop and win core not win rt the new flash like start menu  its even faster

 

bottom line is win8 is well made and the fastes pc os it even faster then win xp

lol no.

Originally posted by VoreDock

win 8 will  win for 2 reasions 

 

1 its faster  win min is the dll tech of win8  it has the same core of win7 but every dll file and driver has hundred of lines of code removed  thay are strimlined

2 the new pc market  win8 for free

 

most gamers will switch just because of the speed  win8 is 20 to 30 % faster the win 7 on the same hardware  and i am talking about the normal desktop and win core not win rt the new flash like start menu  its even faster

 

bottom line is win8 is well made and the fastes pc os it even faster then win xp

It's not faster. It is mostly the same speed as win7 except the boot time. In gaming too, W8 actually has 1-3 fps less than win7 which you will not notice.

Check out the benchmarks:

http://www.techspot.com/review/561-windows8-vs-windows7/

Originally posted by FrodoFragins
My hope is that all of this will simply lead to a much improved OpenGL that can compete with and theoretically overtake DirectX.

OpenGL 4.3 is already roughly on par with Direct3D 11.1.  (OpenGL is only analogous to the Direct3D part of DirectX; DirectX includes some other stuff such as sound.)  OpenGL had a brutal stretch for a few years in which it didn't catch up to DirectX 10 until around the time that DirectX 11 launched.  But OpenGL has since roughly caught up in features available.

OpenGL creates new versions in a very different manner from DirectX.  Microsoft controls DirectX, so they can say, the specification is such and such, and if your hardware can't do this, then you can't say you support DirectX.  OpenGL is a cooperative effort from all of the major graphics vendors--not just AMD and Nvidia, but also ARM, Imagination, Intel, Apple, etc.--and if they decide to fight with each other over what should be part of the spec (e.g., "let's not add that yet because my hardware doesn't run it very well"), it can get held back.

Originally posted by Seelinnikoi

MAC OSX / iOS will be the future of gaming!

*raises fists to heaven*

 

:P

There's no chance of that.  Even less than the slim chance that Linux will be the future of gaming.  Mac OS X simply does not support modern graphics, as Apple stopped at OpenGL 3.2 for some inexplicable reason, which is five versions before the current one.

And iOS is much, much worse.  Not only does it not support DirectX, but it doesn't support OpenGL, either.  All it gets is the gimpy OpenGL ES, and even there, it's only OpenGL ES 2.0.  I'm not sure how OpenGL ES 2.0 compares to DirectX 9.0c, but it's surely far behind DirectX 10.  For that matter, even the newly released OpenGL ES 3.0 is miles behind DirectX 10.

I totally wouldn't worry about DX11.1 right now.

I mean, how many games ~only~ support DX10 or DX11, and those are Vista+ exclusives.

It probably won't be until the "nextgen" XBox is out, and then whatever DX-level the new XBox support runs will slowly become the new standard.