Lol

"Win 8 is 20% to 30% faster than win 7"

Lolity frikin lol its actually a couple of % slower due to all the bloat of being 2 OS's cobbled together. It starts faster, but whoop do woo, so what.

If it was that much of an improvement it would be best upgrade yet. That's bigger than the performance gain from Vista to win 7 or 98 to xp. It's even a better performance boost than 3.1 to win 95.
 

[mod edit]

---

Originally posted by Quizzical

---

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.

---

Well, if Zynga/Nintendo/iOS show anything, it's that technology doesn't win the popular vote. People will play what is fun. Hundreds of millions of Facebook users settle for animated Flash graphics. For example, take Farmville - that game has nearly 10x the population of WoW.

The Wii has sold 30M more units than either the XBox or the PS3, despite it not even being and HD console.

You can make the case that Android is overtaking iOS in tablets and phones - but the Android space is much more fractured than the iOS base (many devices do not support upgrading, while Apple typically will support a product with latest OS updates for 2+ years, and many Android vendors have restrictions on where you can get your apps from, whereas all Apple products go through the Apple store), and the iOS base is probably over 400M units by now.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/20/farmville-community-surpasses-80-million-players/
http://www.therichest.org/technology/battle-of-video-game-sales/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57511323-37/apple-by-the-numbers-84m-ipads-400m-ios-devices-350m-ipods-sold/

I'm not saying that popularity = good games - I'm just saying that technology doesn't necessarily have to be cutting edge to make a popular product, and that some of the most fun games I can think of were done in 8 and 16 bits...

Originally posted by Ridelynn

 

---

Originally posted by Quizzical

---

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.

---

 

Well, if Zynga/Nintendo/iOS show anything, it's that technology doesn't win the popular vote. People will play what is fun. Hundreds of millions of Facebook users settle for animated Flash graphics. For example, take Farmville - that game has nearly 10x the population of WoW.

The Wii has sold 30M more units than either the XBox or the PS3, despite it not even being and HD console.

You can make the case that Android is overtaking iOS in tablets and phones - but the Android space is much more fractured than the iOS base (many devices do not support upgrading, while Apple typically will support a product with latest OS updates for 2+ years, and many Android vendors have restrictions on where you can get your apps from, whereas all Apple products go through the Apple store), and the iOS base is probably over 400M units by now.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/20/farmville-community-surpasses-80-million-players/
http://www.therichest.org/technology/battle-of-video-game-sales/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57511323-37/apple-by-the-numbers-84m-ipads-400m-ios-devices-350m-ipods-sold/

I'm not saying that popularity = good games - I'm just saying that technology doesn't necessarily have to be cutting edge to make a popular product, and that some of the most fun games I can think of were done in 8 and 16 bits...

I suppose that it depends on what you think of as the gaming market.  I don't think of FarmVille as competing with WoW.  I'm not buying the 10x as many players as WoW, either.  "Number of accounts registered" is not comparable to "number of active subscriptions".  World of Tanks has 40 million registered accounts, but no one thinks of that as being 5x as big as WoW.

Originally posted by Kilrain

Originally posted by hfztt

As someone who has Windows 8 installed, I will say they will need gunpoint arguments to get people to switch.

Its bad. Not even Vista bad. More like Win ME bad. Yeah really. THAT bad.

Its not that I dont like what they are trying to do, I knda do. Its just that the products is so unfinished and bug ridden, that it is not even funny.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I've ran win8 release preview excusively for months and it worked flawlessly, just as good as windows 7 and sometimes better. It definitely starts much faster than win7 sometimes feels instant. The ONLY thing throwing people off is the metro UI, which you don't need to use.

Is there an incentive to switch from win7 to win8? Not unless you want a laptop/tablet combo or just a tablet. But if you were to switch, metro UI is the only thing you would notice being different, and like I said before, you don't have to use it.

This. You get better frames in games, faster boot times, a better UI for most things overall (in the Desktop, not just Metro) and some nice looking metro apps that I actually use - Mail, Xbox Music, Weather, etc.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Lol

"Win 8 is 20% to 30% faster than win 7"

Lolity frikin lol its actually a couple of % slower due to all the bloat of being 2 OS's cobbled together. It starts faster, but whoop do woo, so what.

If it was that much of an improvement it would be best upgrade yet. That's bigger than the performance gain from Vista to win 7 or 98 to xp. It's even a better performance boost than 3.1 to win 95.

[mod edit]

http://www.technobolt.com/2011/09/20/how-much-windows-8-faster-than-windows-7/

Faster at everything from copying files to booting up. Not 30% or anything, but it's in no way slower.

---

Originally posted by Draron

---

Originally posted by ShakyMo Lol "Win 8 is 20% to 30% faster than win 7" Lolity frikin lol its actually a couple of % slower due to all the bloat of being 2 OS's cobbled together. It starts faster, but whoop do woo, so what. If it was that much of an improvement it would be best upgrade yet. That's bigger than the performance gain from Vista to win 7 or 98 to xp. It's even a better performance boost than 3.1 to win 95. Blimey, Microsoft fanbois.

---

http://www.technobolt.com/2011/09/20/how-much-windows-8-faster-than-windows-7/

 

Faster at everything from copying files to booting up. Not 30% or anything, but it's in no way slower.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Draron

---

Originally posted by ShakyMo Lol "Win 8 is 20% to 30% faster than win 7" Lolity frikin lol its actually a couple of % slower due to all the bloat of being 2 OS's cobbled together. It starts faster, but whoop do woo, so what. If it was that much of an improvement it would be best upgrade yet. That's bigger than the performance gain from Vista to win 7 or 98 to xp. It's even a better performance boost than 3.1 to win 95. Blimey, Microsoft fanbois.

---

http://www.technobolt.com/2011/09/20/how-much-windows-8-faster-than-windows-7/

 

 

Faster at everything from copying files to booting up. Not 30% or anything, but it's in no way slower.

---

Game performance (what most people in this thread would be concerned with) shows little or no difference. This might change when more games are using DirectX, but for now, there's no reason for a gamer to switch from Win7 to Win8. There's no particular reason not to either. Gamers won't lose anything except the money it will cost to upgrade.

** edit **
From Tom's Hardware:
Of the 10 games we benchmarked, only one demonstrated a significant difference in moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8, and only on Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660. That game was Borderlands 2, where our average measured frame rate dropped from 86.6 to 81 FPS. But at that speed, the five-frame drop is hardly worth fretting over.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331-13.html

While Borderlands 2 dropped, most saw a increase of 2 FPS or so. It's hardly a thing to take into consideration if it's just that small of difference like the article says.

---

Originally posted by EvolvedMonky
What does the .1 do that the previous version doesnt? If its another way to do AA then ill pass.

---

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.

 

 

And again, you're screaming about the way metro apps work WHEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE THE METRO APPS.

And no, I really don't need to justify spending a whole $15 for a great OS, thanks.

Some game developers do not like the way Windows is going as they see Microsoft trying to make a closed platform like the Apple. So they are switching to support Linux. Valve are already looking at putting Steam and to give it support on the Ubunti based linux OS.

The windows store front is going to be just the begining on this and I can see that eventualy you wont be able to install any media unless its bought via their store page which means a huge price hike and Microsoft will control what is sold.

Sherman: "Where are we going today Mr. Peabody?"

Mr. Peabody: "Today Sherman we will set the Wayback Machine to November first 2009."

Sherman: "Why? What happened then?"

Mr. Peabody: "This was a peculiar time in the history of the home computer just after Microsoft released their most stable operating system to date... Windows 7. Even though this OS was rock solid people were still on forums declaring that because of DirectX 11 it would be the end of PC gaming as we know it."

Sherman: "Wow Mr. Peabody, People can be pretty ignorant at times."

Mr. Peabody: "You said it Sherman."

Bren

My wife bought WIndows 8 for her PC and have been using it every now and then. It is a lot faster than Win 8. Desktop and start menu takes a little while to get used to. So iw as wrong when i said Win 8 will never be as good as WIn 7.

I will be getting Win 8 next month. Faster boot, less resource hungry, light weight and plays all modern MMOS that i tested on it.

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

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.

 

 

And again, you're screaming about the way metro apps work WHEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE THE METRO APPS.

And no, I really don't need to justify spending a whole $15 for a great OS, thanks.

You do relise that Win8 is actually Windows version 6.2. Its essentially Windows Vista. Like winows 7 was primarily and upgrade of GUI so is Windows 8. If you ignore Metro you dont get anything for your $15 exept a new interesting set of bugs...

Originally posted by hfztt

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

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.

 

 

And again, you're screaming about the way metro apps work WHEN YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE THE METRO APPS.

And no, I really don't need to justify spending a whole $15 for a great OS, thanks.

You do relise that Win8 is actually Windows version 6.2. Its essentially Windows Vista. Like winows 7 was primarily and upgrade of GUI so is Windows 8. If you ignore Metro you dont get anything for your $15 exept a new interesting set of bugs...

Nonsense. Windows vista was never faster,lighter and was very resource hungry. Win 8 is nothing like vista. It i a lot faster and amazingly requires very less resources than Win 7 which was a big improvement over win vista.

You are just pulling stuff out of your rear to make a point.

Originally posted by Kilrain

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I've ran win8 release preview excusively for months and it worked flawlessly, just as good as windows 7 and sometimes better. It definitely starts much faster than win7 sometimes feels instant. The ONLY thing throwing people off is the metro UI, which you don't need to use.

 

is the option built in ? Doing a search using "Win 8 metro optional" yielded some third party aps such as this http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/05/thinix-retroui-lets-windows-8-users-step-off-the-metro/

that being said I have no desire to switch from Win 7 64 system anytime soon and the older DX graphics still loook pretty good to me. My wife never even switched from XP and has no plans to anytime soon

---

Originally posted by Whitebeards
Nonsense. Windows vista was never faster,lighter and was very resource hungry. Win 8 is nothing like vista. It i a lot faster and amazingly requires very less resources than Win 7 which was a big improvement over win vista.

You are just pulling stuff out of your rear to make a point.

---

Originally posted by WhitebeardsNonsense. Windows vista was never faster,lighter and was very resource hungry. Win 8 is nothing like vista. It i a lot faster and amazingly requires very less resources than Win 7 which was a big improvement over win vista.

You are just pulling stuff out of your rear to make a point.

No, I am not.

Windows 2000 =  Windows NT 5.0

Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1

Windows Vista = Windows NT 6.0

Windows 7 = Windows NT 6.1

Windows 8 = Windows NT 6.2

Start a command promt. Its right there. Version 6.2.xxxx. If you think that just a DOS version find c:\windows\system32\kernel32.dll and do an info on that. Ups! Version 6.2. Feel free to track this back and try the same in the earler versions of windows as well. (It is easier in earlier versions though. If you looked at the windows properties page it would tell you teh actual windows version. This time around they decided to hide it though.)

If they had made any MAJOR changes its would have been Windows NT 7. They did not. Only minor tweaks to kernal plus GUI and tools enhancements. Just like Windows 7.

Now mind you that these tweeks can mean a lot in the day to day life. The difference between Vista and 7 in user experience was huge. But under the hood its the same engine. So if you ignore Metrp there really isnt much to Win 8 as thats where they did most of the work for this version.

Originally posted by lizardbones

At least until games are DirectX 11.1 exclusive...which is probably going to be years away.

Games will probably never be DirectX 11.1 exclusive.  Assuming DirectX lasts long enough, there will probably eventually be DirectX games that will not run on DirectX 11 or earlier.  But it's probable that no such games will run on DirectX 11.1, either.  Instead, they'll require DirectX 12 or later.

If you're going to port back to DirectX 11.1 anyway, then there's no real loss in skipping DirectX 11.1 and just making a DirectX 11 version instead.  That allows the many people who can run DirectX 11 but not 11.1 to run your game, while you don't really lose much by not having DirectX 11.1.