I don't see a push out of DirectX anythime soon.  Its all about support.  Right now most graphics cards use DX11 and OpenGL 4.2.  However, no game developer will support either API.  They will use DirectX9.0c because thats what the consoles use.  Is OpenGL 4.2 better then DirectX9.0c?  You bet it is.  Is it better then DirectX11?  Not a chance.

Getting support for windows systems is not that important considering the limited market share.  With the low saturation of Linux program development, and the rather broad amount of different distributions there is a limited market there.  With OS-X being a niche market there is little reason to develop on that platform as well.

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by drgran

Originally posted by Castillle

Originally posted by drgran

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Ridelynn

http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/

Life is back to normal.

But what feature does Win8 have that Win7 doesn't? The only reason I don't use XP is for DX10 and I skipped Vista because it wasn't well optimized. Win7 performs well and is stable. Why would I want to upgrade? I've seen plenty of people say they like 8 but no one can tell me what benefit they get over 7.

Well i did read somewhere that windows 8 will have direct x 11.1 exclusive.

Not really needed unless like..you needed the Ster 3D stuff.  But I mean seriously does anyone even use 3D monitors for their pc? o.O

Yah your right. but if they keep going like this when 12 comes out then it might be the same thing as 11.1

and good idea with rocketdock

What will DirectX 12 offer that DirectX 11 doesn't?  Lots of minor tinkering around the edges, I'm sure.  But what else, that could convince game developers to actually use it?  Support for tessellation alternatives such as voxels or ray-tracing?  I think the primary barrier those face is intrinsic algorithm slowness for ray-tracing and unreasonably large memory requirements for voxels, not lack of API support.

I'm predicting a push toward OpenGL in the next few years. OpenGL is currently faster than Direct3D on *ux and Windows and with Valve pushing a Linux Steam client with OpenGL rendering with NVidia doing driver work...well, why would devs want to go Direct3D anymore?

I've been hearing this for so long now.  There is a reason Windows developers like Visual Studio and it's supporting systems/apis compared to the alternatives.  The rest are clunkier to develop under and less consistent.

OpenGL is run by committee and subject to their direction not to mention inhibited by one of the members that don't like a feature or path.  It's the same sort of problem that has held back the W3C and the power that could be unleashed through server/client scripting.  Did we hang on to Flash so long because it's such an awesome platform?  Just an opinion.

Originally posted by Cleffy

I don't see a push out of DirectX anythime soon.  Its all about support.  Right now most graphics cards use DX11 and OpenGL 4.2.  However, no game developer will support either API.  They will use DirectX9.0c because thats what the consoles use.  Is OpenGL 4.2 better then DirectX9.0c?  You bet it is.  Is it better then DirectX11?  Not a chance.

Getting support for windows systems is not that important considering the limited market share.  With the low saturation of Linux program development, and the rather broad amount of different distributions there is a limited market there.  With OS-X being a niche market there is little reason to develop on that platform as well.

Is OpenGL 4.2 better than Direct3D 11?  Not really.  But is it worse?  Again, not really.  OpenGL 4.2 does have stereoscopic 3D support, which Direct3D 11 lacks--and Direct3D 11.1 added.  But apart from some minor tinkering around the edges, what does Direct3D 11 have that OpenGL 4.2 lacks?  Multithreaded rendering, yes, but does that matter with current hardware?  Anything else?  You can point to some minor little things that Direct3D 11 has and OpenGL 4.2 lacks, but you can do the same in the other direction.

Direct3D is likely to get major new features first, as Microsoft can cut through vendor bickering and say, you have to be able to do such and such or else you can't say you support the latest version of Direct3D.  But then AMD and Nvidia will say, well, our hardware supports these features anyway, so why not expose them in OpenGL?  Is there any hardware that supports OpenGL 4.x but not Direct3D 11?  Will there ever be any such hardware?  If a mobile graphics vendor doesn't want to support the full Direct3D, then they'll go with the stripped down OpenGL ES, not the full OpenGL.  That's what OpenGL ES is for.

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by drgran

Originally posted by Castillle

Originally posted by drgran

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Ridelynn

http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/

Life is back to normal.

But what feature does Win8 have that Win7 doesn't? The only reason I don't use XP is for DX10 and I skipped Vista because it wasn't well optimized. Win7 performs well and is stable. Why would I want to upgrade? I've seen plenty of people say they like 8 but no one can tell me what benefit they get over 7.

Well i did read somewhere that windows 8 will have direct x 11.1 exclusive.

Not really needed unless like..you needed the Ster 3D stuff.  But I mean seriously does anyone even use 3D monitors for their pc? o.O

Yah your right. but if they keep going like this when 12 comes out then it might be the same thing as 11.1

and good idea with rocketdock

What will DirectX 12 offer that DirectX 11 doesn't?  Lots of minor tinkering around the edges, I'm sure.  But what else, that could convince game developers to actually use it?  Support for tessellation alternatives such as voxels or ray-tracing?  I think the primary barrier those face is intrinsic algorithm slowness for ray-tracing and unreasonably large memory requirements for voxels, not lack of API support.

I'm predicting a push toward OpenGL in the next few years. OpenGL is currently faster than Direct3D on *ux and Windows and with Valve pushing a Linux Steam client with OpenGL rendering with NVidia doing driver work...well, why would devs want to go Direct3D anymore?

Color me skeptical of any claims that OpenGL is systematically faster than Direct3D.  Sure, there are particular cases where it will be faster--and particular cases where it will be slower.

I'm not privy to the internal details, but I'd bet that all graphics vendors that support recent versions of both OpenGL and DirectX use exactly the same code path for an OpenGL command as its Direct3D equivalent in an awful lot of cases.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by drgran

Originally posted by Castillle

Originally posted by drgran

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Ridelynn

http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/

Life is back to normal.

But what feature does Win8 have that Win7 doesn't? The only reason I don't use XP is for DX10 and I skipped Vista because it wasn't well optimized. Win7 performs well and is stable. Why would I want to upgrade? I've seen plenty of people say they like 8 but no one can tell me what benefit they get over 7.

Well i did read somewhere that windows 8 will have direct x 11.1 exclusive.

Not really needed unless like..you needed the Ster 3D stuff.  But I mean seriously does anyone even use 3D monitors for their pc? o.O

Yah your right. but if they keep going like this when 12 comes out then it might be the same thing as 11.1

and good idea with rocketdock

What will DirectX 12 offer that DirectX 11 doesn't?  Lots of minor tinkering around the edges, I'm sure.  But what else, that could convince game developers to actually use it?  Support for tessellation alternatives such as voxels or ray-tracing?  I think the primary barrier those face is intrinsic algorithm slowness for ray-tracing and unreasonably large memory requirements for voxels, not lack of API support.

I'm predicting a push toward OpenGL in the next few years. OpenGL is currently faster than Direct3D on *ux and Windows and with Valve pushing a Linux Steam client with OpenGL rendering with NVidia doing driver work...well, why would devs want to go Direct3D anymore?

I've been hearing this for so long now.  There is a reason Windows developers like Visual Studio and it's supporting systems/apis compared to the alternatives.  The rest are clunkier to develop under and less consistent.

OpenGL is run by committee and subject to their direction not to mention inhibited by one of the members that don't like a feature or path.  It's the same sort of problem that has held back the W3C and the power that could be unleashed through server/client scripting.  Did we hang on to Flash so long because it's such an awesome platform?  Just an opinion.

I'm thinking that with Valve doing so much work to get an OpenGL dependant Steam platform on Linux a cleaner development platform will come along. Of course this is speculation and of course there's still that pesky console problem for multi-platform games but somethings got to happen soon. We've been seeing almost exclusively DX9 games forever now. DX10 was hardly used when DX11 came out and now must games with DX11 support only have DX11 water. 

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by drgran

Originally posted by Castillle

Originally posted by drgran

Originally posted by skeaser

Originally posted by Ridelynn

http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/

Life is back to normal.

But what feature does Win8 have that Win7 doesn't? The only reason I don't use XP is for DX10 and I skipped Vista because it wasn't well optimized. Win7 performs well and is stable. Why would I want to upgrade? I've seen plenty of people say they like 8 but no one can tell me what benefit they get over 7.

Well i did read somewhere that windows 8 will have direct x 11.1 exclusive.

Not really needed unless like..you needed the Ster 3D stuff.  But I mean seriously does anyone even use 3D monitors for their pc? o.O

Yah your right. but if they keep going like this when 12 comes out then it might be the same thing as 11.1

and good idea with rocketdock

What will DirectX 12 offer that DirectX 11 doesn't?  Lots of minor tinkering around the edges, I'm sure.  But what else, that could convince game developers to actually use it?  Support for tessellation alternatives such as voxels or ray-tracing?  I think the primary barrier those face is intrinsic algorithm slowness for ray-tracing and unreasonably large memory requirements for voxels, not lack of API support.

I'm predicting a push toward OpenGL in the next few years. OpenGL is currently faster than Direct3D on *ux and Windows and with Valve pushing a Linux Steam client with OpenGL rendering with NVidia doing driver work...well, why would devs want to go Direct3D anymore?

Color me skeptical of any claims that OpenGL is systematically faster than Direct3D.  Sure, there are particular cases where it will be faster--and particular cases where it will be slower.

I'm not privy to the internal details, but I'd bet that all graphics vendors that support recent versions of both OpenGL and DirectX use exactly the same code path for an OpenGL command as its Direct3D equivalent in an awful lot of cases.

I see your point. I re-read the article and it looks like Valve actually worked hand-in-hand with NVidia on the LFD2 project and made OpenGL perform better.

As for the OpenGL vs DX thing...Porting DX9 to DX11/10 may be easy, but its some hefty work changing from DX9 style constant and state style update and DX10/11 buffer style constants.  So unless Valve ported everything to the new way, its a slightly unfair comparison.

Funny story as well because just last year, Carmacks thoughts. Instead of fanboying over 1 side or the other, just pick whatever will suit your needs at that point. Me? I stick to DX because I mostly code for windows and thats the API Im familiar with.  I wouldnt rage if I had to go learn and  use opengl or something prorpietary for something else.

---

Originally posted by skeaser

---

Originally posted by Ridelynn http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/ Life is back to normal.

---

But what feature does Win8 have that Win7 doesn't? The only reason I don't use XP is for DX10 and I skipped Vista because it wasn't well optimized. Win7 performs well and is stable. Why would I want to upgrade? I've seen plenty of people say they like 8 but no one can tell me what benefit they get over 7.

---

really not much.

Metro with the Windows App Store... I'll leave that for each person to determine their own worth for that one.

More "Touch/Gestures".

The UI has access to more graphics acceleration, although it also ditches most of what was in Vista/Win7 Aero.

DX11.1 (not really used for anything yet).

Optimized scheduler for AMD Bulldozer chips (that doesn't matter too much apparently).

Faster boot times (nice, but not a huge deal), along with Secure Boot (bleh), and other hibernation/fast boot options (if your motherboard supports)

There's a new Task Manager, a new Task Scheduler, a new "Computer Optimizer", new "Picture Passwords", the ability to sync your account in "The Cloud" via a MSN login.

Really - aside from Metro (and if you don't like it, then I can certainly sympathize), there is little reason to upgrade, but I also don't see any reason to actively avoid it (like a lot of people did with Vista).

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cleffy

I don't see a push out of DirectX anythime soon.  Its all about support.  Right now most graphics cards use DX11 and OpenGL 4.2.  However, no game developer will support either API.  They will use DirectX9.0c because thats what the consoles use.  Is OpenGL 4.2 better then DirectX9.0c?  You bet it is.  Is it better then DirectX11?  Not a chance.

Getting support for windows systems is not that important considering the limited market share.  With the low saturation of Linux program development, and the rather broad amount of different distributions there is a limited market there.  With OS-X being a niche market there is little reason to develop on that platform as well.

Is OpenGL 4.2 better than Direct3D 11?  Not really.  But is it worse?  Again, not really.  OpenGL 4.2 does have stereoscopic 3D support, which Direct3D 11 lacks--and Direct3D 11.1 added.  But apart from some minor tinkering around the edges, what does Direct3D 11 have that OpenGL 4.2 lacks?  Multithreaded rendering, yes, but does that matter with current hardware?  Anything else?  You can point to some minor little things that Direct3D 11 has and OpenGL 4.2 lacks, but you can do the same in the other direction.

Direct3D is likely to get major new features first, as Microsoft can cut through vendor bickering and say, you have to be able to do such and such or else you can't say you support the latest version of Direct3D.  But then AMD and Nvidia will say, well, our hardware supports these features anyway, so why not expose them in OpenGL?  Is there any hardware that supports OpenGL 4.x but not Direct3D 11?  Will there ever be any such hardware?  If a mobile graphics vendor doesn't want to support the full Direct3D, then they'll go with the stripped down OpenGL ES, not the full OpenGL.  That's what OpenGL ES is for.

OpenGL will always be an order of magnitude slower then DirectX on Windows platforms because of how they work.  Instructions to OpenGL require an additional system call.

Also at a very basic level there is a difference in how Microsoft and Khronous approach the graphics API.  Microsoft focuses on consistent and fast operations.  OpenGL concentrates on its feature set.  Microsoft also dedicates more resources to developing DirectX.  Because of this DirectX has 2 main advantages.  More stable drivers, and features aimed to increase rendering speed.  The way DirectX handles things like multi-threaded texturing, loading in textures, texture compression, LODs, and Tesselation is designed more from a speed aspect then anything else.

Now if you are talking about where both these APIs are heading, I think OpenGL will open up in a couple years.  The main reason is how integral GPGPU functionality will become in producing games.  OpenGL/OpenCL simply renders faster then DirectX11 with DirectCompute.  Unlike DirectCompute, OpenCL can grab onto more resources.  OpenCL right now also has much more research and backing then DirectCompute.

Also thats the thing I really don't understand about this Windows 8 hate.  It takes like 2 minutes after booting to make it a more feature rich Windows 7.  If I was buying a computer, I definetly would not care if it came with Windows 8.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cleffy

I don't see a push out of DirectX anythime soon.  Its all about support.  Right now most graphics cards use DX11 and OpenGL 4.2.  However, no game developer will support either API.  They will use DirectX9.0c because thats what the consoles use.  Is OpenGL 4.2 better then DirectX9.0c?  You bet it is.  Is it better then DirectX11?  Not a chance.

Getting support for windows systems is not that important considering the limited market share.  With the low saturation of Linux program development, and the rather broad amount of different distributions there is a limited market there.  With OS-X being a niche market there is little reason to develop on that platform as well.

Is OpenGL 4.2 better than Direct3D 11?  Not really.  But is it worse?  Again, not really.  OpenGL 4.2 does have stereoscopic 3D support, which Direct3D 11 lacks--and Direct3D 11.1 added.  But apart from some minor tinkering around the edges, what does Direct3D 11 have that OpenGL 4.2 lacks?  Multithreaded rendering, yes, but does that matter with current hardware?  Anything else?  You can point to some minor little things that Direct3D 11 has and OpenGL 4.2 lacks, but you can do the same in the other direction.

Direct3D is likely to get major new features first, as Microsoft can cut through vendor bickering and say, you have to be able to do such and such or else you can't say you support the latest version of Direct3D.  But then AMD and Nvidia will say, well, our hardware supports these features anyway, so why not expose them in OpenGL?  Is there any hardware that supports OpenGL 4.x but not Direct3D 11?  Will there ever be any such hardware?  If a mobile graphics vendor doesn't want to support the full Direct3D, then they'll go with the stripped down OpenGL ES, not the full OpenGL.  That's what OpenGL ES is for.

OpenGL will always be an order of magnitude slower then DirectX on Windows platforms because of how they work.  Instructions to OpenGL require an additional system call.

Also at a very basic level there is a difference in how Microsoft and Khronous approach the graphics API.  Microsoft focuses on consistent and fast operations.  OpenGL concentrates on its feature set.  Microsoft also dedicates more resources to developing DirectX.  Because of this DirectX has 2 main advantages.  More stable drivers, and features aimed to increase rendering speed.  The way DirectX handles things like multi-threaded texturing, loading in textures, texture compression, LODs, and Tesselation is designed more from a speed aspect then anything else.

Now if you are talking about where both these APIs are heading, I think OpenGL will open up in a couple years.  The main reason is how integral GPGPU functionality will become in producing games.  OpenGL/OpenCL simply renders faster then DirectX11 with DirectCompute.  Unlike DirectCompute, OpenCL can grab onto more resources.  OpenCL right now also has much more research and backing then DirectCompute.

 

Also thats the thing I really don't understand about this Windows 8 hate.  It takes like 2 minutes after booting to make it a more feature rich Windows 7.  If I was buying a computer, I definetly would not care if it came with Windows 8.

An order of magnitude slower?  I'm decidedly skeptical of that.  There might be some tiny, insignificant portion that really is an order of magnitude slower, but I'm strongly skeptical that increasing game performance by an order of magnitude is as simple as switching from OpenGL to DirectX.

While I have no doubt that DirectX puts a heavy priority on performance, so does OpenGL.  Once AMD and Nvidia see a fast way to render something implemented in DirectX, do you really think they're not going to push for OpenGL to match it?  A number of places in the OpenGL specification say something to the effect of, "This is the ideal behavior, but it might be slow, so you're allowed to implement whatever you want that just gets kind of close."  Or in the case of anisotropic filtering, the video card is allowed to implement whatever it wants, period.

Besides, the factor that limits performance is likely to be on the GLSL side of things, not OpenGL.  And GLSL has no reason to care what operating system you're using, at least after the shaders are compiled and the programs linked when you launch the game.  Surely at compilation, the drivers would ignore any features you're not using in your shaders.  If only one thread even knows whether you're using OpenGL or DirectX, and that one thread is mostly waiting on shaders running on the video card, would speeding it up so that it spends even more of its time waiting on the video card really offer any advantages?

I have little doubt that tessellation done properly in DirectX offers some nice performance advantages.  But that's because it's tessellation, not because it's DirectX.  It offers nice performance advantages in OpenGL, too.

I'm not aware of differences in how OpenGL and DirectX load textures, but I'd be surprised if the API is the limiting factor there, as opposed to allocating video memory or the performance of the PCI Express bus.  I'd also think that they way the mipmaps are generated wouldn't depend on the API, as there's a single obvious way to do it.

As for multi-threaded rendering, even if OpenGL offered it, I doubt it would be useful.  The problem is that a video card can only go so fast.  If the rendering thread gets too far ahead of the video card, the the video card makes it stop and wait--which means that the processor core is now doing nothing until the video card is ready.  In era of multi-core processors, that's fine, really.  But you don't want two processor cores to constantly have to wait on the video card when you could just as easily make it only one.

Even in DirectX, the only game I'm aware of that has implemented multi-threaded rendering is Civilization V.  And when even the most powerful video cards routinely turn in a minimum frame rate of 0 in testing by a variety of web sites, that's not exactly a sterling endorsement of the benefits of multi-threaded rendering.

Now, you said multi-threaded texturing, but that's even worse.  Having some separate thread uploading or modifying textures without passing it through the main rendering thread is asking for trouble.  Try to do too much texture uploading in a single frame and you're guaranteed to get hitching.  That's pretty easy to avoid by saying, we'll only upload so many textures in each frame and then stop and then stop and wait for the next frame to upload some more.  But you can't do that if you've got some other thread doing whatever it feels like without consulting the main rendering thread.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Although of course if Google made a Android console that would be interesting.

You mean like the Ouya? :)

May not have to wait long for Windows 9:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/28/with-windows-blue-microsoft-looks-to-take-a-page-out-of-apples-mac-os-x-playbook/

If this is true, and it really does release in Summer 2013, that would be a bit disconcerning. Only 9~ish months after release of Windows 8, it would feel like your essentially paying for a Service Pack.

Yes, Apple releases OS'es more frequently (it's hard to get less frequent than MS, especially considering the gap between XP and Vista). But they have a very liberal DRM system (basically none - on your honor, since they lock it to Apple-only hardware), competitive pricing ($20 for the latest handful, and now on their App Store it's per account, not per computer) and releases are still a year to 18 months apart.

Apple also doesn't have the entire Retail/OEM/Upgrade/64/32/RT/Lite/Premium/Media/Pro/Ultimate versioning, licensing and restriction crap that Microsoft has. A lower price on the part of MS would help make the pill easier to swallow, but without a total licensing overhaul (on par with Apple's simple licensing) it makes it still a nightmare to consider.

Also, if the option to buy the OS by allowing advertising is allowed, I cringe. Advertisements are already in Win8 - they are all over the place in Microsoft's pre-loaded Metro apps, and I freakin' paid for this OS. If more ads start popping up I'm seriously considering just ditching all together. Right now, in Win8, I have avoided them by avoiding Metro.

I couldn't throw windows 8 away fast enough. Yes, I dislike it that much. First,  I am unable to use touchscreen devices as it is, and can only use ones that allow for a stylus pen to be used due to issues with circulation and nerve damage in my fingertips from gymnastics injuries. They do not register me touching them at all, and when I bang on them hard enough that it makes my fingers sore, they finaly pick up that I am touching it but then hits multiple keys. It is terrible.

  I actually do not like anything to be on my desktop, no icons  at all and only use the start menu, so you can imagine why I  find the windows 8 desktop extremely annoying.

EDIT:  With Microsofts shift to wanting to charge for each feature as well, It could face a ban in the future in Nations that shift towards rights for internet access such as :

Several countries have adopted laws that make Internet access a right by requiring the state to work to ensure that Internet access is broadly available and/or preventing states from unreasonably restricting an individual's access to information and the Internet:

• Costa Rica: A 30 July 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court of Costa Rica stated: "Without fear of equivocation, it can be said that these technologies [information technology and communication] have impacted the way humans communicate, facilitating the connection between people and institutions worldwide and eliminating barriers of space and time. At this time, access to these technologies becomes a basic tool to facilitate the exercise of fundamental rights and democratic participation (e-democracy) and citizen control, education, freedom of thought and expression, access to information and public services online, the right to communicate with government electronically and administrative transparency, among others. This includes the fundamental right of access to these technologies, in particular, the right of access to the Internet or World Wide Web."^[11]
• Estonia: In 2000, the parliament passed a law declaring Internet access a fundamental human right and launched a massive program to expand access to the countryside. The Internet, the government argues, is essential for life in the 21st century.^[12]
• Finland: By July 2010, every person in Finland was to have the right to a one-megabit per second broadband connection, according to the Ministry of Transport and Communications. And by 2015, access to a 100 Mbit/s connection will be a legal right.^[13]
• France: In June 2009, the Constitutional Council, France's highest court, declared access to the Internet to be a basic human right in a strongly-worded decision that struck down portions of the HADOPI law, a law that would have tracked abusers and without judicial review automatically cut off network access to those who continued to download illicit material after two warnings^[14]
• Greece: Article 5A of the Constitution of Greece states that all persons has a right to participate in the Information Society and that the state has an obligation to facilitate the production, exchange, diffusion, and access to electronically transmitted information.^[15]
• Spain: Starting in 2011, Telefónica, the former state monopoly that holds the country's "universal service" contract, has to guarantee to offer "reasonably" priced broadband of at least one megabit per second throughout Spain.^[16][17]     
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access  With Operating systems being a requirement to access for most, they very well may become subject to laws in regards to " reasonably priced" Operating systems as well. My friend was telling me that he had to use a PO box in Germany already to buy products that are banned in the Netherlands due to laws restricting tablets, dics, ect.  If microsoft continues their shift, as well as the other nations continuing their shift away from overpricing, it could give rise to better competition for operating systems in the future or force Microsofts hand by losing a good portion of the market.

Originally posted by Ridelynn

May not have to wait long for Windows 9:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/28/with-windows-blue-microsoft-looks-to-take-a-page-out-of-apples-mac-os-x-playbook/

If this is true, and it really does release in Summer 2013, that would be a bit disconcerning. Only 9~ish months after release of Windows 8, it would feel like your essentially paying for a Service Pack.

Yes, Apple releases OS'es more frequently (it's hard to get less frequent than MS, especially considering the gap between XP and Vista). But they have a very liberal DRM system (basically none - on your honor, since they lock it to Apple-only hardware), competitive pricing ($20 for the latest handful, and now on their App Store it's per account, not per computer) and releases are still a year to 18 months apart.

Apple also doesn't have the entire Retail/OEM/Upgrade/64/32/RT/Lite/Premium/Media/Pro/Ultimate versioning, licensing and restriction crap that Microsoft has. A lower price on the part of MS would help make the pill easier to swallow, but without a total licensing overhaul (on par with Apple's simple licensing) it makes it still a nightmare to consider.

Also, if the option to buy the OS by allowing advertising is allowed, I cringe. Advertisements are already in Win8 - they are all over the place in Microsoft's pre-loaded Metro apps, and I freakin' paid for this OS. If more ads start popping up I'm seriously considering just ditching all together. Right now, in Win8, I have avoided them by avoiding Metro.

I won't mind quicker releases if they keep their current upgrade pricing structure.  As Win8 was released I got 5 licenses through my MSDN subscription.  There was a small window where I could buy upgrades to Pro for $15.  A new system I bought through a major retailer offered a $15 upgrade.  I can buy Win8 Pro upgrade licenses for $70.  That isn't so bad to me.  If I actually have to pay $200 - $300 for a license every 6 months then I will be very unhappy.

There are really only 3 versions of Windows, aside from servers, now - RT, Home, and Pro.  Apple basically has two, iOS and OSX.  I really wish Microsoft would get rid of Home and just offer the two - handhelds (RT) and desktop (Pro).  The features like bitlocker and remote desktop should really be included.  Hopefully as they have faster release cycles they will merge the desktop versions for easier maintenance.

I don't like ads either, but then I don't use Modern apps on the desktop really.  There are a few games and some preinstalled apps that I've left installed but other than that I use all desktop versions of software including Skype, MS Essentials 2012, Office, and the rest of my non-Microsoft apps.  The modern versions just don't work well for me on the desktop, so I'm not really seeing this "they are all over the place" situation you describe.  Ads are everywhere in Google Play apps and Apple iOS apps, but you don't really have to see them in Chrome or OSX.

Overall I like this direction.  This is especially true with account integration, configurability and workflow, and syncronization between devices.  They are finally creating an ecosystem like Apple and that makes me a much happier user.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by Ridelynn

May not have to wait long for Windows 9:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/28/with-windows-blue-microsoft-looks-to-take-a-page-out-of-apples-mac-os-x-playbook/

If this is true, and it really does release in Summer 2013, that would be a bit disconcerning. Only 9~ish months after release of Windows 8, it would feel like your essentially paying for a Service Pack.

Yes, Apple releases OS'es more frequently (it's hard to get less frequent than MS, especially considering the gap between XP and Vista). But they have a very liberal DRM system (basically none - on your honor, since they lock it to Apple-only hardware), competitive pricing ($20 for the latest handful, and now on their App Store it's per account, not per computer) and releases are still a year to 18 months apart.

Apple also doesn't have the entire Retail/OEM/Upgrade/64/32/RT/Lite/Premium/Media/Pro/Ultimate versioning, licensing and restriction crap that Microsoft has. A lower price on the part of MS would help make the pill easier to swallow, but without a total licensing overhaul (on par with Apple's simple licensing) it makes it still a nightmare to consider.

Also, if the option to buy the OS by allowing advertising is allowed, I cringe. Advertisements are already in Win8 - they are all over the place in Microsoft's pre-loaded Metro apps, and I freakin' paid for this OS. If more ads start popping up I'm seriously considering just ditching all together. Right now, in Win8, I have avoided them by avoiding Metro.

I won't mind quicker releases if they keep their current upgrade pricing structure.  As Win8 was released I got 5 licenses through my MSDN subscription.  There was a small window where I could buy upgrades to Pro for $15.  A new system I bought through a major retailer offered a $15 upgrade.  I can buy Win8 Pro upgrade licenses for $70.  That isn't so bad to me.  If I actually have to pay $200 - $300 for a license every 6 months then I will be very unhappy.

There are really only 3 versions of Windows, aside from servers, now - RT, Home, and Pro.  Apple basically has two, iOS and OSX.  I really wish Microsoft would get rid of Home and just offer the two - handhelds (RT) and desktop (Pro).  The features like bitlocker and remote desktop should really be included.  Hopefully as they have faster release cycles they will merge the desktop versions for easier maintenance.

I don't like ads either, but then I don't use Modern apps on the desktop really.  There are a few games and some preinstalled apps that I've left installed but other than that I use all desktop versions of software including Skype, MS Essentials 2012, Office, and the rest of my non-Microsoft apps.  The modern versions just don't work well for me on the desktop, so I'm not really seeing this "they are all over the place" situation you describe.  Ads are everywhere in Google Play apps and Apple iOS apps, but you don't really have to see them in Chrome or OSX.

Overall I like this direction.  This is especially true with account integration, configurability and workflow, and syncronization between devices.  They are finally creating an ecosystem like Apple and that makes me a much happier user.

I never use an upgrade though, and like to format my computer often, making this a terrible design for me personally. I always install a fresh operating system, as well as  completely formatting and switching out drives as well.  Seeing that it is only the Ultimate version of windows that offers the additional security features I like, I could not see me dishing out that kind of money every few months for a new OS. That would be absurd.

It is already extremely irritating as it is to have to call them everytime I replace a drive or format just to get windows activated again due to their  online product key system beiing  lacking in handling that properly.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Torvaldr

I won't mind quicker releases if they keep their current upgrade pricing structure.  As Win8 was released I got 5 licenses through my MSDN subscription.  There was a small window where I could buy upgrades to Pro for $15.  A new system I bought through a major retailer offered a $15 upgrade.  I can buy Win8 Pro upgrade licenses for $70.  That isn't so bad to me.  If I actually have to pay $200 - $300 for a license every 6 months then I will be very unhappy.

There are really only 3 versions of Windows, aside from servers, now - RT, Home, and Pro.  Apple basically has two, iOS and OSX.  I really wish Microsoft would get rid of Home and just offer the two - handhelds (RT) and desktop (Pro).  The features like bitlocker and remote desktop should really be included.  Hopefully as they have faster release cycles they will merge the desktop versions for easier maintenance.

I don't like ads either, but then I don't use Modern apps on the desktop really.  There are a few games and some preinstalled apps that I've left installed but other than that I use all desktop versions of software including Skype, MS Essentials 2012, Office, and the rest of my non-Microsoft apps.  The modern versions just don't work well for me on the desktop, so I'm not really seeing this "they are all over the place" situation you describe.  Ads are everywhere in Google Play apps and Apple iOS apps, but you don't really have to see them in Chrome or OSX.

Overall I like this direction.  This is especially true with account integration, configurability and workflow, and syncronization between devices.  They are finally creating an ecosystem like Apple and that makes me a much happier user.

I never use an upgrade though, and like to format my computer often, making this a terrible design for me personally. I always install a fresh operating system, as well as  completely formatting and switching out drives as well.  Seeing that it is only the Ultimate version of windows that offers the additional security features I like, I could not see me dishing out that kind of money every few months for a new OS. That would be absurd.

It is already extremely irritating as it is to have to call them everytime I replace a drive or format just to get windows activated again due to their  online product key sytem beiing  lacking in handling that properly.

The two licenses I had to purchase were $15 full licenses.  That is the short term offer they made at initial release.  The $70 licenses offered right now are full licenses.  I don't mind paying less for an upgrade license.  I did clean installs with all the Win8 licenses except one where I wanted to see how smoothly the upgrade in place option from 7 to 8 went.

There is no ultimate version.  There is a pro version and a home version that is just called Windows 8.  There is an Enterprise version that is the same as Pro (you can't install media center though), but it is a site license.  I agree that bitlocker should be included in every version, however, TrueCrypt is available for those who don't have bitlocker.

All the other stuff you made up I won't address because it's pedantic hyperbole and invention.  It doesn't sound like you've used a Windows edition past XP.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Torvaldr

I won't mind quicker releases if they keep their current upgrade pricing structure.  As Win8 was released I got 5 licenses through my MSDN subscription.  There was a small window where I could buy upgrades to Pro for $15.  A new system I bought through a major retailer offered a $15 upgrade.  I can buy Win8 Pro upgrade licenses for $70.  That isn't so bad to me.  If I actually have to pay $200 - $300 for a license every 6 months then I will be very unhappy.

There are really only 3 versions of Windows, aside from servers, now - RT, Home, and Pro.  Apple basically has two, iOS and OSX.  I really wish Microsoft would get rid of Home and just offer the two - handhelds (RT) and desktop (Pro).  The features like bitlocker and remote desktop should really be included.  Hopefully as they have faster release cycles they will merge the desktop versions for easier maintenance.

I don't like ads either, but then I don't use Modern apps on the desktop really.  There are a few games and some preinstalled apps that I've left installed but other than that I use all desktop versions of software including Skype, MS Essentials 2012, Office, and the rest of my non-Microsoft apps.  The modern versions just don't work well for me on the desktop, so I'm not really seeing this "they are all over the place" situation you describe.  Ads are everywhere in Google Play apps and Apple iOS apps, but you don't really have to see them in Chrome or OSX.

Overall I like this direction.  This is especially true with account integration, configurability and workflow, and syncronization between devices.  They are finally creating an ecosystem like Apple and that makes me a much happier user.

I never use an upgrade though, and like to format my computer often, making this a terrible design for me personally. I always install a fresh operating system, as well as  completely formatting and switching out drives as well.  Seeing that it is only the Ultimate version of windows that offers the additional security features I like, I could not see me dishing out that kind of money every few months for a new OS. That would be absurd.

It is already extremely irritating as it is to have to call them everytime I replace a drive or format just to get windows activated again due to their  online product key sytem beiing  lacking in handling that properly.

The two licenses I had to purchase were $15 full licenses.  That is the short term offer they made at initial release.  The $70 licenses offered right now are full licenses.  I don't mind paying less for an upgrade license.  I did clean installs with all the Win8 licenses except one where I wanted to see how smoothly the upgrade in place option from 7 to 8 went.

There is no ultimate version.  There is a pro version and a home version that is just called Windows 8.  There is an Enterprise version that is the same as Pro (you can't install media center though), but it is a site license.  I agree that bitlocker should be included in every version, however, TrueCrypt is available for those who don't have bitlocker.

All the other stuff you made up I won't address because it's pedantic hyperbole and invention.  It doesn't sound like you've used a Windows edition past XP.

Yes, I tried the  windows 8 pro, and it was  so bad I threw it in the garbage and put back windows 7 ultimate full version non OEM  back on so it doesn't die with my motherboard replacement. Not sure where you could possibly find the ultimate for that price you are giving though. OEM versions die with your motherboard and they won't give you a new license. When I go to replace my hardware and reinstall, it won't issue me anew license online,  I have to call and have them take the old one off and apply it to the new one.  ( and that is with the Non OEM version)

What are you talking about made up? The security issues I was discussing were from windows 7 as you can plainly see listed here:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare

I already stated in this thread I threw windows 8 away, yes in the garbage, was a terrible waste of money and time even bothering with it.

---

Originally posted by deviliscious

---

Originally posted by Torvaldr

---

Originally posted by Ridelynn May not have to wait long for Windows 9: http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/28/with-windows-blue-microsoft-looks-to-take-a-page-out-of-apples-mac-os-x-playbook/ If this is true, and it really does release in Summer 2013, that would be a bit disconcerning. Only 9~ish months after release of Windows 8, it would feel like your essentially paying for a Service Pack. Yes, Apple releases OS'es more frequently (it's hard to get less frequent than MS, especially considering the gap between XP and Vista). But they have a very liberal DRM system (basically none - on your honor, since they lock it to Apple-only hardware), competitive pricing ($20 for the latest handful, and now on their App Store it's per account, not per computer) and releases are still a year to 18 months apart. Apple also doesn't have the entire Retail/OEM/Upgrade/64/32/RT/Lite/Premium/Media/Pro/Ultimate versioning, licensing and restriction crap that Microsoft has. A lower price on the part of MS would help make the pill easier to swallow, but without a total licensing overhaul (on par with Apple's simple licensing) it makes it still a nightmare to consider. Also, if the option to buy the OS by allowing advertising is allowed, I cringe. Advertisements are already in Win8 - they are all over the place in Microsoft's pre-loaded Metro apps, and I freakin' paid for this OS. If more ads start popping up I'm seriously considering just ditching all together. Right now, in Win8, I have avoided them by avoiding Metro.

---

I won't mind quicker releases if they keep their current upgrade pricing structure.  As Win8 was released I got 5 licenses through my MSDN subscription.  There was a small window where I could buy upgrades to Pro for $15.  A new system I bought through a major retailer offered a $15 upgrade.  I can buy Win8 Pro upgrade licenses for $70.  That isn't so bad to me.  If I actually have to pay $200 - $300 for a license every 6 months then I will be very unhappy. There are really only 3 versions of Windows, aside from servers, now - RT, Home, and Pro.  Apple basically has two, iOS and OSX.  I really wish Microsoft would get rid of Home and just offer the two - handhelds (RT) and desktop (Pro).  The features like bitlocker and remote desktop should really be included.  Hopefully as they have faster release cycles they will merge the desktop versions for easier maintenance. I don't like ads either, but then I don't use Modern apps on the desktop really.  There are a few games and some preinstalled apps that I've left installed but other than that I use all desktop versions of software including Skype, MS Essentials 2012, Office, and the rest of my non-Microsoft apps.  The modern versions just don't work well for me on the desktop, so I'm not really seeing this "they are all over the place" situation you describe.  Ads are everywhere in Google Play apps and Apple iOS apps, but you don't really have to see them in Chrome or OSX. Overall I like this direction.  This is especially true with account integration, configurability and workflow, and syncronization between devices.  They are finally creating an ecosystem like Apple and that makes me a much happier user.

---

I never use an upgrade though, and like to format my computer often, making this a terrible design for me personally. I always install a fresh operating system, as well as  completely formatting and switching out drives as well.  Seeing that it is only the Ultimate version of windows that offers the additional security features I like, I could not see me dishing out that kind of money every few months for a new OS. That would be absurd.

It is already extremely irritating as it is to have to call them everytime I replace a drive or format just to get windows activated again due to their  online product key sytem beiing  lacking in handling that properly.

---

Upgrade is actually a licensing term, not a method of installation.

An "Upgrade" edition can be installed fresh, just like any other. The difference is strictly price and licensing.

And there are vastly more "versions" of Windows than 3.

There is
Phone (if you want to count that, since your counting iOS),
RT (Arm),
Windows 8
Windows 8 Pro

That sounds simple - 4 versions.

Except there's a choice between 32 and 64-bit on the PC. Thankfully the 32 and 64 bit editions are included on the same install (unless you buy the Upgrade via the Upgrade Assistant, in which case you get the version corresponding to whatever you had installed previously). But you still have to make a decision when you install. That adds:

Windows 8 32
Windows 8 64
Windows 8 Pro 32
Windows 8 Pro 64

The real mess is the Retail vs Upgrade vs OEM editions - which are the same software, but all have different licensing rules. Since the 32 and 64 bit are distributed together (except for the aforementioned online upgrade), I'll concatenate them in this list. So that adds:

Windows 8 32/64 Retail Edition
Windows 8 Pro 32/64 Retail Edition
Windows 8 32/64 Upgrade Edition
Windows 8 Pro 32/64 Upgrade Edition
Windows 8 32/64 OEM Edition
Windows 8 Pro 32/64 OEM Edition

So not only are there different versions of the software, there are different versions of the license. So 8 total different versions (if we merge the 32 and 64 bit editions, 14 if you want to count them seperately).

It's miles better than it used to be: Windows 7 and prior were a mess, but it's still a long cry from Apple.

Add in that Apple licenses are now per account, and not per computer, and that's a coup de grâce. And Apple doesn't have an "Enterprise" edition anymore. OS X Server is now just a stand alone program that runs on top of OS X, not a separate OS (thankfully, it was a mess when it was it's own OS with very restrictive licensing). As if the desktop licensing wasn't bad enough, Microsoft server and enterprise licensing is extremely convoluted.

At least with Linux, there are probably thousands of distributions and versions, but they are mostly free, so if you get the wrong one, or want to change, you just get it and do it.