Just my two cents, but I believe that all the anti-hype regarding Windows 8 is due to conservative thinkers blowing smoke and not accepting change in "their" operating system of choice. Windows 8 has exceedingly performed on more hardware than I would ever have expected, including machines running 128 mb ram.
On my current set-up using Windows 8 Release Preview, every single game that I play has received a bump in framerate, not a loss. Sure, they made a few changes to the GUI. Most of the complaints regarding these changes, and the "Metro" system (which I forget the name of in it's current state), are the same arguments people made against windows. "Why would I want to use this user interface when I could just type a command way faster?"
TL;DR
Windows 8 is Windows again, with more optimizations and a few changes to modernize the OS. People will adapt and stop complaining about it in due time.
^^^ THIS..... Most people hate change, but I embrace it. I get tired of hearing metro sucks. Oh no it takes a whole second to click on the desktop icon or type desktop and boom your in the old school windows desktop. You got 2 OS's build into one, I personally digg the idea especially for laptops that have a detachable screen which most made for Win 8 will have.
Just my two cents, but I believe that all the anti-hype regarding Windows 8 is due to conservative thinkers blowing smoke and not accepting change in "their" operating system of choice. Windows 8 has exceedingly performed on more hardware than I would ever have expected, including machines running 128 mb ram.
On my current set-up using Windows 8 Release Preview, every single game that I play has received a bump in framerate, not a loss. Sure, they made a few changes to the GUI. Most of the complaints regarding these changes, and the "Metro" system (which I forget the name of in it's current state), are the same arguments people made against windows. "Why would I want to use this user interface when I could just type a command way faster?"
TL;DR
Windows 8 is Windows again, with more optimizations and a few changes to modernize the OS. People will adapt and stop complaining about it in due time.
^^^ THIS..... Most people hate change, but I embrace it. I get tired of hearing metro sucks. Oh no it takes a whole second to click on the desktop icon or type desktop and boom your in the old school windows desktop. You got 2 OS's build into one, I personally digg the idea especially for laptops that have a detachable screen which most made for Win 8 will have.
And this is exactly why Windows 8 is a disaster in the making. 90% of people who buy new PC's are not tech savy or gamers... They are average people that just want their technology to work in a familiar way. When Grandma gets her shiny new Windows 8 PC home and boots it for the first time to check for pictures of her grandchildren on Facebook her response is going to be a resounding "WTF!" and back to the store it's going to go.
The average PC user is going to absolutely hate Windows 8... not because of it's performance or how it rates on some benchmark tests... it will be because it will violently knock them out of their "comfort zone" of familiarity with the Windows OS that they have enjoyed since 1995.
There's a reason that even though Windows 7 has been around a while now, there's still plenty of people using windows XP.
Other problem I'm starting to see is the volume of people who only read enough to be dangerous. It's not hard to find what confirms one's own point of view. It's a lot harder to find what's driving someone else's point of view, especially if you simply don't want to see it that way.
At this point there are people that perceive glaring issues and threats to how microsoft has positioned itself as well as perceived issues with how the platform itself will lend towards experience between the users and developers.
The other side looks at the system itself and sees convenience values in the system, how it can benefit end user experience.
For me it's less the performance of the OS itself and more the fact Microsoft has continued to insert itself into the middle of things in a way that they previously have not done.
It's also what I dare to say is the main reason people consider Linux the alternative. The control people have over their own system is the valuable aspect.
It's what made the idea behind the Ouya so appealing. A gaming platform whose design allows independent control without the sacrifice of a common shared experience through it.
It has nothing to do with the performance alone on Microsoft. It also has plenty to do with the history of the platform and where it stands as a system the public uses. It is far and away the main and, by fair perception (though not necessarily accurate), the only practical platform for PC gamers still. If microsoft places itself more stictly between the user and the developer, and controls more andd more of the means they have to implement their systems, PC gamers lose their platform.
Sure, you still have the ability to install things external to the microsoft certified apps. How well will that be supported? With that be intentionally supported at all, or will Microsoft pull back on the resources necessary to run on their platform so the easiest way to develop for them is to effectively work for them?
All in all I can only say my preference. I don't want another closed system, I want an open platform. If most of the things being introduced cater to a closed system, and the open platform just idles, then there is nothing for me.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think Microsoft is trying to bring that app store experience people are so used to now, home to their PCs. I can understand it, I mean as it is you're kinda on your own, go find software somewhere and hope its not riddled with viruses or the website isn't a big scam. "Click here! Download now!"
The internet is a freakin mess these days, and people are more and more getting used to just searching for a game or an app, seeing reviews and pics, downloading it and knowing it will work.
I get the concern that this will turn into a completely closed platform. But for what we know now, imagine all the good this could do. How many people you think play MineCraft on their iPhones but never even knew it existed on their PC? They might have bought it a long time ago.
Indie developers might have a huge opportunity to get their name seen by a larger audience. Indie devs have already enjoyed a lot of support by Microsoft on Xbox live, so why does everyone presume this would not carry over to windows 8?
Blizzard and Valve don't want Microsoft to leech of their products. They already have no problem selling their product, so a Microsoft store that controls what is sold for Windows, is understandably not in their interest. Microsoft's involvement with that would only cost them money.
As enduser I don't want to see it either. It is one of the reasons why I don't buy ridiculously overpriced (comparitively speaking) Apple products for example.
Btw, their anti future windows stance has further nothing to do with how Windows 8 performs as desktop OS and how it compares in use to Windows 7 for example . That is completely beside the point.
Valve is scared of the store since Microsoft charges less than Valve does atm, and we'll have a larger install base.
At a 2nd glance i think Blizzard is sacred off Games for Windows(or Games for Xbox, or how ever they are calling it now) since its intergraded into Windows 8, and into DirectX and could compete with what ever they have planed for Battle.Net.
And yeah i dont think Valve likes the idea of competition to steam works either :P
Windows 8 has many good things, even if it could use some more development time and improvements.
Windows Store is a really good idea. It allows people who don't know much about tech an easy way to get their programs and games from reliable source.
But it very much looks like that Microsoft is moving from model where their Operating Systems generate them revenue to model where they sell their OS cheap, possibly even lose money, and then regain that money by selling programs with Windows Store. And that to do that, they are going to limit or prevent functionality of other application shops and/or programs not bought from Windows Store.
How would you feel, if Intel suddenly announced that their future processors will not run any programs that can be run with AMD processors? Intel has so large a market share, they could likely drive their competitors out of business. If Microsoft moves to closed system the result will be same. Consumers won't be able to replace their OS, they are going to replace products competing with Microsoft with products that pay Microsoft money.
Originally posted by ShakyMo "the certification process doesn't cost a dime"
Bullshit!
I've made drivers for win 7,they require certification, it costs money to do it.
What does the Windows Logo program for drivers has to do with the Metro Certification proccess?
Crertifing drivers costa quite a bit, so as certifing hardware in general, the Metro Store fees are:
Paid Apps
30% of the first 25,000 USD
20% for evey dollar afterwards
Min price 1.49US, Max price 999US(to prevent enterprise sofware to be sold on the store).
Free apps:
Microsoft Openess - exempt
Open Source Interopt Alliance - exempt
Code Plex projects - exempt
Registered Developers - exempt
Kick started(not kickstarter.com or what ever) projects(BizSpark, WebSpark, etc) - exempt
Other - Base fees may apply mostly to prevent scams i.e a metro app which is nothing more than a browser control with a scam referal site or somthing like that.
If you go trough the propper channels that Microsoft has established for Open Source, Shared Source and Free Software that conforms to the FSF standards you will not pay a dime to get your app on the app store.
I tried windows 8. It was a nightmare for me personally. Besides feeling like I couldn't get programs to actually close, the tablet UI on my computer was horrible. I have an Eyefinity setup, and the Metro UI was absolutely terrible when displayed at 7680 x 1600. I see no reason to downgrade to windows 8 at this time.
Originally posted by kadepsyson I tried windows 8. It was a nightmare for me personally. Besides feeling like I couldn't get programs to actually close, the tablet UI on my computer was horrible. I have an Eyefinity setup, and the Metro UI was absolutely terrible when displayed at 7680 x 1600. I see no reason to downgrade to windows 8 at this time.
Got a simmilar setup just 5760x1200 i dont use the Metro UI(only the snapin abilites so i can snap application around and beyond the "edges" of the normal desktop) with my Windows 8, but the 12.9 beta drivers that came out 4 days ago fixed several issues with EI.
The multi screen support of Windows 8 is preety good, much better than the same old dup/crappy extended we had with pretty much every previous version of Windows, it also support multi monitor setups for D3D so no need for EI / other sofware to get mutli monitor resolutions in your games.
Dont know if it as good as(or even supports it) EI for none stripped stups, since im dont have a 4x2 or a 3x2 matrix setup for my self.
I don't really consider myself as a tech-smart guy. So I need to ask you guys who are why the hate for windows 8 is cirulating more so than anything good.
For example, I have no idea what "closed platform" means from this article.
"...concerned that Microsoft's move toward a closed platform will adversely affect game developers and publishers."
Have you played with Windows 8 yet? It does not belong on a PC at all, it is a phone/Tablet OS and nothing more. Its a piece of crap for regular PC use and even worst for Businesses.
WIndows 8 will like Vista, a very few people will switch to it.
Have you used Windows 8 yet? I've been running RTM on my main PC for a month now. Use it for production, games, etc. No problems at all. Runs everything I've tested as well as 7 did. So it's not comparable to VIsta.
Please if you are going to criticize something, research it first.
Oh I have, its on a work computer, Its kind of my job to test these new programs and such. It does not belong on a PC, it belongs on a Tablet or a phone. It is comparable to Vista in that no businesses are going to switch to it over Windows 7. At least the smart businesses will still with Windows 7.
I can tell you that none IT people I know (The field I work in, so I know a lot) all think Windows 8 is nothing more then a moblie OS that MS is trying to push on PC users. They all hate it and think its garbage.
So you might want to check with someone who knows computers and not just your normal home user nonsense.
Originally posted by ShakyMo What's to stop for instance, Microsoft making dx12 metro only, then with win 9 phasing out dx 9 support, then later dx 11. Or just dropping dx support in the desktop altogether, making some equivelent new thing for metro and having metro run dx games in compatabilty mode.
Ask Microsoft how that worked out for them with DirectX 10. For the first time, DirectX was way ahead of OpenGL in API capabilities; it would take than three years for OpenGL to roughly catch up. There's a bunch of cool stuff that you can do with geometry shaders. But since it was Vista-only and required recoding a bunch of stuff to make the game playable on anything else, games mostly didn't bother.
But if Microsoft really wants to sabotage DirectX, what's to stop everyone from switching to OpenGL? The answer, of course, is nothing. OpenGL wasn't really an option for modern graphics in the Vista era, the way it was before and is today.
If games start mostly using OpenGL, then a lot of games start running on Mac and/or Linux. If Windows loses its "you need it to run the software you want" advantage, then what stops a considerable fraction of the market from deciding that they don't need Windows at all? Microsoft has much to lose and little to gain by sabotaging DirectX.
making it a closed platform would be illegal, because they dont manufacture the PCs themselves. Apple can do it because its not only their software, but also their hardware. They make their own computers.
If Microsoft pushes a OS on 'MY' computer that doesnt allow me to install and run whatever I want, then they are violating the law. They have been down this road before and it didnt end well for them, so I dont think it will be a closed platform at all.
No. If you don't want a closed platform, then don't buy one. No one is forcing you to.
windows RT is a tablet/phone based operating system, it cannot be used on a PC, I'm using windows 8 and it runs games better than windows 7. MS might close off their metro app secion but I highly doubt it will close of standard windows.
An outright zealous lie. I've compared both win7 & win8, and neither does better than the other. That is because win8 is win7 but with a LOT more closed-endedness to it. Imagine Windows7 on an iPad, that is Windows8 but forced onto PC users as the next iteration for PC platform.
Go look up the benchmarks already done for Windows7 vs 8 in terms of gaming.
It could easily depend on your hardware. Windows 7 mishandles AMD's Bulldozer cores in loads that scale to more than half of the cores but not to all of them, and presumably also does so with Piledriver cores and will do so with Steamroller cores. Windows 8 handles them much more sensibly, and that means substantial performance increases in certain loads if you happen to have those particular processors.
This sort of older OSes not being that good at accommodating newer hardware is nothing new. Vista badly mishandled multi-core processors that try to adjust clock speeds based on the load, and Windows 7 fixed that after both Intel and AMD complained.
Windows 7 on an iPad is impossible for a lot of reasons, ranging from drivers to x86 versus ARM.
Comments
^^^ THIS..... Most people hate change, but I embrace it. I get tired of hearing metro sucks. Oh no it takes a whole second to click on the desktop icon or type desktop and boom your in the old school windows desktop. You got 2 OS's build into one, I personally digg the idea especially for laptops that have a detachable screen which most made for Win 8 will have.
And this is exactly why Windows 8 is a disaster in the making. 90% of people who buy new PC's are not tech savy or gamers... They are average people that just want their technology to work in a familiar way. When Grandma gets her shiny new Windows 8 PC home and boots it for the first time to check for pictures of her grandchildren on Facebook her response is going to be a resounding "WTF!" and back to the store it's going to go.
The average PC user is going to absolutely hate Windows 8... not because of it's performance or how it rates on some benchmark tests... it will be because it will violently knock them out of their "comfort zone" of familiarity with the Windows OS that they have enjoyed since 1995.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
There's a reason that even though Windows 7 has been around a while now, there's still plenty of people using windows XP.
Other problem I'm starting to see is the volume of people who only read enough to be dangerous. It's not hard to find what confirms one's own point of view. It's a lot harder to find what's driving someone else's point of view, especially if you simply don't want to see it that way.
At this point there are people that perceive glaring issues and threats to how microsoft has positioned itself as well as perceived issues with how the platform itself will lend towards experience between the users and developers.
The other side looks at the system itself and sees convenience values in the system, how it can benefit end user experience.
For me it's less the performance of the OS itself and more the fact Microsoft has continued to insert itself into the middle of things in a way that they previously have not done.
It's also what I dare to say is the main reason people consider Linux the alternative. The control people have over their own system is the valuable aspect.
It's what made the idea behind the Ouya so appealing. A gaming platform whose design allows independent control without the sacrifice of a common shared experience through it.
It has nothing to do with the performance alone on Microsoft. It also has plenty to do with the history of the platform and where it stands as a system the public uses. It is far and away the main and, by fair perception (though not necessarily accurate), the only practical platform for PC gamers still. If microsoft places itself more stictly between the user and the developer, and controls more andd more of the means they have to implement their systems, PC gamers lose their platform.
Sure, you still have the ability to install things external to the microsoft certified apps. How well will that be supported? With that be intentionally supported at all, or will Microsoft pull back on the resources necessary to run on their platform so the easiest way to develop for them is to effectively work for them?
All in all I can only say my preference. I don't want another closed system, I want an open platform. If most of the things being introduced cater to a closed system, and the open platform just idles, then there is nothing for me.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think Microsoft is trying to bring that app store experience people are so used to now, home to their PCs. I can understand it, I mean as it is you're kinda on your own, go find software somewhere and hope its not riddled with viruses or the website isn't a big scam. "Click here! Download now!"
The internet is a freakin mess these days, and people are more and more getting used to just searching for a game or an app, seeing reviews and pics, downloading it and knowing it will work.
I get the concern that this will turn into a completely closed platform. But for what we know now, imagine all the good this could do. How many people you think play MineCraft on their iPhones but never even knew it existed on their PC? They might have bought it a long time ago.
Indie developers might have a huge opportunity to get their name seen by a larger audience. Indie devs have already enjoyed a lot of support by Microsoft on Xbox live, so why does everyone presume this would not carry over to windows 8?
Blizzard and Valve don't want Microsoft to leech of their products. They already have no problem selling their product, so a Microsoft store that controls what is sold for Windows, is understandably not in their interest. Microsoft's involvement with that would only cost them money.
As enduser I don't want to see it either. It is one of the reasons why I don't buy ridiculously overpriced (comparitively speaking) Apple products for example.
Btw, their anti future windows stance has further nothing to do with how Windows 8 performs as desktop OS and how it compares in use to Windows 7 for example . That is completely beside the point.
Valve is scared of the store since Microsoft charges less than Valve does atm, and we'll have a larger install base.
At a 2nd glance i think Blizzard is sacred off Games for Windows(or Games for Xbox, or how ever they are calling it now) since its intergraded into Windows 8, and into DirectX and could compete with what ever they have planed for Battle.Net.
And yeah i dont think Valve likes the idea of competition to steam works either :P
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Windows 8 has many good things, even if it could use some more development time and improvements.
Windows Store is a really good idea. It allows people who don't know much about tech an easy way to get their programs and games from reliable source.
But it very much looks like that Microsoft is moving from model where their Operating Systems generate them revenue to model where they sell their OS cheap, possibly even lose money, and then regain that money by selling programs with Windows Store. And that to do that, they are going to limit or prevent functionality of other application shops and/or programs not bought from Windows Store.
How would you feel, if Intel suddenly announced that their future processors will not run any programs that can be run with AMD processors? Intel has so large a market share, they could likely drive their competitors out of business. If Microsoft moves to closed system the result will be same. Consumers won't be able to replace their OS, they are going to replace products competing with Microsoft with products that pay Microsoft money.
Bullshit!
I've made drivers for win 7,they require certification, it costs money to do it.
What does the Windows Logo program for drivers has to do with the Metro Certification proccess?
Crertifing drivers costa quite a bit, so as certifing hardware in general, the Metro Store fees are:
Paid Apps
30% of the first 25,000 USD
20% for evey dollar afterwards
Min price 1.49US, Max price 999US(to prevent enterprise sofware to be sold on the store).
Free apps:
Microsoft Openess - exempt
Open Source Interopt Alliance - exempt
Code Plex projects - exempt
Registered Developers - exempt
Kick started(not kickstarter.com or what ever) projects(BizSpark, WebSpark, etc) - exempt
Other - Base fees may apply mostly to prevent scams i.e a metro app which is nothing more than a browser control with a scam referal site or somthing like that.
If you go trough the propper channels that Microsoft has established for Open Source, Shared Source and Free Software that conforms to the FSF standards you will not pay a dime to get your app on the app store.
Got a simmilar setup just 5760x1200 i dont use the Metro UI(only the snapin abilites so i can snap application around and beyond the "edges" of the normal desktop) with my Windows 8, but the 12.9 beta drivers that came out 4 days ago fixed several issues with EI.
The multi screen support of Windows 8 is preety good, much better than the same old dup/crappy extended we had with pretty much every previous version of Windows, it also support multi monitor setups for D3D so no need for EI / other sofware to get mutli monitor resolutions in your games.
Dont know if it as good as(or even supports it) EI for none stripped stups, since im dont have a 4x2 or a 3x2 matrix setup for my self.
Oh I have, its on a work computer, Its kind of my job to test these new programs and such. It does not belong on a PC, it belongs on a Tablet or a phone. It is comparable to Vista in that no businesses are going to switch to it over Windows 7. At least the smart businesses will still with Windows 7.
I can tell you that none IT people I know (The field I work in, so I know a lot) all think Windows 8 is nothing more then a moblie OS that MS is trying to push on PC users. They all hate it and think its garbage.
So you might want to check with someone who knows computers and not just your normal home user nonsense.
Sooner or Later
When you got Win7 there is absolutly no point in getting Win8 at the moment.
This has nothing to do with the UI, appstore or similar aspects.
There just aren't any benefits.
It's like buying a new car of the same model because the windshield of your old one was dirty.
Ask Microsoft how that worked out for them with DirectX 10. For the first time, DirectX was way ahead of OpenGL in API capabilities; it would take than three years for OpenGL to roughly catch up. There's a bunch of cool stuff that you can do with geometry shaders. But since it was Vista-only and required recoding a bunch of stuff to make the game playable on anything else, games mostly didn't bother.
But if Microsoft really wants to sabotage DirectX, what's to stop everyone from switching to OpenGL? The answer, of course, is nothing. OpenGL wasn't really an option for modern graphics in the Vista era, the way it was before and is today.
If games start mostly using OpenGL, then a lot of games start running on Mac and/or Linux. If Windows loses its "you need it to run the software you want" advantage, then what stops a considerable fraction of the market from deciding that they don't need Windows at all? Microsoft has much to lose and little to gain by sabotaging DirectX.
No. If you don't want a closed platform, then don't buy one. No one is forcing you to.
It could easily depend on your hardware. Windows 7 mishandles AMD's Bulldozer cores in loads that scale to more than half of the cores but not to all of them, and presumably also does so with Piledriver cores and will do so with Steamroller cores. Windows 8 handles them much more sensibly, and that means substantial performance increases in certain loads if you happen to have those particular processors.
This sort of older OSes not being that good at accommodating newer hardware is nothing new. Vista badly mishandled multi-core processors that try to adjust clock speeds based on the load, and Windows 7 fixed that after both Intel and AMD complained.
Windows 7 on an iPad is impossible for a lot of reasons, ranging from drivers to x86 versus ARM.