What does this mean in the long term? Any games that rely on DirectX 11.1 will only run under Windows 8. I'm not sure how long that will take...I'm still running Windows XP so I expect it'll take awhile.
You're only hurting yourself as a gamer by not using Windows 7 and sticking with WinXP... Get with the times brah!
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
4. If you're in the start menu (or search) and want to navigate back to the desktop you can simply hit your Windows key again. The caveat here is that you must have the desktop open for the Win Hotkey back to the desktop to work. When I first get into Windows I usually start my browser or Outlook and that takes me to the desktop and keeps it open.
Actually hitting the Win key takes you back to the previous App if you are on the Metro menu or back to the Metro menu if you are in an app. The desktop is considered a single app in this context. So provided you dont use any metro apps you are right.
I'm very happy with windows 7, it works well without issues, I dont see a point to Windows 8, just seems like another vista to me. Maybe the next OS may tempt me.
Originally posted by bigcheeseuk I'm very happy with windows 7, it works well without issues, I dont see a point to Windows 8, just seems like another vista to me. Maybe the next OS may tempt me.
I find the Windows 8 is better suited for handhelds...
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
MMOs are still DX9 based, and even upcoming AAA releases are DX9 based (TESO). We don't even have true Dx10 less even DX11 mmos and just few support those modes additionaly to DX9.
DX11.1 is a meaningless gesture and in contrary to DX10 launch all Microsoft Games are console exclusive now (HALO franchise). (anyone remembers the horrid Halo2 PC on Vista version? urgh).
When Vista launched some important games had DX10, Lost planet, crysis etc. There was also a reason to upgrade from XP and namingly x64 for over 4GB Ram (Windows XP x64 is horrid - dvice driver are scare)
Now anyone know's an DX11.1 game to play today or in 6 months?
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.
What does this mean in the long term? Any games that rely on DirectX 11.1 will only run under Windows 8. I'm not sure how long that will take...I'm still running Windows XP so I expect it'll take awhile.
'what does this mean in the long term?'
Desktop users still won't buy Windows 8, regardless Microsoft's efforts and Windows 8 will find a nice place in history next to Windows Vista.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
No sane developer is going to make games for DX11.1 if it's a Win 8 exlusive. It's like a scare tale for kids: "Buy Win 8 or you can't play the new games..."
My Win 7 with DX11 runs fine, you can keep your Win 8 , thanks.
Originally posted by skydiver12The 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.
But most of you were already forced into having windows 98, or xp because of games compatibility, how is that different from what is happening now with windows 8?
Originally posted by skydiver12 Originally posted by OG_Zorvan Originally posted by skydiver12The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.
Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?
Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?
Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.
And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.
But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.
The developers have to choose the Metro interface for it to apply to their application. There are two application development paths you can take. One is Metro, which can be sold through Microsoft's store and which can run under Windows RT and is geared towards tablet users...one screen at a time. The other is the normal, "legacy" method where you have Windows that are designed however the programmer wants them to run. You can have full screen applications or multiple screens at a time.
Microsoft doesn't determine the application interface, the developer does.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It really doesn't matter. 11.1 will be just like 10.1, it'll take an age for games to start using it and even then only a handful will. dx11.1 games will still run on dx11 in win7 so there's no need for folks to get their knickers in a twist.
Originally posted by skydiver12The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.
Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?
Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?
Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.
And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.
But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.
The developers have to choose the Metro interface for it to apply to their application. There are two application development paths you can take. One is Metro, which can be sold through Microsoft's store and which can run under Windows RT and is geared towards tablet users...one screen at a time. The other is the normal, "legacy" method where you have Windows that are designed however the programmer wants them to run. You can have full screen applications or multiple screens at a time.
Microsoft doesn't determine the application interface, the developer does.
I did merely stated what metro design is about. What developers choose to design doesn't change it. Neither does running your old application on the Desktop.
Multiple desktop got better and finally multiple wallpapers., however even the design sheet clearly shows, Metro only runs on one of these monitors! The Metro environment is fundamentally single-screen. All Metro-style applications, including the Start screen itself (though it is not quite an application), have to reside on the same screen. It doesn't matter so much which screen, and you can freely switch, but it has to be the same screen. If you move the Start screen, by invoking it on a different monitor, then every Metro-style application will be moved alongside.
Originally posted by skydiver12 Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by skydiver12 Originally posted by OG_Zorvan Originally posted by skydiver12The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.
Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?
Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?
Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.
And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.
But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.
The developers have to choose the Metro interface for it to apply to their application. There are two application development paths you can take. One is Metro, which can be sold through Microsoft's store and which can run under Windows RT and is geared towards tablet users...one screen at a time. The other is the normal, "legacy" method where you have Windows that are designed however the programmer wants them to run. You can have full screen applications or multiple screens at a time.
Microsoft doesn't determine the application interface, the developer does. I did merely stated what metro design is about. What developers choose to design doesn't change it. Neither does running your old application on the Desktop.
Multiple desktop got better and finally multiple wallpapers., however even the design sheet clearly shows, Metro only runs on one of these monitors! The Metro environment is fundamentally single-screen. All Metro-style applications, including the Start screen itself (though it is not quite an application), have to reside on the same screen. It doesn't matter so much which screen, and you can freely switch, but it has to be the same screen. If you move the Start screen, by invoking it on a different monitor, then every Metro-style application will be moved alongside.
That's not a great way to implement something on a desktop. If they intend for Metro to be the default desktop interface, they'll need to fix that. Even as the tablet interface, they may need to add some sort of multi window or multi screen functionality. The latest revisions of Android allow for multiple windows in the same screen and if you have your tablet connected to your hdtv, it makes sense that an option for one screen on your tablet and one on your hdtv should exist.
Like everything else though, this will be market driven. Microsoft has a long history of getting the first revision of whatever their doing entirely wrong. This will probably be the first in a list of things that are entirely cr@p about Windows 8. They'll probably get it fixed though...they also have a long history of their second revision of something working fairly well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Lizard:For now devs have a choiceIf enough suckas buy win 8, they won't have the choice with win 9Yep that's right gamers buying win8 are suckas, well done for helping Microsoft bend you over like xbox gamers
If there were alternatives now, then you'd be right. But really, what else is anyone going to use? There are no alternatives now, so not have alternatives in the future doesn't really change anything.
It'll be market driven though. If they can push people to Win 8/Win 9, they will. Judging by their history with XP though, they can't. They've only just recently managed to push Win 7's market penetration past Windows XP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
1 its faster win min is the dll tech of win8 it has the same core of win7 but every dll file and driver has hundred of lines of code removed thay are strimlined
2 the new pc market win8 for free
most gamers will switch just because of the speed win8 is 20 to 30 % faster the win 7 on the same hardware and i am talking about the normal desktop and win core not win rt the new flash like start menu its even faster
bottom line is win8 is well made and the fastes pc os it even faster then win xp
1 its faster win min is the dll tech of win8 it has the same core of win7 but every dll file and driver has hundred of lines of code removed thay are strimlined
2 the new pc market win8 for free
most gamers will switch just because of the speed win8 is 20 to 30 % faster the win 7 on the same hardware and i am talking about the normal desktop and win core not win rt the new flash like start menu its even faster
bottom line is win8 is well made and the fastes pc os it even faster then win xp
1 its faster win min is the dll tech of win8 it has the same core of win7 but every dll file and driver has hundred of lines of code removed thay are strimlined
2 the new pc market win8 for free
most gamers will switch just because of the speed win8 is 20 to 30 % faster the win 7 on the same hardware and i am talking about the normal desktop and win core not win rt the new flash like start menu its even faster
bottom line is win8 is well made and the fastes pc os it even faster then win xp
It's not faster. It is mostly the same speed as win7 except the boot time. In gaming too, W8 actually has 1-3 fps less than win7 which you will not notice.
Originally posted by FrodoFragins My hope is that all of this will simply lead to a much improved OpenGL that can compete with and theoretically overtake DirectX.
OpenGL 4.3 is already roughly on par with Direct3D 11.1. (OpenGL is only analogous to the Direct3D part of DirectX; DirectX includes some other stuff such as sound.) OpenGL had a brutal stretch for a few years in which it didn't catch up to DirectX 10 until around the time that DirectX 11 launched. But OpenGL has since roughly caught up in features available.
OpenGL creates new versions in a very different manner from DirectX. Microsoft controls DirectX, so they can say, the specification is such and such, and if your hardware can't do this, then you can't say you support DirectX. OpenGL is a cooperative effort from all of the major graphics vendors--not just AMD and Nvidia, but also ARM, Imagination, Intel, Apple, etc.--and if they decide to fight with each other over what should be part of the spec (e.g., "let's not add that yet because my hardware doesn't run it very well"), it can get held back.
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.
Comments
You're only hurting yourself as a gamer by not using Windows 7 and sticking with WinXP... Get with the times brah!
Actually hitting the Win key takes you back to the previous App if you are on the Metro menu or back to the Metro menu if you are in an app. The desktop is considered a single app in this context. So provided you dont use any metro apps you are right.
I find the Windows 8 is better suited for handhelds...
MMOs are still DX9 based, and even upcoming AAA releases are DX9 based (TESO).
We don't even have true Dx10 less even DX11 mmos and just few support those modes additionaly to DX9.
DX11.1 is a meaningless gesture and in contrary to DX10 launch all Microsoft Games are console exclusive now (HALO franchise). (anyone remembers the horrid Halo2 PC on Vista version? urgh).
When Vista launched some important games had DX10, Lost planet, crysis etc.
There was also a reason to upgrade from XP and namingly x64 for over 4GB Ram (Windows XP x64 is horrid - dvice driver are scare)
Now anyone know's an DX11.1 game to play today or in 6 months?
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.
'what does this mean in the long term?'
Desktop users still won't buy Windows 8, regardless Microsoft's efforts and Windows 8 will find a nice place in history next to Windows Vista.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
No sane developer is going to make games for DX11.1 if it's a Win 8 exlusive. It's like a scare tale for kids: "Buy Win 8 or you can't play the new games..."
My Win 7 with DX11 runs fine, you can keep your Win 8 , thanks.
Windows 8 runs like a charm on tablets, it's meant for those machines.
but on a traditional desktop? meeh.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
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.
Win 9 will be just app store.
Win 8 is just win 7 (the desktop) and win 9 beta (the metro interface) bashed together with hammers and duct tape.
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?
Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?
Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.
And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.
But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.
The developers have to choose the Metro interface for it to apply to their application. There are two application development paths you can take. One is Metro, which can be sold through Microsoft's store and which can run under Windows RT and is geared towards tablet users...one screen at a time. The other is the normal, "legacy" method where you have Windows that are designed however the programmer wants them to run. You can have full screen applications or multiple screens at a time.
Microsoft doesn't determine the application interface, the developer does.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
And i still disagree about multiple screens.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/21/enhancing-windows-8-for-multiple-monitors.aspx
Multiple desktop got better and finally multiple wallpapers., however even the design sheet clearly shows, Metro only runs on one of these monitors! The Metro environment is fundamentally single-screen. All Metro-style applications, including the Start screen itself (though it is not quite an application), have to reside on the same screen. It doesn't matter so much which screen, and you can freely switch, but it has to be the same screen. If you move the Start screen, by invoking it on a different monitor, then every Metro-style application will be moved alongside.
For now devs have a choice
If enough suckas buy win 8, they won't have the choice with win 9
Yep that's right gamers buying win8 are suckas, well done for helping Microsoft bend you over like xbox gamers
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they simply cannot manage to use 1 click to get to the traditional desktop and not even have to look at the Metro interface or even the "apps" again?
Or is it even more likely that most expressing their "knowledge" of Windows 8 on PC have in fact never even tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the Metro interface and decided they can boldly proclaim "It's made the PC work like a tablet!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Is the average PC user even dumber than I thought? Can it be that they can't grasp the difference between a concept>>implementation and a workaround? Can't they grasp the difference between a design and an old compatiblity leftover?
Or is it even more likely that expressing their "knowledge" of Windoes 8 on PC have in fact never tried Windows 8 and instead have merely seen the traditional desktop and dedicded they can boldly proclaim "it's still working like windows7!" out of sheer uneducated ignorance?
Here take a lesson from me, try to run multiple screen application including full screen application on Windows 8. Then choose the monitor you want the fullscreen to apply to for watching multiple thin....OH WAIT! That's where your workaround fails and windows 8 true single screen metro design kicks in.
And applications running on the metro interface are exactly designed like i said. And that design is the opposite of windows's philosophy. Your compatibility leftover is not going to help you with new metro "app" only applications and multiple screen setups.
But hey, don't let me ruin your day because you need to keep the delusion up to justify your money spend on W8.
The developers have to choose the Metro interface for it to apply to their application. There are two application development paths you can take. One is Metro, which can be sold through Microsoft's store and which can run under Windows RT and is geared towards tablet users...one screen at a time. The other is the normal, "legacy" method where you have Windows that are designed however the programmer wants them to run. You can have full screen applications or multiple screens at a time.
Microsoft doesn't determine the application interface, the developer does.
I did merely stated what metro design is about. What developers choose to design doesn't change it. Neither does running your old application on the Desktop.
And i still disagree about multiple screens.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/21/enhancing-windows-8-for-multiple-monitors.aspx
Multiple desktop got better and finally multiple wallpapers., however even the design sheet clearly shows, Metro only runs on one of these monitors! The Metro environment is fundamentally single-screen. All Metro-style applications, including the Start screen itself (though it is not quite an application), have to reside on the same screen. It doesn't matter so much which screen, and you can freely switch, but it has to be the same screen. If you move the Start screen, by invoking it on a different monitor, then every Metro-style application will be moved alongside.
That's not a great way to implement something on a desktop. If they intend for Metro to be the default desktop interface, they'll need to fix that. Even as the tablet interface, they may need to add some sort of multi window or multi screen functionality. The latest revisions of Android allow for multiple windows in the same screen and if you have your tablet connected to your hdtv, it makes sense that an option for one screen on your tablet and one on your hdtv should exist.
Like everything else though, this will be market driven. Microsoft has a long history of getting the first revision of whatever their doing entirely wrong. This will probably be the first in a list of things that are entirely cr@p about Windows 8. They'll probably get it fixed though...they also have a long history of their second revision of something working fairly well.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If there were alternatives now, then you'd be right. But really, what else is anyone going to use? There are no alternatives now, so not have alternatives in the future doesn't really change anything.
It'll be market driven though. If they can push people to Win 8/Win 9, they will. Judging by their history with XP though, they can't. They've only just recently managed to push Win 7's market penetration past Windows XP.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
win 8 will win for 2 reasions
1 its faster win min is the dll tech of win8 it has the same core of win7 but every dll file and driver has hundred of lines of code removed thay are strimlined
2 the new pc market win8 for free
most gamers will switch just because of the speed win8 is 20 to 30 % faster the win 7 on the same hardware and i am talking about the normal desktop and win core not win rt the new flash like start menu its even faster
bottom line is win8 is well made and the fastes pc os it even faster then win xp
lol no.
It's not faster. It is mostly the same speed as win7 except the boot time. In gaming too, W8 actually has 1-3 fps less than win7 which you will not notice.
Check out the benchmarks:
http://www.techspot.com/review/561-windows8-vs-windows7/
Guild Wars 2 Youtube Croatian Maniacs
My Guild Wars titles
OpenGL 4.3 is already roughly on par with Direct3D 11.1. (OpenGL is only analogous to the Direct3D part of DirectX; DirectX includes some other stuff such as sound.) OpenGL had a brutal stretch for a few years in which it didn't catch up to DirectX 10 until around the time that DirectX 11 launched. But OpenGL has since roughly caught up in features available.
OpenGL creates new versions in a very different manner from DirectX. Microsoft controls DirectX, so they can say, the specification is such and such, and if your hardware can't do this, then you can't say you support DirectX. OpenGL is a cooperative effort from all of the major graphics vendors--not just AMD and Nvidia, but also ARM, Imagination, Intel, Apple, etc.--and if they decide to fight with each other over what should be part of the spec (e.g., "let's not add that yet because my hardware doesn't run it very well"), it can get held back.
There's no chance of that. Even less than the slim chance that Linux will be the future of gaming. Mac OS X simply does not support modern graphics, as Apple stopped at OpenGL 3.2 for some inexplicable reason, which is five versions before the current one.
And iOS is much, much worse. Not only does it not support DirectX, but it doesn't support OpenGL, either. All it gets is the gimpy OpenGL ES, and even there, it's only OpenGL ES 2.0. I'm not sure how OpenGL ES 2.0 compares to DirectX 9.0c, but it's surely far behind DirectX 10. For that matter, even the newly released OpenGL ES 3.0 is miles behind DirectX 10.
I totally wouldn't worry about DX11.1 right now.
I mean, how many games ~only~ support DX10 or DX11, and those are Vista+ exclusives.
It probably won't be until the "nextgen" XBox is out, and then whatever DX-level the new XBox support runs will slowly become the new standard.