Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Microsoft Makes DirectX 11.1 a Windows 8 Exclusive

13

Comments

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by skydiver12
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by skydiver12
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by skydiver12   The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :) In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.  
    Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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




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

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


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

    And i still disagree about multiple screens.

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

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




    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.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    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.

  • VoreDockVoreDock port richey, FLPosts: 129Member

    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

  • karmathkarmath Posts: 829Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VoreDock

    win 8 will  win for 2 reasions 

     

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

    2 the new pc market  win8 for free

     

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

     

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

    lol no.

  • Zeus.CMZeus.CM ZagrebPosts: 1,788Member
    Originally posted by VoreDock

    win 8 will  win for 2 reasions 

     

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

    2 the new pc market  win8 for free

     

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

     

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

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

    Check out the benchmarks:

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

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon
    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.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Seelinnikoi

    MAC OSX / iOS will be the future of gaming!

    *raises fists to heaven*

     

    :P

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

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

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAPosts: 4,179Member Uncommon

    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.

  • ZekiahZekiah Aurora, COPosts: 2,499Member
    Microsoft can go take a flying leap for all I care. Not a fan, never been.

    "Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member

    Lol

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

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

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

    [mod edit]

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAPosts: 4,179Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Originally posted by Seelinnikoi MAC OSX / iOS will be the future of gaming! *raises fists to heaven*   :P
    There's no chance of that.  Even less than the slim chance that Linux will be the future of gaming.  Mac OS X simply does not support modern graphics, as Apple stopped at OpenGL 3.2 for some inexplicable reason, which is five versions before the current one.

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


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

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

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

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

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

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Posts: 14,784Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ridelynn

     


    Originally posted by Quizzical

    Originally posted by Seelinnikoi MAC OSX / iOS will be the future of gaming! *raises fists to heaven*   :P
    There's no chance of that.  Even less than the slim chance that Linux will be the future of gaming.  Mac OS X simply does not support modern graphics, as Apple stopped at OpenGL 3.2 for some inexplicable reason, which is five versions before the current one.

     

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


     

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • DraronDraron A town in, KYPosts: 993Member
    Originally posted by Kilrain
    Originally posted by hfztt

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • DraronDraron A town in, KYPosts: 993Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Lol

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

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

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

    [mod edit]

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

     

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

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Draron

    Originally posted by ShakyMo Lol "Win 8 is 20% to 30% faster than win 7" Lolity frikin lol its actually a couple of % slower due to all the bloat of being 2 OS's cobbled together. It starts faster, but whoop do woo, so what. If it was that much of an improvement it would be best upgrade yet. That's bigger than the performance gain from Vista to win 7 or 98 to xp. It's even a better performance boost than 3.1 to win 95. Blimey, Microsoft fanbois.
    http://www.technobolt.com/2011/09/20/how-much-windows-8-faster-than-windows-7/

     

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



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

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

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

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • DraronDraron A town in, KYPosts: 993Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Draron

    Originally posted by ShakyMo Lol "Win 8 is 20% to 30% faster than win 7" Lolity frikin lol its actually a couple of % slower due to all the bloat of being 2 OS's cobbled together. It starts faster, but whoop do woo, so what. If it was that much of an improvement it would be best upgrade yet. That's bigger than the performance gain from Vista to win 7 or 98 to xp. It's even a better performance boost than 3.1 to win 95. Blimey, Microsoft fanbois.
    http://www.technobolt.com/2011/09/20/how-much-windows-8-faster-than-windows-7/

     

     

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



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

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

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

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

  • EvolvedMonkyEvolvedMonky Tulsa, OKPosts: 549Member
    What does the .1 do that the previous version doesnt? If its another way to do AA then ill pass.

    image
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


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

    Right now, not a lot. I think something to do with 3d glasses or 3d televisions. It's the 11.2, 11.3, 11.x updates that will make the difference.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Fresno, CAPosts: 615Member
    Originally posted by skydiver12

     


    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

    Originally posted by skydiver12   The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :) In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.  
    Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

     

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

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


     

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

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


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

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

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

     

     

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

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

    EA CEO John Riccitiello's on future microtransactions: "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time...We're not gouging, but we're charging."

  • OlgarkOlgark BostonPosts: 319Member Uncommon

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

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

    image

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Warren, MEPosts: 3,996Member

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

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

    Sherman: "Why? What happened then?"

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

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

    Mr. Peabody: "You said it Sherman."

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • WhitebeardsWhitebeards TokyoPosts: 778Member

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

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

  • hfztthfztt GlostrupPosts: 840Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by skydiver12

     


    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

    Originally posted by skydiver12   The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :) In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.  
    Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

     

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

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


     

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

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


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

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

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

     

     

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

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

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

  • WhitebeardsWhitebeards TokyoPosts: 778Member
    Originally posted by hfztt
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by skydiver12

     


    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

    Originally posted by skydiver12   The fundamental design flaw of W8 isn't that it tries to let you interact with your PC differently but it tries an "single application at a time" approach, which goes against the very design idea of WINDOWS itself (You know, that what made windows - WINDOWS!) Sure you have 20 apps running in the background and can switch, but people want their browser window next to their skype etc. The most sore point is this design change didn't happen because god knows why but just because tablets etc can't run to much at once either by hardware limitations or power consumption going to skyrocket. And who want's a 20 minute portable tablet :) In short they want to chain the PC down to a tablets capability to reach the "unified" handling accross platforms. That's not gonna work out.  
    Where are you getting this drivel? Windows 8 still runs multiple programs side by side in their own windows just like Windows 3.1 through Windows 7.

     

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

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


     

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

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


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

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

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

     

     

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

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

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

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

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

  • JackdogJackdog Charleston, SCPosts: 6,344Member
    Originally posted by Kilrain

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

     

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

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

    I miss DAoC

Sign In or Register to comment.