Microsoft Windows 8
- Thread starter asad1912
- Start date
- Status
26 comments
Bloat will always matter because its a fact that this "bloat" will get more demanding with time to. Vista was not ahead of it's time. Rather it was poorly optimized and it pisses away resources. It's not because you have a 100Ghz 32-core CPU that you can stop caring about how stuff is put together. Poor coding/optimization will always affect perfomance, ragardless of how 1337 your system is.
Sure this video is official, it isn't on any news sites...
But anyway, Hyperz you're obviously biased towards Linux so it isn't worth trying to justify that Windows is a good operating system.
Compiz fusion and "Aero" are equally as good depending on the features you want and the system you run it on. They both do the same kinds of things, just one is for windows and one for linux. Not exactly "competition".
Also, Windows 8 isn't a major version, it's a minor version created based on Windows 7. Hence why it'll look very similar and have most the things 7 has.
As for bloat Hyperz, if you did have a 100Ghz 32-core CPU, bloat wouldn't affect your system. So called "bloat" will always be opinion-based (meaning some say it is bloat, some don't) and it'll most likely never be too bloated for the future systems.
Just try to remember that windows is still the primary OS being used today and you only think the way you do because you like linux. If nobody ever told you about linux, you'd still be on windows and would have the opposite opinion.
But anyway, Hyperz you're obviously biased towards Linux so it isn't worth trying to justify that Windows is a good operating system.
Compiz fusion and "Aero" are equally as good depending on the features you want and the system you run it on. They both do the same kinds of things, just one is for windows and one for linux. Not exactly "competition".
Also, Windows 8 isn't a major version, it's a minor version created based on Windows 7. Hence why it'll look very similar and have most the things 7 has.
As for bloat Hyperz, if you did have a 100Ghz 32-core CPU, bloat wouldn't affect your system. So called "bloat" will always be opinion-based (meaning some say it is bloat, some don't) and it'll most likely never be too bloated for the future systems.
Just try to remember that windows is still the primary OS being used today and you only think the way you do because you like linux. If nobody ever told you about linux, you'd still be on windows and would have the opposite opinion.
JmZ, it seems that way from my earlier post doesn't it. I know. But that's not completely true. Up until XP I have always liked Windows. Sure it has flaws but it is kickass overall. I hate Vista though, pretty much every aspect of it. Same goes for 7. Because of that I HAD to look at Linux for a more up to date OS as Vista/7 is a no go. Ended up installing openSUSE 11.1 w/ KDE and it is awesome. Runs way smoother than Vista/7, even when I enable all of the Compiz candy. I just love it.
Having that said, I still prefer XP over Suse for everyday work. But for me Suse > Vista. When the time comes that XP is completely outdated I'll move to Suse. I'm not the typical "omg linux pwnz windoze" guy. I loved Windows up until XP but hate everything after that. Simple as that really.
Also, everyone can try it out and take their own conclusions. Wait till this gets released and give it a try. Install compiz fusion on it if you like a flashy desktop and give it a go. I'm fairly sure some - just like me - will be impressed and prefer it over Vista or 7.
Having that said, I still prefer XP over Suse for everyday work. But for me Suse > Vista. When the time comes that XP is completely outdated I'll move to Suse. I'm not the typical "omg linux pwnz windoze" guy. I loved Windows up until XP but hate everything after that. Simple as that really.
Also, everyone can try it out and take their own conclusions. Wait till this gets released and give it a try. Install compiz fusion on it if you like a flashy desktop and give it a go. I'm fairly sure some - just like me - will be impressed and prefer it over Vista or 7.
Well of course it'll run faster, its linux. It has like half as much stuff running in the background. You have to remember, windows is made to be user-friendly and to work perfectly out of the box. It fulfills it's purpose when taking that into consideration.
I agree vista was a resource hog and needed lots of optimisation. But windows 7 runs fine for me, has way less resources being used on average and looks nicer.
On a side note, i'd prefer some kind of debian or maybe a redhat distro over suse. No reason why, just preference. I have compiz running on ubuntu (debian) at the minute and yes, it is good but so is aero.
Oh and also, im not trying to say windows is better, I actually prefer linux a lot of the time, but windows deserves to be given at least SOME credit.
I agree vista was a resource hog and needed lots of optimisation. But windows 7 runs fine for me, has way less resources being used on average and looks nicer.
On a side note, i'd prefer some kind of debian or maybe a redhat distro over suse. No reason why, just preference. I have compiz running on ubuntu (debian) at the minute and yes, it is good but so is aero.
Oh and also, im not trying to say windows is better, I actually prefer linux a lot of the time, but windows deserves to be given at least SOME credit.
Credit where credit is due JmZ :p. They get my credit for XP. I understand your points to. Agreed with the fact that 7 feels a good bit faster. But, in games (which I do play often) it still reduces my FPS by as much as 50% at times. That's not a small performance hit if you ask me. Improved desktop performance is great but it's clear that some parts are still as rough as Vista.
But I guess at the end of the day it's all taste. I'm just personally really dissapointed with the direction they went after XP. I had hoped that they were gonna go for a "just like XP but a lot faster/safer" type of OS. They went into the opposite direction. Probably for a good reason to cos besides the flashy desktop and and DX 10+ there is little they can use as a "this is why you should buy it" argument. XP was/is damn near perfect.
But I guess at the end of the day it's all taste. I'm just personally really dissapointed with the direction they went after XP. I had hoped that they were gonna go for a "just like XP but a lot faster/safer" type of OS. They went into the opposite direction. Probably for a good reason to cos besides the flashy desktop and and DX 10+ there is little they can use as a "this is why you should buy it" argument. XP was/is damn near perfect.
My games have equal FPS compared to all other OS' I run (7,vista,xp).
Obviously it varies per user, not everyone has that problem.
As for the direction they went in, they went for user-friendliness. Which is what you'd expect from microsoft considering most of their buyers require such an OS. If they stuck with the rock-solid XP side of things, they'd have developed a more technical OS which not everyone would've understood (when compared with 7 for example).
Obviously it varies per user, not everyone has that problem.
As for the direction they went in, they went for user-friendliness. Which is what you'd expect from microsoft considering most of their buyers require such an OS. If they stuck with the rock-solid XP side of things, they'd have developed a more technical OS which not everyone would've understood (when compared with 7 for example).
They didn't go for user-friendliness since they already were user friendly since the 3.1 days. I'm really surprised you have the same game performance. Most people say they have a significant performance drop.
I still play a lot of CSS and in my case the drop was even more than this bench: http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?id=37&view=TechCorner.Detail
I still play a lot of CSS and in my case the drop was even more than this bench: http://planethalflife.gamespy.com/View.php?id=37&view=TechCorner.Detail
Billy Goat Gruff
New Member
I think that looks stupid ;\
Seems fake.
Seems fake.
ElItE_HaXoR
Active Member
my advice is throw css out of the window and play a game that wasnt developed in the 90's lol
FYI CSS is Q4 2004-ish :p.
I obv. play other (shiny, new) games to. CSS is just one of those permanent residents of C:\. I have the same performance drop with other games to. Some loose only a few FPS under Vista or 7, others have the framerate sliced in half, unless it's a DirectX 10.1 game in which case it is nearly the same as it is on XP.
I obv. play other (shiny, new) games to. CSS is just one of those permanent residents of C:\. I have the same performance drop with other games to. Some loose only a few FPS under Vista or 7, others have the framerate sliced in half, unless it's a DirectX 10.1 game in which case it is nearly the same as it is on XP.
i love itVery shitty. If i had a shitty PC XP wouldn't make it 1337. Besides, -50% is -50%, whether you run a game at 10 or 100 FPS. 7 did better than Vista here but it is still nowhere near what I get on XP, in my case.
- Status