Win 8 or 8.1 recommended today for PC gamers?

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

Although I have no problems using Windows 8.1, I was rather surprised to see the 64-bit OEM version sold out at newegg.com while there's still plenty of Windows 7 OEM in stock.

Well, it's cheaper to buy 8.1 now then 7, so for someone with a new build it makes sense to buy 8. (unless it's business)

8.1 is back in stock now. The OEM version is $99.99, same as Win 7 Home Premium OEM. If I was assembling an all-new PC with no OS, I'd go with 8.1. But, I still have an unused Win 7 3-pack at home.

Sell that 3-Pack on eBay or Amazon... I'm sure lots of people need it.

#52 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15723 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@FelipeInside said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

Although I have no problems using Windows 8.1, I was rather surprised to see the 64-bit OEM version sold out at newegg.com while there's still plenty of Windows 7 OEM in stock.

Well, it's cheaper to buy 8.1 now then 7, so for someone with a new build it makes sense to buy 8. (unless it's business)

8.1 is back in stock now. The OEM version is $99.99, same as Win 7 Home Premium OEM. If I was assembling an all-new PC with no OS, I'd go with 8.1. But, I still have an unused Win 7 3-pack at home.

Sell that 3-Pack on eBay or Amazon... I'm sure lots of people need it.

No way. I still have a couple of Vista licenses at home (1 desktop, 1 laptop). I'll eventually replace them with Win 7 when I'm not feeling too lazy. Vista, at this stage, is purring along quite nicely which is why I haven't replaced them yet.

#53 Posted by Ice-Cube (1641 posts) -

I had my PC break on me and had it replaced, the old one had Win 7 and I loved it. I saw Win 8 from a friends computer and I couldn't understand it. Now with my new PC being Win 8.1, i'm slowly starting to like it as I learn it. Though as others mentioned, Win 7 was the best, now that it's being phased out, we have to get used to Win 8.1. We'll see what they do with Win 9.

It seems they're in a stupid cycle of releasing a great OS (Win XP) to screwing it up with Vista, then doing right again with Win 7 but then f'in it up once more with Win 8. That's just how I see it.

#54 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@Ice-Cube said:

I had my PC break on me and had it replaced, the old one had Win 7 and I loved it. I saw Win 8 from a friends computer and I couldn't understand it. Now with my new PC being Win 8.1, i'm slowly starting to like it as I learn it. Though as others mentioned, Win 7 was the best, now that it's being phased out, we have to get used to Win 8.1. We'll see what they do with Win 9.

It seems they're in a stupid cycle of releasing a great OS (Win XP) to screwing it up with Vista, then doing right again with Win 7 but then f'in it up once more with Win 8. That's just how I see it.

But where did they f* it up with 8 though?

It's basically Windows 7.2 with a new menu that works the same as the old one, which on top of that you can even disable.

#55 Posted by Ice-Cube (1641 posts) -

@Ice-Cube said:

I had my PC break on me and had it replaced, the old one had Win 7 and I loved it. I saw Win 8 from a friends computer and I couldn't understand it. Now with my new PC being Win 8.1, i'm slowly starting to like it as I learn it. Though as others mentioned, Win 7 was the best, now that it's being phased out, we have to get used to Win 8.1. We'll see what they do with Win 9.

It seems they're in a stupid cycle of releasing a great OS (Win XP) to screwing it up with Vista, then doing right again with Win 7 but then f'in it up once more with Win 8. That's just how I see it.

But where did they f* it up with 8 though?

It's basically Windows 7.2 with a new menu that works the same as the old one, which on top of that you can even disable.

I've gotten used to the classic Start menu, Windows 8 was built with tablet in mind, not mouse and keyboard. It just seems they mainly built it for touchscreens. Though i've only been using 8.1 for a few days and i'm starting to like it. Imo Win 7 is still my favourite, I guess it just depends on what you're used to.

Embracing change takes time.

#56 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@Ice-Cube said:

@FelipeInside said:

@Ice-Cube said:

I had my PC break on me and had it replaced, the old one had Win 7 and I loved it. I saw Win 8 from a friends computer and I couldn't understand it. Now with my new PC being Win 8.1, i'm slowly starting to like it as I learn it. Though as others mentioned, Win 7 was the best, now that it's being phased out, we have to get used to Win 8.1. We'll see what they do with Win 9.

It seems they're in a stupid cycle of releasing a great OS (Win XP) to screwing it up with Vista, then doing right again with Win 7 but then f'in it up once more with Win 8. That's just how I see it.

But where did they f* it up with 8 though?

It's basically Windows 7.2 with a new menu that works the same as the old one, which on top of that you can even disable.

I've gotten used to the classic Start menu, Windows 8 was built with tablet in mind, not mouse and keyboard. It just seems they mainly built it for touchscreens. Though i've only been using 8.1 for a few days and i'm starting to like it. Imo Win 7 is still my favourite, I guess it just depends on what you're used to.

Embracing change takes time.

I hear that bro.... but once you get used to the menu in 8.1, you realize it works the same as the old one just with added features and touch friendly.

The menu in 8.0 though WAS awkard to use with a mouse, but they fixed it with 8.1.

#57 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15723 posts) -

I hear that bro.... but once you get used to the menu in 8.1, you realize it works the same as the old one just with added features and touch friendly.

The menu in 8.0 though WAS awkard to use with a mouse, but they fixed it with 8.1.

It'd be nice if MS made Metro something similar to Windows Media Center of Vista and Win 7 Home Premium where the interface can be turned off totally (similar to Steam's Big Picture).

That way, The Windows key can bring up that menu instead of the Metro tiles. As it is, I have to right-click on the Window icon to bring up the menu.

#58 Edited by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

I hear that bro.... but once you get used to the menu in 8.1, you realize it works the same as the old one just with added features and touch friendly.

The menu in 8.0 though WAS awkard to use with a mouse, but they fixed it with 8.1.

It'd be nice if MS made Metro something similar to Windows Media Center of Vista and Win 7 Home Premium where the interface can be turned off totally (similar to Steam's Big Picture).

That way, The Windows key can bring up that menu instead of the Metro tiles. As it is, I have to right-click on the Window icon to bring up the menu.

Probably, but remember that the new Metro IS the Start Menu, not an overlay like Media Center was.

It would be like asking "I wish MS would remove the Start Menu from XP and 7"

Trust me, once you have the icons the way you want them and try it for a few weeks... the 8.1 menu works fine, and even faster than the old one in some cases.

#59 Posted by Jacobistheman (3975 posts) -

Windows 8.1 is still an OS I do not like to recommend, but good old Win 7 is fading out from the shelves. there is still issues with 8... with apps and games to run correctly even though on 7 works without hassle Now windows 8 is suppose to get a upcoming feature update making the desktop more like Windows 7's UI. Afterward MS will be full bore on 9. If you already have Windows 7 going to Windows 8 is a waste.

Why? Windows 8 and 8.1 are faster, more well designed operating systems. Sure the UI is different than windows 7, vista, xp... but you get used to it within a few days and it is actually faster to access things you need.

You typically get a slight bump in FPS also because the OS has a better low level design.

#60 Posted by Kh1ndjal (2402 posts) -
#61 Posted by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

#62 Edited by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@AlexKidd5000 said:

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

They will probably optimize and improve more cloud services, have even better optimization for mouse and keyboard, and maybe incorporate some new technology on the network side to coincide with Server 2013.

#63 Posted by Kh1ndjal (2402 posts) -

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

the way consumer electronics and consumer technology sells these days, it feels normal. you upgrade your mobile phone every year, the OS on it at least 3 times a year.

why wouldn't you upgrade your pc OS after 2 years? pc gamers and technology enthusiasts are a special breed, but everyone else would have a two-word answer.

#64 Edited by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@Kh1ndjal said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

the way consumer electronics and consumer technology sells these days, it feels normal. you upgrade your mobile phone every year, the OS on it at least 3 times a year.

why wouldn't you upgrade your pc OS after 2 years? pc gamers and technology enthusiasts are a special breed, but everyone else would have a two-word answer.

True. We live in the era of "use for a bit, throw away and buy new."

Personally I still use my Windows for 3-4 years without a reinstall (unless something goes wrong or I do a new build). Reason? I just can't be bothered installing a new OS.

#65 Posted by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

@Kh1ndjal said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

the way consumer electronics and consumer technology sells these days, it feels normal. you upgrade your mobile phone every year, the OS on it at least 3 times a year.

why wouldn't you upgrade your pc OS after 2 years? pc gamers and technology enthusiasts are a special breed, but everyone else would have a two-word answer.

Desktops/Laptops and mobile phones/tablets seem like two different beasts to me. When a new version of Android or iOS comes out, you simply download it and it installs (I think, I don't own one). A new version of Windows costs atleast $100, and is supported for 9+ years. So MS has to give people a very good reason to upgrade. And the fact that the desktop/laptop segment is is becoming less popular with average joes.

#66 Edited by nicecall (428 posts) -

If you lack logic and common sense, i recommend using windows 8.1 for games and its got plenty of extra megabytes for your youtube videos.

#67 Edited by 04dcarraher (18915 posts) -

@Jacobistheman said:

@04dcarraher said:

Windows 8.1 is still an OS I do not like to recommend, but good old Win 7 is fading out from the shelves. there is still issues with 8... with apps and games to run correctly even though on 7 works without hassle Now windows 8 is suppose to get a upcoming feature update making the desktop more like Windows 7's UI. Afterward MS will be full bore on 9. If you already have Windows 7 going to Windows 8 is a waste.

Why? Windows 8 and 8.1 are faster, more well designed operating systems. Sure the UI is different than windows 7, vista, xp... but you get used to it within a few days and it is actually faster to access things you need.

You typically get a slight bump in FPS also because the OS has a better low level design.

Windows 8 is only slightly faster at times and certain tasks , and no its not a better designed OS for desktops why do you think MS is releasing the feature update that makes windows 8 more like 7 for desktops? Sure you can get use to it but its not better and no its not really that much "faster"

#68 Posted by Stinger78 (5826 posts) -

Windows 8 is ok, but so is Windows 7.

#69 Posted by gunmaster55555 (698 posts) -

Yeah I have no issues with games (got a performance increase in BF4).

I installed windows 8.1 and immediately googled start menu, did that and now it's almost exactly like windows 7 except it's 8. No issues :)

#70 Posted by Jacobistheman (3975 posts) -

@Jacobistheman said:

@04dcarraher said:

Windows 8.1 is still an OS I do not like to recommend, but good old Win 7 is fading out from the shelves. there is still issues with 8... with apps and games to run correctly even though on 7 works without hassle Now windows 8 is suppose to get a upcoming feature update making the desktop more like Windows 7's UI. Afterward MS will be full bore on 9. If you already have Windows 7 going to Windows 8 is a waste.

Why? Windows 8 and 8.1 are faster, more well designed operating systems. Sure the UI is different than windows 7, vista, xp... but you get used to it within a few days and it is actually faster to access things you need.

You typically get a slight bump in FPS also because the OS has a better low level design.

Windows 8 is only slightly faster at times and certain tasks , and no its not a better designed OS for desktops why do you think MS is releasing the feature update that makes windows 8 more like 7 for desktops? Sure you can get use to it but its not better and no its not really that much "faster"

Are you kidding me that Windows 8 "isn't that much faster than windows 7." You don't regularly use windows 8 do you? It takes fewer click to get to almost anything you use regularly. On top of that, it outperformed Windows 7 in every benchmark available. It is a better OS, you just don't like the UI.

Microsoft isn't changing some of the features in windows 8.1 to be more like windows 7 not because it is better (because quite frankly its not), they are doing only because people like you aren't willing to start using a new OS unless it is like the old OS.

#71 Edited by 04dcarraher (18915 posts) -

@Jacobistheman said:

@04dcarraher said:

@Jacobistheman said:

@04dcarraher said:

Windows 8.1 is still an OS I do not like to recommend, but good old Win 7 is fading out from the shelves. there is still issues with 8... with apps and games to run correctly even though on 7 works without hassle Now windows 8 is suppose to get a upcoming feature update making the desktop more like Windows 7's UI. Afterward MS will be full bore on 9. If you already have Windows 7 going to Windows 8 is a waste.

Why? Windows 8 and 8.1 are faster, more well designed operating systems. Sure the UI is different than windows 7, vista, xp... but you get used to it within a few days and it is actually faster to access things you need.

You typically get a slight bump in FPS also because the OS has a better low level design.

Windows 8 is only slightly faster at times and certain tasks , and no its not a better designed OS for desktops why do you think MS is releasing the feature update that makes windows 8 more like 7 for desktops? Sure you can get use to it but its not better and no its not really that much "faster"

Are you kidding me that Windows 8 "isn't that much faster than windows 7." You don't regularly use windows 8 do you? It takes fewer click to get to almost anything you use regularly. On top of that, it outperformed Windows 7 in every benchmark available. It is a better OS, you just don't like the UI.

Microsoft isn't changing some of the features in windows 8.1 to be more like windows 7 not because it is better (because quite frankly its not), they are doing only because people like you aren't willing to start using a new OS unless it is like the old OS.

it takes fewer clicks..... um some things takes alot more it get to certain options and features like restarting or shutting down the computer with 2-3 clicks like on 7 vs 8's from desktop into metro then selecting profile then going back to log in screen then selecting power button then selecting those same options. Then you have to use metro to access some options and features that you cant get to from desktop so having to switch back and forth without using 3rd party tool is unproductive.. The UI is not made for desktops period.... Also with gaming win 8 vs 7 is virtually the same performance wise. Then with an SSD Win 7 vs Win 8 is only seconds apart at most nothing to write home about.

Again your assuming people in general that don't like win 8 have not given it a chance or played with it when in fact I have a tablet that has Win 8 and have a laptop that came with too. And the experience I had trying to get some my xp era games and few apps to run correctly was futile and I ended up formatting the laptop and put 7 on it and all problems were solved. Fact is that for desktop usage Win 7 is better. This is why MS is adding this feature set to win 8 because forcing a tablet UI + desktop UI was/is more trouble then its worth.

#72 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@Jacobistheman said:

@04dcarraher said:

@Jacobistheman said:

@04dcarraher said:

Windows 8.1 is still an OS I do not like to recommend, but good old Win 7 is fading out from the shelves. there is still issues with 8... with apps and games to run correctly even though on 7 works without hassle Now windows 8 is suppose to get a upcoming feature update making the desktop more like Windows 7's UI. Afterward MS will be full bore on 9. If you already have Windows 7 going to Windows 8 is a waste.

Why? Windows 8 and 8.1 are faster, more well designed operating systems. Sure the UI is different than windows 7, vista, xp... but you get used to it within a few days and it is actually faster to access things you need.

You typically get a slight bump in FPS also because the OS has a better low level design.

Windows 8 is only slightly faster at times and certain tasks , and no its not a better designed OS for desktops why do you think MS is releasing the feature update that makes windows 8 more like 7 for desktops? Sure you can get use to it but its not better and no its not really that much "faster"

Are you kidding me that Windows 8 "isn't that much faster than windows 7." You don't regularly use windows 8 do you? It takes fewer click to get to almost anything you use regularly. On top of that, it outperformed Windows 7 in every benchmark available. It is a better OS, you just don't like the UI.

Microsoft isn't changing some of the features in windows 8.1 to be more like windows 7 not because it is better (because quite frankly its not), they are doing only because people like you aren't willing to start using a new OS unless it is like the old OS.

it takes fewer clicks..... um some things takes alot more it get to certain options and features like restarting or shutting down the computer with 2-3 clicks like on 7 vs 8's from desktop into metro then selecting profile then going back to log in screen then selecting power button then selecting those same options. Then you have to use metro to access some options and features that you cant get to from desktop so having to switch back and forth without using 3rd party tool is unproductive.. The UI is not made for desktops period.... Also with gaming win 8 vs 7 is virtually the same performance wise. Then with an SSD Win 7 vs Win 8 is only seconds apart at most nothing to write home about.

Again your assuming people in general that don't like win 8 have not given it a chance or played with it when in fact I have a tablet that has Win 8 and have a laptop that came with too. And the experience I had trying to get some my xp era games and few apps to run correctly was futile and I ended up formatting the laptop and put 7 on it and all problems were solved. Fact is that for desktop usage Win 7 is better. This is why MS is adding this feature set to win 8 because forcing a tablet UI + desktop UI was/is more trouble then its worth.

MS have acknowledged these kinds of "OMG, the user has to make an extra click", and with 8.1 and Update 1, they have put things like Shutdown easier to get to.

#73 Edited by 04dcarraher (18915 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@Jacobistheman said:

@04dcarraher said:

@Jacobistheman said:

@04dcarraher said:

Windows 8.1 is still an OS I do not like to recommend, but good old Win 7 is fading out from the shelves. there is still issues with 8... with apps and games to run correctly even though on 7 works without hassle Now windows 8 is suppose to get a upcoming feature update making the desktop more like Windows 7's UI. Afterward MS will be full bore on 9. If you already have Windows 7 going to Windows 8 is a waste.

Why? Windows 8 and 8.1 are faster, more well designed operating systems. Sure the UI is different than windows 7, vista, xp... but you get used to it within a few days and it is actually faster to access things you need.

You typically get a slight bump in FPS also because the OS has a better low level design.

Windows 8 is only slightly faster at times and certain tasks , and no its not a better designed OS for desktops why do you think MS is releasing the feature update that makes windows 8 more like 7 for desktops? Sure you can get use to it but its not better and no its not really that much "faster"

Are you kidding me that Windows 8 "isn't that much faster than windows 7." You don't regularly use windows 8 do you? It takes fewer click to get to almost anything you use regularly. On top of that, it outperformed Windows 7 in every benchmark available. It is a better OS, you just don't like the UI.

Microsoft isn't changing some of the features in windows 8.1 to be more like windows 7 not because it is better (because quite frankly its not), they are doing only because people like you aren't willing to start using a new OS unless it is like the old OS.

it takes fewer clicks..... um some things takes alot more it get to certain options and features like restarting or shutting down the computer with 2-3 clicks like on 7 vs 8's from desktop into metro then selecting profile then going back to log in screen then selecting power button then selecting those same options. Then you have to use metro to access some options and features that you cant get to from desktop so having to switch back and forth without using 3rd party tool is unproductive.. The UI is not made for desktops period.... Also with gaming win 8 vs 7 is virtually the same performance wise. Then with an SSD Win 7 vs Win 8 is only seconds apart at most nothing to write home about.

Again your assuming people in general that don't like win 8 have not given it a chance or played with it when in fact I have a tablet that has Win 8 and have a laptop that came with too. And the experience I had trying to get some my xp era games and few apps to run correctly was futile and I ended up formatting the laptop and put 7 on it and all problems were solved. Fact is that for desktop usage Win 7 is better. This is why MS is adding this feature set to win 8 because forcing a tablet UI + desktop UI was/is more trouble then its worth.

MS have acknowledged these kinds of "OMG, the user has to make an extra click", and with 8.1 and Update 1, they have put things like Shutdown easier to get to.

Its more then an extra click , and to the point in having to switch back and forth to into metro in counter productive for some. Didn't you know the customer is always right, Now fact is that the need or the advantages with 8 isn't there nor worth it over 7. Which is why Win 8 is 100 million behind in sales vs win 7 with same time frame even with the explosion of tablets and laptops usage within win 8's release.

#74 Edited by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@FelipeInside said:

MS have acknowledged these kinds of "OMG, the user has to make an extra click", and with 8.1 and Update 1, they have put things like Shutdown easier to get to.

Its more then an extra click , and to the point in having to switch back and forth to into metro in counter productive for some. Didn't you know the customer is always right, Now fact is that the need or the advantages with 8 isn't there nor worth it over 7. Which is why Win 8 is 100 million behind in sales vs win 7 with same time frame even with the explosion of tablets and laptops usage within win 8's release.

- The customer is NOT always right, the customer is always bitching which is different.

- It's an extra click, and if pressing your mouse button ONE MORE TIME really affects you so much that you can't sleep, then for Christs Sake just create a shutdown button and put it on your desktop, or install Start8 but news flash, you'll still have to press your mouse button with that as well.

- Switching back between Metro Menu and Desktop. Well, with the old desktop you still switched between the two, difference was that it didn't take the whole screen, nothing else. No one did something on the old start menu while at the same time doing something on the desktop, Windows didn't allow that.

- Doesn't matter either way, looks like the old type of menu is coming back so people can sleep well again.

#75 Posted by 04dcarraher (18915 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@FelipeInside said:

MS have acknowledged these kinds of "OMG, the user has to make an extra click", and with 8.1 and Update 1, they have put things like Shutdown easier to get to.

Its more then an extra click , and to the point in having to switch back and forth to into metro in counter productive for some. Didn't you know the customer is always right, Now fact is that the need or the advantages with 8 isn't there nor worth it over 7. Which is why Win 8 is 100 million behind in sales vs win 7 with same time frame even with the explosion of tablets and laptops usage within win 8's release.

- The customer is NOT always right, the customer is always bitching which is different.

- It's an extra click, and if pressing your mouse button ONE MORE TIME really affects you so much that you can't sleep, then for Christs Sake just create a shutdown button and put it on your desktop, or install Start8 but news flash, you'll still have to press your mouse button with that as well.

lol, if its different and if its well designed and it works then you don't see the reactions as you do with 8..... The two interfaces are notionally separate, as really they serve two separate needs one is the mobile devices vs.desktops. But Microsoft has forcibly joined them together by making some critical options and features unique to each environment. In either case, the user is often shunted from one interface into another for no other reason than because Microsoft wants it to be this way. That is not "better".....

Fact that MS is listening to the customers is a good sign because if they continued to ignore whats wrong with it for the majority. We would see a severe marginalization of the desktops. By taking the desktop operating system gradually stripping it of its ability to utilize the full power and flexibility of the PC platform to fit the all in one tablet casual UI.

#76 Edited by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

lol, if its different and if its well designed and it works then you don't see the reactions as you do with 8..... .

LOL, how long have you been using Windows for?

Every time MS changes something with Windows there is a huge rage like it's the end of the planet. I remember when XP came out, you should have been there with all the complaints about how much had changes from Windows 98. Then people actually started using it and it became better. The same has happened with Win8 and the updates 8.1 and Update 1, difference is that MS actually has given in this time around to some of the complaints and made it better. I like what they have done with the updates this time around.

#77 Edited by 04dcarraher (18915 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@04dcarraher said:

lol, if its different and if its well designed and it works then you don't see the reactions as you do with 8..... .

LOL, how long have you been using Windows for?

Every time MS changes something with Windows there is a huge rage like it's the end of the planet. I remember when XP came out, you should have been there with all the complaints about how much had changes from Windows 98. Then people actually started using it and it became better. The same has happened with Win8 and the updates 8.1 and Update 1, difference is that MS actually has given in this time around to some of the complaints and made it better. I like what they have done with the updates this time around.

Been using windows since 3.1, and the only complaints Ive ever heard or had from that to 95 98 ME, 2000 to XP have all been about hardware and software support not the interface even with the few XP complaints with the appearance and the few destination changes XP did not steer too far from the core design. Still with XP you could change the appearance to look like 98 without loosing options with the UI. Vista/7 at its core design was still based mostly on what made windows work. The minor changes and features didn't allow the classic shell UI to work that well because some options were disabled. Now skipping to 8, MS took two interfaces combined and forced users having switch between them to do certain tasks which is not needed.

The new feature update with Win 8.1 is fixing and adding what they should have done to begin with.

#78 Edited by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@04dcarraher said:

lol, if its different and if its well designed and it works then you don't see the reactions as you do with 8..... .

LOL, how long have you been using Windows for?

Every time MS changes something with Windows there is a huge rage like it's the end of the planet. I remember when XP came out, you should have been there with all the complaints about how much had changes from Windows 98. Then people actually started using it and it became better. The same has happened with Win8 and the updates 8.1 and Update 1, difference is that MS actually has given in this time around to some of the complaints and made it better. I like what they have done with the updates this time around.

Been using windows since 3.1, and the only complaints Ive ever heard or had from that to 95 98 ME, 2000 to XP have all been about hardware and software support not the interface even with the few XP complaints with the appearance and the few destination changes XP did not steer too far from the core design. Still with XP you could change the appearance to look like 98 without loosing options with the UI. Vista/7 at its core design was still based mostly on what made windows work. The minor changes and features didn't allow the classic shell UI to work that well because some options were disabled. Now skipping to 8, MS took two interfaces combined and forced users having switch between them to do certain tasks which is not needed.

The new feature update with Win 8.1 is fixing and adding what they should have done to begin with.

Yes but show me a Windows where MS have got it perfectly right on the first go? Never. They have always released something new and then worked on it with patches and updates.

Examples:

- Windows 95 was awful without patches

- Windows 98 SE was Windows 98 but fixed correctly

- XP was a mess when it launched, after hundreds of patches and 3 Service Packs it's a great OS.

- Windows 7 was basically Vista but fixed the way it should of been.

- Windows 8 was a whole new beast, and I agree difficult to navigate with mouse/keyboard since MS were trying to get Windows into the tablet market (correctly this time). With 8.1 and now Update 1, it's easy to use and I have no idea why people STILL have trouble with the menu.

Complaints were everywhere when XP, ME and Vista launched (heck, I was one of them), you didn't feel it that much back then because there was no internet and not as many people bitching and crying (not you) as there is now with this new generation of users.

#80 Edited by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@Cyberdot said:

If you want to play games and use a PC like a real gentleman, use Windows 7.

If you want to use a PC like a gay who likes colourful boxes and all unnecessary nonsense, use Windows 8.

Can you troll any harder?

What do you care what people use? How does it affect you?

#81 Posted by Randolph (10342 posts) -

@Cyberdot: Not cool. We don't allow the use of the word "gay" to describe things you do not like. We also don't allow trolling in general in this forum.

#82 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15723 posts) -

Yes but show me a Windows where MS have got it perfectly right on the first go? Never. They have always released something new and then worked on it with patches and updates.

Examples:

- Windows 95 was awful without patches

- Windows 98 SE was Windows 98 but fixed correctly

- XP was a mess when it launched, after hundreds of patches and 3 Service Packs it's a great OS.

- Windows 7 was basically Vista but fixed the way it should of been.

- Windows 8 was a whole new beast, and I agree difficult to navigate with mouse/keyboard since MS were trying to get Windows into the tablet market (correctly this time). With 8.1 and now Update 1, it's easy to use and I have no idea why people STILL have trouble with the menu.

Complaints were everywhere when XP, ME and Vista launched (heck, I was one of them), you didn't feel it that much back then because there was no internet and not as many people bitching and crying (not you) as there is now with this new generation of users.

Windows 95 was awful even with patches. I recall throwing my Windows 95 CD out a 4th story window (into traffic) in frustration. Then I remembered I paid $100 for it.

Win98 and Win98SE were okay. WinME was okay. But, it didn't have anything over Win98SE.

Win 2000 was the first Windows I started to really like.

#83 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

Yes but show me a Windows where MS have got it perfectly right on the first go? Never. They have always released something new and then worked on it with patches and updates.

Examples:

- Windows 95 was awful without patches

- Windows 98 SE was Windows 98 but fixed correctly

- XP was a mess when it launched, after hundreds of patches and 3 Service Packs it's a great OS.

- Windows 7 was basically Vista but fixed the way it should of been.

- Windows 8 was a whole new beast, and I agree difficult to navigate with mouse/keyboard since MS were trying to get Windows into the tablet market (correctly this time). With 8.1 and now Update 1, it's easy to use and I have no idea why people STILL have trouble with the menu.

Complaints were everywhere when XP, ME and Vista launched (heck, I was one of them), you didn't feel it that much back then because there was no internet and not as many people bitching and crying (not you) as there is now with this new generation of users.

Windows 95 was awful even with patches. I recall throwing my Windows 95 CD out a 4th story window (into traffic) in frustration. Then I remembered I paid $100 for it.

Win98 and Win98SE were okay. WinME was okay. But, it didn't have anything over Win98SE.

Win 2000 was the first Windows I started to really like.

Win95 did indeed have issues, but for me the worst MS OS in history Award goes to ME. Total disastre. Even MS don't want to acknowledge it exists, lol....

#84 Posted by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@FelipeInside said:

Yes but show me a Windows where MS have got it perfectly right on the first go? Never. They have always released something new and then worked on it with patches and updates.

Examples:

- Windows 95 was awful without patches

- Windows 98 SE was Windows 98 but fixed correctly

- XP was a mess when it launched, after hundreds of patches and 3 Service Packs it's a great OS.

- Windows 7 was basically Vista but fixed the way it should of been.

- Windows 8 was a whole new beast, and I agree difficult to navigate with mouse/keyboard since MS were trying to get Windows into the tablet market (correctly this time). With 8.1 and now Update 1, it's easy to use and I have no idea why people STILL have trouble with the menu.

Complaints were everywhere when XP, ME and Vista launched (heck, I was one of them), you didn't feel it that much back then because there was no internet and not as many people bitching and crying (not you) as there is now with this new generation of users.

Windows 95 was awful even with patches. I recall throwing my Windows 95 CD out a 4th story window (into traffic) in frustration. Then I remembered I paid $100 for it.

Win98 and Win98SE were okay. WinME was okay. But, it didn't have anything over Win98SE.

Win 2000 was the first Windows I started to really like.

Win95 did indeed have issues, but for me the worst MS OS in history Award goes to ME. Total disastre. Even MS don't want to acknowledge it exists, lol....

Why WAS WinME so terrible?

#85 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15723 posts) -

@AlexKidd5000: There was supposed to be stability issues with it. But, I thought that was a bit unfair because the whole Win9x series had stability issues as a whole.

IRQ Hell was part of Windows lore until XP came along.

#86 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@AlexKidd5000: There was supposed to be stability issues with it. But, I thought that was a bit unfair because the whole Win9x series had stability issues as a whole.

IRQ Hell was part of Windows lore until XP came along.

Where do I start? hahahahah

Issues everywhere. Driver problems, stability problems, compatibility problems... I remember my home PC would randomly Blue Screen. Not saying Win98 didn't but this was worse.

Even installing ME on different configurations would cause grief. Really bad product from MS, thankfully now they are back on track with stuff like Win7 and Win8, as well as the new Server Editions which have some really neat features.

#87 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15723 posts) -
@FelipeInside said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@AlexKidd5000: There was supposed to be stability issues with it. But, I thought that was a bit unfair because the whole Win9x series had stability issues as a whole.

IRQ Hell was part of Windows lore until XP came along.

Where do I start? hahahahah

Issues everywhere. Driver problems, stability problems, compatibility problems... I remember my home PC would randomly Blue Screen. Not saying Win98 didn't but this was worse.

Even installing ME on different configurations would cause grief. Really bad product from MS, thankfully now they are back on track with stuff like Win7 and Win8, as well as the new Server Editions which have some really neat features.

I think it's those who upgraded on their own who ran into problems. The OEM PCs that came with ME seemed to do (somewhat) okay if you stuck to the factory configuration.

#88 Edited by ferrari2001 (16675 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@AlexKidd5000: There was supposed to be stability issues with it. But, I thought that was a bit unfair because the whole Win9x series had stability issues as a whole.

IRQ Hell was part of Windows lore until XP came along.

Where do I start? hahahahah

Issues everywhere. Driver problems, stability problems, compatibility problems... I remember my home PC would randomly Blue Screen. Not saying Win98 didn't but this was worse.

Even installing ME on different configurations would cause grief. Really bad product from MS, thankfully now they are back on track with stuff like Win7 and Win8, as well as the new Server Editions which have some really neat features.

By far one of Windows 8's best features is it's incredible driver and hardware support. If it doesn't already have the drivers you need Windows automatically finds them and installs them for you with basically no effort and very little difficulty. It's quite fantastic actually. Windows 7 did this as well but it's seems even easier and more refined on Windows 8.

#89 Edited by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

They will probably optimize and improve more cloud services, have even better optimization for mouse and keyboard, and maybe incorporate some new technology on the network side to coincide with Server 2013.

That would be good improvement for possible future version. But that kinda opens the door for more concerns, what if MS turns windows itself into a cloud service? something I do not want, ever. Yes, FUD about windows future is what drove me to Linux.

#90 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

They will probably optimize and improve more cloud services, have even better optimization for mouse and keyboard, and maybe incorporate some new technology on the network side to coincide with Server 2013.

That would be good improvement for possible future version. But that kinda opens the door for more concerns, what if MS turns windows itself into a cloud service? something I do not want, ever. Yes, FUD about windows future is what drove me to Linux.

Windows already exists as a cloud version (has for years now): http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/

#91 Edited by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

@AlexKidd5000 said:

@FelipeInside said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

They will probably optimize and improve more cloud services, have even better optimization for mouse and keyboard, and maybe incorporate some new technology on the network side to coincide with Server 2013.

That would be good improvement for possible future version. But that kinda opens the door for more concerns, what if MS turns windows itself into a cloud service? something I do not want, ever. Yes, FUD about windows future is what drove me to Linux.

Windows already exists as a cloud version (has for years now): http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/

I just found out about Azure a couple days ago. MS has a huge hard on for cloud computing, I wouldn't put it past them to make the decision to turn the consumer version of windows into a pure cloud based OS.

#92 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

@FelipeInside said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

They will probably optimize and improve more cloud services, have even better optimization for mouse and keyboard, and maybe incorporate some new technology on the network side to coincide with Server 2013.

That would be good improvement for possible future version. But that kinda opens the door for more concerns, what if MS turns windows itself into a cloud service? something I do not want, ever. Yes, FUD about windows future is what drove me to Linux.

Windows already exists as a cloud version (has for years now): http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/

I just found out about Azure a couple days ago. MS has a huge hard on for cloud computing, I wouldn't put it past them to make the decision to turn the consumer version of windows into a pure cloud based OS.

Nah, they won't do that cause it would be shooting themselves in the foot. They know that there is a large percentage of their userbase that doesn't have good internet or internet at all.

They will continue to push and incorporate cloud services into their software, because that's where the future is going, but never go fully cloud based. They might have a cloud based version of Windows (maybe that FREE one I was talking about with ads?), but they will still offer the install version as well.

#93 Edited by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

@FelipeInside said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

@FelipeInside said:

@AlexKidd5000 said:

Windows 9 would just seem like a cash grab at this point, since I can't imagine what they could possibly improve, and change to make it worth while.

They will probably optimize and improve more cloud services, have even better optimization for mouse and keyboard, and maybe incorporate some new technology on the network side to coincide with Server 2013.

That would be good improvement for possible future version. But that kinda opens the door for more concerns, what if MS turns windows itself into a cloud service? something I do not want, ever. Yes, FUD about windows future is what drove me to Linux.

Windows already exists as a cloud version (has for years now): http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/

I just found out about Azure a couple days ago. MS has a huge hard on for cloud computing, I wouldn't put it past them to make the decision to turn the consumer version of windows into a pure cloud based OS.

Nah, they won't do that cause it would be shooting themselves in the foot. They know that there is a large percentage of their userbase that doesn't have good internet or internet at all.

They will continue to push and incorporate cloud services into their software, because that's where the future is going, but never go fully cloud based. They might have a cloud based version of Windows (maybe that FREE one I was talking about with ads?), but they will still offer the install version as well.

Hope your right. It would make more sense to offer a stripped down all cloud based version as an option. Because really, I'd never use a pure cloud OS, I'd rather just store everything on my local HDD's. Games for Windows Live really pissed me off, and that was just storing game saves on a server lol.

#94 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

@FelipeInside said:

Nah, they won't do that cause it would be shooting themselves in the foot. They know that there is a large percentage of their userbase that doesn't have good internet or internet at all.

They will continue to push and incorporate cloud services into their software, because that's where the future is going, but never go fully cloud based. They might have a cloud based version of Windows (maybe that FREE one I was talking about with ads?), but they will still offer the install version as well.

Hope your right. It would make more sense to offer a stripped down all cloud based version as an option. Because really, I'd never use a pure cloud OS, I'd rather just store everything on my local HDD's. Games for Windows Live really pissed me off, and that was just storing game saves on a server lol.

I'm always right :P

I think it all depends on usage and needs. A stripped down light cheaper cloud version of Windows could be useful in some circunstances, like a library etc. I still prefer having everything on my HDD, but for other things I wouldn't mind having a cloud version. Remember cloud version means you don't have to worry too much about backup, so for example I would use that for my parents so I don't have to worry about them backin up etc.

GFWL was a complete disaster. MS was late to the party and did a half-ass job at it, on top trying to charge PC gamers for Multiplayer. What MS should have done is beat Valve to create something like Steam but INBUILT straight into Windows, but they were too busy creating the original Xbox back then. A missed market opportunity for them.

#95 Posted by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

@AlexKidd5000 said:

@FelipeInside said:

Nah, they won't do that cause it would be shooting themselves in the foot. They know that there is a large percentage of their userbase that doesn't have good internet or internet at all.

They will continue to push and incorporate cloud services into their software, because that's where the future is going, but never go fully cloud based. They might have a cloud based version of Windows (maybe that FREE one I was talking about with ads?), but they will still offer the install version as well.

Hope your right. It would make more sense to offer a stripped down all cloud based version as an option. Because really, I'd never use a pure cloud OS, I'd rather just store everything on my local HDD's. Games for Windows Live really pissed me off, and that was just storing game saves on a server lol.

I'm always right :P

I think it all depends on usage and needs. A stripped down light cheaper cloud version of Windows could be useful in some circunstances, like a library etc. I still prefer having everything on my HDD, but for other things I wouldn't mind having a cloud version. Remember cloud version means you don't have to worry too much about backup, so for example I would use that for my parents so I don't have to worry about them backin up etc.

GFWL was a complete disaster. MS was late to the party and did a half-ass job at it, on top trying to charge PC gamers for Multiplayer. What MS should have done is beat Valve to create something like Steam but INBUILT straight into Windows, but they were too busy creating the original Xbox back then. A missed market opportunity for them.

Oh definitely, it a cloud OS does have its purpose.

Yeah, MS missed that boat because they only care about xbox. I'm not sure if I'm happy or not about that, I mean, if MS had made something like Steam built into windows, would it have been even half as good as steam? In terms of consumer friendliness with cheaper games, and frequent deals? or would they have charged out the ass?

#96 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

Oh definitely, it a cloud OS does have its purpose.

Yeah, MS missed that boat because they only care about xbox. I'm not sure if I'm happy or not about that, I mean, if MS had made something like Steam built into windows, would it have been even half as good as steam? In terms of consumer friendliness with cheaper games, and frequent deals? or would they have charged out the ass?

Well, it all depends how much love and dedication they would of put into it, but an inbuilt game browser/store/chat like Steam into Windows would of been great.

As for charging, well.... Valve takes a percentage of what they sell anyway so who knows.

#97 Posted by bulby_g (977 posts) -

I've been running 8 and more recently 8.1 for some time now and have had no gaming related issues whatsoever.

#98 Edited by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

I have to say though that Linux has caused a LOT fewer rage fits than Windows has for me.

#99 Posted by FelipeInside (25030 posts) -

I have to say though that Linux has caused a LOT fewer rage fits than Windows has for me.

Yeah, cause like I've always said, Linux does a LOT less than Windows (in general usage).

If Linux all of a sudden had to run all the millions of programs that support Windows, you will start to see a lot more issues with it. Totally natural with any OS, the more it handles, the more problems arise.

#100 Edited by AlexKidd5000 (1732 posts) -

Yeah, you probably right. Since Windows gets all the software, it gets all the crapware too that causes countless headaches.