If Gaming on Windows 8 is Bad Will You Stick With Windows 7?

dnottis said:
Metro apps are a joke... might as well install Android on your PC so you can install 3000 more useless apps.
Click to expand...

Joke compared to what, and for what? I mean yea, if you want to design aircraft frames for production use by the US military, then probably so. But then, most desktop apps are a joke as well. Also, Windows 8 isn't even in GA yet, judging the app situation when the app store is not even GA makes no sense. Where the app store makes sense, is that you can download useful apps and not worry about viruses, or your system getting corrupted or slowed down, because of strict and enforced guidelines. So if you want to have desktop email notifications, or calendar notifications, and so on, you can try these without knowing anything about the developer, or the app itself. And you will know that the app will not corrupt or steal your data, and that it will install and uninstall cleanly and so on. Metro apps aren't meant to replace desktop apps for high end stuff. It's to replace insecure, and unstable little apps and gadgets people fill their desktop and system tray with - well that's what I'm seeing when I look at it anyway. And it takes away nothing, so I don't see how someone can hate it so much. Use it for what it makes sense to use it for, otherwise ignore it and use your desktop as usual.
 
Last edited:
I did a fresh install on a computer just for fun and like windows 7, it did a good job of detecting the hardware without drivers.
 
dnottis said:
Metro apps are a joke... might as well install Android on your PC so you can install 3000 more useless apps.
Click to expand...

+1

Yeah, I dont need any extra apps, for my phone or PC. hehe

But I do say for now windows 8 makes a good VM to play with when I am bored.
 
Hagrid said:
+1

Yeah, I dont need any extra apps, for my phone or PC. hehe
Click to expand...

People living in tribes in the amazon jungle would probably say they don't need cars, central heating, or computers. Doesn't mean they aren't nice and don't serve a purpose to a lot of people.
 
devil22 said:
People living in tribes in the amazon jungle would probably say they don't need cars, central heating, or computers. Doesn't mean they aren't nice and don't serve a purpose to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

Thats true!
 
devil22 said:
People living in tribes in the amazon jungle would probably say they don't need cars, central heating, or computers. Doesn't mean they aren't nice and don't serve a purpose to a lot of people.
Click to expand...
What a great, albeit unintentional I'm sure, illustration of why shoehorning a mobile OS on to a desktop environment is a bad idea.

Say it with me now ( all those NOT employed by a marketing company anyway ): usage profiles are important.
 
XOR != OR said:
What a great, albeit unintentional I'm sure, illustration of why shoehorning a mobile OS on to a desktop environment is a bad idea.

Say it with me now ( all those NOT employed by a marketing company anyway ): usage profiles are important.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how you get that impression from what I wrote, or that Windows 8 was made with an assumption that usage profiles are not important, and what that has to do with what I wrote either. But at this point, I'm used to the usual suspects making unjustified statements and making excuses when I ask them to back them up..
 
pepole will cry windows 8 sucks for gaming just as people stuck to windows XP claiming windows 7 was SOOOOOOOOOOOOO slow for gaming......
 
the complaining is weird for a board that's about having sweet rigs and looking forward. Sounds more like everyone is badly missing DOS.
 
rantanamo said:
the complaining is weird for a board that's about having sweet rigs and looking forward. Sounds more like everyone is badly missing DOS.
Click to expand...

Not missing DOS at all. When it comes to the desktop, many of us simply don't see strapping a tablet GUI, to an otherwise great OS, and then getting rid of the some of the more important desktop GUI features, to try to push people into using Metro, and by extension, the Metro App store, as progress, or looking forward.
I fully understand the business reasons behind it, and the side of me that owns MS stock is smiling, but calling it progress or looking forward to anyone except an MS stockholder, is a bit of a stretch imo.
 
GORANKAR said:
Not missing DOS at all. When it comes to the desktop, many of us simply don't see strapping a tablet GUI, to an otherwise great OS, and then getting rid of the some of the more important desktop GUI features, to try to push people into using Metro, and by extension, the Metro App store, as progress, or looking forward.
I fully understand the business reasons behind it, and the side of me that owns MS stock is smiling, but calling it progress or looking forward to anyone except an MS stockholder, is a bit of a stretch imo.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I love Windows 8.........except for Metro. Just give me the 8 desktop and I'll be happy.
 
GORANKAR said:
Not missing DOS at all. When it comes to the desktop, many of us simply don't see strapping a tablet GUI, to an otherwise great OS, and then getting rid of the some of the more important desktop GUI features, to try to push people into using Metro, and by extension, the Metro App store, as progress, or looking forward.
I fully understand the business reasons behind it, and the side of me that owns MS stock is smiling, but calling it progress or looking forward to anyone except an MS stockholder, is a bit of a stretch imo.
Click to expand...

So... can you tell me what GUI features are missing? The only things missing from the Start Screen vs the Start Menu is the picture of the start (location and function of start is still the same), and an always on-screen click to go to all programs (you have to right-click on the start screen to access that).
 
GORANKAR said:
Not missing DOS at all. When it comes to the desktop, many of us simply don't see strapping a tablet GUI, to an otherwise great OS, and then getting rid of the some of the more important desktop GUI features, to try to push people into using Metro, and by extension, the Metro App store, as progress, or looking forward.
I fully understand the business reasons behind it, and the side of me that owns MS stock is smiling, but calling it progress or looking forward to anyone except an MS stockholder, is a bit of a stretch imo.
Click to expand...


How does that work anyway? If someone ran Windows 7 on a tablet, would that be a tablet interface too, or? Seems very arbitrary since in theory a tablet can run any OS, along with things like keyboards and mice. MS IS a business, and I expect them to do things that make them money, but that does not mean users can not benefit from this as well, such thinking is typical of Slashdot posters, but it's not based on reality. In fact quite the opposite as MS aims to please as many users as possible to motivate them to pay for MS products. I use Windows 8 on a desktop system only, and really enjoy the metro UI and metro apps, well at least the ones appropriate for desktop use that are inline with my needs. I find it quantifiably more efficient at finding and launching apps, and easier to get information like weather, email count, news, etc. without using insecure and system corrupting gadgets/widgets/apps from the web, etc.
 
devil22 said:
How does that work anyway? If someone ran Windows 7 on a tablet, would that be a tablet interface too, or? Seems very arbitrary since in theory a tablet can run any OS, along with things like keyboards and mice. MS IS a business, and I expect them to do things that make them money, but that does not mean users can not benefit from this as well, such thinking is typical of Slashdot posters, but it's not based on reality. In fact quite the opposite as MS aims to please as many users as possible to motivate them to pay for MS products. I use Windows 8 on a desktop system only, and really enjoy the metro UI and metro apps, well at least the ones appropriate for desktop use that are inline with my needs. I find it quantifiably more efficient at finding and launching apps, and easier to get information like weather, email count, news, etc. without using insecure and system corrupting gadgets/widgets/apps from the web, etc.
Click to expand...

Not sure sure what any of that has to do with what I posted, but OK.

I am glad you like Metro, and have quantified for yourself how much more efficient Metro is for your workflow, or usage patterns. I still have little use for Metro, it is not more efficient, or useful, or offering of any additional benefit to my workflow, or usage patterns. There is nothing to prove wrong or right here.
 
GORANKAR said:
Not sure sure what any of that has to do with what I posted, but OK.

I am glad you like Metro, and have quantified for yourself how much more efficient Metro is for your workflow, or usage patterns. I still have little use for Metro, it is not more efficient, or useful, or offering of any additional benefit to my workflow, or usage patterns. There is nothing to prove wrong or right here.
Click to expand...

Well, you aren't really backing that up. I have backed up my sentiments on the issue, I launch every program I have with 2 clicks (instead of 4+ if I used a start menu), and I get a lot of the information I need from one click and looking at the start screen. Don't know what you want me to tell you, but unless you back it up I don't consider your arguments valid.
 
I think the nay sayers are looking into the future.

What happens if Windows 9 does not have a desktop mode?

Some problems start to grow at that point. What if you want to view 3 applications at the same time?

What if you want to view two applications at the same time? I personally hope that -SOON- we will have more customization of the two apps running at the same time.

2/3rd and 1/3rd is great for browsing/mail but if I am doing research and writing a college paper I would like to have 50/50 split screen.

I like metro but it is still very rough around the edges and it may not make everyone happy till perhaps a sp2 or sp3 release.

Background audio still doesn't work in chrome <sigh>

Metro remote desktop app is great, yay for tabs :)
 
Shadohh said:
I think the nay sayers are looking into the future.

What happens if Windows 9 does not have a desktop mode?

Some problems start to grow at that point. What if you want to view 3 applications at the same time?

What if you want to view two applications at the same time? I personally hope that -SOON- we will have more customization of the two apps running at the same time.

2/3rd and 1/3rd is great for browsing/mail but if I am doing research and writing a college paper I would like to have 50/50 split screen.

I like metro but it is still very rough around the edges and it may not make everyone happy till perhaps a sp2 or sp3 release.

Background audio still doesn't work in chrome <sigh>

Metro remote desktop app is great, yay for tabs :)
Click to expand...

Desktop is not going to go anywhere anytime soon. Removal of the desktop and forcing everything to run inside of the metro system will break compatibility with current software as well as alienate businesses that rely on proprietary software.

Yes, metro does need some working on, but I highly doubt it's going to replace the desktop. Rather, it will act as a supplement.
 
devil22 said:
I launch every program I have with 2 clicks (instead of 4+ if I used a start menu)
Click to expand...

It only takes two clicks to launch a program from the classic shell start menu (the folders fly out automatically), and IMO having folders on the start menu makes it easier to find things than scrolling sideways through all of your apps.

mystartmenu.png


I really don't understand some of the design decisions with Metro (or whatever it's called now). WTF were they thinking with the 'smart corners?' All of that functionality should be integrated into the start screen. If you're going to force me to use this full-screen tablet interface on my desktop at least put everything in one place. How did the fact that people can't figure out where the shut down option is without searching online not come up in testing?
 
DeathFromBelow said:
It only takes two clicks to launch a program from the classic shell start menu (the folders fly out automatically), and IMO having folders on the start menu makes it easier to find things than scrolling sideways through all of your apps.

mystartmenu.png


I really don't understand some of the design decisions with Metro (or whatever it's called now). WTF were they thinking with the 'smart corners?' All of that functionality should be integrated into the start screen. If you're going to force me to use this full-screen tablet interface on my desktop at least put everything in one place. How did the fact that people can't figure out where the shut down option is without searching online not come up in testing?
Click to expand...

How does classic shell come into this? The comparison is metro vs. windows 7 start menu. And what does it gain you if it's the same # of clicks? The ability to look at the desktop or some program running in the background while you launch a new one then switch to it? That would not be worth pressing a button to activate it to me. And then you lose live tiles as well and large icons are easier to recognize and click than trying to hover over or click little text folder names, especially for lots of apps and when a lot of those apps don't have folder names that are related to the app name. I know that has irritated me before I used Windows 8 a lot.

The corners, well, I figure, once you figure out to go to the corners, look what's there, there's really nothing else left to it. It might confuse some people, but after it's released everyone will know. OEMs will put their own tutorials on their systems, which is where 98% of people get Windows, the rest should be able to figure it out by just being around Windows 8 threads and what not.
 
Last edited:
Shadohh said:
I think the nay sayers are looking into the future.

What happens if Windows 9 does not have a desktop mode?

Some problems start to grow at that point. What if you want to view 3 applications at the same time?

What if you want to view two applications at the same time? I personally hope that -SOON- we will have more customization of the two apps running at the same time.

2/3rd and 1/3rd is great for browsing/mail but if I am doing research and writing a college paper I would like to have 50/50 split screen.

I like metro but it is still very rough around the edges and it may not make everyone happy till perhaps a sp2 or sp3 release.

Background audio still doesn't work in chrome <sigh>

Metro remote desktop app is great, yay for tabs :)
Click to expand...

I don't think the point is to replace desktops with tablets, it's to make an OS that combines both ideas, to compliment each device type with the other's abilities, so you can use the one that's appropriate for the task. Some times tablet type apps would be nice on a desktop, and some times desktop style apps would be nice on a tablet. I think that's the general idea.
 
devil22 said:
I don't think the point is to replace desktops with tablets, it's to make an OS that combines both ideas, to compliment each device type with the other's abilities, so you can use the one that's appropriate for the task. Some times tablet type apps would be nice on a desktop, and some times desktop style apps would be nice on a tablet. I think that's the general idea.
Click to expand...

While that is true, everybody doesnt like the same things, so a choice would of been nice.
And by that I mean a regular desktop, metro, or the way it is now a hybrid.
Since its easy to put shortcut on the desktop, its not really different then a button on metro. One click and yer done.
Its about choice!
 
devil22 said:
I don't think the point is to replace desktops with tablets, it's to make an OS that combines both ideas, to compliment each device type with the other's abilities, so you can use the one that's appropriate for the task. Some times tablet type apps would be nice on a desktop, and some times desktop style apps would be nice on a tablet. I think that's the general idea.
Click to expand...

I feel they will try to phase out the traditional desktop as equivalent metro apps replace things like Photoshop and Outlook. I personally do not see this as a bad thing because Metro should be well into a 3rd or 4th generation by then and the apps themselves will be into several generations.

I am trying to look at Metro's future as a transition from Windows XP style desktop to a Chrome OS style desktop.
 
Shadohh said:
I feel they will try to phase out the traditional desktop as equivalent metro apps replace things like Photoshop and Outlook. I personally do not see this as a bad thing because Metro should be well into a 3rd or 4th generation by then and the apps themselves will be into several generations.

I am trying to look at Metro's future as a transition from Windows XP style desktop to a Chrome OS style desktop.
Click to expand...

I don't see this happening. If they do, I will be sticking with whatever last version of Windows had the desktop.
 
There's nothing inherently bad about the idea of Outlook and the like being Metro apps, but it's questionable whether Metro apps really need to be confined to full-screen operation. If you look at Visual Studio, for instance, it's already been Metro-ified (in the sense that it looks like a Metro app), but is still a traditional desktop application.

This arbitrary limitation keeps many classes of applications from being workable within the Metro context, and that's going to limit application developers from doing more useful things with them. Until Microsoft closes this gap, Windows is always going to be a two-world OS, and I think that's going to hurt them in the long run.
 
wonderfield said:
There's nothing inherently bad about the idea of Outlook and the like being Metro apps, but it's questionable whether Metro apps really need to be confined to full-screen operation. If you look at Visual Studio, for instance, it's already been Metro-ified (in the sense that it looks like a Metro app), but is still a traditional desktop application.
Click to expand...

There has been some tweaking of the Visual Studio UI but it is still very much a traditional hierarchical menu driven desktop program. Perhaps the flatness of the UI is reminiscent of Metro but that's about as far as it goes.

wonderfield said:
This arbitrary limitation keeps many classes of applications from being workable within the Metro context, and that's going to limit application developers from doing more useful things with them. Until Microsoft closes this gap, Windows is always going to be a two-world OS, and I think that's going to hurt them in the long run.
Click to expand...

It's no more of a problem that Apple having iOS and OS X. If you need the flexibility of a desktop app then you develop a desktop app. If you want touch friendly, less complex app, develop a Metro. In some cases you may have both versions.
 
Personally I don't see it as being a problem to have metro apps be full screen. Probably 99% of the time, whatever app I'm using on the desktop is full screen, like IE is right now. You can pin apps to the side in metro, if you need a side-by-side situation for some particular scenario. And since it's the main go-to for tablets, they probably want to keep it simple for touch. Visual studio is just a different class of app from what you would normally see in metro apps, with special needs for its' users, it's just not a good example to compare metro apps to.
 
gaming on Win8 RTM is fine... is it faster than 7? I dont think so, at the point im in a game its my hardware that defines performance. Is the OS faster for general use, yes.
 
Not planning on migrating my setup to Win8 yet for gaming or otherwise, but if 8 were to in some way detract from the game experience, that would definitely break the deal. 7 is too versatile for me to justify an unnecessary change.
 
I will not be installing win 8 on my rig, i installed the beta on a vm on didnt like it. not sure what the full release is like though.
 
Like I have said the problem with MS is they do not want to give a user a choice.
If they do its hidden and confusing most will not even try.

And all they see in this new os is a phone that they can sell the same morons plug ins for a phone or an os and make a buck.

Too bad we don't have a supported linux then this os would die tomorrow.

oh wait it can't, have you talked to any of the so called IT people.
DUH
me click and it go work
it not?
you make new support ticket
 
wonderfield said:
It's a problem for reasonable interoperability with 'Classic' apps.
Click to expand...

THIS.
Go back a few pages and see my conversation. If you want to use a classic app, and started using a metro app, there is no way to split screen the two etc. You have to keep shifting back and forth btw Metro and the desktop.
 
You can split the two, but the system is inflexible. Metro apps 'collapse' into a pre-defined size and will sit on the left or right of the desktop context.
 
wonderfield said:
It's a problem for reasonable interoperability with 'Classic' apps.
Click to expand...

If you want that kind of interoperability and integration, you should probably just use a desktop app for that particular case. I'm not understanding why metro must do everything, it's purely an addition, use the system like you used Windows 7 where metro apps don't have the required functionality, then use the metro apps for other things where it makes sense to given their design criteria.
 
devil22 said:
If you want that kind of interoperability and integration, you should probably just use a desktop app for that particular case. I'm not understanding why metro must do everything, it's purely an addition, use the system like you used Windows 7 where metro apps don't have the required functionality, then use the metro apps for other things where it makes sense to given their design criteria.
Click to expand...

FWIW, that IS the problem. You have to plan ahead and think about what version of an app you want to use before you start working, and if you started with metro but change your mind half way through you're screwed.
 
Modred189 said:
FWIW, that IS the problem. You have to plan ahead and think about what version of an app you want to use before you start working, and if you started with metro but change your mind half way through you're screwed.
Click to expand...

That would be the case regardless, unless metro apps did every single thing that desktop apps do, and vice versa, in which case metro would have no purpose which currently it does.
 
devil22 said:
If you want that kind of interoperability and integration, you should probably just use a desktop app for that particular case. I'm not understanding why metro must do everything, it's purely an addition, use the system like you used Windows 7 where metro apps don't have the required functionality, then use the metro apps for other things where it makes sense to given their design criteria.
Click to expand...

That's where metro confuses me on the desktop. It has a lot of nice features and the live tiles are a neat idea. Seems like it could be useful for monitoring system resources, network activity and other things, like you could do with desktop gadgets, but since you can ONLY run metro apps in fullscreen, and legacy apps in the 'desktop' environment, whats the point of having them both? (or not letting metro apps be windowed)
 
dr.stevil said:
That's where metro confuses me on the desktop. It has a lot of nice features and the live tiles are a neat idea. Seems like it could be useful for monitoring system resources, network activity and other things, like you could do with desktop gadgets, but since you can ONLY run metro apps in fullscreen, and legacy apps in the 'desktop' environment, whats the point of having them both? (or not letting metro apps be windowed)
Click to expand...

You are only looking at one aspect of metro apps, but first I want to say that you should be able to eventually monitor those metrics in live tiles, and with notifications, without full screening them, once those apps are developed (remember Windows 8 is not GA yet.) The purpose of metro apps is not to add a class of apps that can only be run full screen with no other goals, metro apps are vetted, strictly sandboxed, have strict power requirements (can't use CPU while not being used, minimum resource usage for notification features), are in an app store that is safe for any user, and so on. While I suppose you could want a desktop app to have these or a subset of these features and still be resizable, and so on, it mostly makes sense for simple applications with simple uses (compared to a high end desktop app, like say visual studio). It allows usage of a class of apps that are low maintenance and simple to use, that work on desktop and tablets. It's not a replacement for things that are not compatible with those concepts, it's an addition so (on the desktop at least) people can have the benefits of tablets while still having access to desktop applications and environment. To use a cliché, it's like making your computer a transformer, that transforms from a desktop to a tablet, and back, so you can get the benefits of a tablet while still having a desktop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top