So Windows 8, who's using it?

[wookiee777]

Windows 8 is out? I was only vaguely aware that it was even in development. I probably won't get it because I'm angry at Windows 7 for being the worst platform for games over 5 years old. I have seriously considered downgrading to Windows XP or 2000 because it's so annoying.

So unless Win. 8 makes it so I don't have to scour the internet searching for fixes (most of which don't work), then I won't get it.

...Say, how does modern versions of Linux work with older games?

 

[evilneko]

My desktop runs the venerable WinXP Pro x64 and has remained very stable over countless upgrades and hardware configurations. My concern, however, is its slow, but inevitable abandonment by software developers. Also, history has demonstrated Microsoft's proclivity for vastly improving upon drastic changes to their OS in the release following the one in which those changes were made (as Win7 did with Vista). By that logic, Windows 9 should be the one to wait for. But for XPers like myself, that may be a bridge too far. And I'm not really interested in using Windows 7 as a stopgap.

Then again, if Windows 8 is to be priced as aggressively as they say, that alone may be enough for me to hasten my decision.

40 bucks, won't find a cheaper OS outside of linux.

I won't be in any hurry to get Windows 8, since I don't feel I've had 7 for long enough to justify an upgrade, but the price is definitely right. Maybe in a year or so?

But, the 40 buck option is only available 'til the end of January. Of course, you could just burn the iso you receive and wait.

 

[Greni]

Will be getting it if prominent features will be Win8 exclusive like DirectX 11.1 and such.

Saw the preview on a friends computer. Damn it felt ugly and needlessly 'stylized'.

 

[Axyun]

I am cautiously optimistic for Windows 8. It looks to offer a few decent features/fixes beyond the Metro UI but I'll wait and see.

What I don't understand is people claiming to ditch Windows for a Mac or Linux due to changes in a future version of Windows.

"Gee, Windows X has Y feature I don't like so instead of changing my OS to one that is slightly different yet still very likely to be compatible with all of my software and hardware, I'm going to migrate to an OS that will toss all of that into doubt."

Sound logic, fellas. Sound logic.

 

[Yal]

hmm anyone else waiting for a microsoft tablet announcement?

I'm not waiting any more, no. [http://www.microsoft.com/surface]

 

[JediMB]

I won't be in any hurry to get Windows 8, since I don't feel I've had 7 for long enough to justify an upgrade, but the price is definitely right. Maybe in a year or so?

But, the 40 buck option is only available 'til the end of January. Of course, you could just burn the iso you receive and wait.

Ah, well... until the end of January is still plenty of time.

And, yeah, it'd be easy enough to back it up and install later if I still want to stick with Windows 7 for a while.

 

[ElPatron]

Ohai guise I'm still using XP, am I up to date?

Anyone else sensing a pattern here?

You mean '95, 2000 ME, Vista in comparison to '98, XP and 7?

 

[evilneko]

Ohai guise I'm still using XP, am I up to date?

Anyone else sensing a pattern here?

You mean '95, 2000 ME, Vista in comparison to '98, XP and 7?

Oi. How dare you besmirch the good name of Windows 2000.

And 98 wasn't good til SE.

 

[Vigormortis]

I've found I'm better off skipping generations of OS's. Microsoft seems to get their act together on every OTHER release.

QFT.

I honestly believe Microsoft does it on purpose. They rush out a half-finished version of their newest OS platform for people to help them "test" it out. Then, a year or so later, they release the "new" OS which, in reality, is the same OS just "fixed".

Think about it. Before XP there was Millenium edition. (which used essentially the same design platform as XP but was broken) Then, before 7 there was Vista. (which again, used the exact same platform as 7, but was broken)

Now we have 8/Metro, which will likely be followed by an OS that's marketed as "new" but is actually just 8 without most of the bugs.

So I'm like you. I skip every other OS generation. Saves me from wasting money.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I'm sticking to XP for the forseeable future. I'll probably be using XP till 2020 or even later.

 

[Wicky_42]

All in all it's probably the least annoying Windows yet. Coming from a diehard 2k fan and grudging XP user like myself, that's some high praise. Also, I've had 8 on my laptop for over a week now--far longer than I had 7 on either of my computers.

Considering you chose to disable pretty much the only feature that distinguished it from Windows 7, I can see absolutely no reason why I would want to use it and not just stick with 7 for the next three or four OS cycles. 7 is great, pretty much bang on and a comfortable upgrade from XP. 8 just seems like a whole load of money for something completely superfluous and not designed for actual desktop users.

 

[culpeo]

Ohai guise I'm still using XP, am I up to date?

Anyone else sensing a pattern here?

You mean '95, 2000 ME, Vista in comparison to '98, XP and 7?

Oi. How dare you besmirch the good name of Windows 2000.

And 98 wasn't good til SE.

Windows 2k =/= Windows ME. 2k was the successor to the NT line of operating systems and was stable and dandy. ME succeeded 98SE and was genuinely horrible.

 

[evilneko]

All in all it's probably the least annoying Windows yet. Coming from a diehard 2k fan and grudging XP user like myself, that's some high praise. Also, I've had 8 on my laptop for over a week now--far longer than I had 7 on either of my computers.

Considering you chose to disable pretty much the only feature that distinguished it from Windows 7, I can see absolutely no reason why I would want to use it and not just stick with 7 for the next three or four OS cycles. 7 is great, pretty much bang on and a comfortable upgrade from XP. 8 just seems like a whole load of money for something completely superfluous and not designed for actual desktop users.

Except 7 managed to annoy me in a number of ways 8 didn't. It's almost like they read my mind and removed all the things I didn't like about 7, or at least made them easier to avoid.

Windows 2k =/= Windows ME. 2k was the successor to the NT line of operating systems and was stable and dandy. ME succeeded 98SE and was genuinely horrible.

Tell that to ElPatron, who dared speak ill of the great 2k-san [http://ostan-collections.net/imeeji/displayimage.php?album=2&pos=460] in the thread of a confessed 2k fan.

 

[devotedsniper]

I tried the dev version and found it ok but it's definitely not designed with the average desktop or laptop in mind. It's too touchscreeny (if that makes sense) it just looks like it should be for touchscreens and I also don't particularly like the fact that it doesn't stay on the desktop, it always seems to switch back to the metro screen when I exit things.

I may put it on my parents machine as there still running xp but I very much doubt that I will use it on my gaming rig.

Oh...and everything's too...square...what did you do to my start button?!?!??!

 

[teqrevisited]

I wont be touching it. Everything from the tablet & touch screen priority right down to it referring to its software as "apps". It might well be petty but that term just annoys the hell out of me. Start menu only available via a workaround? No thanks.

They should stick to what they know. Style isn't a substitute for function.

 

[votemarvel]

I have Windows 8 on my second PC and to be honest I hate it.

This mostly boils down to the Metro UI, I find it horrible to use with a keyboard and mouse. I can see how it'd be useful for touch-screen users but it is just an inconvenience for me.

Other than that it is just like Windows 7 and I didn't like that either.

 

[Soviet Steve]

I'll be waiting for the "Windows WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY WE'RE SORRY" to come out shortly afterwards.

 

[evilneko]

I wont be touching it. Everything from the tablet & touch screen priority right down to it referring to its software as "apps". It might well be petty but that term just annoys the hell out of me. Start menu only available via a workaround? No thanks.

They should stick to what they know. Style isn't a substitute for function.

Y'know, the term predates its use with smartphones.

I have Windows 8 on my second PC and to be honest I hate it.

This mostly boils down to the Metro UI, I find it horrible to use with a keyboard and mouse. I can see how it'd be useful for touch-screen users but it is just an inconvenience for me.

Other than that it is just like Windows 7 and I didn't like that either.

At least it doesn't scroll backwards like touchscreen UIs do.

 

[rob_simple]

Given that each new OS Microsoft releases seems to be wrestling more and more control from the hands of users who know what the fuck they're doing, I think I'll give this one a wide berth.

 

[Callate]

I'm praying games really start coming out for Linux, with Valve pushing it and all. Because I've had just about enough of Windows. The new "Metro" design is just the straw that broke the camels back.

Microsoft has become very good at making life harder for people who don't want to upgrade. But I'll hold out while I can.

If DirectX remains the standard, you fucking bet you will have to upgrade if you want to play newer games.

Yeah, DX has long been one of Microsoft's favorite "sticks". But on the other hand (in part because of the extended console generation), it's taken an unusually long time for any game to actually require DirectX higher than 9. If MS thinks that will be an inducement this year, they may be in for a rude surprise.