I think Windows 8 is great with either Start 8 or classic shell. Each new version of Windows that seems to come out is even more streamlined and lighter on computer resources. (Apart from Vista) Moving more and more towards cloud computing.
With Windows 9 they should give us an option to choose between both UIs so users can choose which one they want. Since there are users who are used to both interfaces.
Vista 64 was great. Never had a problem with it. That was why people whined so much, they were running 32 bit. Microsoft wanted it to be 64bit only, to push the x64 market, but nobody wanted to adapt, so they shovelled together a 32 bit version and it was ****. The 64 bit version, however, was great. That said, it was still a pig xD
after using windows 8 / 8.1 for almost a year i have come to really like it as an operating system. there are some things that i would have done differently: 1) allow the user the option to switch between metro and classic start menu (classic referring to windows 7 style start menu - NOT win XP). That way if people want to use the metro interface on the tablet / convertible PC they can, but for those of us who prefer the original start menu from windows 7, that would be possible too! 2) the live account integration would not be as invasive as it is. I have fought windows 8.1 since inception to not use my windows live ID to log in to the machine, however if you use any kind of app from the app store that requires a login - you're pretty much forced to use your live ID. whilst you can opt to have it only work on that app the constant login requests each time you use the app get tiresome, and you end up just letting your live ID become your PC login. for overall useability the OS is really nice, i like the windowskey+x shortcut to get to some of the most used applets / tools in windows, since finding out about it i use that almost exclusively over clicking the start button / metro. It's just these less important issues that are causing it to have such a bad rep, at least thats how i feel about it. overall, if Windows 9 is like Windows 8 i think i probably would still buy it
The advantages were hard to underline once online gaming caught up, but with 4k and Occulus Rift etc I reckon the new consoles are genuinely DOA and unfit for purpose. We'll see. CDJay
4K isn't an issue due to cost. Most people simply can't afford a 4K display. At this point, 1080P still isn't the dominant resolution for televisions, which is what consoles are typically connected to. Most TVs, much like most broadcasts, are still 720P. Occulus Rift is nothing but a niche product and nothing for console makers to be concerned about.
It depends on the game/ game engine. Some games are more easily ported over. But as I've said in another thread on here- the bigger reason is that drivers on Linux aren't in the same states they are with Windows. Especially when the whole point of Linux is to be open source and free, and how many distros include their own open source drivers over proprietary drivers. And the Linux support on proprietary ANYTHING is ****. edit But also, that said, Unigine engine benches do run nicely on the Linux boxes I've run them on. But again, only when using proprietary video card drivers.
I dunno if this has been posted before but this guy did an awesome job at trying to redesign some of the core things of windows 8. http://jay-machalani.squarespace.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8
I have a laptop-tablet hybrid with Windows 8.1 on it, and I like using it in Metro mode, but it is nowhere near as intuitive or comfortable as iOS or Android. I installed 8.1 on my main laptop (without touchscreen), and I just realized how ridiculous it was to have Metro design on a non-tablet. I went back to Windows 7 several months later, and I don't feel like installing 8.1 again. However, my biggest gripe with new Windows versions is not usability, but the ugly looks. I don't like this whole 'flat design' fad. It looks cheap and unimpressive and sometimes even difficult to read. Why bother with IPS 1920x1080 displays if all this stuff looks the same as on a 1366x768 laptop screen? Sure, the new design is supposed to make you focus more on the content rather than the interface, but it's so bright and flashy it's actually more distracting than it was. Besides, what's wrong with having a pretty interface with lots of detail, like iOS 6 or Windows 7? I'm very disappointed that Apple and Google have embraced flat design too, I just hate when there's too much white and no shadows at all. It strains your eyes. iOS 7, Office 2013 and new Gmail and Youtube are disastrous. I just hope this all ends in a couple of years and they go back to a better-looking design.
"Linux is a usability nightmare the second you get out of the fake easy-to-use illusion layer they added with the new GUIs. Unless you’re a coder, don’t even think about it." I stopped reading there. He must have only used Linux for a few minutes, then gave up. Or he used Gentoo without researching it first. Idiot. If a retard like me can use Linux without a problem, then anyone can.
Well its pretty obvious that the big studios won't support Linux (though there have abeen a couple), but indie devs support linux in droves, and that matters just as much, in my opinion, it could end up being them that gets Linux off the ground. Who knows. Indie games tend to be higher quality most of the time IMO.
Windows 9 to be unveiled in April, distances itself from Windows 8 http://www.gamespot.com/articles/wi...es-itself-from-windows-8-report/1100-6417095/
Uh that definitely depends on the distro and how far you're willing to go. Up until very recently on my machine you had to edit xorg.conf to get multiple screens working properly and even now the auto configuration is god awful in both ubuntu and fedora. My soundcard isnt even supported without hacking up some old driver to get barely functional output. You can argue whether or not that's nvidia's/creatives fault or whatever but regardless from an overall usability perspective linux is not as simple to use as Windows.
Definitly the fault of the hardware makers for not providing good drivers. And sound cards are not a big deal since you really don't need them. Every distro I've tried has detected my on board audio every time. Windows was a friggin nightmare to use back when it was new, and again when XP first came out, and again with Vista, everyone had to wait for drivers to be rolled out before it was even remotely functional.
The initial problems with XP and Vista are a far cry from the lack of support Linux has had for decades. I've always had the latest and great hardware and at most Nvidia gave me BSOD issues for about 3-4 months into Vista's release before they solved it. And like I said, it isn't the consumers problem that manufactures choose not to support Linux. The fact is they don't and usability is decreased because of it. I use Ubuntu on my laptop still because I prefer the interface in that formfactor and it runs nicer than 8 does on E1505. But setting it up on my main rig is damn near impossible without spending multiple hours reading forums, documentation and editing command line stuff.
Point made, people don't support linux, so it gets no support from hardware manfacturers, or software developers (other than from the linux community itself). Thats how its been since linux first came to be. I'm hopeful that will change in the future, as much of a pipe dream as it is.
To be honest I think the fact that Linux is open source is also its biggest problem. Theres just too much tweaking that can and needs to be done, making it very difficult for hardware manufacturers to ensure driver compatibility. Even Microsofts own Windows Update can potentially throw existing driver versions completely out of whack, and new Operating Systems and major OS updates often have to wait a long time before Drivers have properly matured.
I think the tweaking can work on both sides, if a driver dosen't work in one distro because of kernel modifications or whatever, that the distro maintainer can tweak there distro to accept the driver, and allow it to work properly. I dunno, I'm not a programmer lol.
There are certain core things that almost every Linux distro uses. And the benefit of Open Source is that anyone can take what could of been a dead project and keep it going and improve it. But with the drivers there's also how much a company is willing to help developers create their own open source drivers which they can maintain themselves- which in their perfect world is what they'd want.
