Over 21 percent of Steam gamers is now using Windows 8.x

True

W7 x64 here (aka W7.1 as it is with SP1 ;-p) and I'm really happy with it, no compatibility issues, no need to use other programs etc, very stable OS, I will not switch to W8.1, W8.2 etc.., because I don't need to... Why I would want to switch to W8? Because of DX11.2, or Modern UI? Please...

Also my MOBO, CPU and GPU is all from AMD now, no problems with drivers or compatibility (just MB AM3+ Phenom II x6 @ 3.8GHz+, 8GB 1666MHz of system RAM with HD 7970GHz and performance is amazing in all games in FHD on max settings). I'm very happy with my current PC, it is something wrong with it? lol :banana:

 

no sir...

 

lol ya ok, "not that W7 was such a giant resource hog", riiight. Windows 7 (especially 64 bit) is still a bloated mess even after disabling all the unnecessary features. It's just that HDD and RAM capacities went up while prices went down so people just don't care enough to complain about the bloat. But relying on the hardware to catch up with your software is very poor development and management in my opinion. W8 got better but still has a lot of room for improvement.

Personally, I don't hate the metro interface, I just think they executed it poorly. Most of the hate for it was really unjustifiable, though there were were still valid reasons to hate it.

 

its been this way for a very long time.

games is also software and you bought hardware to make it run faster and soundbetter.

 

What you said is irrelevant. Hardware gets better in order to accomplish more complex tasks (or simply more tasks). Games have a reason to demand better hardware - they're actually very complex in a computational point of view. As games get more detailed, the hardware needs to catch up. And vice versa.

However, this should not apply to your OS. The purpose of your OS is to allow you to operate your hardware and supply you with what you need to get your task done. It is NOT supposed to be using every resource to its disposal just so it can run. What's the point of running an OS when there's not enough resources left over for other programs? Like I said, in today's world stuff like disk space and RAM is cheap so it isn't really that big of a deal, but my gripe is Windows still requires you to have more of something just simply because it was poorly optimized. What I could do using 4GB of RAM, I have to do in 6GB instead. The extra 2GB isn't expensive, but I shouldn't HAVE to buy it when I know I shouldn't have to have it in the first place.

Think of it like comparing a Hummer to a small Jeep. Both might be good at going off-roading, but the Hummer uses an excessive amount of fuel to accomplish the exact same thing. It might have more fancy stuff on the inside, but I personally don't care about any of it. The engine might be powerful, but it's wasteful. The fuel I save by using the Jeep could be used for something else, such as a lawn mower.

I'm mainly a linux user. On one of my computers I run KDE, the most resource consuming desktop environment linux has to offer. Even with some unnecessary things enabled, my KDE setup still uses less memory than my Windows 7 setup, which has all but the bare essential services disabled. I have roughly 30 different programs installed on my KDE setup, and everything I have installed combined (including the OS) still uses less disk space than a fresh install of Windows 7 with the hibernation file disabled. Whenever I get KDE specific updates, I sometimes end up SAVING as much as 20MB. I get a security patch for Windows and will permanently lose 20MB.

 

Whether or not a UI is useful is dependent on usage scenarios. For ME, personally, Windows 8.x is the most useful release since Win3.1. You guys like to make overly generalized statements based on your own usage and declare those statements as fact when they are far from it. If it's not useful for you, that's fine, but don't claim it's not useful for others when you don't know how everyone on the planet uses their computer(s).