- Status
voiidwulf
Distinguished
- Jun 11, 2012
- 903
- 0
- 19,010
I've used both. As I said, for me it makes very little difference. I am mostly inside applications so the new start menu doesn't really matter. I was illegible for the $15 upgrade to Windows 8 Professional so I did it because I was at Windows 7 Home Premium before.
there isnt any reason not to get windows 8 64-bit i have done a commparison my self i got two laptops: my windows 7 pro and my new on windows 8 64-bit both same processors (amd phenominon II) and graphics card
results:
battlefield 4 : windows 8 72 fps, windows 7 65 fps
arma 3 alpha: windows 8 81 fps, windows 7 73 fps
far cry 3: windows 8 120 fps, win 7 105 fps
as you can see windows 8 wins now stop downing it and at least give it a try because i know at least 3/4 of you are just getting your information from other reveiw sites
results:
battlefield 4 : windows 8 72 fps, windows 7 65 fps
arma 3 alpha: windows 8 81 fps, windows 7 73 fps
far cry 3: windows 8 120 fps, win 7 105 fps
as you can see windows 8 wins now stop downing it and at least give it a try because i know at least 3/4 of you are just getting your information from other reveiw sites
Do you have to get Windows? You could always get a Linux Distro with a light-weight interface and install WISE to run Windows software. Depending on which distro you get, you may run into driver issues, but Nvidia has been updating their drivers for Ubuntu since Dell released the new Alienware X51. Anyways, running Linux could help boost performance and save you money because it's free(well most distros).
If you don't want that, get Win 7. Support for XP ends next year, and 8 is sill glitchy with drivers and some games.
If you don't want that, get Win 7. Support for XP ends next year, and 8 is sill glitchy with drivers and some games.
What about RAM and the Motherboards, are they the same? And how many programs do you have on each. They have to be exactly the same except the OS to do a proper test.
Besides they were saying it isn't compatible with most drivers, when you are only prooving that it works better with your hardware. Also, their posts were from right after Windows 8 Came out
+1^
windows 8.1 will be out soon enough and it addresses most of the concerns i have about win 8. as soon as it gets the start menu back and goes back to file and folder it will be usable again on pc. but until then stick with 7 if you have a choice.
the fact is that win 7 and 8 use the same basic kernal but as shown in some games you can get a 10% boost. this doesnt mean win 8 is better it means win7 needs some tweaking to get the 10% win 8 produces. looks like m.s are deliberately gonna gimp 7 and through that force people on to windows 8.
windows 8.1 will be out soon enough and it addresses most of the concerns i have about win 8. as soon as it gets the start menu back and goes back to file and folder it will be usable again on pc. but until then stick with 7 if you have a choice.
the fact is that win 7 and 8 use the same basic kernal but as shown in some games you can get a 10% boost. this doesnt mean win 8 is better it means win7 needs some tweaking to get the 10% win 8 produces. looks like m.s are deliberately gonna gimp 7 and through that force people on to windows 8.
pazdindalal
Distinguished
- Jan 6, 2012
- 228
- 0
- 18,710
7 any day its a gud os nd very user friendly plus if u have a problem u can use d compatibility option also so id recomend 7
shadowtech64
Honorable
- Jul 12, 2013
- 94
- 0
- 10,640
news flash windows 8 still has the "metro" start menu and it still doesn't address the gaming community microsoft is more focused on the consumer majority(casual gamers, businesses, homes)
ZombiExecutioner
Honorable
- Aug 28, 2013
- 1
- 0
- 10,510
Win8 by default is definitely irritating to use, but with Start8 (and Modernmix) or Classic Shell it's exactly like 7 but with unbelievable speed and efficiency. I too hated Win8 at first, believe me i avoided it like the plague. Though once i finally decided to setup a dual-boot with 7 and 8 i fell in love with the 20 second (give or take 10 seconds depending on your system) startups and better performance all around. I was also very worried it wouldn't be able to run many games (which was the main reason i kept 7 as a secondary) while in fact, not only does it run every single game that i throw at it, but it even runs the few games that wouldn't run before (it was definitely due to my oddball laptop) on pre-installed Win7. As for older games? Not a problem at all, hell it even fixes the issues with many older games i was having before. Now i can play any game, whether it's Doom, Diablo, Fallout, Crysis, The Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, Dead Space, Mass Effect, or Metro with no issues, lag (other than that due to my relatively low-end system).
So in conclusion: If you don't like the new interface....actually, forget the "if". Though you hate the new interface offered by Windows 8, it does not have to be used at all (with the exception of customizing the new features like your lock screen image) if you get a program to return the start menu and button that we all know and love (i've used both Classic Shell and Start8, i prefer Start8 but Classic Shell does have nice customization options).
Side notes: Before i switched to 8 (which to be honest, i did out of curiosity more than anything) i could not play certain games on my system, either very well or not at all. Mass Effect 1 and 2 (3 ran fine) would crash whenever i would pause the game, they were simply impossible to play without access to the menus. Now with Windows 8 they run perfectly (great framerate too). I also had issues with a little game know as Cortex Command, which had a graphical glitch (black screen) whenever i went into fullscreen mode. It's fine now. Steam used to be extremely slow and unstable (it crashed alot), but now it runs smoothly and has only slowed down a few times (it has yet to crash).
Other thoughts: Many people interested in Windows 8 are gamers, because as soon as a gamer hears the words "better performance" they get interested pretty damn fast. Some people seem to want Windows 7 to be updated with Windows 8's performance, but honestly, Windows 8 (with Start8/Classic Shell of course) IS Windows 7 with better performance. Win8 was built on Win7 and not too much has been changed that didn't need to be to get the better performance and stability (except the interface of course). Also, the traditional Win7/vista/xp interface is still there, you can go to the desktop and use it like a normal Windows experience (except the part where you need to get there). Of course with Start8/Classic Shell you'll start right at the desktop and never even have to use the Metro UI. I know it's hard, but Windows 8 (with Start8/Classic Shell) is in every way possible better than 7. There's no argument to make that would prove otherwise, there's nothing missing from 8, there's nothing out of the ordinary with how you go about your normal desktop activities, and there's nothing even significantly different (with the exception of a few programs like (file)Explorer, but trust me, they're good little changes) about it at all. Argue with it all you want, but I use Windows 8 everyday now and I couldn't be happier with it. In fact, it pains me when i have to go back into 7 to use an old program (which i can't find to install again on 8) because of how slow it is in comparison.
Also: If you haven't figured it out by now, all this is about Windows 8 *with* Start8/Classic Shell. Without one of those programs it does suck to use.
So in conclusion: If you don't like the new interface....actually, forget the "if". Though you hate the new interface offered by Windows 8, it does not have to be used at all (with the exception of customizing the new features like your lock screen image) if you get a program to return the start menu and button that we all know and love (i've used both Classic Shell and Start8, i prefer Start8 but Classic Shell does have nice customization options).
Side notes: Before i switched to 8 (which to be honest, i did out of curiosity more than anything) i could not play certain games on my system, either very well or not at all. Mass Effect 1 and 2 (3 ran fine) would crash whenever i would pause the game, they were simply impossible to play without access to the menus. Now with Windows 8 they run perfectly (great framerate too). I also had issues with a little game know as Cortex Command, which had a graphical glitch (black screen) whenever i went into fullscreen mode. It's fine now. Steam used to be extremely slow and unstable (it crashed alot), but now it runs smoothly and has only slowed down a few times (it has yet to crash).
Other thoughts: Many people interested in Windows 8 are gamers, because as soon as a gamer hears the words "better performance" they get interested pretty damn fast. Some people seem to want Windows 7 to be updated with Windows 8's performance, but honestly, Windows 8 (with Start8/Classic Shell of course) IS Windows 7 with better performance. Win8 was built on Win7 and not too much has been changed that didn't need to be to get the better performance and stability (except the interface of course). Also, the traditional Win7/vista/xp interface is still there, you can go to the desktop and use it like a normal Windows experience (except the part where you need to get there). Of course with Start8/Classic Shell you'll start right at the desktop and never even have to use the Metro UI. I know it's hard, but Windows 8 (with Start8/Classic Shell) is in every way possible better than 7. There's no argument to make that would prove otherwise, there's nothing missing from 8, there's nothing out of the ordinary with how you go about your normal desktop activities, and there's nothing even significantly different (with the exception of a few programs like (file)Explorer, but trust me, they're good little changes) about it at all. Argue with it all you want, but I use Windows 8 everyday now and I couldn't be happier with it. In fact, it pains me when i have to go back into 7 to use an old program (which i can't find to install again on 8) because of how slow it is in comparison.
Also: If you haven't figured it out by now, all this is about Windows 8 *with* Start8/Classic Shell. Without one of those programs it does suck to use.
i wouldnt recommend win 8 even with them apps and mods. 8.1 would be the better option by the sounds of the reviews coming out. but theres still the issue of the RTC. if it can affect benchmarks in such a hap hazard fashion whats to say it wont affect other system reliant processes. fact is most of the percieved gains may well be a result of the RTC problem not the fact that its better written or optimized. so for now i would still say give win 8 a wide birth till the issues are sorted and understood properly.
shadowtech64
Honorable
- Jul 12, 2013
- 94
- 0
- 10,640
harrygarry61
Honorable
- Oct 30, 2013
- 6
- 0
- 10,510
there is no “best operating system”. Every gamer has different needs that can’t be satisfied by a single operating system. We have to compromise and choose the best that fits our needs as an individual. Depending on what are our requirements the “best operating system” can be any version of Windows. If you want to play DirectX 9 games then the best choice is probably Windows XP but if you want DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 you must choose a newer operating system, Windows 7. But new isn’t always better, see Vista.
slimething
Honorable
- Oct 8, 2013
- 235
- 0
- 10,710
I installed Windows 8 Enterprise last night to test Battlefield 4. Performance wise it is very good (yes, faster than 7), however there is what appears to be a memory leak. On a fresh boot, ~1.4 GB RAM is used at idle. After getting into the game and playing for a while, everything will freeze up; 100% of the 8 GB RAM is used up.
I ran out of time to zero in on the culprit, but I'm starting to think it may be the video drivers, in this case AMD. I've heard it happens to nVidia users as well. It may also be BF4 itself.
Some things I like better in Windows 8, others not so much. Stardock has Start8 available that emulates the Windows 7 environment; I just may try it.
Possible solutions:
1) run game in compatibility mode.
2) install video drivers in compatibility mode.
Since nothing else is installed but what is necessary to run BF4, my opinion at this point is the problem is not specific to the OS or 3rd party background apps.
In reality, Windows 7 is "newer", but I'll bet it will be the next Vista not too far down the road and Windows 8 will be considered "newer" and better. Don't forget, BF3 had problems with Windows 7 64 similar to 8 just last year. I'll continue messing with the memory issue in BF4 before caving to 7.
I ran out of time to zero in on the culprit, but I'm starting to think it may be the video drivers, in this case AMD. I've heard it happens to nVidia users as well. It may also be BF4 itself.
Some things I like better in Windows 8, others not so much. Stardock has Start8 available that emulates the Windows 7 environment; I just may try it.
Possible solutions:
1) run game in compatibility mode.
2) install video drivers in compatibility mode.
Since nothing else is installed but what is necessary to run BF4, my opinion at this point is the problem is not specific to the OS or 3rd party background apps.
In reality, Windows 7 is "newer", but I'll bet it will be the next Vista not too far down the road and Windows 8 will be considered "newer" and better. Don't forget, BF3 had problems with Windows 7 64 similar to 8 just last year. I'll continue messing with the memory issue in BF4 before caving to 7.
funny thing is bf4 doesnt come out till nov 1st... as for 8 being better than 7 its a myth... your fps arnt being counted correctly because there is no hardware based clock timings that are seperate from the cpu. so the faster or slower the cpu runs the more variation from the true fps you will get.
Tmplt
Honorable
- Oct 30, 2013
- 66
- 0
- 10,660
Nice, at least someone writing in caps-lock and bold. I'm having a really hard time reading everything else on the internet.
Sarcasm aside, you are basically wrong in almost every way as of now. Windows 8.1 is having huge trouble with games not supporting raw input and there is no reason to use Home Premium on a PC instead of i.e. Ultimate. There is no difference in performace.
as a general rule the last part is correct(i cant comment on 8.1 yet as im unwilling to use it). there should be no noticeable difference in gaming performance between using a basic version of windows and an ultimate version unless the system is short on physical ram... such as 1-2 gigs as ultimate has a slightly higher memory usage overhead (due to extras like bitlocker, compatibility modes, and some networking features).
64bit o.s also introduces a higher overhead to around 1.3gigs on average as opposed to 900mb for a 32bit version of win 7 due to using longer address and bigger floating point bit rates, but again you wont see much of a difference if you have enough physical ram.
slimething
Honorable
- Oct 8, 2013
- 235
- 0
- 10,710
Funnier still is we've been playing since October 29.
Don't use XP, it sucks. Don't use Vista, it sucks. Don't use Windows 7, it sucks. Every time a new OS is released, the same mantra.
As it is now, Windows 7 has only partial support for Direct3D 11.1, which is part of DirectX. Windows 8 has full support and uses less system resources.
In time, Windows 8 will overtake 7, just as 7 did to Vista, and people will advise moving up to 8..it never ends. Whether I transition now remains to be seen; 90 days to evaluate Windows Blue on a new system build should give me a good idea. On my old system, there are definitely issues, probably due to the MB is quite old and Asus no longer supports it (M4A79 Deluxe).
In the meantime:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTOKVdNC6RI
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram