Windows 8 Pro's Non-promotional Pricing is $199

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faster gaming on Windows 8 is a myth. I tried running Icewind Dale in Win8 tablet machine and it slows to a crawl in full screen mode. Before that it was running smoothly in Windows 7 (originally come with the tablet).

The only good thing for Windows 8 is it does boot up really quickly compared to 7.

Even Galaxy Note is going multi windows support on the same screen, meanwhile MS is trying to convince us full screen app is good. I wonder how much outcry they will hear from the business users who actually want to get things done. I think they will probably get it right in Windows 9 and this is just another Vista.
 
Microsoft has actually done it. They're going to make me switch to OS X. I'd gladly run linux, but my professional life won't allow it. There seem to be endless ways to make computing more and more expensive as technology gets cheaper and cheaper.
 
wow, $200 for a tablet OS on your desktop is way too expensive. If google ever releases a free Android OS for your desktop MS is dooomed!!!
 
[citation][nom]bloody_el[/nom]The future for Windows PC's is touch interfaces on laptops and all in ones.[/citation] Have you ever typed on a touch screen? it's awful, For texting is fine. But a large document makes your finger tips sore. and who want to hold there hand out to touch a lap top screen.
[citation][nom]bloody_el[/nom]Gaming should theoretically be better because of Windows 8 using less resources than Windows 7. There is plenty of good in this OS.[/citation]
The bench marks i have seen show a gain of 2 to 5 FPS hardly worth it. And ill gladly take a longer boot time over dealing with metro.
 
Windows 7 is a very good OS, first OS I ever really liked from MS since the days of DOS/Win3.

When WP7 (God, what a stupid name) first came out, I thought it was an excellent design. Nice since tile (icons) that told you information. I was running Android 2.2 on my Samsung Galaxy1 phone... meh. Someone showed me Launcher7 and I've been using it since June 2011 in which my Phone looks and functions almost exactly like the WP7 UI. Its free on the Google Play Store.

Its even more advanced than real WP7/8 in some aspects. 1- you can custom set any tile to a different non-default system color (I have blue tiles but my PHONE/CALL tile is green)
2 - The tiles can rotate to the orientation of the phone... looks cool to watch them flip.

My plan was to use this until the Lumia 800 phone came out. I was disappointed with its tech specs. 7.5 fixed a lot of issues. As we ALL know today, MS WP7 still has less than 2% market.

When I saw/read about Metro coming to Windows, I thought it was an excellent way for MS to get people to use and like Metro. It would lead to both WP7/8 sales as well as their tablets - since MS has NO tablet OS available at this time. After using it Windows 8, I realizes there is NO WAY I can use it for my desktop needs. Even one of my good friends who has a WP7/Windows7 household - CANNOT use Windows8.

So, my plan was to just continue using Launcher 7 on my next Android phone and not worry about MS. I get the nice UI without the issues of dealing with MS.

Then lately, I've been playing with ICS(Android 4.0) on a Galaxy III and Motorola Atrix HD. These phones have specs that simply smoke WP7/8. But I also found I could use Android 4.0 as is without really the need to replace the UI with the Launcher7.

Most People will hate Windows 8 = NO sales of phones and tablets.
Most people DO NOT want WP7/8 phones already... I see that not changing.
I see a lot of people buying WART tablets for $400~500, then finding out they need the $800~1200 x86 version... feeling they got ripped.

Its time for us to be done with Microsoft and Windows.
 
Judging from how long XP has remained useful, Win7 will probably outlive me. I am 66 today.

However, if I can get a real copy of Win8 for $40, I will probably put a copy on one of my systems.
 
It better to stay on Windows Vista SP2 and upgrade to either Windows 9 or Windows 10 in 2015/2018.
 
I learned through being an early adopter of 64-bit Vista, that early adoption of a Windows OS will waste a lot of your time. The lack of 3rd-party driver support alone was a giant headache.

I'll give it 6-12 months after the release and then hop on board at home.

At work, we'll continue distributing Win 7 64-bit with a Windows Virtual PC running XP Pro where necessary. We to continue to run XP because some of our customers' supplier sites still require IE6!
 
Ok, but if i pay 15 dolars for the new windows 8 this means i "gave up" my key for windows 7 or can i have the 2 keys fully functional?
 
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]Then it doesn't count and the difference of 2% can be thrown out as a fluke.As shown on a website with some games (not a great test by all means) Windows7 was 0~2fps faster usually. So if a typical game gets you 100fps (but we are actually limited to 60fps for our LCDs), you're only going to see a 2~5fps difference that wouldn't be seen on the display.[/citation]
I thought Windows 8 was supposed to be a lighter-weight OS? Why would the performance be worse in games if there's truly less OS overhead?

Also, if you have a 120Hz monitor, you aren't limited to 60fps.
 
[citation][nom]bloody_el[/nom]There is also plenty of good in Windows 8. Boot times, touch, overall performance, usb 3 transfer speeds, many cpu intensive tasks. Gaming should be better but in almost all cases it is about the exact same. I would argue in favor in Windows 8, but there isn't a clear winner. I only say Windows 8 because it uses less resources than Windows 7.The only bad thing I can say in Windows 8 is doing administrator tasks and going to the control panel. It isn't in the start menu, so you can't click, click to get there. It is easier to just "Windows Key" then type in the program. Search is faster in Windows 8, so I would call it just as good. That being said I wish I didn't have to travel to a different world to search, just to wind up back in desktop.[/citation]

Just fyi: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/win8-tips-tricks,review-1778-4.html
 
[citation][nom]thrasher32[/nom]I'll buy a $40 copy to evaluate it. So yes.[/citation]
You can evaluate it now. Here is the page with the product key: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/download - note, the RTM version is worse.

[citation][nom]ubercake[/nom]I thought Windows 8 was supposed to be a lighter-weight OS? Why would the performance be worse in games if there's truly less OS overhead?Also, if you have a 120Hz monitor, you aren't limited to 60fps.[/citation] Not always the case, metro is running. Again, the performances between the two OSes isn't actually noticeable. 78fps vs 75fps... stuff like that. Its just BS to say that Win8 is a game changer for games... If a game ran at 45fps in Win7 and 60fps in Win8 - that would be an eye opener. But that is not the case.

95%+ of the monitors on the market (USA) are 60hz. Very few people have 3D monitors... 14 out of 550 monitors on Newegg.

Also touch screen monitors are not cheap. typical 15~17~21" monitors are $300~600. Wow, I see people running out to get such monitors to run Windows R8PE.
 
Not always the case, metro is running. Again, the performances between the two OSes isn't actually noticeable. 78fps vs 75fps... stuff like that. Its just BS to say that Win8 is a game changer for games... If a game ran at 45fps in Win7 and 60fps in Win8 - that would be an eye opener. But that is not the case.
Click to expand...

Oh man I'm glad to have that info - AMD fanboys are always saying that Windows 8 is going to change everything - I've been arguing that until I'm blue in the face. FX is, was, and has always been a flop - and no operating system is going to change the fact that it was built on an incredibly aging socket and chip set.
 
The info I saw and looked at wasn't specific to AMD. I think the most Windows8 will do for the FX CPUs is get another 5% performance out of them... during a benchmark. The chips aren't bad... they are just hotter and cost more than they are worth.

The "8 core" chip should have been properly labeled as a 4Core chip and retail for $175 or so, not $300. They just need to be prices according to their REAL performance. IT looks FAR worse to have an "8 core" chip that get's bitch-slapped by an intel i5-2400 (4core) which sold for $170~180 last year. And when it struggles and loses out to its own OLDER cousin CPUs with 4/6 cores - that is major FUBAR.
 
Why do uninformed idiots get to post about Windows 8? I swear if you don't like the Metro UI then DO NOT USE IT. Every single time MS brings out a new OS people complain, and then get it anyways. You don't like it, too bad it's here. Don't bash something when you get your information from heresay. I can't wait until all these whiney people go out to buy a new computer and they are all shipping from the manufacturer with Windows 8. 😀 OH and also, for you uninformed people, Metro UI is BASICALLY the start menu, made up a little differently. You hit a button and bam, you are at the windows 8 desktop(identical to windows 7 desktop).
 
I've noticed two issues with windows 8. I think that I have build 8400. Ventrillo wouldn't recognize my push to talk key (left alt) when games were in the fore ground. Also for some reason after I installed Win 8 my hard drive wants to run check disk at every boot (I'm duel booting with Windows XP). If I can't figure out how to make vent work then I'll stay with XP until I need more than 3.4GB of RAM or a DX version beyond 9. I used between 5-10GB RAM at work using Win7-64, but at home on WinXP-32 I rarely use more than 2GB.
 
Been using Win 8 RP and it's really sweet. Boot/shut down times are unbelievable- I'm logging into my laptop in under 7 seconds from power off.

Yes I used to use Ubuntu for java development, but got tired of having to switch back to Windows to use my webcam for Skype... or having to switch back to Windows to modify a document since LibreOffice is a pile... or having to switch back to play COD... or having to switch back to run an Oracle server... or switch back to Windows to .... or switch back to Windows to ...

blah
 
For $70 Of course, especially since im already used to it. I've had the preview dual booted (and kept upgrading it) since september 2011 so do biggy. Besides I have done test on multiple pc's that conclude that windows 8 is definitely faster than 7 (easely). Still playing with it and its good. And I would rather pay $70 now than $200 later, but money is tight for many people (including me, I just plain want it) thats why im glad that win7 is still a very good os.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom