Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubers 
I have two free copies of Windows 8 that I choose not to use. Windows 7 is better and easier to use (subjective to my opinion) It may be slightly faster under the hood but the UI slows down my pace.
And yeah, MS is in the business of making money. What with their new tablets, Their Xbox line. Their Skype ownership. Logitech ownership. They make money. But now, imagine if the fact that they hold back features from one OS just make another obsolete. The crap would hit the fan amongst the lesser, un-tech compatible users.
There are plenty of "selling points" for Windows 8, but this is just a slap to the face of loyal customers. If there is a valid reason that cannot be gotten around then I take back what I'm saying, but the chances are there isn't.
I have two free copies of Windows 8 that I choose not to use. Windows 7 is better and easier to use (subjective to my opinion) It may be slightly faster under the hood but the UI slows down my pace.
And yeah, MS is in the business of making money. What with their new tablets, Their Xbox line. Their Skype ownership. Logitech ownership. They make money. But now, imagine if the fact that they hold back features from one OS just make another obsolete. The crap would hit the fan amongst the lesser, un-tech compatible users.
There are plenty of "selling points" for Windows 8, but this is just a slap to the face of loyal customers. If there is a valid reason that cannot be gotten around then I take back what I'm saying, but the chances are there isn't.
How in the world is it a slap in the face? Why in the world should Windows 7 users be entitled to it? No one has answered this. There was no promise that Microsoft would bring it to Windows 7.
Even though I'm a fan of Windows 8, as you know, it's not particularly feature rich. It's very similar to Windows 7. With that said, its price reflects that very well. There aren't a lot of changes, and there isn't much of a charge for those changes.
Your issues with Windows 8 seem to be needlessly defiant, rather than having rational and factual backing. The only potential major negative of Windows 8 is with the UI changes, which as you've stated is a subjective one. But is it really that big of a deal? To you, it outweighs all the positive changes? I suppose the learning curve is another legitimate turnoff, but it's not like that's an issue that cannot be easily overcome. Driver support could be a situational turn off as well, but I haven't see any indication that it is an issue for you.
I'm too lazy/cba to organize the start screen, so for me, it's rather useless right now. Because of that, I've just thrown my most frequently used applications on my taskbar. It's sort of forced me into having higher efficiency (i.e., rather than going through the Windows 7 start menu to launch an application, in Windows 8, I use the taskbar, which is faster) at the cost of having a more cluttered workspace. I could hide the taskbar and avoid the aesthetic issue, but out of habit I've left it showing.
So even if I didn't like the "modern UI," I rarely need to use it anyways. My opinion is that I don't really care about it in any way, positive or negative, although I think it'd be really cool on a tablet.
As far as positives go, Windows 8 features integrated virus protection. This may not affect a power user like you or myself, but it will definitely make my job as a computer service technician easier. It boots faster. I'd assume that it's more secure than Windows 7. There's DX11.1 support, which may or may not see any utilization, but there's no negatives there. IE 10 is blazing fast, and I'd be all over it if it had the plugin support of Chrome and Firefox. I find the aesthetics of the desktop windows (the actual application windows) to be superior to Windows 7's rounded edges, although I've had frustration with customizing them the way I'd like. Not a big deal though. Lower memory usage makes it nice for older and less-endowed computers. It's also highly probable that Windows 8 will pull ahead of Windows 7 in performance as the software industry increases its support for the new OS. Also, Microsoft will likely provide performance updates of their own. There's integrated ISO mounting. Smoother UI/input responsiveness (in my opinion). Accessing administrative functions (cmd, device manager, etc.) is quicker. It recovers faster from driver crashes.
There's no negatives there. There's only positives and the potential for more positives. You may not be able to justify the upgrade right now, but I find it unlikely that you will be sticking with Windows 7 forever. I think it's pretty likely that Windows 8 will be the obvious choice in the future, even if its current feature set is lacking. So yeah, at this current point in time, I can see the justification for not upgrading. What I do not see is reasonable justification for your fire and brimstone sermons against Windows 8. Especially if you have it for free.
Quote:
Except you can show that WDDM 1.2 is or is not the reason for the lack of DX11.1 support on Windows 7. We may not have access to that information right now, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an answer. I don't believe anybody should be making that claim without proof, but it's not like it's impossible to find said proof. It's also a very plausible theory, just as the idea that WDDM isn't the hangup. But you still have to prove that Microsoft owes its Windows 7 userbase such an update for the latter argument to have any meaning.No, the burden of proof is not on me. It was a rhetorical question in response to this gravity being a theory post. The idea is the comparison sucks because you can at least show gravity.
And WDDM 1.1 was implemented onto Vista and made to bge backwards compatible for that reason. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been made so.
And WDDM 1.1 was implemented onto Vista and made to bge backwards compatible for that reason. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been made so.
My System
(13 items) |
|
My System
(13 items) |
