[HWI] Gaming in Windows 8 vs Windows 7: what's the difference in performance? - Page 10

Originally Posted by Brutuz 

Lets see something then..Start8 is made by Stardock. ClassicShell is community made..Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the latest version of the classic UI from MS is in Windows 7, right? If I'm on Windows 8, pirated or legal, MS will see that as acceptance of Metro; can you guarantee that if I moved to Windows 8, that I'd never end up in a position where I'd be screwed over by using and being used to ClassicShell/Start8? MS could patch it out or Metro could become the entire UI in a future version of Windows or remove the old WIn32 API and use Metro apps exclusively, sure, ClassicShell likely would be great for someone like me on W8 now but what about W9? W10? The way I see it, it looks like I'll have to learn something new either way, I'd rather either just bite the bullet and learn Metro or (What I'll likely do) go to Linux.

Originally Posted by Kaldari 


While it's good to try and think about things like this, I think it's mostly useless to worry about whether or not they're going to patch out Start8 or speculate what the next version or two or Windows will be like years and years from now.

I highly doubt they'll patch out Start8 for one. They're looking for as much market saturation as possible, and I'm betting droves are using Start8. Talk about pissing a ton of people off and turning tides if they did that.. I just don't see it happening.

I don't even think they know what their next version of Windows will look like. They aren't even sure how their current OS launch is necessarily going to pan out. I'd imagine they have a rough gameplan, but that is subject to change and most likely will change in certain ways, perhaps drastically, depending on how things go.

The main reason I can see to not buy W8 right now is out of principle and not wanting to show MS you approve of the direction they might be headed. But with it being preloaded on all new PCs and even many or most enthusiasts even getting on board, I really don't see it making a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Besides all of that, you'll still learn the new interface through using it, in spite of using Start8. The difference is just not being forced to use it all the time. And to be honest, there really isn't that much to learn. Once you know what each corner does and know how the "metro" interface works as far as launching, closing, and navigating apps goes, you're pretty much done. The whole learning process will be complete shortly after you install it and definitely within your first day.

Originally Posted by Brutuz 

For me, it is, until Windows 8 Microsoft only made small, incremental changes to the Windows GUI, who says they won't again?
If they were fine with keeping some form of the previous GUI for market penetration, why isn't there an option for a classic GUI now? Why did they on purposely patch the previous GUI out when people started restoring it? There are way, way too many questions regarding the future of Windows for me, it's uncertain.

Originally Posted by Swiftes 

Windows 8 looks brilliant, just a shame there are no drivers for my Focusrite sound card yet, and FL Studio performance is less than decent at the moment.
Sent from mans Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk.

Originally Posted by Warmonger 

Microsoft want's to push Microsoft Store on its users with Windows 8. This is why they patched out the Start Menu bypass, when you wanted to boot directly to the desktop before Windows 8 trunks froze. The more users they can get to use the new Start Menu, they figure the more viable customers they will have. Tho personally I don't think people grasp how much more powerful WinRT is in comparison to traditional desktop applications. And the best thing is, you can use them side by side with your desktop without them getting in the way. With the removal of the classic start menu code entirely, and the introduction of the Windows Store. I think its safe to say "Metro" is going to be around for probably the next 5-10 years. It would be pointless for them to incorporate the Windows Store like they have, just for the next version of Windows to not support peoples bought applications. The future looks bleak for anyone who dislikes Windows 8.

Originally Posted by Warmonger 

Obviously clueless, if you're not a game developer then try not shedding light on the subject. You're only making yourself look foolish. DirectX 11.1 was not a little update.

The following functionality has been added in Direct3D 11.1, which is included with Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Server 2012.

Shader tracing and compiler enhancements
Direct3D device sharing
Check support of new Direct3D 11.1 features and formats
Use HLSL minimum precision
Specify user clip planes in HLSL on feature level 9 and higher
Create larger constant buffers than a shader can access
Use logical operations in a render target
Force the sample count to create a rasterizer state
Process video resources with shaders
Extended support for shared Texture2D resources
Change subresources with new copy options
Discard resources and resource views
Support a larger number of UAVs
Bind a subrange of a constant buffer to a shader
Retrieve the subrange of a constant buffer that is bound to a shader
Clear all or part of a resource view
Map SRVs of dynamic buffers with NO_OVERWRITE
Use UAVs at every pipeline stage
Extended support for WARP devices
Use Direct3D in Session 0 processes

The list of Direct3D 11.1 features available on Microsoft's site doesn't include anything that really catches our eye as a must-have feature for gamers. We've been told that DirectX 11.1 will have native support for stereoscopic 3D implementations, which should make life easier for developers who would otherwise have to write separate code for Nvidia's 3D Vision and AMD's HD3D schemes. However, stereo 3D doesn't appear to be catching on with gamers despite being supported by numerous DirectX 11 titles.

DirectX 11.1 does have a few interesting tricks up its sleeve, of course. It boasts better support for graphics virtualization and has the ability to apply shader-based filters to video streams. There are provisions to conserve power, too, but nothing looks compelling enough to drive Windows 7 users into the arms of the Modern UI.

Originally Posted by GeforceGTS 


I always had aero disabled in windows 7, it screwed with some of my games such as skyrim and alt tabbing, also messed with UAC2 anti cheat and produced blank screenshots so I had it disabled always

Originally Posted by Raven Dizzle 


And do you know why 7 was such a joy to those who SKIPPED Vista? Cause it was built UPON Vista. NOT a lot changed. Once drivers matured and bugs were worked out (as is required for ANY new OS, just like XP before it), Vista was fine, and 7 at launch was essentially Vista SP2 with a new taskbar. It even worked well with the very same drivers; and DRIVERS were Vistas downfall when it first came out.

Originally Posted by Raven Dizzle 


As is with most service packs. Seriously, there was nothing wrong with Vista. It was just ahead of it's time. There are in the same category, 7 and Vista. 8 on the other hand is in it's own category. A new user interface, VAST improvements in speed (moreso than Vista to 7), a completely rewritten kernel, among a slew of other improvements. Some may not like it for one thing (I emphasize, one thing), but it is a huge improvement in every other aspect and NOBODY can deny it legitimately. Vista and 7 weren't nearly as different as people say. It wasn't this huge jump in speed like you claim, all that happened is by the time 7 came out, hardware in the consumer world had caught up with the Vista requirements.

BESIDES, this whole thread and the article it links to is a fallacy. How are you going to compare an older OS with 3 year old mature drivers vs a new OS that's pretty much on it's first set of "WHQL" drivers? Give 8 time to have some mature drivers.

Originally Posted by RagingCain 

Driver maturity and I think the new DirectX optimizations have made significant differences from Win7 and WinVista days.

I have always felt there was a low gpu usage issue with some DX11 games... while on the one hand its drivers mostly, or buggy games, sometimes there was no explanation. If the game had two modes, one could switch to DX9, from 11, and see 99% GPU utilization at the sacrifice of eye candy.

That was always bizzare.

I have noticed on the handful of games I have played on Win8, whether its from Win7 + Win8 Driver maturity (since they are essentially the same drivers) or its just from better threading, games not only appear smoother, but the GPU usage is usually capped out in 80+% and for a 1600P monitor, it is fairly noticeable when CFX isn't working well or when running a single 7970 with all the eye candy megapixelation I am pushing.

So why these synthetic benchmarks may not have changed, I do believe there is non-quantitative benefit of smoothness and general performance that doesn't translate well to an FPS chart.

However, the numbers speak for themselves, there is no magical performance found in switching over.

Originally Posted by Swiftes 

Windows 8 looks brilliant, just a shame there are no drivers for my Focusrite sound card yet, and FL Studio performance is less than decent at the moment.
Sent from mans Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk.

Originally Posted by tpi2007 

You obviously need to stop insulting people. Even more, you're wrong. By Microsoft's own admission, DX 11.1 is a minor update. This is not DX 11.5 or DX 11.9. But even if the nomenclature could be deceiving, let's look at the features and how they will affect gamers, which is my point all along:
From Microsoft's site.
This is what The Tech Report had to say:
Fair enough, but some games just don't / didn't play well with alt-tabbing. Half-Life 2 based games would crash when you alt-tabbed to the desktop, whereas Portal 2 doesn't, and the HL2.exe has been patched to address this issue. Also, I recall seeing a Nvidia driver update specifically stating that it improved alt-tabbing in certain games, so, while Aero might not do any favors, many games and GPU drivers don't / didn't either.
And your point is ? Nothing you are saying is new or has anything to counter what I said. And as I said, it wasn't only drivers that were Vista's downfall when it launched.
This is your post I was replying to:
Tom's Hardware did a review where you can see graphs with the fps as the game is being played, and both OS'es show more or less the same fluctuations, sometimes in different spots and to varying degrees, but it's really not a game changer.