Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Worth it for gaming? Or stick with 7?

Last response: in Windows 8
Share
July 22, 2012 3:14:26 AM

7 has been the best thing for gaming since Windows XP. ME, and VISTA were complete garbage. I didn't upgrade to 7 until DX11 games started hitting the shelves.

I'm wondering if I should just say oh f*** it and buy windows 8 in October (I think it is?) or just wait o_o

More about : worth gaming stick

a b 4 Gaming
a b * Windows 8
July 22, 2012 3:22:11 AM

There was nothing wrong with Vista for gaming. There was something horribly wrong with application developers and OEMs who put Vista on hardware that would have a hard time running XP SP3.

Windows 8 won't really bring anything new to the table. Microsoft set the bar very high with Windows 7 and there's not really any core improvements in Windows 8 that say "you need to upgrade" like there were from XP to Vista and to a lesser extent Vista to 7.
Score
0

Best solution

July 22, 2012 3:25:45 AM

For gaming? My opinion, and I'm no expert, would be to wait, as there seems to be some rather robust debate going on about it's usefulness to gamers. Couple this with the fact that there aren't many (or any that I'm aware of) games that are listed as W8 compatible. As I say, I'm no expert and that's just my opinion.
Share
Related resources
July 22, 2012 3:37:58 AM

What about something like Directx 12? I'm guessing that would be W8 Only. but for now, there's no real improvement? at all? It looks like the new metro interface is made for touch screens and tablets. Is that all that's really changed? The standard windows interface looks the same too
Score
0
July 22, 2012 3:45:27 AM

At least most "PC" as the lead platform games seem to be utilizing it more now. With no DX12, or added bonuses like that for Windows 8. A long established OS with stable drivers, I see no reason to ever drop it until Windows "9" comes out with new DX versions o_O

Games will never say "windows 8 only" they'd loose too much money.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b * Windows 8
July 22, 2012 3:52:40 AM

OptyFM said:
At least most "PC" as the lead platform games seem to be utilizing it more now. With no DX12, or added bonuses like that for Windows 8. A long established OS with stable drivers, I see no reason to ever drop it until Windows "9" comes out with new DX versions o_O

Games will never say "windows 8 only" they'd loose too much money.


That's the attitude most people have and Microsoft seems to understand, hence the rather cheap upgrade price to Windows 8. I will be upgrading but only because I get all of my Microsoft software for free under academic licence.
Score
0
July 22, 2012 4:04:08 AM

I'd get the "upgrade" version but that's such a pain in the ass. I'd have to install windows 7 then 8 if I ever needed to reformat.

How much is the windows 8 UPGRADE? Im on my phone typing at these long red lights Ive never really looked.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b * Windows 8
July 22, 2012 4:12:42 AM

OptyFM said:
I'd get the "upgrade" version but that's such a pain in the ass. I'd have to install windows 7 then 8 if I ever needed to reformat.

How much is the windows 8 UPGRADE? Im on my phone typing at these long red lights Ive never really looked.


I'm reasonably certain that once an upgrade copy has been validated against an existing copy of Windows that key can be used to validate a fresh install. You may need to acquire a different Windows 8 installer but Microsoft always makes these available in ISO format publicly.
Score
0
July 23, 2012 11:40:05 PM

I am more of a "wait and see" type. I will eventually buy the Windows 8, upgrade or retail, but I like to wait for a few months for all the bugs and kinks to get patched up before getting it. I don't believe there is going to be a huge improvement with Windows 8 in terms of gaming performance and I doubt new games that can fully utilize the Win8 OS will be out right when windows 8 is released. Unless you are still using Windows XP or previous version, which i doubt, I see no reason to be in such a hurry to upgrade to Win8.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
July 23, 2012 11:59:02 PM

Only thing that was initially postulated about windows 8 that I haven't been able to find in documentation from MS is optimization for processors using more than 4 cores (ex. AMD's FX series chipsets). I am waiting for the RC so I can test a couple of applications to see if it seems to be both stable and more responsive, but I wouldn't say that is a deal breaker.

I have been very happy with Win8 and unless you're using a touchscreen monitor like a Windows Slate I think that Win8 is just an attempt to get younger users to adopt a Windows OS over a Mac OS. No sell in my book, but I could be totally wrong. The initially developer copy I tested was utter garbage and a painful way to have to navigate. Their $40 price tag is very appealing though if you're using XP
Score
0
July 24, 2012 12:22:14 AM

if you buy a new machine in the current time window (OEM windows) windows8 upgade will cost you $15.

Otherwise, if you already have a previous version, win8 upgrade is $40. UPGRADE will require you have a previous license. (OEM license means locked to that machine/mobo. full license can mean you can startover on a new machine)

The true Wait and see crew should wait until servicepack1, which probably puts you middle of 2013 at least.

Score
0
July 24, 2012 12:46:13 AM

I think that you will be absolutely fine for gaming with windows 7. It is usually not recommended if you game to upgrade to a new OS right away as the support may not be there. AND a lot of times a new OS breaks compatibility of existing games, and older games.
Score
0
July 26, 2012 1:59:21 PM

well, so far for gaming, all my games that i have tested and played all run good, some games will require you to run as admin but that is a simple click of a check box. also all my games run smooth even with the win8 drivers from amd.

only had i think 1 driver issue which was easily fixed by manual driver installation.

windows 8 is not a bad OS in the sense of utilization of hardware, i wouldn't call it ground breaking better than 7 but its a little better on resourse management.

i adopt early because im all about the newest thing out, unless its a train reck then i just wait, ahah
Score
0
July 26, 2012 2:16:19 PM

If it's not broke why fix it....Win8 is going to be like win vista/win me, just like win 7 is like win xp is like win 2000. Truthfully, if you have win 7 you should probably wait till the next next windows will be the one to get. Think of Win8 as a beta for the next version, just like win vista was the beta for win7, and win me was beta for XP.

You could go even further back with this too with win 95 being the beta for win 98.
Score
0
July 27, 2012 11:26:56 AM

a beta is something tested to iron out issues in the OS as a whole, i dont see why people are comparing Win8 to a beta, it has many improvements over Win7, it runs just as good if not better, it just has a few tweaks in a different direction easily switched back with third party programs. In changing it back to look like 7 would this not make it a superior win7 of sorts?
Score
0
July 27, 2012 2:24:01 PM

I read that, if they can switch over to linux like they talked about, I would be much happier.
Score
0
July 30, 2012 2:19:01 PM

well, im sure it would be up to game publishers that are not valve would need to port their games to work with linux unless valve decides to take that in to their own hands which would be very costly and time consuming. plus would they not have to compromise with there being no DX on linux?
Score
0
August 6, 2012 8:09:52 PM

Would not recommend Windows 8 for gaming... It's almost like they make it intentionally tedious to fully close programs because BOOM WOW I can use more than one program at a time?

If you're running a Mid level gaming system then you'd be gaming half mass or go through the misery multiple hotkeys and clicks rather than the standard X.

Have also noticed some weird resolution issues on 8 with some Monitors/TVs using same computer (dual booting 7 & 8)

I like it on a laptop, but stay away from that junk on your gaming PC.
Score
0
August 6, 2012 9:11:11 PM

sscultima said:
well, im sure it would be up to game publishers that are not valve would need to port their games to work with linux unless valve decides to take that in to their own hands which would be very costly and time consuming. plus would they not have to compromise with there being no DX on linux?


DirectX is really only Windows... Linux have all of OpenGL, CL, AL at its disposal. Recent announcements from Valve indicates that L4D2 runs faster with OpenGL under linux than DX under windows.
Score
0
August 6, 2012 10:12:27 PM

I tested the Win8 on some consumer preview and its GUI looks very good, but it's pain in the ass to use. I think it would be great on touch screen or laptop maybe but on PC it's just as not as easy or simple to use as win7.
Score
0
August 8, 2012 12:31:08 AM

Pinhedd said:
There was nothing wrong with Vista for gaming. There was something horribly wrong with application developers and OEMs who put Vista on hardware that would have a hard time running XP SP3.

Windows 8 won't really bring anything new to the table. Microsoft set the bar very high with Windows 7 and there's not really any core improvements in Windows 8 that say "you need to upgrade" like there were from XP to Vista and to a lesser extent Vista to 7.



There most certainly was issues with Vista, mostly in how bad it's memory management was. Also the WDM model is different for Vista then it is for 7.

It had absolutely nothing to do with "old computers" as I have had several customer boxes running Windows 7 x86 with zero issues yet they choke up with Vista x86. Not about memory as they all have 4GB of installed memory and again Windows 7 runs much smoother then Vista did. Sure as hell wasn't about CPU speed, even when it was choking Vista never used more then half a core's worth of power.

The biggest culprit behind Vista's performance "issues" was how it's memory management subsystem treated SuperFetch memory allocation. Superfetch was treated as memory assigned to a regular server and thus would be paged to disk if more memory was needed by the system. As Superfetch's algorithm was designed to keep requesting memory until free memory was at 0, you were left in a situation where you always needed to page out to disk if any other program needed even 1MB of memory. As many programs are constantly doing memalloc / dealloc it had an accordion effect on your memory subsystem, a few MB's would become available, superfetch would grab them, a program needed them back and windows memory subsystem would then page the superfetch cache to disk to free up some memory. Having "more memory" only delayed how long it would take for superfetch to eventually grab everything, at 8GB you could go days without it filling up unless you accessed a ton of stuff. I've had 8GB box's hit 0MB free before with a 6GB+ superfetch cache. Vista's memory model is more secure then previous versions of the NT Kernel. It will zeroize memory before it reallocates it, same with page file data. Thus paging to and from disk is particularly expensive performance wise on a Vista machine.

With Windows 7 MS changed up a few things. Namely superfetch's memory cache is now treated exactly as that, a cache. Win 7 will not bother paging SF's cache to disk and just zeroize the memory prior to returning it to the free memory pool. Also they implemented a buffer space of free memory, from 50 to 200MB will remain free at all times, SF will never try to go to zero. This provides some space for the normal minor expansion / contraction of program / services memory footprints. This is why Windows 7 seems faster then Vista when many programs are being used, their natural expansion / contraction are not being hindered by page swaps and having to reallocate memory.

The WDM / GDM model also had a huge inefficiency, display data was stored twice. Once in the programs WDM session and again in the kernels WDM master session. This way every single window and program you had opened (even minimized ones) consumed 2x as much memory as they should. This made Vista extremely memory hungry and combined with the issues with SuperFetch is what made it seem sluggish. In Windows 7 only a programs WDM session stores the display data, the kernels WDM session only holds pointers and references to the display objects, like an index instead of a full book.

Vista wasn't "bad", MS was trying many new things at once. A more efficient caching system combined with a more secure memory model and a faster graphics subsystem. Some of these things stepped on each others toes and didn't work so well when combined. After redoing some parts of these subsystems they worked just fine and were released in what we call Windows 7. Windows 7 should really be refereed to as "Vista SP2".
Score
0
August 8, 2012 12:37:04 AM

For Windows 8? I'd wait and see. When MS tries "new stuff" they tend to mess it up at first, then later fix it. Doing open Beta's like they are is a really good way to fix stuff before it becomes a serious issue, yet they still haven't put the start menu back even though it's the #1 more requested feature. "Desktop Mode" is pretty horrible right now, you can tell it was just thrown in / hacked together. They'll eventually get around to fixing it, most likely through a service pack or through another release "Windows 8 Desktop Ultimate".

On a tablet or touchscreen it works great though, you can tell they were designing for that market.
Score
0
August 8, 2012 4:11:45 PM

palladin9479 said:
Windows 7 should really be refereed to as "Vista SP2".


Agree it is the norm for microsoft to feed us beta testers un-stable OS untill we get it right and then they do it again and again. Thats why many industries still use XP (Not for Gaming by the way). Just when they get Vista sorted with 6.1 or 7 as they like to call it they pop out 8. But I guess thats why they are so dominant in the industry.......
Score
0
a b * Windows 8
August 8, 2012 4:28:30 PM

I had 2 machines, one had (desktop) Win98 and the other (my laptop) WinXP. Once my laptop died, i upgraded Win98 to XP and got a new desktop that had Vista on it. It was really slow but i decided to continue using it. When Windows 7 first came out right away i jumped into buying a copy. Works far better then Vista ever did imo. I have no reason to buy 8 (don't have the money) other then the fact it does better on system resources.
Score
0
August 9, 2012 4:21:38 AM

Here's my thought on win 8: It's like the inverse of vista. Bad interface, excellent performance. Just ignore that "start screen" and "apps" and you'll be fine. Runs all my games and applications faster. Try start8 from stardock if you want to start at desktop, it's free.
Score
0
August 10, 2012 5:13:10 AM

Stick with Win7 for the time being. Until they fix the problems with the high DPC it's not a good OS.



No problems with Vista? lololololololololol
Score
0
August 10, 2012 10:09:26 PM

I would stick with Windows 7. I feel like the lack of a true desktop mode makes the experience a bit less exciting. The start menu is cool, but it's really optimized for a tablet experience. If windows 7 isn't causing any problems at the moment, why upgrade?
Score
0
August 11, 2012 5:00:26 AM

Yeah that's why I installed windows 8. My OS install was getting old, so why not try out a new one? Overall, I HATE metro. It's so simple I can't get any work done on it. You can't have more than one window on a screen, they remove snap, removed shake, and programs are harder to close. If only the would include an option at install, it would be SO easy . . .

Hell they could have even created an adaptive ui. The small res. screens get close to metro while higher res screens get classic, or something along those lines.
Score
0
August 12, 2012 4:13:50 AM

Windows 7 is still better for gaming at the moment. I had some issues with games on Windows 8.
Score
0
August 12, 2012 8:05:11 AM

i'm sure windows 8 will be optimized for gaming, however i'm not sure how much ram the many desktop screens will need, xbox arcade games are said to be playable which is a + but at the moment considering windows 8 is still being improved, windows 7 64-bit is faster for gaming. The final version may be better, who knows but microsoft have been known on evolving rather than improving and are going for a complete new experience so may have not focused entirely on gaming for the operating system.
Score
0
August 18, 2012 8:36:47 PM

Best answer selected by OptyFM.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
August 19, 2012 10:09:49 AM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
Score
0
!