2015, will you go Windows 9 or steam OS?

[Texashiker]

Is it time for gamers to switch to a new operating system besides windows?

News is saying windows 9 could be here as early as April 2015 - http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2014/01/13/windows-9-threshold-release-date-april-2015/1

Windows 7 main stream support ends January 2015 - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

I figure microsoft will use windows 7 end of life as a selling point for windows 9.

After going through windows 3.11, 95, 98, 2k, xp and now windows 7, I am getting tired of learning a new OS just to play my games.

Maybe it is time to switch to an operating developed by gamers for gamers.

If steam has their steam OS running by the end of 2014 would you try it rather than buying windows 9? I figure the end of 2014 is going to be decision time for a lot of gamers. Either stay with windows 7, go with windows 9, or try the Steam OS. If Steam is giving their steam OS away for free, why not try it?

 

[darkewaffle]

9 but only if I build something.

 

[Barfo]

Depends on the Windows 9 reviews whether I switch to it or stay with Win 7. SteamOS, while a cool alternative imo, is not compatible with most of my game library, so I won't be using it on my gaming machine, an HTPC, perhaps.

 

[saratoga172]

While I may test and use SteamOS purely from a tech geek and curiosity standpoint, Windows will likely stay my primary OS. Many people are probably in the same boat as me. It's more than just games. Plus there are non steam games I play.

So short answer is stick with Windows 8.1 or go Windows 9.

 

[BSim500]

Windows 7 main stream support ends January 2015 - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

In theory... :biggrin:

 

[Texashiker]

In theory... :biggrin:

I am thinking since windows 8 sales are so bad, steam os, and computer manufacturers talking about offering andriod OS on desktops, microsoft might extend windows 7 support.

Once steam os gets more driver support, I will probably buy a new hard drive just for testing.

I just do not see myself buying another MS operating system for a long time. After windows 8, I surely do not want to buy windows 9.

 

[darkewaffle]

Win XP has been on "extended" support for 5 years. It's "main stream" support has long since come and gone. The only differences between Microsoft's definition of "mainstream" and "extended" support is basically related to functionality/feature development and how they honor warranties and feature requests.

 

[Doppel]

SteamOS seems at this juncture, to me anyway, that it will never be something I'd want. Why hamstring a gaming machine to that when a hundred bucks gives it an OS that plays more games and everything else as well?

Windows 9 may be a future purchase. Perhaps windows 8 will be the skippable one, like Vista and ME were.

But with extended support for Windows 7 up to 2020 it will still be a usable OS for another 6 years.

 

[KaOTiK]

I'll probably stick with Windows 7. Unless 9 is really something else. SteamOS, I'll try out on a spare HD, but unless some other things get running on it and game performance is much better I probably wont use it till it is more mature.

 

[Anubis]

ill stay on 7 unless i have to update, I will go Win9 at that point. too many other things use windows to not use it

 

[Texashiker]

too many other things use windows to not use it

My home machine is used for web browsing, video editing for youtube, email and gaming. With gaming being the vast majority of the time spent on the machine.

 

[smackababy]

The chances of me using SteamOS are highly unlikely. I use quite a few Windows only programs and have no desire to give those up to use Linux. Plus, driver support is spotty at best on Linux (I imagine this will get better, but I am not risking it).

And if you actually believe this was developer to benefit gamers more than it is to benefit Valve, you're drinking some mighty strong Kool Aid.

 

[Nintendesert]

We'll have to see how they both turn out. I game on a PC because I love the wide selection of games I can play. Gaming with just SteamOS will be like gaming on a gimped Mac.

 

[smackababy]

We'll have to see how they both turn out. I game on a PC because I love the wide selection of games I can play. Gaming with just SteamOS will be like gaming on a gimped Mac.

It is going to be a long time before you can simply do away with Windows. Even if every new game released after today had a Linux (and therefore SteamOS) version, you would still have a massive backlog of games missing.

 

[biostud]

If they run same upgrade price as win 8 ($29), then win 9 for sure.

 

[Texashiker]

It is going to be a long time before you can simply do away with Windows. Even if every new game released after today had a Linux (and therefore SteamOS) version, you would still have a massive backlog of games missing.

Rather than writing games to run on linux, why not some kind of windows emulator?

Gabe has pretty much unlimited resources to throw into this project. This is not some kid who does linux development on the side. Gabe has the money and resources to make things happen.

 

[JamesV]

I'll stick with Win7 for as long as MS supports it, and probably long after if Win9 is anything like 8.

If my gaming trends continue (haven't played a AAA title in a few years now that I thought was great; EVERY great game I've played recently was indie), I might just dump Windows altogether for Linux since most indies seem to have that version.

SteamOS will be going on an old PC to try it out.

 

[PowerYoga]

9. I use my computer for a lot more than games.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Windows 7 Ultimate x64.

 

[Red Storm]

It's going to take a few years at least to get developers to make their games for Linux too. Steam OS needs to show that it can attract the users before the developers make the games Linux compatible. Already we see many games now do Windows and Mac versions which is great, so I think it's only a matter of time.

 

[smackababy]

It's going to take a few years at least to get developers to make their games for Linux too. Steam OS needs to show that it can attract the users before the developers make the games Linux compatible. Already we see many games now do Windows and Mac versions which is great, so I think it's only a matter of time.

It used to be that if a game got a Mac version, someone would "hack" it to work on Linux. No longer is that happening. =(

 

[Atomic Playboy]

After going through windows 3.11, 95, 98, 2k, xp and now windows 7, I am getting tired of learning a new OS just to play my games.

Maybe it is time to switch to an operating developed by gamers for gamers.

You've grown tired of learning new operating systems that are essentially clones of each other, so your solution is to learn a new operating system that is based on a Linux kernel? How is that a solution? You're still learning a new OS, it just lacks any familiar Windows features that you've no doubt grown used to over the years. And it's still going to be updated as new features become available down the road; it's not like the GUI for the PS4 is identical to the one Sony used in the PS3, or PS2 or PSX. Without any exclusive apps, there's no reason to favor SteamOS over a traditional Windows gaming PC.

 

[Texashiker]

You've grown tired of learning new operating systems that are essentially clones of each other, so your solution is to learn a new operating system that is based on a Linux kernel? How is that a solution?

Its not really a solution.

windows 95, 98, ME, xp, 7 and 8 evolved. Somethings were the same, with things changed.

Windows 8 was a whole completely new OS which was a lot different than 7.

If 8 can be so much different from xp and 7, why not go with something new?

 

[gorcorps]

Might jump on 9 at home. It might be to Win 8 what Win 7 was to Vista. I dodged Vista, and I've liked Win 7 ever since I started using it. Pisses me off that MS is forcing gamers to update their OS to get the most benefit from DX, but maybe there's a reason I just don't understand.

 

[Imaginer]

Its not really a solution.

windows 95, 98, ME, xp, 7 and 8 evolved. Somethings were the same, with things changed.

Windows 8 was a whole completely new OS which was a lot different than 7.

If 8 can be so much different from xp and 7, why not go with something new?

Because you only looked at 8 skin deep. 8 has benefits from a dedicated Windows store AND does not stop any outside installs on the desktop space of traditional desktop software. It also builds on 7 more so.

If anything, it is 7 with more. And I made mention before, the Start Screen is much better than revealing a desktop full of icons in a limited quantity and arrangement versus horizontally scrolling a more infinite tile (icon) setup.

Pinning things to the Start menu, is like pinning things to the forefront of the Start screen. Revealing "All Programs" is but that down arrow away at the lower left area of the Start Screen in 8.1. 8.1 brings right click Start icon admin functions.

Taskbar still remains the same in the desktop. Task Manager is better in every way.

I sound like a broken record trying to set things straight. But if going with something new means ditching accumulated and currently used software in scavenging for "not even perfect or even 60% capable" software, then I stick to what works. I am not just talking games at this point either.