2015, will you go Windows 9 or steam OS?

[imaheadcase]

What does OP mean by "tired of learning a new OS". They are basically the same GUI wise. Nothing really new to learn.

We all been hearing since consoles started getting connected to the internet how PC gaming will die, what i wish would die is that rumor.

 

[smackababy]

OP is the same person that stated Windows 8 was too hard for his parents to learn. I don't think he is exactly the authority on new technology.

 

[Topweasel]

lol wut. I hadn't heard of this, so just looked it up. Who TF makes decisions to make users do this kind of thing?

Now despite a couple posts after this one saying it isn't forced, I just googled and apparently a lot of people installing 8.1 have struggled to not do this, so it doesn't appear glaringly obvious as an optional requirement.I saw it as lay it on thick sarcasm, which isn't necessarily trolling

Wouldn't have known on Windows 8.1 till a couple weeks ago (because I installed 8.1 update to my 8.0 install) after setting up a computer for someone else. I know for a fact that you default to an offline account and you have to merge it with a live account by choice well after the install.

This was in stark contrast to the 8.0 install on my desktop that pretty much required a live account to finish setup and then you have to go to the computer management to create an offline account (that you would then use as the primary).

The problem with that is the you then have about 20 apps that are considered as Store apps that won't work filling your start menu. But you can then delete them and be done with it. Personally I like things like having a dedicated Netflix app and Hulu app vs. Running Flash or Silverlight through a browser so I would want store access and therefore need to use a live account.

 

[crownjules]

I won't move from W7 until I absolutely have to. I am not playing this upgrade every 2 years game with MS. And SteamOS just doesn't offer enough to use as a main OS right now.

 

[raasco]

Windows 7 has security update support until 2020. I think I'm good for a while.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Wouldn't have known on Windows 8.1 till a couple weeks ago (because I installed 8.1 update to my 8.0 install) after setting up a computer for someone else. I know for a fact that you default to an offline account and you have to merge it with a live account by choice well after the install.

This was in stark contrast to the 8.0 install on my desktop that pretty much required a live account to finish setup and then you have to go to the computer management to create an offline account (that you would then use as the primary).

The problem with that is the you then have about 20 apps that are considered as Store apps that won't work filling your start menu. But you can then delete them and be done with it. Personally I like things like having a dedicated Netflix app and Hulu app vs. Running Flash or Silverlight through a browser so I would want store access and therefore need to use a live account.

Yes me too especially if you are hooking it up to a TV.

 

[mmntech]

If SteamOS brings better hardware and software support to Linux, then it's a success to me.

I'm not a fan of Windows 8 on the desktop. It's a good tablet OS but its dual nature is just very clunky. OSX does a better job integrating mobile and traditional on the desktop. Hopefully this gets cleaned up for Windows 9. Sometimes you've gotta kill your babies, and a lot of people do not like Metro.

 

[JeffMD]

I deem this thread the stupidest thread of yesterday. I nore anyone else has the slightest notion of what either of these will be like in 2015. Why don't you just ask for a wish list?

 

[Newbian]

Ehh as we have seen with window os's win 9 should be good as win 8 sucked and win 7 was great.

 

[Newbian]

And exactly what cycle are you referring to? Let's look at recent Windows past: ME, utter shit and it's MS' fault; XP, utter shit until SP1 (which everyone loves to forget), Vista, shit due to everyone else taking a long as time to write proper drivers with ample time; 7, Vista with a new name and color scheme, which was so amazing...; 8, new UI and massive under the hood improvements, but considered shit because the troglodytes have to press a single, large button to get to desktop mode...

Yeah, cycle not found.

There is a reason this image was made and is largely true for common users:

 

[Lonbjerg]

Ehh as we have seen with window os's win 9 should be good as win 8 sucked and win 7 was great.

Win 8.1 is better for me than Win7 *shrugs*
Vista sucked
Me sucked
8.1...nope.

 

[Skel]

There is a reason this image was made and is largely true for common users:

That was made because some people think that if there's a photochopped picture that somehow brings some kind of legitimacy to the FUD they're putting out there. Much like the stupid political pictures like this, this doesn't really have much to do with reality.

 

[smackababy]

There is a reason this image was made and is largely true for common users:

The reason is because the person that made this image was like 12 when XP was actually released. They don't remember shit about it, thus think that SP1 is how it always was. Also, they know nothing about computers, thus they blame MS rewrote a near 15 year old driver model, gave hardware companies a long heads up, and they did nothing about it. Not to mention, the quite a bit of the Vista hate was because those people upgrading, upgraded that same PC to XP 10 years prior. And finally, Windows 8 is somehow garbage because Lord Gaben says so and you have to click a single button to get the to desktop. Oh, woe is me! Having to click an actual button? My goodness!

Please, do continue! I love to hear about your informed "look what I found on reddit" opinion more.

 

[Maximilian]

There is a reason this image was made and is largely true for common users:

Lol so true! :biggrin:

 

[XiandreX]

Which is why it utterly utterly tanked and became vista 2.0 :whiste:

I respect you Max but Windows 8 is no where near as bad as Vista. Putting the visual issues aside it has a more robust and secure file system and flat out better than 7.

 

[XiandreX]

Dualboot?

I'm very happy with Windows 8.1 Pro and Win 9 might be better but SteamOS could be interesting to fiddle around with, especially with a few specific games.

I love Windows 8.1. It is incredibly stable, full of features and runs everything I throw at it. I recently started using ObjectDock plus 2 and that + Classic shell and its fantastic. Even without ObjectDock its bloody good. I honestly don't get the hate.

We are not talking about a bunch of high school kids working on the steam os part-time. This is valve and its pockets full of cash.

When gabe and his buddies approached game distributors about half-life, a lot of companies turned him down. When half-life was finally released it set a new standard for FPS games.

If we can say one thing about Valve, they keep raising the bar.

Pockets of cash does not a good OS make. This applies to every single Business/Entity out there. (including MS)

I'm on Windows 8.1 and will stick with windows for a few reasons.

- Most of my game library won't work on SteamOS and probably never will. I have games that run outside of STeam too.

- I Still need to use Photoshop, Illustrator etc and I have full versions of them that I am not ready to drop use of for some other alternative if there is even one.

- I am totally familiar with Windows and how it works. I also firmly believe that Windows will get the latest driver updates first.

See this is where its at for me. Everything I use on a day to day basis, whether it be Games, Browsing, Office, Utilities, Movies, Music or whatever the Windows OS handles them extremely easy. I am not saying the UI was great on 8 but it works just fine. The only thing I recommend to people is to change default programs for files. After that I don't see any issues. ( other than legacy software issues)

RIGHT NOW.

As I said, this is something Valve would do in the future, once it has solid Linux support.

RIGHT NOW doesn't cut it. Making future promises is just that its just talk until executed. I understand certain companies tend to follow through more than others, but most of us use the mentality of a wait and see.

Unless SteamOS runs Microsoft Office and mainstream web browsers, I think It'll be Windows 9 for me...

This is my point. Cover those areas as efficiently as Microsoft and then talk.

I went from 7 x64 to 8.1 x64 + "classic shell" and havn't looked back since.
It's improved in key areas...enough to jump ship on 7

As a geek I love to try new things. If it sucks doesn't perform after much effort I ditch it. Windows 8 and ESPECIALLY Windows 8.1 performs well and is a Solid upgrade over 7.

On a more serious note... the % of people in the real word, as in the typical Office environment use MS Office as the go to defacto standard. Anyone telling you different is spouting garbage.

 

[pmv]

The reason is because the person that made this image was like 12 when XP was actually released. They don't remember shit about it, thus think that SP1 is how it always was. Also, they know nothing about computers, thus they blame MS rewrote a near 15 year old driver model, gave hardware companies a long heads up, and they did nothing about it. Not to mention, the quite a bit of the Vista hate was because those people upgrading, upgraded that same PC to XP 10 years prior. And finally, Windows 8 is somehow garbage because Lord Gaben says so and you have to click a single button to get the to desktop. Oh, woe is me! Having to click an actual button? My goodness!

Please, do continue! I love to hear about your informed "look what I found on reddit" opinion more.

The main thing wrong with that image (apart from being unnecessary vulgar - I'd have gone with 'poor' as the negative descriptor!) is that '95 was pretty good whereas 3.1 was inferior to what Apple had at the time. Windows '95 is what got me to switch from Apple, having been a Mac user I found 3.1 really annoying (anyway I was still mostly using mainframes and minis then)

XP was a success from the start, and the Vista hate was due to (a) it having horrible bugs before the SP (b) MS letting box-shifters label PCs as being capable of running it when they weren't really and (c) as you say lots of driver problems initially, in part due to MS making it more onerous to produce drivers because of security (and DRM-related) concerns. I never used it but I can accept that once it got the SP it was a perfectly decent OS and led directly to 7.

And you can't seriously think that the only complaints about 8 are that you 'have to click a button to get to the desktop'. After the zillions of threads of people saying exactly why they dislike 8?

I think the problem with 8 is that MS was trying to straddle two diverging markets. Metro as a design aesthetic makes a lot of sense on tablets, touch screens, and anything you interact with on a 'surface' and casual level, but it just doesn't fit the intense interaction when sitting for hours using a desk-top. MS haven't (so far) made a good job of welding those two modes together. They might yet manage to do it with 'point' releases, so then 9 might be quite good.

I might end up with both a 9 and a Steam box. Or dual boot if possible.

 

[Qwertilot]

You know, come to think of it, worth throwing osX into this. Obviously they've very rarely looked like gaming machines before now and probably won't in 2015.

Still, Apple look to be the one company more or less guaranteed to use the fastest IGP they can get in their desktops. So if(when?) IGPs do get very serious they'll be a genuinely valid option.

Its certainly very much easier to be confident in what they're doing with osX than whatever Microsoft are currently up to with Windows.

 

[XiandreX]

You know, come to think of it, worth throwing osX into this. Obviously they've very rarely looked like gaming machines before now and probably won't in 2015.

Still, Apple look to be the one company more or less guaranteed to use the fastest IGP they can get in their desktops. So if(when?) IGPs do get very serious they'll be a genuinely valid option.

Its certainly very much easier to be confident in what they're doing with osX than whatever Microsoft are currently up to with Windows.

Valid is a very broad statement. The supported games list for OSX is rather small. Yes you can run office equivalents and the likes but anyone that games is not going to run OSX.
Honestly saying their IGP choice is always cutting edge is fine..but its main focus is improved gaming performance which is an area Apple does not do well in. So it becomes a Moot point.

 

[Qwertilot]

The osX games list very much depends on you view it. Measured strictly against the size of the windows one, then yes it looks relatively small.

Measure in absolute terms, say against the number of games you've got a chance of playing in a lifetime , it seems quite a healthy size to me. Plenty of games on GoG/Steam.

It'll very likely be the same sort of decision with SteamOS of course. If there's stuff you can't bear to lose then of course daft to move.

The other thing is that the set of osX games on steam is currently a pretty strict superset of the set of Linux games. A lot of shared tech. You'd expect bascially everything that gets a SteamOS port, and doesn't need massive graphical power, to come over to osX too.

So in a couple of years they could easily be a very valid choice. Especially perhaps if combined with a ps4/xb1 to cover the genres where its most likely to be weak. (The same probably goes for steamOS.).

 

[XiandreX]

The osX games list very much depends on you view it. Measured strictly against the size of the windows one, then yes it looks relatively small.

Measure in absolute terms, say against the number of games you've got a chance of playing in a lifetime , it seems quite a healthy size to me. Plenty of games on GoG/Steam.

It'll very likely be the same sort of decision with SteamOS of course. If there's stuff you can't bear to lose then of course daft to move.

The other thing is that the set of osX games on steam is currently a pretty strict superset of the set of Linux games. A lot of shared tech. You'd expect bascially everything that gets a SteamOS port, and doesn't need massive graphical power, to come over to osX too.

So in a couple of years they could easily be a very valid choice. Especially perhaps if combined with a ps4/xb1 to cover the genres where its most likely to be weak. (The same probably goes for steamOS.).

I am sorry Qwert but regardless of playing styles short of someone only sticking to Mahjong... Apple is literally light years away from the Windows environment for games.

 

[Qwertilot]

Come on

Strategy gaming seems to have genuinely very good coverage. Old school style RPGs and the like too, esp with them getting all the relevant kickstarters. A very large percentage of indies from the looks of it.

In fact arguably more or less everything that you strictly need a desktop computer rather than a console to properly enjoy. So like I said, sane right now if combined with a console.
(or just, like me, don't really care about the action games.).

In a few years, with the IGP at ~xb1/ps4 levels and a bunch of (presumed) steamOS ports it might well look viable by itself. There are other reasons that I'd maybe not like one for myself but it isn't the games.

Obviously if you define gaming purely in terms of the ability to stick in massive graphics card/run FPSs etc at very high resolutions/frame rates its another matter

 

[cmdrdredd]

If SteamOS brings better hardware and software support to Linux, then it's a success to me.

I'm not a fan of Windows 8 on the desktop. It's a good tablet OS but its dual nature is just very clunky. OSX does a better job integrating mobile and traditional on the desktop. Hopefully this gets cleaned up for Windows 9. Sometimes you've gotta kill your babies, and a lot of people do not like Metro.

Osx is not iOS.

 

[darkewaffle]

There is a reason this image was made and is largely true for common users:

But what about Win2k

 

[ThinClient]

Windows 7 has security update support until 2020. I think I'm good for a while.

This.