2015, will you go Windows 9 or steam OS?

[PliotronX]

Both, I'll either build a SteamBox or buy one and inevitably end up with 9 no matter how ugly and suboptimal-for-desktop-use it is.

 

[Newbian]

But what about Win2k

That was more of a server os.

 

[Skel]

That was more of a server os.

Unless you tried to use it for server type functions...

 

[Newbian]

Unless you tried to use it for server type functions...

Remember we are talking about MS and servers together.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

neither. Win7 for many years to come.

 

[moonbogg]

Steam OS seems way too limited to even be called a proper OS. What about all the driver and hardware support, other programs and the massive ecosystem that windows has established? Sounds ridiculous for use on a general purpose desktop. If I wanted a dedicated steam machine, which makes no sense anyway, then I might go for Steam OS.

 

[Imaginer]

If I wanted a dedicated steam machine (game machine), which makes no sense anyway, then I might go for Steam OS (console).

Changed for my views on this quote.

 

[JeffMD]

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

Funny stuff.. although I degress, Windows 95 was great. You had many of the teething issues of a brand new OS, but aside from the obvious issues of running DOS crap in windows, it looked good and ran windows stuff well.

Also windows 2000 is missing.. which was the windows XP before XP became good. I loved that OS, although I will admit the whole reason I moved to XP (about a year after xp had been out) was NFS: underground 2 had really strange massive stuttering issues at the beginning of races that couldn't be explained. After re-installing the OS to no avail I decided to install windows xp and the issues vanished.

Oh and mark me down as one of the few who liked windows vista. Maybe it is because I used quality hardware so I didn't have a lot of drivers for cheap chipsets invading the system, but I ran windows vista on my main game system and my laptop (came with windows xp and was "vista ready". Funny enough while everyone was complaining about how their vista ready system couldn't run vista, mine ran vista AND windows 7 with no problems) with zero issues.

Been kind of happy with MS for a long while now but I knew win8 was a disaster with that interface.

 

[Savatar]

I don't think that SteamOS/Steam Boxes are designed to be a general-purpose operating system. Although it is a derivative of Linux, it is focused primarily on gaming, and therefore it may be more apt to say that it competes with consoles and not general purpose operating systems.

As far as my general purpose OS, I tend to have both a Windows installation (will definitely upgrade to Windows 9 when it hits RTM) and Linux installation (currently Linux Mint). Some of the changes in Windows 9 sound like they are making the right decisions - for example, bringing a version of the start menu back and enhancing the Modern UI API so that apps can be run in windowed mode.

As far as consoles are concerned, I don't actually have any consoles at the moment, and I'm not too likely to get one anytime soon. If I would have to choose one in the next few years it would most likely be a PS4 or XBox One, though, instead of SteamOS... but I would prefer to wait until the next generation because - since they are both on x86 architecture now - it should be much easier to get backwards compatibility (so I won't miss out on any games, in theory). SteamOS will likely lack major releases for quite a while, but I am hopeful that publishers will port titles to it. If Valve is smart, they might even release an exclusive like Half-Life 3 or something to SteamOS (which would definitely make me install it)!

 

[Qwertilot]

General purpose computing with SteamOS will depend somewhat. Not Valve's main focus.

Still, its got debian underneath and in general that is a very acceptable general purpose desktop/application ecosystem. So if it can be somehow booted to desktop as the default - maybe by a derived distribution - then it'll still work nicely for the everything else bit of a sort of mixed gaming/everything else machine. I'd say that the games are rather more likely to be a problem.

General purpose hardware support very good really, wireless drivers somewhat touchy.

Graphics drivers, well, ummmmm. Mostly not too terrible right now but they've had ages to sort them out for these architectures! The real test will be how long it takes to get SteamOS driver support for Maxwell/next gen AMD working properly.

 

[turn_pike]

If by SteamOS you mean Linux then being able to use Steam might very well finally clinch my moving back. Used Linux during the heyday of Vista and went back to MS after Win 7. But I do miss a lot of stuff in there.

Wanna use ZFS / btrfs. Wanna run virtual machine under xen. Wanna use bash instead of cmd as console. Wanna be able to use symlink easily. Wanna have access to Unix toolchain.

I would sorely miss Windows 7's fabulous taskbar though. I hope Linux will have a decent clone of it by then.

 

[Stuka87]

Unless MS gives up trying to force a touch interface onto desktops, I will stick with Windows 7.

I may give SteamOS a try, but only about half of my game library is through steam.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Win9. Nowadays I use my computer for games only about 10% of the time.

 

[irishScott]

I'm sticking with Windows 7 for now. Windows 8 if I get a laptop with a touch screen, otherwise it's just a less efficient interface.

Regarding Windows 9, I'll wait for reviews. I hear they're bringing back the start menu, so that gives me hope.

Regarding SteamOS: Maybe. But any game that can run on SteamOS will likely run better on Windows, so...

 

[Zak_]

Windows 8 got better in 8.1, and they learned a lot of lessons so far. I'm sure 9 will be considered as the best windows yet, just like 7 was.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Steam OS provides absolutely no discernible benefit in my use case. . . so I'll be sticking with windows.

 

[Batmeat]

Neither for me. The steam os is nice but limited to games on steam. I use Win 8.1 currently. I'll stick with it. Win 7 was great but 8.1 for me is more stable

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Neither for me. The steam os is nice but limited to games on steam. I use Win 8.1 currently. I'll stick with it. Win 7 was great but 8.1 for me is more stable

Windows 8.1 really isn't bad. I just never use the metro screen and it works like Windows 7 but faster.

 

[XiandreX]

Windows 8.1 really isn't bad. I just never use the metro screen and it works like Windows 7 but faster.

Windows 8.1 with classic shell is extremely nice to use. I recently added ObjectDock and its even nicer now.

 

[pmv]

Windows 8.1 really isn't bad. I just never use the metro screen and it works like Windows 7 but faster.

I really don't get all these 8/8.1 users arguing that its 'faster'. In what way?
Game benchmarks are neck-and-neck with win7 winning most of them (by a margin too small to matter, mind). And how much 'faster' can the normal desktop stuff actually get?
The only way 8 is demonstrably 'faster' is in booting up, and that only if you aren't using hibernate. How often does one actually do a cold boot anyway?
I suspect its pure placebo effect.

Its more secure, I grant you that, and that's probably its main advantage, but 'faster'?

And I think the portents are good that Win 9 will be a decent OS. All they have to do really is significantly improve the melding of desktop and the metro stuff. And MS do have a record of getting it right the second time, after listening to everyone moaning.
I'm a bit skeptical about SteamOS - I don't see that producing a good O/S is the same kind of thing as producing a good game or even a game-delivery system. But I might end up using both of them, if SteamOS turns out to work well with games.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I really don't get all these 8/8.1 users arguing that its 'faster'. In what way?
Game benchmarks are neck-and-neck with win7 winning most of them (by a margin too small to matter, mind). And how much 'faster' can the normal desktop stuff actually get?
The only way 8 is demonstrably 'faster' is in booting up, and that only if you aren't using hibernate. How often does one actually do a cold boot anyway?
I suspect its pure placebo effect.

Its more secure, I grant you that, and that's probably its main advantage, but 'faster'?

And I think the portents are good that Win 9 will be a decent OS. All they have to do really is significantly improve the melding of desktop and the metro stuff. And MS do have a record of getting it right the second time, after listening to everyone moaning.
I'm a bit skeptical about SteamOS - I don't see that producing a good O/S is the same kind of thing as producing a good game or even a game-delivery system. But I might end up using both of them, if SteamOS turns out to work well with games.

Try moving files via LAN..and it has way improved coreparking..and when I multitask (gaming, I/O, encoding, filetransfers ect)...it handles it much better than Win7

 

[fixbsod]

qft

Windows 7 Ultimate x64.

 

[paul878]

I would stay with Windows 7 unless 9 really really impresses me, that mean no metro shit! I see Steam OS as for games only, if it run games faster than Windows I might duel boot.

 

[Lonbjerg]

LOL...looks liek the same crowd that would not leave XP...now are stuck on Win 7

Oh well...some people are scared of new and improved ^^

 

[pmv]

LOL...looks liek the same crowd that would not leave XP...now are stuck on Win 7

Oh well...some people are scared of new and improved ^^

Or, some people don't suffer from upgrade-anxiety, compelled to always get the latest thing regardless of whether it suits their needs or is worth the expense.

In contrast, normal people upgrade when its worth doing. Which is why 7 gained market share over XP but Vista didn't, and why 8 looks like its going to be the new Vista, with only early adopters getting stuck with it, while the rest of us wait for 9!

I'm being more negative about 8 than I really am, but this sort of 'you're all scared of new things' rubbish is getting very old. How about saying something new?