2015, will you go Windows 9 or steam OS?

[BSim500]

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?

Well said. The biggest performance difference in 7 vs 8 for "multi-tasking" revolves around core-parking which is easily disabled in Win7 via registry or "ParkControl" with no loss of power efficiency (simply because SpeedStep is so good). I'm sure there may be 1 or 2 people out there somewhere who are "scared" of upgrading but for most I know, it's a case of "I'll upgrade when I want, not when MS or a few geeks want and I'll do so for a tangible significant improvement not just another 'change for the sake of change'".

A lot more people buy into blind marketing hype than give into fear. "The Vista Sidebar will revolutionize how you work! OMG, look at those efficiency enhancing Sidebar widgets! Look at those Desktop Gadgets!" LOL.

Windows used to be flat. Then when everyone got used to it, flat was boring so 3D "Flip" was introduced. Now everyone's got used to that, suddenly "flat" is "in" again and Win+TAB Flip3D has been removed. And when Windows 9 / 10 comes out, it'll be the same thing - "Ditch the flat look and get a super 3D interface". And when Windows 12 comes out, it'll be FlatLook 2.0. And when Windows 14 comes out... etc, etc.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It used to be that hopping to a new windows OS was fraught with danger and major issues, lets face it most people hated XP when it first came out and it had some major security, stability and performance issues. However after SP2 it became a real solid OS and in fact when Vista landed we went through much the same mess, although Vistas issues tended to be on the performance side of things, if you had a fast PC it was actually reasonably usable at launch.

Win 7 was extremely usable at launch and so has windows 8, in very large part I suspect due to the open betas Microsoft have run years leading up to release to allow vendors to update and test drivers and for early adopters to really get a feel for it and report back the issues.
Launches have got better and better and I have to say that while I'm a fan of the look of Win7 and really dislike the metro side of Win8, there's literally no reason, other than cost, to not move to windows 8 right now.

By no means do you NEED to upgrade unless you're on XP which loses support in april, Win8 and Win7 and to an extent Win Vista are fairly solid OSs.

On the other hand, I see literally no reason to buy into steam OS right now, other than cost but for many of us that's a non issue.

 

[Batmeat]

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

Where is Windows 98SE? 98 alone sucked. Where is Win2k? It was awesome. XP sucked until SP2/3

 

[cronos]

Where is Windows 98SE? 98 alone sucked. Where is Win2k? It was awesome. XP sucked until SP2/3

If you are counting 98SE then you'll have to include 95 OSR2, which is also good. That'll cover the skip.

Windows 2000 doesn't count as it comes from the NT line. It was not a consumer OS. They then merged the code at XP.

 

[HeXen]

Just so I know, why are we trying to fit each version of Windows into a symmetrical assemblance of good and bad?
Doesn't anyone remember that much of the problems, especially with Vista due to sudden changes during development, was with the 3rd party drivers? Granted the overlay on the dos subsystem known as 9x for pre XP OS's was not very reliable and stable but for anyone to just put out an OS is a huge undertaking and time allotment for maturity is required. 8 is just an evolution of 7 which is an evolution of Vista with some plus and minus features. Much of the complaints with any OS is usually the UI itself, not so much the actual foundations of the OS which is most important thing about whether an OS is good or bad. Frankly I think the Windows registry is the work of the devil and how developers can be allowed to make the sloppiest code in history the OS won't care. That said all Windows OS's suck.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

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.

95% of my customers are still buying Windows 7 for their Desktops (and a surprising amount of Server 2008 R2 for that matter). I'm not talking about friends I build gaming PCs for, I'm talking massive companies that have recently ordered 100s-1000s of units preparing to XP's EOL and migrating to Windows 7. Windows 7 is the new XP, it is going to be tough to kill.

 

[MetalMat]

I must be one of the few people that does not have a "big" issue with windows 8. It works just fine for what it is and I have not had any real problems.

My main issue with Windows 8 is the fact that Microsoft is really pushing the whole touchscreen thing and I feel like most of us don't really need it. I've gotten used to it but I would like to know what percentage of Windows 8 users even have a touchscreen. Outside of that it hardly feels like an upgrade over Windows 7.

I'll probably switch to Windows 9 by default in 2-3 years when I get my next laptop but I won't be upgrading to any new OS till then.

 

[QueBert]

that pic is hilarious, 3.1 good? 98 good? 3.1 was interesting because it was something totally new, but it blew. 98 was better than 95 but it wasn't what I'd consider good, or even close.

 

[Doppel]

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 ^^

You realize Vista is generally considered a bust, right? Those people who skipped it were correct.

Did you like Windows ME?

 

[Topweasel]

You realize Vista is generally considered a bust, right? Those people who skipped it were correct.

Did you like Windows ME?

ME was possibly the worst product ever, but people seem to line up Vista as this horrible product as a fact. There were a lot of miss steps (like writing in menu delays so that people would see the new ui transitions) but it was more stable and ran programs and games faster than XP. It was a much much better OS. It might not have been MS's best work and Windows 7 blows it away, but it wasn't a failure, bust, or horrible product it gets treated as.

 

[smackababy]

ME was possibly the worst product ever, but people seem to line up Vista as this horrible product as a fact. There were a lot of miss steps (like writing in menu delays so that people would see the new ui transitions) but it was more stable and ran programs and games faster than XP. It was a much much better OS. It might not have been MS's best work and Windows 7 blows it away, but it wasn't a failure, bust, or horrible product it gets treated as.

Vistas only real problems were it took a bit more power to run (so 90% of those XP machines trying to upgrade from it couldn't handle Aero) and MS rewrote the driver model and hardware vendors didn't put out drivers right away.

If you went to Vista now, it is a perfectly fine OS. The problem is the launch was bad and first impressions stick.

 

[darkewaffle]

95% of my customers are still buying Windows 7 for their Desktops (and a surprising amount of Server 2008 R2 for that matter). I'm not talking about friends I build gaming PCs for, I'm talking massive companies that have recently ordered 100s-1000s of units preparing to XP's EOL and migrating to Windows 7. Windows 7 is the new XP, it is going to be tough to kill.

That's because they're slow more than anything else. It's really not a knock on 8 imo, the business world is just that far behind and so slow to adopt anything that it makes better fiscal sense to skip generations and deal with it rather than try to incorporate each one. Really the only reason that they're finally moving off XP is that it's going to hit it's true EOL and become a security liability; I work a bank so for us that's a big issue because our auditors will really give us hell for it. But if it wasn't for that... they'd probably just stick with XP. Even just moving from XP to 7 (or rather from 32 bit to 64 bit in some cases) has given us a lot of headaches with regards to compatibility with our internal programs.

 

[gorcorps]

I must be one of the few people that does not have a "big" issue with windows 8. It works just fine for what it is and I have not had any real problems.

My main issue with Windows 8 is the fact that Microsoft is really pushing the whole touchscreen thing and I feel like most of us don't really need it. I've gotten used to it but I would like to know what percentage of Windows 8 users even have a touchscreen. Outside of that it hardly feels like an upgrade over Windows 7.

I'll probably switch to Windows 9 by default in 2-3 years when I get my next laptop but I won't be upgrading to any new OS till then.

My mom is the only Windows 8 user I know that only has a mouse, and she actually enjoys it. I tried to use windows 8 with just a mouse and I couldn't do it. I use a Helix at work, and the gestures on the touchpad are very useful. It's good enough that I don't use the touchscreen for much unless I'm using it as a tablet.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Plenty happy with 8.1 in desktop with start menu add-on.

 

[desura]

Unless Valve accomplishes some miracles of computer engineering...SteamOS will be lucky to be as widespread as Ubuntu.

So Windows will always be there.

 

[pmv]

that pic is hilarious, 3.1 good? 98 good? 3.1 was interesting because it was something totally new, but it blew. 98 was better than 95 but it wasn't what I'd consider good, or even close.

98 was pretty decent - though not markedly better than 95 - and 98se was good - and was a free upgrade from 98, so really those two are the same O/S for most purposes.

3.1 wasn't totally new as it was an inferior version of what the Mac (and maybe even the ST, and Amiga) already had. Admittedly I hardly used it - tried it and thought it was annoying. Back then PCs weren't 'real' computers anyway.

All the 9x O/Ss were rather unstable - that, I think, was the biggest gain from XP, getting that NT stablity.

But I agree that picture tries to force a pattern that isn't there. And even ME, Vista and 8 are 'bad' for totally different reasons. I hardly noticed ME, I seem to recall MS being a bit sheepish about it from the start, I'm not even sure why it ever existed.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Why SteamOS? It's just Ubuntu (or is it Debian now?) with steam in full screen. At least say Win 9 or Ubuntu (or Mint or whatever).

And from dual booting ubuntu for a while I'd say probably not. I'll still need a windows install. Too much that don't work. No good Lightroom alternative, not VBA, Word or Excel I use for work etc. Always some driver issue. I want to like linux enough to use full time and exclusively, but I just can't. Ironically enough I'd probably be ok with the game selection on linux (Paradox games ftw), it's just other things that are too janky.

Fingers crossed for Win 9.

 

[Topweasel]

Vistas only real problems were it took a bit more power to run (so 90% of those XP machines trying to upgrade from it couldn't handle Aero) and MS rewrote the driver model and hardware vendors didn't put out drivers right away.

If you went to Vista now, it is a perfectly fine OS. The problem is the launch was bad and first impressions stick.

I don't how to put it but there's a real issue with people so self absorbed that they can make unmoving decisions based on the silliest things. I don't know why vista didn't get the love XP did (and its probably because of the ui feeling needlessly sluggish). But Launch XP was almost unusable. I mean people complain about the changes to video and printing system for Vista, but man nothing worked on XP at launch. It was extremely buggy and it wasn't till combining SP2 and FF that people could use the web without bringing it to it's knees (the marriage of IE and explorer was the worst idea ever). I attempted to use it a couple times before than but each time I found myself needing to reinstall after only a couple of months. I guess it comes from XP being the only solution for so long.

But at least whether it was ME, Vista, or even XP in its infancy, at least there where decent reasons. Mostly Stability or support. But Windows 8 sees a hate I just can't understand. It's faster, requires less resources, quicker interface, fully customizable, more stable, and while not everyone's cup of tea has a store front for job specific application like Netflix and hulu that's 100x better than watching it through a browser. All over an interface while targeted at touch users is basically what people wanted when they got pissed that Windows XP chose what applications appeared on the start bar.

 

[HeXen]

that pic is hilarious, 3.1 good? 98 good? 3.1 was interesting because it was something totally new, but it blew. 98 was better than 95 but it wasn't what I'd consider good, or even close.

Amiga!!!

 

[MetalMat]

My mom is the only Windows 8 user I know that only has a mouse, and she actually enjoys it. I tried to use windows 8 with just a mouse and I couldn't do it. I use a Helix at work, and the gestures on the touchpad are very useful. It's good enough that I don't use the touchscreen for much unless I'm using it as a tablet.

It takes some time but I have actually gotten used to not using the start button and just sliding the mouse to the top corner of the screen and typing in what I want. I still don't use the apps portion of windows 8 at all.

 

[steve wilson]

I've not read the whole thread, but in the first 2 pages, no one has mentioned the performance increases from SteamOS. I think I will probably go to windows 9 (on windows 7 atm and no plans for windows 8) and dual boot steamOS if these performance increases are real. Also assuming that the games I'm interested in playing have no issues running on steam OS. Also assuming things like mumble/TS work on steamOS.

Copy and pasted from SteamOS official site
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35982545#post35982545

In SteamOS, we have achieved significant performance increases in graphics processing, and we’re now targeting audio performance and reductions in input latency at the operating system level. Game developers are already taking advantage of these gains as they target SteamOS for their new releases.

For people like me who play a twitch shooter (Counter strike GO), any small advantage you can get you are going to take.

 

[Topweasel]

I've not read the whole thread, but in the first 2 pages, no one has mentioned the performance increases from SteamOS. I think I will probably go to windows 9 (on windows 7 atm and no plans for windows 8) and dual boot steamOS if these performance increases are real. Also assuming that the games I'm interested in playing have no issues running on steam OS. Also assuming things like mumble/TS work on steamOS.

Copy and pasted from SteamOS official site
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=35982545#post35982545

In SteamOS, we have achieved significant performance increases in graphics processing, and we’re now targeting audio performance and reductions in input latency at the operating system level. Game developers are already taking advantage of these gains as they target SteamOS for their new releases.

For people like me who play a twitch shooter (Counter strike GO), any small advantage you can get you are going to take.

The problem is you have a company (Valve) creating and spending tons of time getting the Linux load right for their applications because they are the same company publishing their own Linux OS and therefore have a dog in the fight.

For everyone else of the few you can get to make games for the OS, chances are they are going to be OpenGL ports of either DX PC games or console ports, probably with very little optimization (since its a PC and all you just need to up the requirements). I seriously doubt that to many of the Linux versions will run significantly faster.

 

[steve wilson]

The problem is you have a company (Valve) creating and spending tons of time getting the Linux load right for their applications because they are the same company publishing their own Linux OS and therefore have a dog in the fight.

For everyone else of the few you can get to make games for the OS, chances are they are going to be OpenGL ports of either DX PC games or console ports, probably with very little optimization (since its a PC and all you just need to up the requirements). I seriously doubt that to many of the Linux versions will run significantly faster.

I'll remain open minded on the subject and wait for benchmarks from sites like this one. Since valve make CS GO, I'm guessing they will optimize that one and that's the game I'm most interested in. I think it's too early to tell...we should probably wait until the time to make this decision, when there is more info.

Edit: I think there are a bunch of developers that have said they are going to develop their games for SteamOS. But actions speak louder than words, they might not follow through with it.

 

[Chiropteran]

Fairly happy with Windows 8.1 I'll either stick with this, or upgrade to Windows 9. I'll probably throw SteamOS on a secondary box just to play around with, but I think it will be far too soon to consider switching full time- most of the programs I use are windows-only still and I don't think that will change for 10 years or more.

 

[CPX7700]

Windows 9, absolutely. I love older Windows 95/98 games like the original Unreal Tournament which I am sure will run fine on Windows 9 since it runs on Windows 8 with no issues. SteamOS does not have enough of a library. If they can port every title on Steam and make it run natively, then I will consider it.