Impact of (possible) decline of gaming on Windows use?

Hades · 20 Dec 2006 at 01:12

Not really sure where to put this thread but this is probably the closest forum. There is a discussion here about the possible decline of PC gaming compared to consoles. This got me thinking... I use Windows only for gaming. I dual boot into Linux for general day-to-day use but obviously have to fall back to Windows for gaming. My wife uses a PowerMac and isn't interested in gaming at all. The reason I use Linux is that it's free and it feels more secure. It also does everything I want and need and in many cases it does it in a way I prefer.

So my question is whether you would continue to use Windows for general day-to-day use if gaming were not an issue? Would you look at alternatives such as Linux, BSD, Mac OSX, etc?

blighter · 20 Dec 2006 at 01:21

probably better off in the PC Games section? :confused:

Hades · 20 Dec 2006 at 01:23

blighter said:
probably better off in the PC Games section?

Thought about that. But I'm not discussing games. I'm discussing whether people would use Windows if games were NOT an issue

Otherwise I'd just get a lot of people saying Windows is essential, etc.

blighter · 20 Dec 2006 at 01:24

Hades said:
Thought about that. But I'm not discussing games. I'm discussing whether people would use Windows if games were NOT an issue Otherwise I'd just get a lot of people saying Windows is essential, etc.

sorry, bit tired, mis-took the whole aim of the thread

dont wana sleep tho, sleep is boring

and i think i should add this to make up:

i use windows day in, day out and don't game(unless i'm at college of course!) but recently have been very interested in moving to either:
Mac OS X
Linux (Ubuntu)
Linux (Linspire)

haven't made my mind up though... still testing Vista, then will decide

eracer2006 · 20 Dec 2006 at 01:43

if this werent a gaming machine id use linux.

Morlan · 20 Dec 2006 at 02:05

PC = Killer Graphics.

I'm a PC man. Never got into the consoles. Had a ZX Spectrum and a C64, but when PCs came in I was hooked. I always believed that the graphics on the PC were far superior to consoles, and I still think that PCs will always be far more poweful than consoles. I demand top notch graphics, so for that reason, I will stick with my Windows PC.

I honestly don't think the Windows gaming market is much affected by consoles. There's a massive, massive amount of people that love the flexibiltiy of playing different games, surfin the web, burning DVDs, whatever.. Windows gives you pretty much everything you need. And Games developers seem to put as much effort into Windows games as they do with console games.

Think I'll stick with me PC thanks.

bledd · 20 Dec 2006 at 02:31

linux's and macos all feel really sluggish compared to xp with shading turned off

plus, firefox loads in less than a 2nd on my xp install, when i load firefox on the same hardware under all linux's i've tried, takes ages to open, and is not as fast

i use xp for speed

marc2003 · 20 Dec 2006 at 03:16

i should be a prime candidate for using linux because apart from gaming, all i do on my pc is surf the net, listen to music and watch videos. i don't use any particular software that is windows only........

one slight snag, i just love windows. i'm far too used to the way it works to change. i've tried linux a few times now and i just can't get on with it all. i'm too stuck in my ways. i'm sure it's come a long way since i last tried it over a year ago but what's the point in me trying again..... none.

security is a non issue as i don't download crap or visit dodgy websites. i don't run any av software and rely solely on my router to protect me from the outside world. done me no harm so far.

NathanE · 20 Dec 2006 at 07:37

I rarely play games on my Windows PC. Unless Microsoft somehow really screws up or the alternatives catch up (both technologically and user experience) then I won't be making any switch.

the-void · 20 Dec 2006 at 07:57

I certainly would continue to use Windows. Linux is vastly over-rated in my humble opinion. For the average consumer Linux offers far too many user settings and possibly overwhelms. For every advanced user berating Microsoft for hiding the features they want there are 10 home users happier for the simplicity. Besides with the right software it is possible to access the "advanced" hidden features in XP.

I also believe that the "extra security" or running linux is purely down the limited market penetration of the operating system and that the usual linux user is quite advanced enough to limit any security risk even on an un-patched, un service packed XP. If Linux had the same market share as XP how could you really trust that the linux distro you just downloaded wasn't doctored in some way? (Checking every line of code is not an option). The source code is available to everyone. Anyone could change a few lines of code to add a backdoor, compile it and release it to the internet.

However the argument is really moot as I doubt that software companies will stop writing games for windows considering windows market share. If they do then I WILL start my own company to make games for windows, and I don't think it would be too hard to get a few other people on board. Especially if I asked around these forums as well.

AJUK · 20 Dec 2006 at 08:49

Rather strangely I have done the opposite. I used to use Windows all the time for both work and home use including heavy gaming (Unreal Tournament 2003, Quake 3 Arena, Homeworld 2 and Empire Earth :cool:

) but after switching to Mac a few years ago at home and then to Mac fully at work as well my gaming tailed off.

However, I recently purchased the best computer in the world, a fully loaded 24" iMac and as well as handling all of my home and work tasks it is also a pretty fine gaming machine and it has peformed superbly in those beer fuelled late night Q4 and UT2004 sessions.

I think what we are about to witness a convergance of technology where computers can play games but consoles do it better and consoles can do computer tasks but computers do it better. The balance between the two is for the consumer to decide to suit their own needs.

afraser2k · 20 Dec 2006 at 09:15

Hades said:
So my question is whether you would continue to use Windows for general day-to-day use if gaming were not an issue? Would you look at alternatives such as Linux, BSD, Mac OSX, etc?

I wouldn't unless my work stopped using Windows ad it's primary desktop operating system. I still see many people having problems with Windows that would mean havoc if something like Linux or OS/X was adopted throughout the department.

I do have an interest in Linux on the desktop though but it's still too early to talk about it replacing Windows.

Haircut · 20 Dec 2006 at 09:23

Yes, I would continue to use Windows.

I am a .NET developer and regularly use Visual Studio, SQL Server and various other bits and pieces so would use Windows for those things.

Hades · 22 Dec 2006 at 01:48

Ok, thanks for the replies. I guess Steve Ballmer is safe for now then.

Glaucus · 22 Dec 2006 at 01:53

1) linux is only more secure cos no one uses it and so most hackers, virus programmers ect can't be bothered to find there vulnerabilities.

2) windows although being the only gamers choice, will remain being the choice of everyone else. Because it runs MS office, outlook express and these are things 90% of people use at work. Why come home from work and learn new programs. Linux is horrible for a newbie because it so diffrent from windows(the normall). as MS windows is identical all around the world, you don't have compatibility problems unlike linux.

So to sum it up linux is still crap for 99% of the population.

All though I would love to use it, if it supported all network cards and you could play games on it.

Al Vallario · 22 Dec 2006 at 02:38

AcidHell2 said:
1) linux is only more secure cos no one uses it and so most hackers, virus programmers ect can't be bothered to find there vulnerabilities.

Market share is a factor, but not the only reason why alternative UNIX-based operating systems are more secure than Windows. Hackers do spend a lot of time working on finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in linux – afterall, linux is by far the most widely used operating system for web servers – and whilst no operating system is perfect, various features of the linux architecture make it inherently more secure than Windows. Likewise for OS X, whilst its market share is growing at a rapid pace, possible vulnerabilities are being found and patched constantly, and no significant exploits have surfaced yet.

AcidHell2 said:
2) windows although being the only gamers choice, will remain being the choice of everyone else. Because it runs MS office, outlook express and these are things 90% of people use at work. Why come home from work and learn new programs. Linux is horrible for a newbie because it so diffrent from windows(the normall). as MS windows is identical all around the world, you don't have compatibility problems unlike linux.

Microsoft Office was originally developed for MacOS, and whilst this may be of little significance today, many agree that the OS X version is vastly superior to the Windows offering at the moment (this is slightly hampered by the Intel mac switchover, but holds true all the same). Windows doesn't even include an email client out of the box, does it? OS X comes with mail.app, which is a more than capable application for home use, and Mozilla Thunderbird should be equally capable of handling more advanced usage once people are accustomed to using it. Whilst different linux variations may be a source of confusion, OS X is just like Windows in providing a unified and easily recognisible user experience. Furthermore, as OS X can only be run on Apple hardware, the operating system is much more tailored to the hardware than Windows, which tends to adopt a more "one size fits all" approach when it comes to hardware support.

So, ultimately, the only thing countering the multitude of reasons to switch from Windows to OS X (aside from gaming purposes, of course) is the stubborness of existing Windows users who don't like change

*av

Morlan · 22 Dec 2006 at 04:46

Al Vallario said:
Windows doesn't even include an email client out of the box

What about Outlook Express? :confused:

NathanE · 22 Dec 2006 at 08:00

Al Vallario said:
Market share is a factor, but not the only reason why alternative UNIX-based operating systems are more secure than Windows.

And of course the hundreds of security patches each month to *nix operating systems, usually without any sort of auto-update system, completely evaded you

many agree that the OS X version is vastly superior to the Windows offering at the moment (this is slightly hampered by the Intel mac switchover, but holds true all the same)

They do?

Never heard that before. Office on the Mac has been left to rot. Office '03 and '07 have much larger feature sets and integrate more tightly with the OS and other Office apps.

Windows doesn't even include an email client out of the box, does it?

When did you actually last use Windows? '95?

OS X comes with mail.app, which is a more than capable application for home use, and Mozilla Thunderbird should be equally capable of handling more advanced usage once people are accustomed to using it.

Yeah that's cool n' all, but Windows users get to use Office's Outlook, the unarguable daddy of e-mail clients.

Furthermore, as OS X can only be run on Apple hardware, the operating system is much more tailored to the hardware than Windows, which tends to adopt a more "one size fits all" approach when it comes to hardware support.

What is your point here? Also, unlike *nix (and OSX), Windows has a hardware abstraction layer (which is how Windows supports device drivers that can be dynamically loaded and unloaded) so it can get away with supporting thousands of different hardware configurations without having to recompile the kernel each time. This is not a disadvantage as you tried to twist it, it is a monumental advantage.

So, ultimately, the only thing countering the multitude of reasons to switch from Windows to OS X (aside from gaming purposes, of course) is the stubborness of existing Windows users who don't like change

That's one hell of a conclusion from what has mostly been a bunch of tripe

For starters, OSX has like 5 applications you can use (exaggeration intended for effect) whereas Windows has in relative comparison around 50,000... It doesn't matter how good you perceive OSX to be - until it has got software that people want to use it ain't goin' no where! Very soon Microsoft is giving OSX a .NET runtime - so at least it will gain some interest/respect from Windows developers, but only then does the game begin really.

the-void · 22 Dec 2006 at 08:26

Al Vallario said:
So, ultimately, the only thing countering the multitude of reasons to switch from Windows to OS X (aside from gaming purposes, of course) is the stubborness of existing Windows users who don't like change

Al Vallario you are completely misguided and appear to be blinded from reality by Apple's marketing.

It isn't possible for Windows Users to switch to OSX because Apple doesn't sell OSX for anything other than Apple hardware.

And why should people have to dispense of their current hardware because of Apple's reluctance to release a standalone copy of OSX. Especially if that hardware is more than adequate for the task in hand. No Al Vallario it is not Windows users who are being stubborn. It is Apple.

Ultimately that is the reason why Windows has a greater share than Apple; You can run Windows on a variety of hardware configurations several magnitudes greater than OSX.

zetec452 · 22 Dec 2006 at 08:55

I've tried all sorts of operating systems on my desktop. I always go back to windows, Linux just isn't useable as a day to day OS, it takes far to much tweaking and messing around.

I do have a mac mini which I find myself using more and more, it has all the apps I need for web development, office etc but I can't use it for work as we use software that can't be run on OS X.

In terms of security each OS is as secure as you make it. The weakest point is the user.