Windows 8 vs 7 - Gaming Performance Radeon HD 7970

[bfar]

It seems to be geek fashion to have a go at windows 8 atm! I installed it yesterday. Its a good os overall and it certainly isn't going to ruin any 'experience'. And just look at how a huge range of clever hardware is being developed around it, all very fresh.

For Microsoft this was do or die, you might not like it but it absolutely had to happen. Luckily they did it in a way that retains the old desktop world, so what's the problem?

 

[WingZero30]

Could you imagine us gamers using touchscreen? We would have arms like popeye

Ha, unless lactic acid build up very soon in our arms, then it will be back to KB+M

 

[flopper]

If Microsoft had put as much effort into making Win 8 more efficient than Win 7 as they have into trying to make it look pretty it might have been a good thing.

All Win 8 says to me is

Classic Bloatware.

actually they did speed up windows 8.
why would anyone wanna use a older slower bloatware OS like windows 7?
Under the hood there are a ton of speedimprovements in windows 8.
it runs faster, requries less hardware and has a two way street if one use a surfboard of some kind.

 

[old gamer]

bit tech did some benchies with amd and nvidia with windows 8

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/software/2012/10/26/windows-8-performance-benchmarks/1

 

[Kaapstad]

actually they did speed up windows 8.
why would anyone wanna use a older slower bloatware OS like windows 7?
Under the hood there are a ton of speedimprovements in windows 8.
it runs faster, requries less hardware and has a two way street if one use a surfboard of some kind.

The link above and the one in the OP would tend to disagree with your point.

Also even if there was no speed issue the interface is clumsy as hell on a PC.

 

[delta0]

The link above and the one in the OP would tend to disagree with your point.

Also even if there was no speed issue the interface is clumsy as hell on a PC.

Windows 8 itself is a lot faster. Games, we can't be confident in any comparison yet because the drivers are immature and still beta in most cases.

 

['Wes]

Like i've said before, i don't see any point in upgrading from Windows 7 because it does the job.

 

[NZB]

Like i've said before, i don't see any point in upgrading from Windows 7 because it does the job.

With the £15 offer it's a good gamble though. I wasn't going to bother with 8 until i saw that, it'll sit on a thumb drive until bugs get ironed out and it shows whether there will be any gaming performance improvement with new drivers. If nothing changes then next to nothing has been lost.

 

[jeffa123]

Why don't they just call it Media Centre 8 Touch. That is all it is, nothing more than an elaborate media centre.

 

[Nutella33]

because its not that? theres a fully functioning desktop there as well. just need to tweak reg's a bit to get it or install start8 or the various other fixes available.

its also a bargain price for anyone on legacy OS's (XP/Vista).

 

[Jakus]

Why don't they just call it Media Centre 8 Touch. That is all it is, nothing more than an elaborate media centre.

The laugh is it's not even that..they pulled all the codecs !

Why can't MS offer an OS that at install you choose what you want ? sure most would choose, basic shell,networking,file manager and DirectX API

The only bit of windows everybody uses is the start menu....and they change it

I did here win 8 had latency issues for gaming ! but after running it months back for a few days, I decided it was not for me !

 

[Darujhistan]

On the PC I think Win 8 is going to be a turkey and I suspect a lot of people will stick with Win 7. I think the new interface will be great on a phone or tablet but not on the PC. If older games don't run as well as newer games on Win 8 I can not see that changing in the near future.

If Microsoft had put as much effort into making Win 8 more efficient than Win 7 as they have into trying to make it look pretty it might have been a good thing.

All Win 8 says to me is

Classic Bloatware.

I've heard it's touch screen? that's fine on a tablet with a glass screen, but I don't want my greasy fingers all over my monitor all day.

 

[delta0]

I've heard it's touch screen? that's fine on a tablet with a glass screen, but I don't want my greasy fingers all over my monitor all day.

It is not touch screen. I do not use a touch screen and I have not felt the need to with Windows 8. The new interface you see is just the replacement for the Start menu. The desktop is still there.

 

[weehamish]

He means it is designed for touch screen, and it IS.

Its basically made to compete with apple in the mobile market. Soon phones will use it, Nokia and HTC.

But like people say i like the START button why mess things around?

It also does boot and copy files way faster then 7 so for none gamers its a massive improvement.

Ive got it 64bit pro but im not using it, like people say dont fix whats not broken.

 

[delta0]

He means it is designed for touch screen, and it IS.

Its basically made to compete with apple in the mobile market. Soon phones will use it, Nokia and HTC.

But like people say i like the START button why mess things around?

It also does boot and copy files way faster then 7 so for none gamers its a massive improvement.

Ive got it 64bit pro but im not using it, like people say dont fix whats not broken.

It is designed to be easier to use on touch screens than previous versions have been, but it is for both touch and non-touch screen. Very much like other windows versions with the icons/desktop buttons, start menu and active applications on the desktop that you can control in one pane. The desktop is still present and like previous versions of windows you spend time on the desktop or time opening programmes from the Start menu, now Metro.

 

[Darujhistan]

So if i'm not interested in touch screen and I'm happy with W7, there's no real point getting W8?

 

[delta0]

So if i'm not interested in touch screen and I'm happy with W7, there's no real point getting W8?

It is for non-touch screen too. It is not compromised in anyway by not using a touch screen. The Metro interface that perhaps you are associating with "touch screen" is the replacement for the Start menu and it operates as before, although it looks a lot better. The normal desktop is also still there.

 

[Stanners]

You can still get the start button back easy enough. Mine boots in to the desktop with the start menu as win 7.

 

[Curlyriff]

It is 'Modern' interface as they had a law suit with Metro. Also it really isn't great. The search function on win 8 means you cannot type in something like jpeg or word doc or even uninstall or printers to bring up the control panel menus that are relevant. It only searches apps. That is the same when in desktop search as well. You have to search for either download folder or control panel to get to the required menus.

It also auto boots to the start menu. You cannot choose it otherwise. Neither can you choose to add the start menu in without a 3rd party. Although this is both a positive or negative.

If you have internet explore/Chrome on both the apps 'Modern' interface/start menu and the desktop they are two separate entities which means you would have to configure both to run the same depending where you are or have to switch between desktop and 'Modern' interface all the time.

The right click menu no longer has the same functions. They have removed allot. It also no longer appears next to your mouse. It has been moved to auto fix to the bottom of the screen so you have to move your mouse a long way to get to any of the much limited options.

To get to the shutdown button you have to go through about 4 menus which I believe is actually one of the worst parts just because it is so hidden.

The change PC settings means that you do not get the same functions as you would on your current desktop such as users administration options.

The windows explorer folders are much better. The task manger is excellent and includes some functions from msconfig into it like start up programs.

The start menu is great once you spend your time setting it up but there is allot to flick through and allot of pointless apps to remove but yeah you probably won't need the desktop once set-up really.

It looks excellent and has modernised it's looks which was needed in allot of places. The WinX menu is useful for advance users and settings though and all you have to do is right click over the start icon which has the options that most of people want for administration tasks.

Anyways that is an overview to both good and bad parts. What I am really lacking the understanding is just how separate it all feels between desktop and 'modern' start menu. Everything feels duplicated. Creating apps that allow the administrative tools would mean you could have that as a whole section. It would make desktop redundant and mean it could be turned off/removed. I believe this is the future for Windows 9 in that desktop will be totally removed.

The only reason to access the desktop is for administration tools once set-up or to search folders for jpegs. Again having an app that provides folders such as downloads, music and opens up with the new explorer in the start menu rather than jumping to desktop would be easy enough.

Also not sure if it is about but the Control panel functions would be great as individual apps again without jumping you into desktop. If these were added so desktop becomes obsolete then it would feel more fluid and like one system rather than two pushed together.

Kind Regards,

Adam

 

[Curlyriff]

Oh also if you put two programmes side by side. You can no longer have half screen but it shrinks one to about 1/5th and the other 4/5th of the full screen real estate. It would be nice to have a 50/50 split option also.

If you then have the browser open along with another app then the tabs disappear and you have to start doing multiple clicks to get the tabs visible in a scroll setting unlike say chrome for instance.

Kind Regards,

Adam