Treefingers
Member
Apple is not at all moving in this direction. They're introducing concepts from iOS to the desktop that make sense, they're not making one OS for both desktop and mobile. Because it doesn't make sense.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Windows 8 Gaming Performance (benchmarks inside)
- Thread starter mik83kuu
- Start date
I'll definitely agree with this. It's the boldest, riskiest move that MS has ever made.
But there's a good reason for it. The nature of computing is changing as powerful processors get cooler and smaller allowing it to get more and more mobile. I can't really begrudge MS trying to anticipate that change rather than merely react to it.
That Windows 8 is a sweet O/S helps as well.
There are no devices that lock you in to Steam.
I believe that's equally morally wrong, yes. I refuse to have any association with iOS devices.
Disagreed. They've actually gone ahead and adopted an iOS like feature with Mountain Lion that doesn't make sense and what everybody here is bashing MS for maybe one day perhaps doing. Locking the desktop O/S by default to only allow installations by pre-approved developers.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1165408/mountain_lion_hands_on_with_gatekeeper.html
Mobile form factors are expanding to swallow the desktop. People have been buying cheap powerful laptops to replace their desktops for years now and that was the start of this trend.
Uno Venova
Banned
Yep.
Treefingers
Member
I mean they're not moving in the direction of one OS fits all. Their apps policy is a different matter entirely.
Edit: Gatekeeper is exactly what I'm talking about, bringing some parts of iOS to the desktop OS, not going overboard like MS.
Edit 2: Re-reading the post I originally replied to maybe we're discussing different directions here.
In that case if you have problems with the upcoming WinRT only ARM devices then hey that's consistent and makes sense. What's that got to do with Windows 8?
They added launchpad with the update before Mountain Lion but it's extremely useless. I don't know a single person who actually uses launchpad in OSX. If you pinned steam and your most used apps to the desktop or whatever they call the taskbar you could do the same thing as you've always done. I never use finder or the start menu for apps anymore. I just click search in osx or start button-type. flooding the screen with the entire start menu is probably a bit jarring, but from everything I've seen, it's very fast so I'll use it the same way I currently use the start menu. It's not that big a deal. If you don't want to use a tablet UI, then why the hell do you care whether or not you can download tablet apps outside of the windows store? You just said you don't want to use it.
That's too logical.
Teletraan1
Banned
Presented by Internet Explorer
alexandros
Banned
Oh boy, where do I start?
-Disbanding highly acclaimed PC studios such as Ensemble, Digital Anvil and FASA
-Pushing the 360 at the expense of PC gaming (proof)
-Trying to make PC gamers pay for online multiplayer
-Making DX10 a Vista exclusive
-delaying or not even releasing PC versions of their own games
-Destroying iconic PC franchises such as Flight Simulator and Age of Empires
-Games for Windows Live
soulassssns
Banned
We should be comparing the launch version of Win 7 to 8 not the version of 7 we have now after service packs and mature drivers.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
RC Win7 was a huge improvement over Vista.
Why?
soulassssns
Banned
I'm not talking about vista
Irrelevant. Everyone is closing studios and they've sold/let go plenty of their console-only devs as well.
A 2008 article! Come on.
Yes, this was a bad idea and it failed hard.
How is this supposed to demonstrate they're against PC gaming? Every significant piece of software on this planet makes you update either without giving you a choice or the user experiencing feature and functionality decay.
What 1st/2nd party games of theirs should have really been on the PC that aren't now, the Halo games? They're the 360's lifeblood. Sony and Nintendo's 1st/2nd party games aren't on the PC either. There's a pretty obvious reason why the companies who invest hundreds of millions of dollars in their consoles don't want to take away the best reason for owning them.
What a clownish comment. You're an arbiter of good taste by what decree, exactly?
Kludgy and inelegant at worst. What's the crime, though? If one were to read the Steam support forums, you'd think it was the most malfunctioning piece of shit on earth.
alexandros
Banned
I honestly don't know how to respond to your post. I am well and truly awestruck by it.
soulassssns
Banned
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
No, but you've obviously missed my point.
The only point i agree with is making PC gamers pay for online.
Destroying franchises and games studios? Have you seen what's happened this generation to game studios and franchises across the entire gaming spectrum? How is this only a Microsoft problem. This is a global economy problem.
The whole pc/xbox thing is a tough one for MS I think. They have two comparable platforms and the xbox brand's major issue, for both consoles, was that it didn't have enough exclusive games. And any game that came to both platforms was still seen as a loss of an exclusive. Games that run the PC don't really give MS any platform mindshare at all..while a game on the 360 gives them a huge boost for the platform. I get why they did this, in a business sense. If Sony had it's own PC OS, I know they would do the same. You wouldn't find Uncharted on both.
alexandros
Banned
I feel we need to make a distinction here. From a business standpoint, I understand every move that Microsoft has made in the past years.
I understand why they would want to migrate as much PC gamers over to Xbox as possible, they make money from each 360 game sale plus all that cash from Xbox Live subscriptions, while they don't get a dime from PC game sales.
I also understand why they are forcing Metro for everyone. It's an attempt at using the leverage of Windows' huge installed base in order to push their tablet and mobile offerings, as it's more likely that people already familiar with Metro would opt for Windows-based tablets and phones.
Finally, I get the point of the Windows Store being the only way to buy apps in Metro. If metro is successful and pushes desktop to the side, Microsoft will finally have a means to make money from every piece of software during the entire lifetime of a Windows version, not only from the initial sale of the OS.
Now the problem for me and many other PC gamers is that I don't care about the business side of things at all. I don't have Microsoft stock, I am a PC gamer with no desire whatsoever to jump on Xbox or any other console platform. So for me and PC gamers in general, all these moves are clearly hostile towards PC gaming. They may be in Microsoft's best interests but they are not in PC gaming's best interests.
The reason some people trust Valve and don't trust Microsoft is not only their previous behavior. Valve has a stake in PC gaming, they want it to grow and thrive because they will make money from it. Microsoft is clearly favoring the Xbox at the expense of PC gaming so they can't be trusted to do what's good for the platform. It's that simple.
I think that's only partially true (and besides, Valve cares about Valve, MS cares about MS, that's it, same with every company). Remember, Microsoft are the company that aggressively develops, updates and maintains DirectX, which is the backbone of modern PC gaming. There is not a small number of people in Microsoft who go to work every day who are all about DirectX, gaming, PC gaming. Even Carmack, a long time OpenGL supporter, admits DirectX is simply the better, more well-maintained API these days.
Or how about the quote from the AMD guy?
I do a spittake every time someone says "Microsoft is at war with PC gaming," and then wonder if that person goes and fires up the latest DirectX game on their Windows 7 machine. How do you eliminate MS from that equation? It's their OS and their API all these games run on. It's not like it's a natural by-product of their operating system, they develop this. While i don't think PC gaming plays a huge part in their Windows strategy it most definitely plays a part, and saying they hate PC gaming is a crazy statement.
That's the real question here. If it turns out that you actually can disable Metro, my biggest complaint about Win 8 would be gone.
Yup, that would make me consider upgrading.
Then Stardock just needs to upgrade ( unless it already works with RTM ) http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
and then we're in business.
Well I've been looking round, and it seems you can get pretty close to not having to use Metro. Haven't found a way to disable it entirely, but there are ways you can boot to desktop immediately at logon (seems to just involve running an .exe file at logon), and get a very close replica of the start menu back with Classic Shell.
Boot to Desktop
Classic Shell - gets back Start menu and Start button
Betta Lines
Member
I disabled Metro by using Windows 7. It's pretty good.
I like you.
CambriaRising
Member
Vista Part 2? No thanks Microsoft.
alexandros
Banned
No doubt. And I care about myself, neither Valve nor MS. As a PC gamer, my interests at this point in time allign with Valve, CD Projekt, Paradox and other mainly PC companies. Not Microsoft. I don't dislike Microsoft as a company, I have bought a lot of their software and hardware over the years. But the fact remains that after the Xbox first appeared they have done almost nothing to help Windows gaming improve and grow. I think my point of view is reasonable and it is shared by a lot of PC gamers. It's an important factor to consider when trying to understand why Valve is respected and Microsoft gets grief. It's not an issue of fanboyism but company priorities. For Microsoft their top gaming priority is the Xbox, for Valve it's the PC. Can anyone seriously deny this?
The don't hate PC gaming, it's just that they are content with the bare minimum of effort.
This.
They cared about crowbarring their shitty DirectX in to beat down OpenGL. That's about it.
alexandros
Banned
Yup. That's why I want Valve's Linux initiative to be a success, maybe some competition in the OS sector (as far-fetched as it seems at the moment) will spur them into stepping up their game. Hopefully by providing better services for Windows gamers, not by dubious and anticompetitive practices. One can hope, right?
Would OpenGL have improved as much as it has if it wasn't for DirectX? OpenGL was languishing for *years* while DirectX improved. So good on Microsoft for that one at least, competition has worked well and it's good to see OpenGl improve as much as it has. The news from Valve that they get better performance from OpenGl than DirectX should hopefully spur MS to optimise DirectX.
Here's the problem with this. You're assuming that IF Metro is successful THEN desktop will be pushed to the side. This is an assumption that has no basis other than "MS is greedy and this is the greedy thing to do". It completely ignores the fact that a) it is not in MS's interest to diminish the only computing form that they dominate in (the desktop) b) Their entire enterprise market would descend into fits of rage when their desktop apps no longer work and even if their employees couldn't use their work programs from their home computer. and c) they're still competing with the OSX and Linux distros for the desktop and this would concede their dominant position there.
We're both predicting the future here, but there's far more reason to believe that the desktop is not going anywhere than to believe it is. Key one being that Microsoft isn't fucking insane.
Plus the future prediction games have nothing to do with what Windows 8 actually is right now any way.
lol
I wasn't going to upgrade but your post and learning that solitaire and minesweeper have xbox live achievements, well, I hope my copy arrives quick enough