There is a difference between using a feature and saying you are using a feature. Some games like Crytek, Metro 2033, and Dirt 3 are used to tought the technology but make poor use of optimizations, threading, and proper usage of a feature. Games like Shogun, and Civilization 5 that are well threaded strategy games see major benefits from Windows 8. It is not just a coincidence. It is one of the things Microsoft worked on with Windows 8 in thread scheduling. Ontop of this Civ was re-optimized for a Windows 8 scenario so its actually making use of the benefits of the OS. Microsoft did make efforts at the kernel level to increase the performance on Windows 8, and some of those effects can be seen in how games handle simple DirectX11 functions. The real thing to note is that alot of engine developers are still living in 2006. They still have not focused out of developing DirectX9 games due to the longevity of the current console generation. That will change this year with the addition of the new XBox, and Playstation.
This is why if you want a better performing OS for games it will be Windows 8. Sure its benefits on current gen gains are within the margin of error. On older games it performs worse. But in upcoming games it will perform better. I think the real thing to think about is what OS will get you to reaching 60 fps. If its an old game poorly optimized for threading and using DirectX9, it will perform worse but you are already at 60 fps. In a current gen game that makes poor use of DirectX11 features because its also targeting WinXP machines and old consoles, it will see a benefit within the margin of error and still hit 60 fps. In an upcoming game that may not support DirectX 9 and is written with next gen consoles in mind, it will stand a greater chance at getting to 60 fps then Windows 7.
Apart from figuring out not to schedule a rendering thread while it is waiting on the video card (which might be impractical to do, anyway), I don't think there is much to be had in the way of thread scheduling gains as compared to Windows 7, at least on a desktop. On a tablet, the Windows 8 thread scheduling changes will allow cores to power down more of the time, by bunching commands together so that it will be power up, do a bunch of things at once, and then power down. Windows 7 will make a core power up, do one thing, power down, power up again, do another thing, power down again, and so forth. That could save you a fraction of a watt in power consumption without meaningfully affecting performance. That's great in a tablet, but meaningless in a desktop.
At least in Windows 7, Civilization 5 suffered from an acute case of badly-coded syndrome, possibly due to being the first (and possibly still only) game to make use of DirectX 11 multithreaded rendering. I'm not sure if that's the fault of Firaxis, Microsoft, AMD and Nvidia, or some combination of them. Regardless, multithreaded rendering is a dumb idea if you're trying to make your game playable on a mid-range video card and a quad core processor, let alone lower end hardware. Several years from now, it might be a big deal, but not yet.
There is a difference between using a feature and saying you are using a feature. Some games like Crytek, Metro 2033, and Dirt 3 are used to tought the technology but make poor use of optimizations, threading, and proper usage of a feature. Games like Shogun, and Civilization 5 that are well threaded strategy games see major benefits from Windows 8. It is not just a coincidence. It is one of the things Microsoft worked on with Windows 8 in thread scheduling. Ontop of this Civ was re-optimized for a Windows 8 scenario so its actually making use of the benefits of the OS. Microsoft did make efforts at the kernel level to increase the performance on Windows 8, and some of those effects can be seen in how games handle simple DirectX11 functions. The real thing to note is that alot of engine developers are still living in 2006. They still have not focused out of developing DirectX9 games due to the longevity of the current console generation. That will change this year with the addition of the new XBox, and Playstation.
This is why if you want a better performing OS for games it will be Windows 8. Sure its benefits on current gen gains are within the margin of error. On older games it performs worse. But in upcoming games it will perform better. I think the real thing to think about is what OS will get you to reaching 60 fps. If its an old game poorly optimized for threading and using DirectX9, it will perform worse but you are already at 60 fps. In a current gen game that makes poor use of DirectX11 features because its also targeting WinXP machines and old consoles, it will see a benefit within the margin of error and still hit 60 fps. In an upcoming game that may not support DirectX 9 and is written with next gen consoles in mind, it will stand a greater chance at getting to 60 fps then Windows 7.
Again, not the best article to be citing:
What is not an issue is performance. Most games under Windows 8 seem to perform as well as they do in Windows 7. Some may perform better than expected. In the end, Windows 8 may introduce problems in some games at first, but most games will likely run just fine, and game performance on Windows 8 will in most cases be equivalent to performance on Windows 7.
....
You now are comparing potential future performance to current performance, which you can't do. Sure, games in the future may perform better, but then again, in the future, maybe we all get taken over by an alien race, or all game on tablets, or have decided that Win8 blows and everyone keeps right on using XP/7...
For instance, I could optimize my titles for Win8, and sure they would run great under Win8, and maybe marginally on anything else... but your hedging that most developers are going to do that - right now there is no evidence that they will (and if I had to argue, a lot of evidence that they won't: Developers Hate Windows 8).
Right now Windows 8 to me is basically another WindowsMe. Something I would'nt installed if I was paid to.
I am really not likeing the idea that companies are trying to force out desktops in favor of tablets when tablets cannot do all the things desktops can do...and that is exactly what Windows 8 is, their trying to force desktops out by getting people to isntall an OS made with the limitations portables bring.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
The reason I cited that article is because it points at Crisis 2 benchmarks were vsync was stuck. Its the same on all the benchmarks using that game and it gives an unfavorable view of the OS because in the benchmark suite, 1 game is stuck around 60 and it makes it into the total tally. So it looks like Windows 8 is losing by 1% instead of winning by 1%. Now if someone asks "What OS has better performance for games?" I would tell them the OS that has an advantage even if its a small or marginal one. Just like in 2008 people would recommend an 8800 gt instead of a 3870 because of a marginal advantage. If I had to recommend a processor purely with gaming in mind it would be an AMD instead of an Intel, because when the processor matters AMD has the architecture that takes advantage of those situations.
Now you consider some benchmark results a fluke or outlier, but to me some are simple errors of an early OS and some are the OS operating like it should. An early OS error can be fixed, especially when you consider most of these comparison benchmarks were done with Windows 8 RTM versions, or beta video drivers for the OS. On the other hand a highly threaded processor intensive game like a strategy game getting a benefit from a noted feature of an OS to me is not a fluke but something that is working as intended. Asking myself how this will affect the future comparisons, I think its safe to say games will be getting better multi-threading in the future when you look at the upcoming x86 based consoles.
Onto developers hating the new OS or refusing to develop for a new OS standards is a bit ludicrous. There is not much difference on getting the most out of Windows 7 as Windows 8. Only Windows 8 handles it a bit better. So really if the developers are developing with Windows 7 or Windows 8 in mind instead of Windows XP then they are going to be favoring Windows 8. I think right now its a question of if developers will get out of 2006 and catchup to 2012. Sure Developers/programers might not like working with some things, but if they are beneficial in selling games you can be sure the owner of the studio will want developers/programers who can.
Onto multi-threaded rendering, right now alot of games don't make much use of the processor. But I was not talking about Multi-threaded rendering. There are games that make heavy use of the processor, I was talking about CPU multi-threading. These would be MMOs, Strategy games, and Sim games. I would think many playing games on mmorpg.com would like these types of games. The only way to get more out of the processor is to get better multi-threading. The current results in Civilization V and Shogun 2 show just how big a gap there is between the 2 OS here.
Performance is about same. According Tom's Hardware, Windows 7 performance was better and it was more compatible - however - this was very marginal and likely only temporal until games and 8 is patched up.
You need to learn new tricks with 8. Yes - most of Windows 8 users says that you can "skip" modern UI (metro UI), but still skipping requires that you either add shortcut to desktop to modern UI or you other methods (like installing 3rd party modifications that might cause problems with other applications (happened for me)). And even if you skip modern UI, then you still need to learn new tricks.
I would skip Windows 8 - and get windows 7 and wait Windows 9 (should come 2013). Hopefully Micrsoft has then understood how big morons they are and returned native mouse and keyboard interface to desktop computers - instead of trying to force their stupid touch/pad/phone interface. (My estimate is that Windows 9 is not going to change - but at least Steam/Valve has made some moves toward Linux so maybe someday we can actually choose best OS for ourselves.)
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
Onto multi-threaded rendering, right now alot of games don't make much use of the processor. But I was not talking about Multi-threaded rendering. There are games that make heavy use of the processor, I was talking about CPU multi-threading. These would be MMOs, Strategy games, and Sim games. I would think many playing games on mmorpg.com would like these types of games. The only way to get more out of the processor is to get better multi-threading. The current results in Civilization V and Shogun 2 show just how big a gap there is between the 2 OS here.
The only improvements that Windows 8 could possibly make in CPU threading is to fix things that Windows 7 did wrong. From a desktop performance view, there's not much there to fix. (From a tablet battery life view, there is, but that's a different matter.) Windows 7 is able to use as many processor cores as you've got, too, you know. And it also doesn't have much in the way of background processes that will hog CPU cycles.
Windows 8 could, if so inclined, change how it handles different thread priorities to give more or less weight to a programmer saying this thread should be a higher priority than that one. If there are more threads requesting CPU time than cores available, it could also change how long it lets one thread run before switching to another. But it's not clear that there is much to gain there, and if anything, the thread priority choices that programmers have made are with older operating systems in mind, not Windows 8.
-----
There are two reasons why a game wouldn't make heavy use of the processor. One is that it doesn't need to, because it simply isn't that processor-intensive. If a game runs great on a Pentium 3 in Windows 7 and XP, there's really no room for Windows 8 to improve on that.
The other is that a game isn't threaded very well to scale to more cores. But there's really nothing that Microsoft can do about lazy or incompetent programmers failing to properly thread their software. (For some types of software, poor core scaling is understandable, as some algorithms simply don't thread very well. But games aren't like that.) Threading tricks that are easy to do when you're creating a game engine are nearly impossible to do at an OS level when the OS isn't aware of the high-level ideas behind the design of the game engine.
Originally posted by Cleffy Now you consider some benchmark results a fluke or outlier, but to me some are simple errors of an early OS and some are the OS operating like it should. An early OS error can be fixed, especially when you consider most of these comparison benchmarks were done with Windows 8 RTM versions, or beta video drivers for the OS. On the other hand a highly threaded processor intensive game like a strategy game getting a benefit from a noted feature of an OS to me is not a fluke but something that is working as intended. Asking myself how this will affect the future comparisons, I think its safe to say games will be getting better multi-threading in the future when you look at the upcoming x86 based consoles.
How can you tell which results are flukes, and which are simple errors of an early OS, and which are the OS operating like it should?
An aggregate result of ~1% difference tells me there is no meaningful difference right now.
You may have a point about future performance, but there's no real evidence to back that up, because there is no way to get that evidence, the best you can get would be MS or some developers talking about it. Now MS has claimed DX11.1 will give a lot of good benefits, but they also stated that they will be Win8 Exlusive - and a lot of developers have stated they don't really care for Win8. The introduction of next-gen consoles may change that, but that's at least a year away, and probably several years before we would see it make DX11.1 the standard over DX9 - and by then we may well be at Win9/10.
Apparently I've been reading that windows 8 causes issues with various commonly used peripherals and the apps that go with them. Also, there seems to be issues with the 64 bit implementation of these apps and some of the drivers so I'd personally stick with 32 bit and windows 7, unless you plan on mapping the human genome. :P
I went into windows 8 very apprehisive tbh but its really not all the different from 7 and like others have mentioned there are certain games that truly do see increases in performance. The problem is when you first install it, its so foreign that it gets really frustrating just thnking why did they mess with something that wasnt' broken.
After around the 2 hour mark I had the administrative stuff unlocked and the start area setup like I wanted it and after that tbh I can't say its any worse than windows 7 just different. In saying that it isn't any worse its not really any better on the whole either.
Things it does right:
Rock solid just like windows 7 it runs smooth boots fast
If you have other windows devices with versions of 8 on them it synchs well with cloud support
It finds your xbox and allows 360 control and changes from teh pc, nothing big but I do use it I must admit
Bads:
The touch screen support means nothing to the average gamer and never will on the home system
I did find one game that although it runs great I have to run it windowed but it is a older game
I found a couple other games that I had to run in windows 7 compatibiiity mode
The start screen takes some getting used to though once the desktop is setup you really only use it for quick launching of certain stuff
All in all I bought it becasue after my discount upgrade code I paid 16 dollars for windows 8 professional with media center add on.
Really its a push pick the one you can get cheaper fyi I need a OS that could handle more than 16 gbs of memory and windows 7 home premium is capped at 16 so keep that in mind.
Originally posted by itgrowls Apparently I've been reading that windows 8 causes issues with various commonly used peripherals and the apps that go with them. Also, there seems to be issues with the 64 bit implementation of these apps and some of the drivers so I'd personally stick with 32 bit and windows 7, unless you plan on mapping the human genome. :P
The only bad thing about 32-bit Windows 7 is that it limits you to 4G of RAM, and most gaming PCs these days, 4G is the barebones minimum - most are being built with 8G or 16G.
64-bit used to have a good deal of issues when it was first introduced - mainly because XP 64-bit was really Server 08 stripped down so almost none of the older XP drivers worked, and then Vista had driver issues all the way around -- but actually required hardware manufacturers to create 32 and 64-bit versions of their drivers if they wanted to be called Vista compatible - so that helped a lot. By the time Win7 shipped, 64-bit was pretty well ready for prime time.
i got windows 8 and windows 7. Stick with windows 7, as windows 8 is too bugy, doesnt work with alot of games, Also the speed gains are so small that it makes no difference. and the few games i did get to run on 8, yea horrible fps, win 7 had 20% more fps. So Win 7=gaming pc. Win 8= for those that browse the net n love pictures. :-)
With Windows 8 I boot from cold to loading up my game of choice in about 8 seconds, it'd be less if I didn't have a password.
SSD + Win 8 is very nice.
Less time spent power button to gaming is awesome.
Seriously that's about the only difference between Windows 7 and 8 unless you want to jump on the "UI is garbage" bandwagon.
It's one click and you're back to desktop.
So easy to set up shortcuts to apps/games and such... most people just haven't given 8 a chance or are terrible with computers.
I work in IT and I love Windows 8.
I wouldn't recommend it for my companies end-users though - they are far, far too much like many people in this thread and on this site...
All my Steam games, all my MMOs, everything works exactly like it did on Win 7 pro (I'm all x64 bit of course in 7 and 8) I've only had ONE compatibility issue -
My Razer Nostromo works in 8 but it isn't fully supported so I can't rebind the buttons - so I don't use it right now.
Anyone who tells you they have less FPS using 8 or that some games don't run is blowing hyperbol up your behind.
Tip - they aren't using 8 they are just quoting from something they heard somewhere from somebody else who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Bad, you obviously havent tested all games on windows 8. My graphics driver kept failing and i have a gtx 460. Then when planetside 2 would load on up, id see Coding in place of say the server name, Play button etc. Few other games when i started them they just up and crashed. Also there has been a ton of bench marks done proving windows 8 in some games causes a decent fps loss. WHile yes it has gains in some also. But overall Windows 7 is still better and the true gaming OS. Windows 8 needs a ton of bug fixs and more options to make it better usable. You said your IT. Then you should know about the massive long list incompatable programs/games/drivers Windows 8 currently has.
I upgraded my gaming desktop and laptop from Windows 7 to Windows 8. No driver problems, no gaming problems, no problems with 3 monitor support, no decrease in performance, no problems with anything that I can find.
The start screen took a tiny bit of time to get used to. Now I actually prefer it. I can get to anything I want faster than I could in Windows 7 (just start typing and it brings up everything on the fly, no more clicking through menus and sub-menus to find stuff, not to mention placing programs in the start screen!), and I can hit the Windows key to simply go back to good ole desktop if I want. If you're incapable of learning a new interface you can even get software to make the interface act like the old one.
I was hesitant at first to make the switch because I've heard so many people say "Omergard the start screen SUX!! You can't do anything! It's impossible to blahblahblahblah". Yeah, those people must be spouting what some other people heard some other people mention from some other person that saw a screenshot from someone that copied it and put an out of context comment on based on what they heard from someone that knew someone that saw it once.
Unfortunately it DOES take a little while for a person to learn how to do things a little differently than what they've done for the past 20 years. I'm glad I gave it a chance, personally.
Personally, I don't see why you navigate through folders or subfolders to find things. Windows 7 has something called "Pin to taskbar" or hell even go out and get Rainmeter and get a launcher from there and set that as a shortcut. Typing and bringing things up, same thing in win7, no change there. Press windows key, start typing, ???, profit. Everything you've stated hasn't changed from windows7 beside the fact that the startscreen blows and is completely unnecessary. Also the fact that you need a windows ID to do 99% of win8 functions is crap. All that changed from win7-win8 is being able to run it on a flash drive (small footprint) and the anti-virus, but who trusts windows defender? I dont.
Overall, if you want the ghettro tablet design on your pc, and don't want a start button anymore, go win8. If you want an OS that runs perfectly, and doesn't change things that didn't need to be changed in the first place, go win7.
Originally posted by BadSpock
With Windows 8 I boot from cold to loading up my game of choice in about 8 seconds, it'd be less if I didn't have a password.
SSD + Win 8 is very nice.
Less time spent power button to gaming is awesome.
Seriously that's about the only difference between Windows 7 and 8 unless you want to jump on the "UI is garbage" bandwagon.
It's one click and you're back to desktop.
So easy to set up shortcuts to apps/games and such... most people just haven't given 8 a chance or are terrible with computers.
I work in IT and I love Windows 8.
I wouldn't recommend it for my companies end-users though - they are far, far too much like many people in this thread and on this site...
All my Steam games, all my MMOs, everything works exactly like it did on Win 7 pro (I'm all x64 bit of course in 7 and 8) I've only had ONE compatibility issue -
My Razer Nostromo works in 8 but it isn't fully supported so I can't rebind the buttons - so I don't use it right now.
Anyone who tells you they have less FPS using 8 or that some games don't run is blowing hyperbol up your behind.
Tip - they aren't using 8 they are just quoting from something they heard somewhere from somebody else who doesn't know what they're talking about.
I really wish you knew what you were talking about too. Numerous game dev's (including STEAM) have stated they won't support windows 8. Hence why STEAM is moving to Linux.
Steam works perfectly fine on 8 - been using Steam to playing some Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion (awesome game) and recently some Vanguard now that it's F2P and is suprisingly enjoyable old-school experience.
Also been playing some PlanetSide 2 - also works JUST fine in Windows 8.
GW2 I don't get any worse or better of frame rate on 8 Pro than I did on 7 Pro.
WoW same performance on both.
Lots of IT people are snobs who just follow whatever bandwagon they read about on the same websites where the snobs there diss on everything new and different.
Once you work in IT with really smart people at a great company for a while you realize how bad at IT most IT people are and how little they actually know.
My company has actually been specializing in taking over accounts from our competitors in the region and fixing everything that they have screwed up or did completely wrong. And they are supposedly "certified professionals" which goes to show how little that actually means.
Anyone telling you OP that you'll have problems on a Windows 8 machine is wrong.
Nvidia and AMD have had drivers out for months.
Intel/AMD chips no issues with either, SSD is definitely the way to go with 8 though - it's actually a HELL of a lot easier to configure a system properly for SSD use with 8 than it was for 7.
Most people who install a SSD with Windows 7 do it wrong and drastically reduce their drives life span and performance.
I used two different guides that were something like 20 combined pages for all the tweaks to do SSD in Windows 7 the right way.
Windows 8 does it all out of the box automatically (if you do a fresh/clean install on a SSD.)
That right there is reason enough to go with 8, as if you are buying a gaming PC in 2013 you WILL have a SSD or you are doing it wrong.
AND Steam is just trying to score points with their fanbase - just taking cheap shots like all the iTards who think Win8 UI is ugly and actually like their iOS garbage interfaces.
Functionaly, at the level any competant programmer would be working with - Windows 7 and 8 are functionally the same operating system. Hence why most software and hardware that isn't ancient has zero compatibility issues.
Heya, I use win7. I'm afraid to go to win8, because I have this strange feeling it's going vista way.
There are big changes (luckily performance is not so bad as with vista), some are potentialy problematic. It seems Microsoft wants to push more security through their systems and driver companies may have problems to obey it (especially as agreeing with this may mean, in next itteration the loop will be tightened even more).
I think right now it's win8 = possibly better future, but uncertain, win7 = stability, but most probably not any progress in future.
I will personaly wait for win9 It's kinda rule in software world, that every other version is the good one
Yes it does stuff like stick your temp cache, documents and recycle bin on hdd instead
Perhaps you are confused with Vista, ssd were a bitch on Vista.
Advantages of win 8 - slightly faster boot time IF you don't use hibernate on your win 7 machine - touchscreen support
Disadvantages Still iffy plug and play - e.g I install the thing from dvd but dvd drive won't show in device manager Stupid big square front end that you immediately skip out of into desktop
Lies about win 8 It's faster - ms used highly selective bench tests, across independent tests some things are slightly faster on 7 others on 8 and they average out the same.
Biggest worry with win 8 Ms app store and potential for trouble ahead if it takes off and ms end up "owning the pc platform" e.g, more expensive games like consoles, less mods and patches, less indie games
Why - offices don't want to train people to use it - technical home users are worried where Microsoft is heading with the app store - unless you have a touch screen there's no compelling reason to upgrade 7 to 8
That's why it isn't selling despite being heavily discounted and price of 7 going up.
Makes sense to get the upgrade to 8 if your still on vista though as its half the price if a 7 upgrade.
Comments
Apart from figuring out not to schedule a rendering thread while it is waiting on the video card (which might be impractical to do, anyway), I don't think there is much to be had in the way of thread scheduling gains as compared to Windows 7, at least on a desktop. On a tablet, the Windows 8 thread scheduling changes will allow cores to power down more of the time, by bunching commands together so that it will be power up, do a bunch of things at once, and then power down. Windows 7 will make a core power up, do one thing, power down, power up again, do another thing, power down again, and so forth. That could save you a fraction of a watt in power consumption without meaningfully affecting performance. That's great in a tablet, but meaningless in a desktop.
At least in Windows 7, Civilization 5 suffered from an acute case of badly-coded syndrome, possibly due to being the first (and possibly still only) game to make use of DirectX 11 multithreaded rendering. I'm not sure if that's the fault of Firaxis, Microsoft, AMD and Nvidia, or some combination of them. Regardless, multithreaded rendering is a dumb idea if you're trying to make your game playable on a mid-range video card and a quad core processor, let alone lower end hardware. Several years from now, it might be a big deal, but not yet.
Again, not the best article to be citing:
....
You now are comparing potential future performance to current performance, which you can't do. Sure, games in the future may perform better, but then again, in the future, maybe we all get taken over by an alien race, or all game on tablets, or have decided that Win8 blows and everyone keeps right on using XP/7...
For instance, I could optimize my titles for Win8, and sure they would run great under Win8, and maybe marginally on anything else... but your hedging that most developers are going to do that - right now there is no evidence that they will (and if I had to argue, a lot of evidence that they won't: Developers Hate Windows 8).
Right now Windows 8 to me is basically another WindowsMe. Something I would'nt installed if I was paid to.
I am really not likeing the idea that companies are trying to force out desktops in favor of tablets when tablets cannot do all the things desktops can do...and that is exactly what Windows 8 is, their trying to force desktops out by getting people to isntall an OS made with the limitations portables bring.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
The reason I cited that article is because it points at Crisis 2 benchmarks were vsync was stuck. Its the same on all the benchmarks using that game and it gives an unfavorable view of the OS because in the benchmark suite, 1 game is stuck around 60 and it makes it into the total tally. So it looks like Windows 8 is losing by 1% instead of winning by 1%. Now if someone asks "What OS has better performance for games?" I would tell them the OS that has an advantage even if its a small or marginal one. Just like in 2008 people would recommend an 8800 gt instead of a 3870 because of a marginal advantage. If I had to recommend a processor purely with gaming in mind it would be an AMD instead of an Intel, because when the processor matters AMD has the architecture that takes advantage of those situations.
Now you consider some benchmark results a fluke or outlier, but to me some are simple errors of an early OS and some are the OS operating like it should. An early OS error can be fixed, especially when you consider most of these comparison benchmarks were done with Windows 8 RTM versions, or beta video drivers for the OS. On the other hand a highly threaded processor intensive game like a strategy game getting a benefit from a noted feature of an OS to me is not a fluke but something that is working as intended. Asking myself how this will affect the future comparisons, I think its safe to say games will be getting better multi-threading in the future when you look at the upcoming x86 based consoles.
Onto developers hating the new OS or refusing to develop for a new OS standards is a bit ludicrous. There is not much difference on getting the most out of Windows 7 as Windows 8. Only Windows 8 handles it a bit better. So really if the developers are developing with Windows 7 or Windows 8 in mind instead of Windows XP then they are going to be favoring Windows 8. I think right now its a question of if developers will get out of 2006 and catchup to 2012. Sure Developers/programers might not like working with some things, but if they are beneficial in selling games you can be sure the owner of the studio will want developers/programers who can.
Onto multi-threaded rendering, right now alot of games don't make much use of the processor. But I was not talking about Multi-threaded rendering. There are games that make heavy use of the processor, I was talking about CPU multi-threading. These would be MMOs, Strategy games, and Sim games. I would think many playing games on mmorpg.com would like these types of games. The only way to get more out of the processor is to get better multi-threading. The current results in Civilization V and Shogun 2 show just how big a gap there is between the 2 OS here.
Performance is about same. According Tom's Hardware, Windows 7 performance was better and it was more compatible - however - this was very marginal and likely only temporal until games and 8 is patched up.
- Tom's hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331-13.html
You need to learn new tricks with 8. Yes - most of Windows 8 users says that you can "skip" modern UI (metro UI), but still skipping requires that you either add shortcut to desktop to modern UI or you other methods (like installing 3rd party modifications that might cause problems with other applications (happened for me)). And even if you skip modern UI, then you still need to learn new tricks.
I would skip Windows 8 - and get windows 7 and wait Windows 9 (should come 2013). Hopefully Micrsoft has then understood how big morons they are and returned native mouse and keyboard interface to desktop computers - instead of trying to force their stupid touch/pad/phone interface. (My estimate is that Windows 9 is not going to change - but at least Steam/Valve has made some moves toward Linux so maybe someday we can actually choose best OS for ourselves.)
"I know I said this was my last post, but you my friend are a idiotic moron." -Shadow4482
The only improvements that Windows 8 could possibly make in CPU threading is to fix things that Windows 7 did wrong. From a desktop performance view, there's not much there to fix. (From a tablet battery life view, there is, but that's a different matter.) Windows 7 is able to use as many processor cores as you've got, too, you know. And it also doesn't have much in the way of background processes that will hog CPU cycles.
Windows 8 could, if so inclined, change how it handles different thread priorities to give more or less weight to a programmer saying this thread should be a higher priority than that one. If there are more threads requesting CPU time than cores available, it could also change how long it lets one thread run before switching to another. But it's not clear that there is much to gain there, and if anything, the thread priority choices that programmers have made are with older operating systems in mind, not Windows 8.
-----
There are two reasons why a game wouldn't make heavy use of the processor. One is that it doesn't need to, because it simply isn't that processor-intensive. If a game runs great on a Pentium 3 in Windows 7 and XP, there's really no room for Windows 8 to improve on that.
The other is that a game isn't threaded very well to scale to more cores. But there's really nothing that Microsoft can do about lazy or incompetent programmers failing to properly thread their software. (For some types of software, poor core scaling is understandable, as some algorithms simply don't thread very well. But games aren't like that.) Threading tricks that are easy to do when you're creating a game engine are nearly impossible to do at an OS level when the OS isn't aware of the high-level ideas behind the design of the game engine.
How can you tell which results are flukes, and which are simple errors of an early OS, and which are the OS operating like it should?
An aggregate result of ~1% difference tells me there is no meaningful difference right now.
You may have a point about future performance, but there's no real evidence to back that up, because there is no way to get that evidence, the best you can get would be MS or some developers talking about it. Now MS has claimed DX11.1 will give a lot of good benefits, but they also stated that they will be Win8 Exlusive - and a lot of developers have stated they don't really care for Win8. The introduction of next-gen consoles may change that, but that's at least a year away, and probably several years before we would see it make DX11.1 the standard over DX9 - and by then we may well be at Win9/10.
win 8 sucks.
did that answer your question?
I went into windows 8 very apprehisive tbh but its really not all the different from 7 and like others have mentioned there are certain games that truly do see increases in performance. The problem is when you first install it, its so foreign that it gets really frustrating just thnking why did they mess with something that wasnt' broken.
After around the 2 hour mark I had the administrative stuff unlocked and the start area setup like I wanted it and after that tbh I can't say its any worse than windows 7 just different. In saying that it isn't any worse its not really any better on the whole either.
Things it does right:
Rock solid just like windows 7 it runs smooth boots fast
If you have other windows devices with versions of 8 on them it synchs well with cloud support
It finds your xbox and allows 360 control and changes from teh pc, nothing big but I do use it I must admit
Bads:
The touch screen support means nothing to the average gamer and never will on the home system
I did find one game that although it runs great I have to run it windowed but it is a older game
I found a couple other games that I had to run in windows 7 compatibiiity mode
The start screen takes some getting used to though once the desktop is setup you really only use it for quick launching of certain stuff
All in all I bought it becasue after my discount upgrade code I paid 16 dollars for windows 8 professional with media center add on.
Really its a push pick the one you can get cheaper fyi I need a OS that could handle more than 16 gbs of memory and windows 7 home premium is capped at 16 so keep that in mind.
The only bad thing about 32-bit Windows 7 is that it limits you to 4G of RAM, and most gaming PCs these days, 4G is the barebones minimum - most are being built with 8G or 16G.
64-bit used to have a good deal of issues when it was first introduced - mainly because XP 64-bit was really Server 08 stripped down so almost none of the older XP drivers worked, and then Vista had driver issues all the way around -- but actually required hardware manufacturers to create 32 and 64-bit versions of their drivers if they wanted to be called Vista compatible - so that helped a lot. By the time Win7 shipped, 64-bit was pretty well ready for prime time.
Wildstar:
Phantazm, Pago(PvP), Exiles
Guild: Socks with Sandals
Playing: Wildstar
Retired/Tried: DCUO. The Secret World, Darkfall UW, Darkfall, Mortal Online, DDO, Rift, Fallen Earth, Aion, APB, EQ, EQ2, PoTBS, WoW, WAR, SWG, CoX, Vangaurd, CO, GW, EVE, DAoC, LotRO, SW:ToR, GW2, Dragon Nest
With Windows 8 I boot from cold to loading up my game of choice in about 8 seconds, it'd be less if I didn't have a password.
SSD + Win 8 is very nice.
Less time spent power button to gaming is awesome.
Seriously that's about the only difference between Windows 7 and 8 unless you want to jump on the "UI is garbage" bandwagon.
It's one click and you're back to desktop.
So easy to set up shortcuts to apps/games and such... most people just haven't given 8 a chance or are terrible with computers.
I work in IT and I love Windows 8.
I wouldn't recommend it for my companies end-users though - they are far, far too much like many people in this thread and on this site...
All my Steam games, all my MMOs, everything works exactly like it did on Win 7 pro (I'm all x64 bit of course in 7 and 8) I've only had ONE compatibility issue -
My Razer Nostromo works in 8 but it isn't fully supported so I can't rebind the buttons - so I don't use it right now.
Anyone who tells you they have less FPS using 8 or that some games don't run is blowing hyperbol up your behind.
Tip - they aren't using 8 they are just quoting from something they heard somewhere from somebody else who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Personally, I don't see why you navigate through folders or subfolders to find things. Windows 7 has something called "Pin to taskbar" or hell even go out and get Rainmeter and get a launcher from there and set that as a shortcut. Typing and bringing things up, same thing in win7, no change there. Press windows key, start typing, ???, profit. Everything you've stated hasn't changed from windows7 beside the fact that the startscreen blows and is completely unnecessary. Also the fact that you need a windows ID to do 99% of win8 functions is crap. All that changed from win7-win8 is being able to run it on a flash drive (small footprint) and the anti-virus, but who trusts windows defender? I dont.
Overall, if you want the ghettro tablet design on your pc, and don't want a start button anymore, go win8. If you want an OS that runs perfectly, and doesn't change things that didn't need to be changed in the first place, go win7.
I really wish you knew what you were talking about too. Numerous game dev's (including STEAM) have stated they won't support windows 8. Hence why STEAM is moving to Linux.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/steams-newell-windows-8-catastrophe-driving-valve-to-embrace-linux/
http://store.steampowered.com/about/
System Requirements
Windows XP, Vista, or 7
512 MB RAM
1 Ghz or faster processor
Intel Mac, OS X version Leopard 10.5.8, Snow Leopard 10.6.3, or later.
Two-button mouse strongly recommended
1GB HD space (recommended)
Internet connection (broadband recommended)
Windows 7
Since you are purchasing a GAMING PC (minimum CPU i7, 8GB RAM, 1GB+ GPU?)
Performance won't be an issue with either, but compatibility wise I'd go for Win 7 for the time being.
Though If you are a fan of Android like systems you could go Win 8, but be prepared for some things that need fixes.
STOOPID
When someone does something so utterly moronic that it kills your brain cells at the very thought of it.
Steam works perfectly fine on 8 - been using Steam to playing some Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion (awesome game) and recently some Vanguard now that it's F2P and is suprisingly enjoyable old-school experience.
Also been playing some PlanetSide 2 - also works JUST fine in Windows 8.
GW2 I don't get any worse or better of frame rate on 8 Pro than I did on 7 Pro.
WoW same performance on both.
Lots of IT people are snobs who just follow whatever bandwagon they read about on the same websites where the snobs there diss on everything new and different.
Once you work in IT with really smart people at a great company for a while you realize how bad at IT most IT people are and how little they actually know.
My company has actually been specializing in taking over accounts from our competitors in the region and fixing everything that they have screwed up or did completely wrong. And they are supposedly "certified professionals" which goes to show how little that actually means.
Anyone telling you OP that you'll have problems on a Windows 8 machine is wrong.
Nvidia and AMD have had drivers out for months.
Intel/AMD chips no issues with either, SSD is definitely the way to go with 8 though - it's actually a HELL of a lot easier to configure a system properly for SSD use with 8 than it was for 7.
Most people who install a SSD with Windows 7 do it wrong and drastically reduce their drives life span and performance.
I used two different guides that were something like 20 combined pages for all the tweaks to do SSD in Windows 7 the right way.
Windows 8 does it all out of the box automatically (if you do a fresh/clean install on a SSD.)
That right there is reason enough to go with 8, as if you are buying a gaming PC in 2013 you WILL have a SSD or you are doing it wrong.
AND Steam is just trying to score points with their fanbase - just taking cheap shots like all the iTards who think Win8 UI is ugly and actually like their iOS garbage interfaces.
Functionaly, at the level any competant programmer would be working with - Windows 7 and 8 are functionally the same operating system. Hence why most software and hardware that isn't ancient has zero compatibility issues.
Less is More.
I'm not saying 8 is worse than 7, but it has a buttload of extra stuff I'lle never lay my hands on, so I'd rather pass on that and go for 7.
Heya, I use win7. I'm afraid to go to win8, because I have this strange feeling it's going vista way.
There are big changes (luckily performance is not so bad as with vista), some are potentialy problematic. It seems Microsoft wants to push more security through their systems and driver companies may have problems to obey it (especially as agreeing with this may mean, in next itteration the loop will be tightened even more).
I think right now it's win8 = possibly better future, but uncertain, win7 = stability, but most probably not any progress in future.
I will personaly wait for win9
It's kinda rule in software world, that every other version is the good one 
The win7 does ssd super easy.
Yes it does stuff like stick your temp cache, documents and recycle bin on hdd instead
Perhaps you are confused with Vista, ssd were a bitch on Vista.
Advantages of win 8
- slightly faster boot time IF you don't use hibernate on your win 7 machine
- touchscreen support
Disadvantages
Still iffy plug and play - e.g I install the thing from dvd but dvd drive won't show in device manager
Stupid big square front end that you immediately skip out of into desktop
Lies about win 8
It's faster - ms used highly selective bench tests, across independent tests some things are slightly faster on 7 others on 8 and they average out the same.
Biggest worry with win 8
Ms app store and potential for trouble ahead if it takes off and ms end up "owning the pc platform" e.g, more expensive games like consoles, less mods and patches, less indie games
- offices don't want to train people to use it
- technical home users are worried where Microsoft is heading with the app store
- unless you have a touch screen there's no compelling reason to upgrade 7 to 8
That's why it isn't selling despite being heavily discounted and price of 7 going up.
Makes sense to get the upgrade to 8 if your still on vista though as its half the price if a 7 upgrade.