Windows 8 Graphics Performance

[D007]

Originally Posted by johnspack

Interface bad, yes. To me, so was Win 7's. That's why classicshell was born! Takes 2 seconds to install, and the classic start button is back, and that lovely win 3.1 interface called metro is gone too! When you strip the crap away, it's just an updated win7 underneath. I've done testing on both my real hardware and in virtual machines, to make sure all is the same. I can't find any discernible difference between the 2 oses. Win8 doesn't seem any faster, and doesn't seem to add much more of anything else. Except maybe ReFS. Which only comes with the server version, although you can hack it into pro and ent very easily. And ReFS is slower than NTSF, and lacks many features, and you can't use it on a boot volume. Hmmm. Well I skipped Vista completely because it sucked, and think I'll skip win8 because most of it's hype seems to be the metro ui, and nothing else!

That sounds about right from what I hear...lol.. I'll be skipping 8 for sure..

[caleb]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

I think it depends on the adoption rate of tablets among the masses. One positive thing I can say about MS is they don't break old OS's via "updates" to force you to upgrade to the new OS. I hope they don't start with Windows 8.

It has nothing to do with any adoption rate among users. No corporation will use this OS because its too expensive to implement. It takes ages in my company (Orange) to get Win7 up and going everywhere.

[james888]

I got 8 only because it was $15. I can confirm it actually much faster than 7.

[willowin]

I went from W7 ultimate 64bit to W8 enterprise 64bit and I love it. It has a lot of add-ons that W7 doesn't. The ability to mount ISO's right from the windows explorer is awesome. Also, I had problems with W7 installing device drivers on a few things but W8 they installed and finally work properly. BF3 runs just as good or better and I have not experience any memory leakage as I did on W7.

So as far as my opinion, I think W8 is very good.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Yeah if you can get over Metro then it is good. But far too many people seem to not be able to do that, which is kind of silly. At least for more tech savvy people.

[qubit]

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

Yeah if you can get over Metro then it is good. But far too many people seem to not be able to do that, which is kind of silly. At least for more tech savvy people.

I bought Windows 8 Pro for £25 the other day and have been playing with it. While I could use it as it is, I don't like what they've done with the Start screen replacing the Start button and certainly doesn't add any useful functionality. I also don't like losing Aero. That new look is ok, but certainly looks like a step backward from Aero.

Start8 solves the Start button problem, but I haven't seen an Aero add-on for it yet. Certainly Windows 8 retains all the code to render it. It simply needs to have the theme put back on.

Windows 8 has a lot of nice under the hood improvements, but it's just hobbled by those two things.

[james888]

Originally Posted by qubit

I bought Windows 8 Pro for £25 the other day and have been playing with it. While I could use it as it is, I don't like what they've done with the Start screen replacing the Start button and certainly doesn't add any useful functionality. I also don't like losing Aero. That new look is ok, but certainly looks like a step backward from Aero.

Start8 solves the Start button problem, but I haven't seen an Aero add-on for it yet. Certainly Windows 8 retains all the code to render it. It simply needs to have the theme put back on.

Windows 8 has a lot of nice under the hood improvements, but it's just hobbled by those two things.

Isn't Aero being gone the reason for that less resources are used? With

[...PACMAN...]

I'll be getting a new rig on Friday with windows 8 and I have two monitors. I have a GTX 660, will the two screens just display the metro and start screen if I hook up both or is there something else I would need to do?