A third of all PC gamers on Steam use Windows 10

[Fetzie]

8 hours ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

These posts are always pointless.

The same people who are anti-Windows 10 will be anti-participation in Steam surveys. Because Steam doesn't just collect your system specs and OS, it collects info on all applications and drivers installed on your system, and peripherals connected to it.

So the people who lack enough interest in privacy to install Windows 10 will be more likely to also participate in a Steam HW survey.

Basic analytics.

 

Do you even get a choice of whether you participate in the steam hardware survey?

 

[alamox]

you mean those with intel graphic GPUs...52% of install base on desktop is still on win7, if win10 was doing as good as they said, they wouldn't have been pushing so desperately for it, and we would have seen way more DX12 products by now.

[ThreePinkApples]

This is great! Clinging on to Windows 7 is no better than those that clinged onto XP after 7 was launched. Or, it is worse since 10 is a free upgrade, for now. At least with 7 people had to buy it from day 1. 
I understand that people with 4-5 year old laptops would hesitate to upgrade, thinking it won't work well. But personally, on the few old laptops I've tried 10 on, it was fine, surprisingly fine. (Fine as in, at least not worse than 7)

[r1Ns3]

I <3 windows 10 dunno why everyone hates this, straight upgrade over win 7

[ThreePinkApples]

2 hours ago, Fetzie said:

 

Do you even get a choice of whether you participate in the steam hardware survey?

 

Yes, you get a popup asking if you want to participate. I have seen it a couple of times through the years. 

[That Norwegian Guy]

2 hours ago, Fetzie said:

 

Do you even get a choice of whether you participate in the steam hardware survey?

 

 

Yes, it asks you once a year. But you only have to answer 'yes' once, after that you'll have to opt out.

I never answered 'yes' though

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, PerfectTemplar said:

There was a ~20% performance increase in some games on Windows 8 over Windows 7 when that came out. It translated into Windows 10 as well. People clinging onto Windows 7 are just stubborn and have bought into all this anti Windows 8.1/10 bullshit.

 

Gaming performance is almost identical across Windows 7, 8, and 10.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7/page6.html

[cesrai]

That's expected and I don't think it's bad in anyway.

[PerfectTemplar]

4 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

 

Gaming performance is almost identical across Windows 7, 8, and 10.

http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7/page6.html

That's a very generalised view of performance. I did say some games and I didn't specify which areas of performance you saw improvements. Loading times was one significant improvement for applications such as games among other things..

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406668,00.asp

[Sakkura]

32 minutes ago, PerfectTemplar said:

That's a very generalised view of performance. I did say some games and I didn't specify which areas of performance you saw improvements. Loading times was one significant improvement for applications such as games among other things..

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406668,00.asp

 

Loading times are unaffected. Boot time is improved, but that's nothing to do with gaming performance.

[PerfectTemplar]

7 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

 

Loading times are unaffected. Boot time is improved, but that's nothing to do with gaming performance.

Lol, thanks for actually reading the article. /s

Windows 7                                                  Utimate                                                    (64-bit)	Windows 8                   (64-bit)
Startup (seconds, lower is better)	38	17
Shutdown (seconds, lower is better)	12.2	9.9
500MB File Group Move (seconds, lower is better)	25.2	29.2
Large Single File Move (seconds, lower is better)	46.4	46.8
Video Rendering (minutes:seconds, smaller is better)	1:22	1:11
Geekbench 2.3 64-bit tests (higher is better)	8090	8187
Geekbench 2.3 32-bit tests (higher is better)	5962	6122
PCMark 7 (higher is better)	2313	2701
Sunspider (ms, lower is better)	180	144
Google V8 (v.7) (higher is better)	3079	6180
Psychedelic Browsing (higher is better)	3997	5292

This is about applications in general. It still applies. For example, people using Windows 8 on BF4 load faster than those on Windows 7 even with the same hardware. Yes these are synthetic, but through my own testing as well as people I've talked to, W8/8/1/10 loads faster than W7 in some games.

[Sakkura]

5 minutes ago, PerfectTemplar said:

Lol, thanks for actually reading the article. /s

Windows 7                                                  Utimate                                                    (64-bit)	Windows 8                   (64-bit)
Startup (seconds, lower is better)	38	17
Shutdown (seconds, lower is better)	12.2	9.9
500MB File Group Move (seconds, lower is better)	25.2	29.2
Large Single File Move (seconds, lower is better)	46.4	46.8
Video Rendering (minutes:seconds, smaller is better)	1:22	1:11
Geekbench 2.3 64-bit tests (higher is better)	8090	8187
Geekbench 2.3 32-bit tests (higher is better)	5962	6122
PCMark 7 (higher is better)	2313	2701
Sunspider (ms, lower is better)	180	144
Google V8 (v.7) (higher is better)	3079	6180
Psychedelic Browsing (higher is better)	3997	5292

This is about applications in general. It still applies. For example, people using Windows 8 on BF4 load faster than those on Windows 7 even with the same hardware.

 

Unlike me, you forgot to read the article. None of this has to do with gaming performance, which is explicitly what we were talking about.

[PerfectTemplar]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

 

Unlike me, you forgot to read the article. None of this has to do with gaming performance, which is explicitly what we were talking about.

zzzz

 

This was an example of overall performance benefits by switching to a newer OS that I found through one quick google search. We (the PC community) went over this years ago. If you don't accept that general application performance translates to performance in games, i.e loading times then we have nothing to discuss. 

 

I am done with this conversation as it's just annoying me if I have to keep proving my point.

 

Windows 8/8.1/10 Is faster than Windows 7. This applies to almost everything you use Windows for. I'm done.

[Sakkura]

8 minutes ago, PerfectTemplar said:

zzzz

 

This was an example of overall performance benefits by switching to a newer OS that I found through one quick google search. We (the PC community) went over this years ago. If you don't accept that general application performance translates to performance in games, i.e loading times then we have nothing to discuss. 

 

I am done with this conversation as it's just annoying me if I have to keep proving my point.

 

Windows 8/8.1/10 Is faster than Windows 7. This applies to almost everything you use Windows for. I'm done.

 

So you're claiming that gaming performance is better despite clear evidence that it is not. So much for "proving your point."

[AxeFire]

Windows 10 works perfectly for me

 

but I know people who are having hard times with it.

[Delicieuxz]

13 hours ago, Watermelon Guy said:

Driver support, more windows 10 drivers. More and more dx12 games being announced.

What driver support? All current hardware has Windows 7 drivers, and even though certain upcoming motherboards which will only officially support Windows 10, there will still be other motherboards also supporting Windows 7. Also, not having official Windows 7 support doesn't mean a motherboard won't work with Windows 7.

 

Windows 7 will get Vulkan, which might well eclipse DX12 - since Vulkan works for everything, and is open source, while DX12 is only for Win 10, and not completely open source. All major 3D engine makers are adopting both DX12 and Vulkan, but if a dev has to focus on one, it probably makes more sense to go with Vulkan.

[Delicieuxz]

16 minutes ago, PerfectTemplar said:

 

 

Windows 8/8.1/10 Is faster than Windows 7. This applies to almost everything you use Windows for. I'm done.

 

The best performance in OS goes Windows 8 (best) Windows 7 (2nd best) Windows 10 (3rd best). The only way Windows 10 performs better than 7 is in DX12 applications.

 

The performance difference between all 3 OSes is negligible, though.

 

 

Windows 7 versus 8 versus 10 application performance:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1042-windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7/page3.html

 

Windows 7 versus 8 versus 10 gaming performance:
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1460&lang=english

[Delicieuxz]

2 hours ago, aerandir92 said:

This is great! Clinging on to Windows 7 is no better than those that clinged onto XP after 7 was launched.

 

Not at all. Windows 7 has more control, more customization, more functionality in things like the start menu, than Windows 10. Windows 10 is mostly just Windows 7, missing some features, with invasive data collection, less visual customization, a less functional start menu, monetization and in OS ads. People not going to Windows 10 realize that Windows 10 is just a repackaging of Windows  7 / 8, with monetization and loss of privacy and control, all for Microsoft's benefit.

 

If I took a guess, I'd say you didn't use XP to know what the difference was between it and Vista, and 7.

[ThreePinkApples]

13 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

Not at all. Windows 7 has more control, more customization, more functionality in things like the start menu, than Windows 10. Windows 10 is mostly just Windows 7, missing some features, with invasive data collection, less visual customization, a less functional start menu, monetization and in OS ads. People not going to Windows 10 realize that Windows 10 is just a repackaging of Windows  7 / 8, with monetization and loss of privacy and control, all for Microsoft's benefit.

 

If I took a guess, I'd say you didn't use XP to know what the difference was between it and Vista, and 7.

Haven't the loss of privacy argument died down yet? It is telemetry data, nothing that really can identify you. You'll loose more privacy buy using Google than using Windows 10. 
Less visual customization? The old control panel i still there, I haven't noticed anything missing, although I've never done much visual customization. 
Less functional start menu? The search for me is as good as Windows 7 and 8.1 (8 was bad), you can pin more stuff than before, much more, and you have the old programs list. And last, right clicking on the start menu gives you the rest that is missing. (This menu has been there since Windows 8, I love it). 
You can turn of OS adds, I haven't seen any except for once in a preview build. 

 

I used XP for many years, I tried Vista on release but wasn't that happy. Then I used 7 from beta until 8 beta arrived, then 8 until 8.1 beta, and so on. 

[Snadzies]

13 hours ago, That Norwegian Guy said:

These posts are always pointless.

The same people who are anti-Windows 10 will be anti-participation in Steam surveys. Because Steam doesn't just collect your system specs and OS, it collects info on all applications and drivers installed on your system, and peripherals connected to it.

So the people who lack enough interest in privacy to install Windows 10 will be more likely to also participate in a Steam HW survey.

Basic analytics.

 

I'd bet those people that don't participate for the reasons you give make up a small minority of PC users and Steam users, a small enough minority to not make hardly any impact on the results.

[Delicieuxz]

20 minutes ago, aerandir92 said:

Haven't the loss of privacy argument died down yet? It is telemetry data, nothing that really can identify you. You'll loose more privacy buy using Google than using Windows 10. 

The data collected includes telemetry, but it not limited to telemetry. Microsoft can identify you, and none of the data collected is anonymous - it is all associated with a system ID. When MS called it anonymous, that was PR, and they meant that you aren't identified by your person, but by an ID that MS assigns to your system (which means there's no truth to calling Windows 10's data collection anonymous). And using Google will not bring data collection into your non-online in-OS use, so Windows 10 is certainly the bigger privacy concern than Google.

 

I personally really don't like the Windows 10 search, and have disabled Cortana, and online results, as well as Windows Store suggestions. What I most don't like about the Windows 10 start menu is the lack of being able to pin items to the start menu (not live tiles). I've replaced the Windows 10 start menu with Startisback.

[ThreePinkApples]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The data collected includes telemetry, but it not limited to telemetry. Microsoft can identify you, and none of the data collected is anonymous - it is all associated with a system ID. When MS called it anonymous, that was PR, and they meant that you aren't identified by your person, but by an ID that MS assigns to your system (which means there's no truth to calling Windows 10's data collection anonymous). And using Google will not bring data collection into your non-online in-OS use, so Windows 10 is certainly the bigger privacy concern than Google.

 

I personally really don't like the Windows 10 search, and have disabled Cortana, and online results, as well as Windows Store suggestions. What I most don't like about the Windows 10 start menu is the lack of being able to pin items to the start menu (not live tiles). I've replaced the Windows 10 start menu with Startisback.

If that is so, well, then it isn't that anonymous no, so for those that care (I wouldn't really think that many really care, but some get dragged with when they hear people talk about it) I understand that they're holding back. Although there are tools out there that disable the data collection. 

 

So, to sum up, the thing you dislike most is that pinning things has been moved a bit to the right and you can pin more than before? Ok then. 
Live tiles are just what you get if it is an app that has it. Pinning anything else is just an icon, and the small size is quite small. 

[Delicieuxz]

13 minutes ago, aerandir92 said:

So, to sum up, the thing you dislike most is that pinning things has been moved a bit to the right and you can pin more than before? Ok then. 
Live tiles are just what you get if it is an app that has it. Pinning anything else is just an icon, and the small size is quite small. 

I want a start menu that works at my speed. I frequently access different pinned programs from my start menu while editing documents, and maneuvering into live tiles, and scanning that visual noise can be interrupting of my thought-stream when moving a particular piece of text that I'm expanding upon across programs. Having pinned items in the start menu is about as transparent as the task of accessing apps gets. Making the process more involved serves no functional purpose that I can see.

[Linusinium]

I preferred Win7 to any other version of PC OS I ever used. I upgraded to 8 pro64 really cheap, got classic shell and it worked great. In my experience, games ran just a little better under 8.1, 2fps on average.

 

I moved to win10 for pretty much the same reason all other gamers do, it's that dx12 carrot. I had to do a few fixes on day 1 but no complaints since.

 

I see some of you guys are enthusiastic about DX alternatives, for the gaming segment to free itself of windows. A viable alternative needs a lot of traction within the industry just to get going. Independent studios could work together but gaining AAA studios support is tough because according to a DICE dev, a mere mention of alternatives drives people into panic mode over coding the same game twice. I would like to be proven wrong on this but I don't see the incentive for anyone with enough momentum to stir things up. Nvidia could probably drive it but has no motivation to do so.

[Delicieuxz]

6 minutes ago, Linusinium said:

I preferred Win7 to any other version of PC OS I ever used. I upgraded to 8 pro64 really cheap, got classic shell and it worked great. In my experience, games ran just a little better under 8.1, 2fps on average.

 

I moved to win10 for pretty much the same reason all other gamers do, it's that dx12 carrot. I had to do a few fixes on day 1 but no complaints since.

 

I see some of you guys are enthusiastic about DX alternatives, for the gaming segment to free itself of windows. A viable alternative needs a lot of traction within the industry just to get going. Independent studios could work together but gaining AAA studios support is tough because according to a DICE dev, a mere mention of alternatives drives people into panic mode over coding the same game twice. I would like to be proven wrong on this but I don't see the incentive for anyone with enough momentum to stir things up. Nvidia could probably drive it but has no motivation to do so.

Valve (Source 2), Epic (Unreal 4), Unity (Unity 5), and I think CryTek (CryEngine) and DICE (Frostbite) are all supporting both Vulkan and DX12.

 

It took two DICE coders 6 weeks to code Mantle support into Frostbite for Battlefield 4. Hopefully other developers see that as good enough value to have their game perform better on OSes other than Windows 10.