choosing OS

[Benz]

best OS for gaming? Do OS improve performance of gaming?

[extremescouter]

Mac OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion is definitely the best.  :D

[crazystorm13]

Window's 7

[X1XNobleX1X]

Windows 7 is probably the best for gaming. The most user friendly as well, better than Windows 8 

[felixbearpig]

Mac OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion is definitely the best.  :D

lol, no mavericks is the best ,

 the unpopular windows 8 is acually good

[Godlygamer23]

Windows 7 and Windows 8.

[CrabCreations]

Windows 8 can actually run a few games faster than Win7. & the new UI is quite nice too

[Darell3]

Windows 8. Why? Windows 8 is based on Windows 7. Windows 8 has everything that Windows 7 has, but with a different UI and also the new native start menu. So between Windows 8-7 i dont think there isnt any noticeable 'gaming experience'. Ive gained 14% performance when i moved to Windows 8.

[Gorgatron]

Window's 7

Windows 7? No thanks I have Windows 2000.

[GoodBytes]

Windows 8.

Gaming performance increases quite a lot in Win8 for old graphic cards... like if you have a GeForce 9000 series or 200 series. Not so much on high-end cards. Some games have a small performance bump.

Windows 8 is a modern OS, for modern people, for people that are open to learn something new, and are not so close minded, that a background change is the end of the world.

 

What's funny, is that this kind of post, happens on EVERY, SINGLE, version, of Windows that comes out. Tell me 1 OS, that people didn't call the end of Microsoft, how unproductive the changes are compared to the previous version of Windows, and that the previous version of Windows (despite initially hated) is better.

 

 -> Windows 95 -> Start Menu and Task Bar is stupid. Folders is better, Windows 3.1 was better

 -> Windows 98 -> Microsoft is not innovative. All new features are useless (this included multi-monitor support). The OS has nothing new. Long live Windows 3.x

 -> Windows Me -> Ok that one is the exception

 -> Windows 2000 -> Nothing runs on it, crashes all the time (poor drivers support (Vista anyone?)), added layers which greatly increases the system security reduces gaming performance, improved memory management, means less RAM is available, all new features are useless. The OS has nothing new Microsoft is not innovative. Windows 98 was better

 

 -> Windows XP -> Crashes all the time, unstable, the new Start Menu is crap, reduce productivity, skin is ugly, consumes too much system resources, nothing runs on it. The new search sucks, the side panel and tool bar, consumes to much space making it impossible to multi-task, and treats me like an idiot, account system is stupid and useless, and this is from what I remember people saying, but I recall the list was long.. people were calling XP as the next Windows Me.

Everything was complained about. Unproductive OS, Google and you'll see. Windows 98 was better

 

 -> Windows Vista -> Glass is awful, "new" Start Menu sucks, the "new" task bar sucks, UAC is stupid, crashes all the time, doesn't run properly on my system which can barely run XP in the first place, unproductive OS. No new features. XP is best Windows ever.

 

 -> Windows 7 -> Glass is terrible, "new" Start Menu sucks, the task bar is a replica of MacOS task bar down to function, Microsoft is a photocopier, 0 new ideas, non innovative, crashes all the time, my <insert hardware> broke because of Windows 7, new task bar is unusable. Windows XP is the best OS.

 

 -> Windows 8 -> Start Screen sucks, no more glass! We want glass!, ribbon bar sucks, my <insert hardware> broke because of Windows 8, Windows 7 is the best Windows ever.

 

See a pattern?

It's ALWAYS the same story. People look at screen shots, assumes, or spend less than few hours with it, before hating on it, just because it's different... when they are forced to it, they learn it, they get used to it, and get comfortable with it, and then when a new Windows is released, people complain endlessly, and say how the previous version of Windows was the best, despite trashing it before.

 

And it's funny how, every 3 years we have a Windows (except for XP), and every other Windows has poor sales.... which people attribute that it's because the OS sucks. But ignore the fact that companies and schools only upgrade every 5-6 years. Companies STILL transition to Windows 7! I can tell you right now, assuming Windows 9 comes out 3 years from Windows 8, Windows 9 will be a massive hit. Call me crazy, but I called it with Longhorn (which didn't came to be in 2003, but 3 years from XP, about, XP started to be picked up), and with Vista, I called Win7 to be a success.

[rashdanml]

Windows 7/8 because of sheer number of games available, and perhaps lack of much optimization for OpenGL on Linux/OS X. DirectX is the standard for most games.

Performance is subjective. With the right drivers and OpenGL optimizations, Linux actually outperforms Windows in a limited trial (Left 4 Dead 2 running on both Linux and Windows; Windows was tested with both DirectX and OpenGL). Both cases, OpenGL outperformed DirectX.

 

It'll only be a matter of time before Linux becomes mainstream.

[Godlygamer23]

Windows 8.

Gaming performance increases quite a lot in Win8 for old graphic cards... like if you have a GeForce 9000 series or 200 series. Not so much on high-end cards. Some games have a small performance bump.

Windows 8 is a modern OS, for modern people, for people that are open to learn something new, and are not so close minded, that a background change is the end of the world.

What's funny, is that this kind of post, happens on EVERY, SINGLE, version, of Windows that comes out. Tell me 1 OS, that people didn't call the end of Microsoft, how unproductive the changes are compared to the previous version of Windows, and that the previous version of Windows (despite initially hated) is better.

-> Windows 95 -> Start Menu and Task Bar is stupid. Folders is better, Windows 3.1 was better

-> Windows 98 -> Microsoft is not innovative. All new features are useless (this included multi-monitor support). The OS has nothing new. Long live Windows 3.x

-> Windows Me -> Ok that one is the exception

-> Windows 2000 -> Nothing runs on it, crashes all the time (poor drivers support (Vista anyone?)), added layers which greatly increases the system security reduces gaming performance, improved memory management, means less RAM is available, all new features are useless. The OS has nothing new Microsoft is not innovative. Windows 98 was better

-> Windows XP -> Crashes all the time, unstable, the new Start Menu is crap, reduce productivity, skin is ugly, consumes too much system resources, nothing runs on it. The new search sucks, the side panel and tool bar, consumes to much space making it impossible to multi-task, and treats me like an idiot, account system is stupid and useless, and this is from what I remember people saying, but I recall the list was long.. people were calling XP as the next Windows Me.

Everything was complained about. Unproductive OS, Google and you'll see. Windows 98 was better

-> Windows Vista -> Glass is awful, "new" Start Menu sucks, the "new" task bar sucks, UAC is stupid, crashes all the time, doesn't run properly on my system which can barely run XP in the first place, unproductive OS. No new features. XP is best Windows ever.

-> Windows 7 -> Glass is terrible, "new" Start Menu sucks, the task bar is a replica of MacOS task bar down to function, Microsoft is a photocopier, 0 new ideas, non innovative, crashes all the time, my <insert hardware> broke because of Windows 7, new task bar is unusable. Windows XP is the best OS.

-> Windows 8 -> Start Screen sucks, no more glass! We want glass!, ribbon bar sucks, my <insert hardware> broke because of Windows 8, Windows 7 is the best Windows ever.

See a pattern?

It's ALWAYS the same story. People look at screen shots, assumes, or spend less than few hours with it, before hating on it, just because it's different... when they are forced to it, they learn it, they get used to it, and get comfortable with it, and then when a new Windows is released, people complain endlessly, and say how the previous version of Windows was the best, despite trashing it before.

And it's funny how, every 3 years we have a Windows (except for XP), and every other Windows has poor sales.... which people attribute that it's because the OS sucks. But ignore the fact that companies and schools only upgrade every 5-6 years. Companies STILL transition to Windows 7! I can tell you right now, assuming Windows 9 comes out 3 years from Windows 8, Windows 9 will be a massive hit. Call me crazy, but I called it with Longhorn (which didn't came to be in 2003, but 3 years from XP, about, XP started to be picked up), and with Vista, I called Win7 to be a success.

Are you done ranting?

[TPS_REPORT]

Are you done ranting?

He's not ranting. It's the truth. People always "hate" something just because other people dislike it. It's a trend with any product on the market. 

 

And the general public really loathes change. They want to stay within their comfort zone. But that's one thing people have to realize: as technology progresses, you will undoubtedly have to step out of that said "zone" and see for yourself what the fuss is all about. 

 

If you give a product, such as Windows 8, the good 'ol college try and truly keep an open mind about it and you still don't like it, alright. That's personal preference and opinion. Perfectly acceptable. But if one doesn't like something just because that's the overwhelming opinion, I say that's a little unfair. But that's just me.

 

(I realize now that I'm probably the one whose ranting...pardon)  :P

[rashdanml]

 

A valid reason for hating on Vista was it's resource usage. It was noticeably more of a memory hog. The general population couldn't care less, but the difference was still there. The switch to Windows 7 fixed that.

 

As for Windows 8, I attribute the slow adoption to lack of touchscreen monitors for desktop systems (or lack of inexpensive 23" touchscreens http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007721%20600012169&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20 $261 for the cheapest in the 19-24" range). The UI works really well on tablets and ultrabooks (and phones). It's wonderfully elegant, but not ready for mainstream desktop usage.

 

My personal aversion to Windows in general is its closed nature. But that's going way off topic.

[GoodBytes]

Are you done ranting?

I am stating the truth, not ranting.

 

 

 

A valid reason for hating on Vista was it's resource usage. It was noticeably more of a memory hog. The general population couldn't care less, but the difference was still there. The switch to Windows 7 fixed that.

 

As for Windows 8, I attribute the slow adoption to lack of touchscreen monitors for desktop systems (or lack of inexpensive 23" touchscreens http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007721%20600012169&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20 $261 for the cheapest in the 19-24" range). The UI works really well on tablets and ultrabooks (and phones). It's wonderfully elegant, but not ready for mainstream desktop usage.

 

My personal aversion to Windows in general is its closed nature. But that's going way off topic.

That picture is all wrong, you are missing a bunch of Windows versions.

 

-> Windows 1 -> Sucks I guess?

-> Windows 2 -> Good

-> Windows 3 -> Sucks

-> Windows NT 3 -> Good.. wait that doesn't work... let;'s move on still.

-> Windows 95 -> Good.... oh what that didn't work..

-> Windows 98 -> Good

-> Windows NT 4.x - > Sucks

-> Windows Me -> Sucks... oh wait... that doesn't work

-> Windows 2000 -> Good... should be suck no?

-> Windows XP -> Bad... well that made sense back when XP was released....

 

ok well you get the idea.. your diagram doesn't work.

 

Vista was a great OS, if you bothered to get the proper requirement for the OS. Most people didn't have the computer power to drive Vista. The only reason why Windows 7 is good, is because after 3 years, OEMs stop ripping off people with completely under powered, overpriced computers,and technology moved forward.

Vista required:

 -> 64-bit CPU

 -> True dual core CPU

 -> 4GB of RAM

 -> Med-low range dedicated GPU. So Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware, 256MB of memory, and have WDDM drivers.

 -> Motherboards and hardware in general using the latest technologies all the way.

 

If you had these, your system was flying compared to XP. Is it as fast as Win7? No, but it's not too slow. Don't believe me, install Vista on your computer now.

 

Vista was too ahead of its time. And to be honest was a bit rushed.. the 6 year dev cycle is what pushed Microsoft to rush release... that is very true. But performance wise, what I said stands true.

[obsidian1200]

Either Windows 7 or 8, depending on whether or not you want to learn a new UI. I'm hoping that gaming on Linux takes off soon, though, as I only use Windows for games and MS Office. The rest of my tasks are completed more efficiently under Ubuntu.

[offtake]

Windows 7 or 8. Linux is a really good OS but it doesn't have very many supported games besides some indie titles. Personally I have windows 8 on my main gaming rig, and then Ubuntu on my laptop, which I have a few indie games installed, but I use it mostly for office stuff and browsing the web if I'm out of reach of my main computer.

[rashdanml]

That picture is all wrong, you are missing a bunch of Windows versions.

I would have thought the troll face made it pretty obvious ... It was a joke. If you thought I was trying to make a point with the image, you're wrong.

 

Trust me, I had the hardware for Vista. Idle memory usage on startup without a whole bunch of programs running was close to 1GB. Similar setup with Windows 7 was 700MB. Repeatedly. All on the same hardware: Q6600, 4GB of RAM, 8400GS, which I replaced with a 6570 while it was still running Vista, and then transitioned to 7. Back when I bought it pre-built, it was ahead of the curve. That's only one example. I've had other computers and laptops where switching from Vista to 7 made a huge improvement on resource usage without having to upgrade hardware.

 

Performance-wise, Vista wasn't good at utilizing even low end hardware, while 7 was. Having to upgrade hardware just to use the operating system doesn't make it "good".

[jaypro]

I switched to Windows 8 for the ultra fast boot thing.  After installing a start button, it feels just like Windows 7 except it turns on in like 5 seconds.

 

Gaming-wise, I don't notice a difference.

[GoodBytes]

Trust me, I had the hardware for Vista. Idle memory usage on startup without a whole bunch of programs running was close to 1GB. Similar setup with Windows 7 was 700MB. Repeatedly. All on the same hardware: Q6600, 4GB of RAM, 8400GS, which I replaced with a 6570 while it was still running Vista, and then transitioned to 7. Back when I bought it pre-built, it was ahead of the curve. That's only one example. I've had other computers and laptops where switching from Vista to 7 made a huge improvement on resource usage without having to upgrade hardware.

 

Performance-wise, Vista wasn't good at utilizing even low end hardware, while 7 was. Having to upgrade hardware just to use the operating system doesn't make it "good".

That is because you have no idea how RAM works and how Windows works with RAM.

-> RAM is meant to be used.. not your HDD. Vista used RAM first and for most.. when it's getting full, now it starts moving stuff to your pagefile. XP was the opposite, no mater how much free RAM you have, it dumps everything is possibly can on your pagefile. You want proof? While your computer is perfect idle, pull the HDD/SSD out of the system, while it is live. You'll still be able to interact with the system. Of course, opening programs, and such will do nothing, and queue the task in some list until the HDD/SSD becomes responsive. When you'll plug it back, you'll see all the task you executed that need the HDD/SSD will be execute in a row. Do that in XP... BSOD immediately pretty much.

-> Vista and up have SuperFetch technology, which pre-loads your applications memory before you do for faster start.. kinda like a dynamic disk to RAM. The space taken by SuperFetch is not reserved. The OS will free the space immediately if you need it. There was a post/blog/discussion about it from Microsoft, discussing if they should have the task manager consider that space taken or ignore it. They have chosen to consider it.

Also, as I said, I am not going to say WIn7 is not better.. but it's not THAT much better over Vista. And if you put XP, your system would not feel faster than.. a what.. fast P4?

On my side, getting Vista, I was on the edge of my seat how fast it was compared to XP. When I bought my computer I did everything possible to be a Vista ready OS, before Vista beta was out. My experience wasn't unique. Everyone with good gaming PC, noticed the same thing.

And back when Vista was out.. Win7 wasn't out. So you could not say that Win7 is faster... it didn't exists yet. The complaints was that Vista was super slow, eating resources for no reason.

[rashdanml]

Well aware that RAM is meant to be used. Well aware of how RAM works. Also aware of the fact that an OS using more system resources leaves less for actual programs, even with Superfetch factored in. You know, what people actually USE computers for.

 

Also about Windows 7 not being out when Vista was ... well duh. Vista, however, was less memory efficient than XP, which actually was out at the time.

 

When 7 eventually came out, everyone who used it knew it was a massive improvement over Vista. Windows 7 was essentially what Vista should have been: retaining the appearance while using resources efficiently (XP).

[R4STABAN]

If you're buying a new OS for home use go windows 8 because the new start screen direction is here to stay and the underlying concept is actually better than a start menu (implementation is hit and miss atm). Home use means you have plenty of time to get used to it.

 

If your build is employment critical (i.e. you use it for work) 7 may be a better option if you don't have the time to learn the new OS.

 

I work in a school IT department and we would never put windows 8 on staff or student machines. That would be an utterly ridiculous thing to do, we'd need our heads checking.

[dtronicsuk]

Mac OSX 10.8 Mountain Lion is definitely the best.  :D

 

yeah and only idiots buy macs, you know i could build a better spec pc for a 3rd of the price. personally windows is the better choice for gaming since 98% of games come out for the windows os. i am yet to find a decent game that runs on mac. 

 

Linux may also be a choice since steam has just been released for it. 

 

dont go for mac there not worth the box they come in.

 

and if you really want to use mac os build a hackintosh (despite the name your not really hacking), have a look at iatkos if mac really is your thing

[TPS_REPORT]

yeah and only idiots buy macs, you know i could build a better spec pc for a 3rd of the price. personally windows is the better choice for gaming since 98% of games come out for the windows os. i am yet to find a decent game that runs on mac. 

 

Linux may also be a choice since steam has just been released for it. 

 

dont go for mac there not worth the box they come in.

 

and if you really want to use mac os build a hackintosh (despite the name your not really hacking), have a look at iatkos if mac really is your thing

 

Well considering in 2009 I didn't know any better and bought myself a Macbook Pro, it's what I thought I needed at the time. And it was.

 

It has been a trusty computer all these years and I've upgraded it with 8gb of RAM and took out the optical drive and installed a 500gb Seagate momentus xt and a OCZ Vertex 3 60gb SSD for by boot drive. It's been plenty fast and has done everything I need it to do up till now.

 

I will agree however that the graphics aren't the best, but they aren't meant to be "gaming computers". These are consumer laptops and computers that are, quite frankly, a piece of art. The craftsmanship and build quality of Apple products is superb. 

 

Another thing, I know for a fact that I'm not an "idiot" just for buying a Mac. They are very reliable (but expensive, yes) computers.

 

And no, I'm not an Apple fanboy. I have expanded my ways of thinking and am building one beast PC this next school year.

 

Choose your words carefully. 

 

P.S. - I run Bioshock on my Mac just fine (yeah on lowest settings), but just fine.  ;)

[GoodBytes]

Vista, however, was less memory efficient than XP, which actually was out at the time.

No it wasn't.. if you had 4GB of RAM, XP treated it as if you had 256MB of RAM (or at least what it felt like), as soon as minize something for a moment... bang it moves it to pagefile. So your entire interaction with the system is a pain in the butt, it's slow as crap. I recall quitting a game, and your HDD was working more than ever before to get your desktop back, and when you restore an app, too "for ever" (long time) to fully draw and reappear on the screen.... that's with 4GB of RAM, with applications far less fancy than what we have today. We don't have this experience no more since Vista. Everything is ready.. everything is left on the RAM, and pagefile is used when actually needed. So no, I disagree with you. Vista memory management is more efficient. Let's assume you are out of RAM for a program that you are going to open under Vista.. NOW, and only now, it will move old programs that you didn't touch for a while, to the pagefile, and fit your program in your RAM. So now, only this situation, that that program you didn't use in a while will take a bit of time when you restore it. XP, it would be almost everything, all the time.

When 7 eventually came out, everyone who used it knew it was a massive improvement over Vista. Windows 7 was essentially what Vista should have been: retaining the appearance while using resources efficiently (XP).

Most people didn't even try Vista. Or didn't have the recommended specs for Vista. They got Win7, because their XP machine busted it, or got a new system, and XP didn't run correctly, as it didn't know more than half of the technology in it. Most people that complained was just saying what they read somewhere, and not actually tried Vista.