Windows 7 vs 8

[Keudn]

I currently have windows 7 professional on my gaming rig but i have heard that windows 8 gives a good performance boost in games. I am going to get a 144hz monitor soon and I want the most fps I can get in games. The thing is my mom has windows 8 on her laptop and I HATE the whole tablet design of it. Is the performance boost worth switching to windows 8 and dealing with the tablet design?

[Matsy]

You are asking something non of us can answer.

Its totally down to preference.

Only you can decide if you can tolerate the metro interface being there and everything being switched around.

[needmorewood]

I currently have windows 7 professional on my gaming rig but i have heard that windows 8 gives a good performance boost in games. I am going to get a 144hz monitor soon and I want the most fps I can get in games. The thing is my mom has windows 8 on her laptop and I HATE the whole tablet design of it. Is the performance boost worth switching to windows 8 and dealing with the tablet design?

you can enable a setting that forces it to boot into desktop mode

u dont have to look at that UI as along as u dont click the windows key

[Vitalius]

I currently have windows 7 professional on my gaming rig but i have heard that windows 8 gives a good performance boost in games. I am going to get a 144hz monitor soon and I want the most fps I can get in games. The thing is my mom has windows 8 on her laptop and I HATE the whole tablet design of it. Is the performance boost worth switching to windows 8 and dealing with the tablet design?

You aren't sacrificing anything. 

Just get 8.1 and install Classic Shell. Bam. Normal Windows. No touching Metro. Ever. I've had it for months and I love it. 

Completely worth it. 

[LancerBG]

leave windows 8 out of it, go with win 8.1. I only saw the "metro" interface the first day then tweaked it how I liked and its been pretty much win 7 but with better performance. 

[Joshyy]

Windows 8.1 only feature so far is god forsaken DirectX in the term of 11.2, it has a performance boost in a fair few games, BF4 comes to mind. 

[Snickerzz]

I love windows 7, ive tried win8 74bit and it seemed sluggish with bf4 but not on win7 and i love the ui of win7 too, to me unless your on a touch device win8 is pointless

[TheRoss0411]

Windows 8.1 IMO

[defunkt]

StartIsBack.

[laxer]

You aren't sacrificing anything. 

Just get 8.1 and install Classic Shell. Bam. Normal Windows. No touching Metro. Ever. I've had it for months and I love it. 

Completely worth it. 

 

This is what I do and is a very nice upgrade from win7.

[GoodBytes]

Windows 8.1, no tweaks or anything.

Once you pass the learning curve of the Start Screen, you get to see how more practice and powerful it is over the Start Menu. Like for example you can pin any folder you want, for an easy and direct access to your most used locations. You can pin all your games and group them on your Start Screen, for a quick and fast launching game. No need to start Steam, then realize that your game that you wanted to play is on Origin.. but nope, it's on Uplay... but nope it was a retail purchase. Here you can have a wall of your games. Very nice. Same for your programs.

Plus you benefit the long list of features of Windows 8. And in addition, I don't where you live, but you may have XBox Music. Unlimited Music streaming, out of the second largest music library available (iTunes being number 1) for free (with few ads). Or 10$ per month, unlimited music download, streaming, no ads, no playlist restriction crap (playable on Microsoft devices, and XBox Music App on Android and iOS).

[Vitalius]

Windows 8.1, no tweaks or anything.

Once you pass the learning curve of the Start Screen, you get to see how more practice and powerful it is over the Start Menu. Like for example you can pin any folder you want, for an easy and direct access to your most used locations. You can pin all your games and group them on your Start Screen, for a quick and fast launching game. No need to start Steam, then realize that your game that you wanted to play is on Origin.. but nope, it's on Uplay... but nope it was a retail purchase. Here you can have a wall of your games. Very nice. Same for your programs.

Plus you benefit the long list of features of Windows 8. And in addition, I don't where you live, but you may have XBox Music. Unlimited Music streaming, out of the second largest music library available (iTunes being number 1) for free (with few ads). Or 10$ per month, unlimited music download, streaming, no ads, no playlist restriction crap (playable on Microsoft devices, and XBox Music App on Android and iOS).

For your first paragraph, that is what folders are for (the grouping feature) and you can pin anything you want to the start menu. 

I have nothing to say to your second paragraph. I chose to forego use of Metro because I already can do everything it offers just as easily with the start menu. It's a single key press away. Then I have the task bar. And the Desktop is a backup for programs I don't use often, but still don't like hunting for in the Programs folder. 

So it goes:

Taskbar - Immediate and constantly used things

Start Menu - Many and frequently used things

Desktop - Most and occasionally used thing

By the time you'd hit Desktop, you'd have to scroll on the Metro to cover that many programs (I have loooots of games). 

I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying they are pretty much equal.

[GoodBytes]

For your first paragraph, that is what folders are for (the grouping feature) and you can pin anything you want to the start menu.

You can't. You are stuck with the pre-defined selection of folders to select from the option panel. I can't pin a project folder, for example.

I have nothing to say to your second paragraph. I chose to forego use of Metro because I already can do everything it offers just as easily with the start menu. It's a single key press away.

You need to navigate a tiny menu to get what you want, which involves opening folders... more clicks, and slower reaction as you need to point and click small target.

And the Desktop is a backup for programs I don't use often, but still don't like hunting for in the Programs folder.

So you are saying you made the desktop to look like an iPad with icons everywhere?

By the time you'd hit Desktop, you'd have to scroll on the Metro to cover that many programs (I have loooots of games).

That is why you organize things and pin what is important, the rest is in down arrow or you do Ctrl+Tab, or search (type anywhere, or do Win+Q on the desktop).

I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying they are pretty much equal.

Ah ok.. well not to me. The above comment is not to attack your view, just sharing mine.

[Guest]

Searching is underrated. It can make launching programs incredibly fast because you never have to take your hands off the keyboard - just type the first few letters of the program name and press enter. Poof. B)

[Vitalius]

You can't. You are stuck with the pre-defined selection of folders to select from the option panel. I can't pin a project folder, for example.

You need to navigate a tiny menu to get what you want, which involves opening folders... more clicks, and slower reaction as you need to point and click small target.

So you are saying you made the desktop to look like an iPad with icons everywhere?

That is why you organize things and pin what is important, the rest is in down arrow or you do Ctrl+Tab, or search (type anywhere, or do Win+Q on the desktop).

Ah ok.. well not to me. The above comment is not to attack your view, just sharing mine.

... I use Classic Shell. I can pin anything I want. A folder. A game. Whatever. That may be "unfair", but Windows' Start menu has always kinda sucked. 

Again, Classic Shell gives me pretty much as much freedom as I need to open what I want. 1 folder depth is all I've needed, and I'm counting ALL my games (120) in that, on top of my many PC management programs and such. For example, it has a "small icons" option that allows around 16-20 folders to be listed. That's enough for me and my games (I sort by genre). And I don't really click them. Hover -> Click in the side menu that appears.

Nope. The Start menu covers 80% of what I use in a week's time. I rarely go to the desktop. I'm saying it has the most space, but at the same time, I only go there for things I use rarely. That way I don't have to move all my windows and such. Though the "To Desktop" functions (both buttons and key commands) make it easy anyway. 

Which is faster? Windows + D (Desktop command) -> Double Click program or Win + Q -> Type first 3 letters of the program's name and hit enter. To me, there is no difference. 

Again, same to you. I'm not saying my way is better. I'm saying there is no real difference for me. For new people, metro is probably better because it is simpler to use and requires little to not set up. But obviously neither of us are new to Windows.

I could probably come to use Metro as efficiently and such as I do this way, but I like this way. Because imo, it works just as well.

 

Searching is underrated. It can make launching programs incredibly fast because you never have to take your hands off the keyboard - just type the first few letters of the program name and press enter. Poof. B)

And I can do that. Windows Logo -> Type to search -> Enter. Same as Metro. Just with a Desktop and Taskbar.

[Guest]

And I can do that. Windows Logo -> Type to search -> Enter. Same as Metro. Just with a Desktop and Taskbar.

 

Good for you. I never said otherwise, did I?

 

Edit:

 

Oh, and by the way, you don't need to even go into the start screen to use the search in Windows 8.1. No need to leave the precious Desktop and Taskbar.

[xxmoney96xx]

Windows 8 is built for a phone. It sucks. Windows 7 FTW!!!

[JamesMontour]

Is there any real benefit of Windows 8.1 Pro over Windows 8.1 OEM?

[Vitalius]

Good for you. I never said otherwise, did I?

Nope, and I never said you did, did I? Sorry if I implied it. 

I'm just trying to make the point that they aren't different in efficiency. They are the same features (sans the folder sorting/pinning on the start menu) but wrapped up in a different, more colorful package. And in that transition some other features are lost. 

For example, on the taskbar, I can right click Chrome, then click any of my recently visited webpages. Or a page I have pinned. I have LTT forums pinned because my default chrome opens 10 tabs and I don't always want to check everything at once. From what I've seen, I can't do that with metro. I could possibly list the webpage as a tile, but then it takes up real estate it otherwise wouldn't. 

In this regard, I think taskbar makes desktop superior in terms of efficiency.

[Guest]

Nope, and I never said you did, did I? Sorry if I implied it. 

I'm just trying to make the point that they aren't different in efficiency. They are the same features (sans the folder sorting/pinning on the start menu) but wrapped up in a different, more colorful package. And in that transition some other features are lost. 

For example, on the taskbar, I can right click Chrome, then click any of my recently visited webpages. Or a page I have pinned. I have LTT forums pinned because my default chrome opens 10 tabs and I don't always want to check everything at once. From what I've seen, I can't do that with metro. I could possibly list the webpage as a tile, but then it takes up real estate it otherwise wouldn't. 

In this regard, I think taskbar makes desktop superior in terms of efficiency.

 

So...don't use metro? The taskbar is still there on 8. Granted, it's stupid that you don't have it from the Start screen or metro.

[Canoas]

For your first paragraph, that is what folders are for (the grouping feature) and you can pin anything you want to the start menu. 

I have nothing to say to your second paragraph. I chose to forego use of Metro because I already can do everything it offers just as easily with the start menu. It's a single key press away. Then I have the task bar. And the Desktop is a backup for programs I don't use often, but still don't like hunting for in the Programs folder. 

So it goes:

Taskbar - Immediate and constantly used things

Start Menu - Many and frequently used things

Desktop - Most and occasionally used thing

By the time you'd hit Desktop, you'd have to scroll on the Metro to cover that many programs (I have loooots of games). 

I'm not saying it's better. I'm saying they are pretty much equal.

Sorry, but no. The metro has space for 72 normal sized icons (120x120 or something) or 288 small icons (60x60) without needing to scroll. So by the time you've gone through your first 50 icons and have to go to the desktop we still have 238 spaces left without scrolling one bit. And either way it's much easier to just scroll a bit (you can use page down, the scroll wheel or the actual scroll bar) and access the other hundreds upon hundreds of programs you have installed on your computer instead of having them in separate places.

Also, all of the tiles can be colour coded so even if you have 288 icons you'll still pinpoint any of those 288 icons in a second. Not to mention they can be different sizes, so you can have your 30 most used programs with normal sized tiles and use the rest of the space for 168 small tiles. And if, in the offchance you forgot to put your program on one of those hundreds upon hundreds of icon slots, then you just click on an arrow that'll show you every single program you have installed in an alphabetical order.

 

So, if that is your argument for not using metro then I highly suggest you give metro a chance.

[Vitalius]

Sorry, but no. The metro has space for 72 normal sized icons (120x120 or something) or 288 small icons (60x60) without needing to scroll. So by the time you've gone through your first 50 icons and have to go to the desktop we still have 238 spaces left without scrolling one bit. And either way it's much easier to just scroll a bit (you can use page down, the scroll wheel or the actual scroll bar) and access the other hundreds upon hundreds of programs you have installed on your computer instead of having them in separate places.

Also, all of the tiles can be colour coded so even if you have 288 icons you'll still pinpoint any of those 288 icons in a second. Not to mention they can be different sizes, so you can have your 30 most used programs with normal sized tiles and use the rest of the space for 168 small tiles. And if, in the offchance you forgot to put your program on one of those hundreds upon hundreds of icon slots, then you just click on an arrow that'll show you every single program you have installed in an alphabetical order.

 

So, if that is your argument for not using metro then I highly suggest you give metro a chance.

My reason for not using metro is I have no need for it as I don't find their efficiency any different. I'm used to windows desktop and I like it. And just so you know, I am on Windows 8.1. So I have tried Metro. I don't see a point in relearning (not just "how do I do this?" but muscle memory too) how to use a GUI to access my programs. Also, I get backgrounds. I like backgrounds. That's just personal preference though.

Yes, you can have that many programs on metro at once, and I can have that many programs in my folder on my start menu. While you might say "but then you have to press the windows key", most of the time, you'd have to do that anyway to get to the metro menu. So that is only true when you have nothing open and start from metro anyway (most of the time, you would access it with the same key). 

The difference is that my windows key opens up search at the same time, so I can deviate from there. While you would then have to manually go to it, or choose to go straight to search with Windows + Q, but then you don't have access to the normal metro menu. While I get access to both with a single key press. 

I mean, really, we are talking about a single key press of difference, which is why I say they are pretty much equal since they access roughly the same number of programs. 288 isn't much. I have 160 steam games (99% are installed), and then I have all my tinkering programs on top of that (miners, media editors such as GIMP, Audacity, etc, Media players such as VLC, Foobar, etc, my security system such as Avast, Malware Bytes, etc, and on and on). 

I mean really one isn't better than the other imo. They are equal and what each one has as a positive unique feature, the other has a different one in it's place. It's all a matter of preference. 

[flibberdipper]

There isn't much of a boost between 7 and 8, in most cases. Unless you count me. With 7 Home Premium 32-bit I could only play GTA: San Andreas at 30 FPS at 800x600 with high settings (no AA), and after getting 8.1 64-bit I can play at 45FPS at 1024x768 at max settings (max AA). But this is an EXTREMELY rare occurrence.

 

It's all about preference.

[Canoas]

My reason for not using metro is I have no need for it as I don't find their efficiency any different. I'm used to windows desktop and I like it. And just so you know, I am on Windows 8.1. So I have tried Metro. I don't see a point in relearning (not just "how do I do this?" but muscle memory too) how to use a GUI to access my programs. Also, I get backgrounds. I like backgrounds. That's just personal preference though.

Yes, you can have that many programs on metro at once, and I can have that many programs in my folder on my start menu. While you might say "but then you have to press the windows key", most of the time, you'd have to do that anyway to get to the metro menu. So that is only true when you have nothing open and start from metro anyway (most of the time, you would access it with the same key). 

The difference is that my windows key opens up search at the same time, so I can deviate from there. While you would then have to manually go to it, or choose to go straight to search with Windows + Q, but then you don't have access to the normal metro menu. While I get access to both with a single key press. 

I mean, really, we are talking about a single key press of difference, which is why I say they are pretty much equal since they access roughly the same number of programs. 288 isn't much. I have 160 steam games (99% are installed), and then I have all my tinkering programs on top of that (miners, media editors such as GIMP, Audacity, etc, Media players such as VLC, Foobar, etc, my security system such as Avast, Malware Bytes, etc, and on and on). 

I mean really one isn't better than the other imo. They are equal and what each one has as a positive unique feature, the other has a different one in it's place. It's all a matter of preference. 

You made the argument that "By the time you'd hit Desktop, you'd have to scroll on the Metro to cover that many programs (I have loooots of games)", I proved you wrong. Even with icons from 160 steam games you're still left with 128 icons without needed to touch your mouse scroll. And again, the scroll is right there, a simple effortless touch on the scroll wheel of your mouse and you have hundreds of more available icon slots. And what muscle memory? That's the thing about metro, there's no muscle memory required, you put any program you want on the screen an colour code it so there's no muscle memory involved, all you need is to have your eyes open and it'll take you a second to click on that icon.

 

Why you think you can't use backgrounds and metro at the same time is beyond me, but with metro you can actually have a clean desktop where you can see the actual background instead of a clusterfuck of your 160+ icons completely blocking out the entire image and you can still put your background on the actual metro if you wish.

 

The efficiency, however, is much higher in metro, I can assure you that. With the press of the windows key you have every single program installed on your computer as well as numerous shortcuts in front of you, just a single click away. Without metro however, as you previously stated, you have to hide icons in several folders and and separate your icons accross 3 different places in your computer. The search menu in metro is windows+S, it doesn't take any longer to press it. So please, don't even try to compare the efficiency between the two, metro is on a whole other level.

 

When I changed to windows8 I also tried to resist the change, I tried metro for a day and hated it so I quickly installed startisback and got rid of it, thinking it was crap. It wasn't until a friend of mine told me to use it for a week that I learned how much better it actually is. At first it looks confusing, nothing but a complete mess, but once you give it an honest try I can assure you will love it. This is specially true in your case as you claim to have hundreds of icons that you need readily available, I only have like 30-40 as all my steam games are left on steam, and yet I found it to be a very clear improvement.

 

Also, I apologise if I seemed a bit rude. I do nerdrage when people start hating on metro as the vast majority haven't actually tried it, they just played with it for a few hours and then quit.

[Vitalius]

You made the argument that "By the time you'd hit Desktop, you'd have to scroll on the Metro to cover that many programs (I have loooots of games)", I proved you wrong. Even with icons from 160 steam games you're still left with 128 icons without needed to touch your mouse scroll. And again, the scroll is right there, a simple effortless touch on the scroll wheel of your mouse and you have hundreds of more available icon slots. And what muscle memory? That's the thing about metro, there's no muscle memory required, you put any program you want on the screen an colour code it so there's no muscle memory involved, all you need is to have your eyes open and it'll take you a second to click on that icon.

 

Why you think you can't use backgrounds and metro at the same time is beyond me, but with metro you can actually have a clean desktop where you can see the actual background instead of a clusterfuck of your 160+ icons completely blocking out the entire image and you can still put your background on the actual metro if you wish.

 

The efficiency, however, is much higher in metro, I can assure you that. With the press of the windows key you have every single program installed on your computer as well as numerous shortcuts in front of you, just a single click away. Without metro however, as you previously stated, you have to hide icons in several folders and and separate your icons accross 3 different places in your computer. The search menu in metro is windows+S, it doesn't take any longer to press it. So please, don't even try to compare the efficiency between the two, metro is on a whole other level.

 

When I changed to windows8 I also tried to resist the change, I tried metro for a day and hated it so I quickly installed startisback and got rid of it, thinking it was crap. It wasn't until a friend of mine told me to use it for a week that I learned how much better it actually is. At first it looks confusing, nothing but a complete mess, but once you give it an honest try I can assure you will love it. This is specially true in your case as you claim to have hundreds of icons that you need readily available, I only have like 30-40 as all my steam games are left on steam, and yet I found it to be a very clear improvement.

 

Also, I apologise if I seemed a bit rude. I do nerdrage when people start hating on metro as the vast majority haven't actually tried it, they just played with it for a few hours and then quit.

No, you didn't. If you really think I can't fit over 280 programs on my start menu, you have forgotten that they are sorted by folders, where each folder can comfortably hold 32ish programs and I can fit 35 folders without having to scroll. 32*35 = over 1000. I don't need that many, but I do need more than 280. And since I can have that many, I don't need to have a folder within a folder, ever. And I'm not even considering the fact that I have direct access to my many inner computer options by way of this menu as well, such as Device Manager, Control Center, Administrative Tools, Network & Connections, etc etc.

The simple difference between metro and desktop is that metro is more mouse intensive while desktop, the way I use it, is more keyboard intensive. The problem is that Metro lacks the keyboard support that Desktop has. 

For my Taskbar, Windows + [Number] starts the program. I don't care where my mouse is. I don't need it. For my start menu, Windows -> Down arrow -> Letter -> right arrow -> letter and anything I want is open. I could probably do the same by simply typing a program by way of the search, but that's broken now thanks to Metro because it lists EVERYTHING, unless you tell it otherwise with the mouse. Which is irritating. I prefer it to only show programs/folders.  But it doesn't even list those as options. You could click the down arrow and search apps, but then it isn't universal and I have to transition to a whole new screen to find something. 

So.... on a screen with 280 total icons, in which I would have at least 160 to 420 (45% to over 100% meaning I'd have to scroll) covering said screen, without any way of making those go away unless I want to use Search all the time, I'm going to be able to see a background just as good as when I have no desktop icons on my desktop (because I have none since the start menu with folders is so spacious). That just doesn't make sense. They are color coded too, so there is no transparent space to see the background better. The edges are all that matter because they are all you would be able to see. 

Like I said, Windows -> Down arrow -> Letter -> right arrow -> letter and anything I want is open. I can hit that successively faster than I can move my mouse to what I want once I've memorized where what I want is. Thus, muscle memory. 

I hate using mouse. It takes time. The higher your resolution, the more time it will take unless you up DPI, and that affects your games (which is what gaming mice are for, but still) as well as screwing with your finer clicking accuracy. 

Metro has no equivalent for keyboard use. That's why I don't like it. I can't just hit Windows + [number] and have a program up and it work. Unless it's on my Taskbar, which requires I use Desktop anyway and not apps that integrate with Metro. I have to use the mouse every time, and that's the deal breaker right there. Unless I use Search exclusively, but then what's the point of having a metro menu if I have to use Search all the time anyway? Plus the actual use of Search is actually hindered by the fact that it lists everything (meaning I have to type more rather than less) unless I change the settings each time to only search what I want. Which is more mouse movement.

Metro VS Desktop is the same as all "Dumbing down" features. Metro makes everything simple to use, and has high efficiency for noobs but no way to enhance that efficiency for people who use it a lot. While Desktop has lower efficiency for noobs, but a higher potential efficiency for the ones who know it's ins and outs. You can learn more, and thereby, do more with it, because there is more to learn.

Keyboard is more efficient than mouse. You move less of your body faster to do more. It's as simple as that. And Desktop is more conducive to that, unless I'm just missing some major Metro feature that doesn't immediately slap you in the face to say "Hey! Use me!".

TL;DR:

Keyboard > Mouse in regards to efficiency because Desktop allows you to use both while Metro is Mouse oriented. Moving from mouse to keyboard and back loses efficiency and that's what Metro causes a lot of. I type with two hands, as I'm sure most people do, so using a mouse (and only a mouse) to open a program in metro seems unnecessary when I am going to need both hands on the keyboard most of the time anyway. With Desktop, I can navigate with keyboard 80% of the time. Which is far more efficient than alternating between them for various tasks.

Obviously it depends on the actual application, but considering purely accessing programs, excessive mouse movement is bad design for efficiency.  

Edit: I believe this is where the term "Keyboard Warrior" comes in and actually has meaning beyond "he types a lot". I mean, really, if I could forego using the mouse for everything but video games, that'd be great. They are great for video games, and navigating a web page, but I can't describe to you the feeling when I have to switch from keyboard to mouse+keyboard. It's annoying to say the least. 

That's why multiple embedded folders are annoying and me finding out I could search for what I wanted by simply typing the name in letter by letter, which works on 90% of all applications, made my day. And by the way, I don't mean with an actual search text bar. If you have a list of non-alphabetized objects (folders, files, programs, wtv) and you start typing in the name of whatever you want, it will jump straight to it. It's great. As long as what you want is actually within that directory.