Best Operating System Opinions

[Erik005]

Probably windows 8.1 or whatever they are going to call it.

 

I really don't have any problems with windows 8

 

In desktop mode I used to pin everything to the quick launch bar anyway.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Erik005

[uberness23]

Also consider looking up your hardware to make sure it will function properly with Win 8, if you take that route. I know, most hardware is, but in my particular case my Rampage IV extreme became incredibly unstable with Win 8, even with latest BIOS, etc. Always a good idea to let an OS mature for a bit before switching, and Win 8, IMO, is still a long ways off. Win 7 has been out more than long enough that it can be used and relied upon.

 

And Yeah, the UI is annoying as hell too.

[vincenexus]

windows 7 64bit home premium honestly no need for ultimate in terms of performance although i am biased because i cant stand windows 8 tablet pc design for a desktop just ugly

Edited June 21, 2013 by vincenexus

[DarkWarrior45]

A lot of people have already mentioned that Windows 7 would be the better platform for a gaming machine, and I would be inclined to agree. I personally use Windows 7 on my own desktop rig that is used for light to medium gaming.

 

Me personally, Windows 8 is not horrible. Sure, Microsoft made some mistakes in the UI design, but that is something that I've learned to work around. The Windows 8.1 update is suppose to address some of the UI concerns. I use it on my Lenovo ultrabook, and it does everything I want it too. Of course, I'm not gaming on my ultrabook either.

 

When Windows Vista was Microsoft's newest thing on the block, I was really big into Linux and was pushing everyone I knew to go to Ubuntu Linux. And Ubuntu, for the most part, is a pretty good operating system. Especially if your main line of work is programming. However, in this day and age, I personally think that Linux has no business being on a gaming rig. Linux cannot run games (outside of Bastion), and installing it, even as a secondary OS, just simply adds complexity that I think is unneccesary. I prefer a gaming rig to have one OS (Windows 7) loaded on a fast drive (either a 10k rpm drive or a SSD). It's simple and it works.

[Thor.]

Get the Windows 7 OEM pro 64bit version, a lot more cheaper than ultimate and home.

 

its considered the best version for gaming

 

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5213934&CatId=4622

Edited June 22, 2013 by Thor.

[FMod]

That's $139, while Home Premium is $99.

There is no performance difference between 64-bit versions of Windows 7. Games won't run on one edition faster than on another.

 

They only differ in user features; if you don't actively use a feature, you don't get any passive benefit from it being enabled.

A chart is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions#Comparison_chart

 

So, as a gamer:

* You can't buy Starter or Home Basic in US.

* Home Premium limits you to 16GB of RAM, which is sufficient.

* Professional removes RAM restrictions and adds a lot of things you don't need for games.

* Ultimate adds a few things you definitely don't need.

 

Even when you move to DDR4, it's going to be expensive, so you'll have less RAM for a while than people have DDR3 now.

I suspect the reason for Ultimate's popularity is... we don't talk about it, but we all know it's going on, and MS doesn't seem to care.

 

For my use, the Professional version is optimal, but I actually have and use 32GB of RAM installed, I need the XP mode, I have a NAS fileserver at home and I need the Pro features to work with it.

[Werne]

When Windows Vista was Microsoft's newest thing on the block, I was really big into Linux and was pushing everyone I knew to go to Ubuntu Linux. And Ubuntu, for the most part, is a pretty good operating system. Especially if your main line of work is programming. However, in this day and age, I personally think that Linux has no business being on a gaming rig. Linux cannot run games (outside of Bastion), and installing it, even as a secondary OS, just simply adds complexity that I think is unneccesary. I prefer a gaming rig to have one OS (Windows 7) loaded on a fast drive (either a 10k rpm drive or a SSD). It's simple and it works.

Personally, I recommend Linux as a second OS just in case, the ext4 filesystem can't be read by Windows (even with required software, ext4 is read-only) so it can't be screwed up unless you wreck it's partition with crappy partitioning tools. Even better with reiserfs or reiser4, they can't be read by Windows at all.

 

Also good for backing up/restoring your files if Windows fails to boot of if NTFS goes to hell (happens to any OS), my data is worth to me more than 10GB free space and 3 seconds faster boot. Linux/Windows dual-boot won't slow down your system other than the 3 second GRUB2 countdown during boot time, won't affect gaming performance at all. I don't recommend Ubuntu though, ever since Unity got out it turned into a huge pile of unstable horse dung. Mint 13 is decent, based on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and easy to use for a Windows user. No fancy Compiz effects on Cinnamon but it's a decent, stable DE.

 

Also, you're wrong, Linux can run native games as good as Windows. Some even better, read up on Valve's results while porting L4D2 to Linux. The lack of games for Linux is a different thing entirely, though that might change if Valve indeed releases a Linux-based Steam Box (good for me).

 

Home Premium limits you to 16GB of RAM, which is sufficient.

Wait, Windows has a RAM limit on a 64-bit OS? What's the point of that? :blink:

[DarkWarrior45]

 

When Windows Vista was Microsoft's newest thing on the block, I was really big into Linux and was pushing everyone I knew to go to Ubuntu Linux. And Ubuntu, for the most part, is a pretty good operating system. Especially if your main line of work is programming. However, in this day and age, I personally think that Linux has no business being on a gaming rig. Linux cannot run games (outside of Bastion), and installing it, even as a secondary OS, just simply adds complexity that I think is unneccesary. I prefer a gaming rig to have one OS (Windows 7) loaded on a fast drive (either a 10k rpm drive or a SSD). It's simple and it works.

Personally, I recommend Linux as a second OS just in case, the ext4 filesystem can't be read by Windows (even with required software, ext4 is read-only) so it can't be screwed up unless you wreck it's partition with crappy partitioning tools. Even better with reiserfs or reiser4, they can't be read by Windows at all.

 

Also good for backing up/restoring your files if Windows fails to boot of if NTFS goes to hell (happens to any OS), my data is worth to me more than 10GB free space and 3 seconds faster boot. Linux/Windows dual-boot won't slow down your system other than the 3 second GRUB2 countdown during boot time, won't affect gaming performance at all. I don't recommend Ubuntu though, ever since Unity got out it turned into a huge pile of unstable horse dung. Mint 13 is decent, based on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and easy to use for a Windows user. No fancy Compiz effects on Cinnamon but it's a decent, stable DE.

 

Also, you're wrong, Linux can run native games as good as Windows. Some even better, read up on Valve's results while porting L4D2 to Linux. The lack of games for Linux is a different thing entirely, though that might change if Valve indeed releases a Linux-based Steam Box (good for me).

 

Home Premium limits you to 16GB of RAM, which is sufficient.

Wait, Windows has a RAM limit on a 64-bit OS? What's the point of that? :blink:

 

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree on having Linux as a secondary OS. Maybe for someone who knows what they're doing, then yes, I can see the benefit. But for a gamer who doesn't know the difference between Linux and Windows, let alone how to use Linux, it's a waste of time and effort imo. Just load Windows and be done with it. Linux or no Linux, my phone's gonna ring.

 

Although I will admit that my favorite distro at the moment is Fedora 18.

 

And yes, Windows has a RAM limit. Windows 7 Home Premium limits you to 16 GB. And either Home Starter or Home Basic (forget which one) limits you to 4/8 GB. Professional does too, but that limit is in the neighborhood of about 192 GB. Basically if you need more than 192 GB of RAM then Microsoft is going to be asking you why you are not using a Server edition of Windows ($600+ depending on edition). There are also other limits that people are not aware of, such as that no more than 10 computers can connect to a shared folder on Windows 7/8 at a time. Again, Microsoft wants you to use a Server edition for that purpose. The long and the short of this is that it's a big marketing scheme that's enforced by the OS.

 

And please do not jump to conclusions that I'm wrong on something. The gist behind my comment "Linux cannot run games (outside of Bastion)," basically meant that there is a very poor library of games available for Linux, except worded in such a way that someone who does not know much about Linux will come to the conclusion that they're most likely are not running their Windows games on it.

 

Edited June 22, 2013 by DarkWarrior45

[Thor.]

That's $139, while Home Premium is $99.

There is no performance difference between 64-bit versions of Windows 7. Games won't run on one edition faster than on another.

 

They only differ in user features; if you don't actively use a feature, you don't get any passive benefit from it being enabled.

A chart is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions#Comparison_chart

 

So, as a gamer:

* You can't buy Starter or Home Basic in US.

* Home Premium limits you to 16GB of RAM, which is sufficient.

* Professional removes RAM restrictions and adds a lot of things you don't need for games.

* Ultimate adds a few things you definitely don't need.

 

Even when you move to DDR4, it's going to be expensive, so you'll have less RAM for a while than people have DDR3 now.

I suspect the reason for Ultimate's popularity is... we don't talk about it, but we all know it's going on, and MS doesn't seem to care.

 

For my use, the Professional version is optimal, but I actually have and use 32GB of RAM installed, I need the XP mode, I have a NAS fileserver at home and I need the Pro features to work with it.

You are wrong about he vs 32bit and 64bit versions of windows, i have tested many pc in my time and do see amazing 10fps difference vs the 32bit drivers in games. Also its a lot more stable as well and better performance overall.

 

The professional version has better backwards compatibility. It has emulation for older games and applications alike. I could get games like Mafia 1 working with that.

 

http://oi40.tinypic.com/200cn41.jpg

 

Home premuim does not have this feature

Edited June 22, 2013 by Thor.

[Werne]

The long and the short of this is that it's a big marketing scheme that's enforced by the OS.

So they just do it to make more money. Now, why doesn't that surprise me? :P

 

As for dual-boot, to each his own I guess. I personally have a strict policy of having one OS per hard drive, in case any of the drives die I still get to boot into something. Right now I have a triple-boot (Debian Testing, Arch, Ubuntu LTS) on my 3 hard drives and I pretty much like it that way. I like writing my own programs and Linux is kind of an obvious choice for that.

 

Tried Fedora but I can't get used to RPM and I dislike the installation procedure that messes up my partitioning scheme every time even though I say I'll do it manually, it messed up an empty hard drive so no harm done. I swear, installing and setting up Arch is child's play compared to installing Fedora without repartitioning the entire hard drive.

 

And I wasn't sure if your last sentence is a gist or not, it was written in a "Linux can't run a darn thing" kind of way, guess you weren't wrong. I still stand by what I said though, Linux can run it's native games great, it's just that the number of it's native games is not too great. I still hope that will change, I dislike using Wine for games.

 

You are wrong about he vs 32bit and 64bit versions of windows, i have tested many pc in my time and do see amazing 10fps difference vs the 32bit drivers in games. Also its a lot more stable as well and better performance overall.

Performance overall, it can process 64-bit code faster so applications written in 64-bit code like graphical drivers will perform better, yes. It can use newer hardware designed for 64-bit computing better than 32-bit operating systems which is another plus.

 

However, 32-bit applications like the games that are running on that faster driver are running through a WOW64 (32-bit emulator), which is "similar" to running it in a 32-bit wineprefix under 64-bit Linux. Similar because it's not the same, Wine translates executed 32-bit Windows program functions to 64-bit Linux functions through a compatibility layer in order to run the program at all while Windows just translates 32 to 64-bit. Anyway, that takes away some of the performance. 64-bit system can only reach it's full performance potential if the game is native to 64-bit architecture.

 

TLDR:

64-bit hardware and operating systems cannot compute potato, therefore I am disappointed in the PC hardware/software industry. :armscrossed:

 

 

 

Also, I don't know why but this response to Thor feels like a deja vu, like I wrote it before... Meh, it's probably just Matrix glitching out again. :dry: