Hey guys, I'm building a new PC and I'm trying to decide on which version of windows to get.  I'm leaning towards 7 (don't like 8's interface, questionable gaming support) but someone I know is trying to push my to 8 (I'd rather wait until SP1 at least and I won't be using touch). 

So overall which one do you all suggest getting?  Will either one work better or worse with PP10?  If 8 is siginificantly better and I can make it look like 7 (can't get over those bloody ugly metro icons).

Get 7.

Opinion is divided.

Having just upgraded from 7 to 8, I'd have to say that Windows 8 is a little better, noticeably faster for day-to-day stuff like copying and moving files, and makes no difference to Poser.

Now that I have the 'Metro' bit tamed and organised the way I want it, I quite like it: but if you really can't get on with it, there are 'fixes' (links in the thread).

Get 7 64 bit Pro. I like it. Wondows 8 might be like Vista - full of bugs.

There is not much reason to switch from Windows 7 to Windows 8, because it makes no difference for desktop apps. However there is no reason not to install Windows 8 on a new machine. You get used to the interface quite fast and if for some reason you don't like the new UI, you can install a 3rd party app to get it back. Getting to the familiar desktop is just one click in the new UI.

Windows 8 is a bit faster, has better auto updating, and has the ability to add the Apps directly from the Store (if you are in to that).

I don't really trust 1st party app stores (apple, ea, or ms) and the classic look should have been an option from the get go.  Sliding is fine on a 5 in smartphone, but not a 24' monitor.

That sad, everything I've read about general preformance so far seems to say there's not much difference between the two save for start up and shut down.

From what I have read it would really depend on the CPU you use.  There are some bugs in Windows 7 that can effect performance on AMD that will only be fixed in Win8.

I've been using Win8 Pro 64 bit for quite some time now and I can't complain. It's stable and I haven't had any problems with games, new or old. Still, my advice is to go with your gut. W7 is tried and tested and I couldn't advise getting W8 yet.

I've only had it installed for a few days so I'm still finding new / improved feautres, but so far:

I routinely have to copy or move big chunks of data from my workstation PC to NAS devices across a 100 gb/s network and there are massive improvements here: not only is it a whole lot quicker, there's better feedback while it happens. 

A lot of the under-the-bonnet (under-the-hood) tools have received much needed attention, to the point where (for example) third-party de-fragging utilities aren't necessary.

I've seen in the other thread something about Win8 only lets you have 2 windows open at a time. That's nonsense.

The thing that smacks you in the face at startup is the Metro interface; it also appears when you hit the start button on the keyboard. It is highly configurable, potentially more useful than the old Start thing, and disappears when not needed. Yes, you'll look at the mainly tablet-related stuff in there, skim through the toys and then 'unpin' what you don't want.

So, apart from the obvious cosmetic changes, Windows 8 is just like Windows 7, but a bit faster and better thought out.

Edited to add screen shot.

I know this is a "small" nitpick compared to preformance, but there are a lot of big blocky icons right in the middle of the screen.  I tend to minimize the number of icons (can you get rid of those boxes) and keep them to the sides so I can look at my pretty backgrounds.

Think of what you see in the screen shot as a full-screen start menu: when you launch a program, it goes to the Windows 7 - style desktop interface. My Windows 8 desktop is exactly the same as it was in Windows 7.

Start menu is the past, Metro is the futur.

Better match with WindowsPhone and Surface :biggrin:

Quote - I know this is a "small" nitpick compared to preformance, but there are a lot of big blocky icons right in the middle of the screen.  I tend to minimize the number of icons (can you get rid of those boxes) and keep them to the sides so I can look at my pretty backgrounds.

You can configure to be anyway you like. You can move add or remove programs and you can group them simply by dragging them around. You can also name the groups as you want. There is also a addon available somewhere that gives you the old Start button. I think you can even make it look like Windows XP or Vista Start button.

Edit: Also, the start menu isn't the desktop. One thing that's changed for me is that I don't keep anything on the desktop any more so there's more room for lovely backgrounds and wallpapers ;)

I have all the parts to build a new machine that I hope to start in the next few days.  Fairly high spec but I have to say I stayed with Windows 7 64bit.  I have used a indows phone and hated every minute.  I know that the Win 8 interface can be set up like Win 7 but I am afraid I am firmly in the 'if it ain't broke don't try to fix it' camp.  I have used Win 7 for the best part of two years and I am happy, so I am going to stick this time around.

isn't W8 mainly for touch screens? i have no interest in touch screens

Win 8 was supposed to be the one interface for all new platforms: PCs, phones, tablets, and I guess even the Nextbox.  Unfortunately, to make it work with everything, they had to do some things like get rid of right click.

Win 8 is pretty much a 1 size fits all approach meaning it'll fit nothing perfectly as is.

Personally, I'd advise going with Windows 7.

I've had Win 7 for a year and it has been a solid OS.  The Windows Explorer is crap but even then, there are some add-ons out there that make it a more livable experience.

I took a gamble and tried Windows 8.  After spending some time with it, I rolled back to Windows 7.

I agree that the windows apps are more efficient, even "File Explorer" is improved and the ribbon thing actually isn't as bad as I thought it would be.

The Start Screen felt, to me, like an intrusive thing floating on top of the desktop.  All of the Metro Apps run full screen and the taskbar is obscured.  If you could care little for the Microsoft products and services (Sky Drive, Windows Mail, Internet Explorer, etc) then the Screen feels pretty worthless and you wind up with a RSS/Atom Feed tile, a weather tile and clock or somesuch.  You might as well be using desktop widgets if you want those things.  You can add shortcuts to your programs on the start screen but loading them drops right back to the desktop so it feels even more pointless... Why not just use the desktop to start with?

I was dissapointed also that the only thing you can really customize is the appearance of the window frames but it all comes out looking rather "fisher-price".  You cannot set fonts, font colors or anything else without editing the registry.  In fact there's no classic theme mode at all.  The only way you can really change the colors is to go high-contrast mode and that just makes everything look kind of strange.

I personally found that most of my apps loaded slower than Windows 7.  It just didn't feel "snappy" at all.

I think you would get much more out of Windows 8 if you have a touch mouse or a touch screen just because dragging shit around is how it's set up. :)

Multiple monitor support IS greatly improved over the previous editions of windows though.  You can span multiple monitors with the taskbar and set different background images.  However, even then, we already have several free and pay-for solutions for that already.

I still have my Win 8 Pro upgrade disk and I"m setting it aside for now.  Maybe the future will be brighter... Maybe I'll just have fun with Linux... Who knows? :)

Yeah on your last post, it feels like yet another attempt at unification by Microsoft to get all devices running to the same tune.  Feels like a different approach to the Windows Media Center type thing.  I just am kind of disappointed though.  I thought it would be more snapping and pro feeling and it just comes off kind of kludgy, like I'm using Windows ME after being on Windows 95/98 for a while :)

Okay, I found something that's a little troubling for the future.

That guy is a developer for the Serious Sam games.  He says that MS is trying to start implementing a certification process for windows so MS can lock down what you run.  Basically they take 20%-30% of the profits from their app store.  And the new full Metro apps can only be bought in the app store.  Then there is a certification process that has to be gone through. 

According to the developer, that cert process is nasty.  Sounds like at the least it'll require more effort from SM to get passed.  That might end up costing us more as those efforts will be passed on to us.

For poser users this begs the question: what sort of addons would have to be certified?  Would characters, clothing, pose packs have to be certified and app store only?  If so, say bye-bye renderostiy as is.  Another problem is MS can ban things that go above a certain age limit if they choose.  So if they see you can make poserporn...

Yeah, that's a problem at least for going the Metro Apps route.  I dunno, it just feels like a huge "shoot themselves in the foot" scenario.  Not everyone is sold on Bing and certainly not the Windows apps: Internet Explorer and Mail, etc.  For me, the Metro apps are probably 90% useless.

But... it could be a huge boon for Linux and Mac because in light of this, there are some great opportunities there.

Quote - Okay, I found something that's a little troubling for the future.

 

That guy is a developer for the Serious Sam games.  He says that MS is trying to start implementing a certification process for windows so MS can lock down what you run.  Basically they take 20%-30% of the profits from their app store.  And the new full Metro apps can only be bought in the app store.  Then there is a certification process that has to be gone through. 

According to the developer, that cert process is nasty.  Sounds like at the least it'll require more effort from SM to get passed.  That might end up costing us more as those efforts will be passed on to us.

For poser users this begs the question: what sort of addons would have to be certified?  Would characters, clothing, pose packs have to be certified and app store only?  If so, say bye-bye renderostiy as is.  Another problem is MS can ban things that go above a certain age limit if they choose.  So if they see you can make poserporn...

You have to go through the certification process if you want into the app store - like the app store at Apple, or 3d content at DAZ or here. And they take a broker fee as well - like all other stores.

If you don't want to use the store you can sell as you have always done. Not sure if you actually need the store for metro appps. I installed a few from the creators website

wim, there are two kinds of apps for Win8.  Win 32 apps which, according to the person I linked to, are being depreciated (going byebye) and WinRT (real metro apps).  The latter for the moment is here to stay.

And here's the kicker, you have to go through the Windows store for them.  And here's a potential problem with certification.  Let's assume that as a part of being certified for the store, SM has to agree only Windows Certified addons (characters, clothes, etc) can be used on poser and for the sake of the arguement Daz has to agree to the same thing with DS. 

See where this is going?

We could up ending having a V4-Gene style fight... with our operating systems.

Since 99% of the current windows apps are desktop applications, I don't see it disappearing anytime soon. Metro Apps are very limited in what they can do and many desktop apps cannot be moved to Metro without severe loss of functionality.

I seriously doubt that this will happen anytime soon. One reason why Windows has grown so big is compatibility with its predecessors. That will not change. I do not see any difference in desktop behaviour at all when I run them in Windows 8. Often I even forget that I run Windows 8.

The Metro apps are intended to be cross (hardware) platform apps, so they can migrate to phones, tablets, tv's, xbox and whatever they may think of. As you can see in the store, almost all apps are dedicated single purpose tools. The new upcoming version of Office is a desktop app which intergrates with the cloud. It runs on Windows 7 as well - - even with the new UI.

I agree.  Basically, from what I experienced, they are the next version of "desktop widgets":  Clock, RSS/Atom Reader and so on.  I don't know if that means there will be larger, more advanced metro apps down the line but I said somewhere that basically, for me, they are pretty useless.  Months down the road that might change.  Who knows?

Quote - Metro Apps are very limited in what they can do and many desktop apps cannot be moved to Metro without severe loss of functionality.
I seriously doubt that this will happen anytime soon. One reason why Windows has grown so big is compatibility with its predecessors. That will not change. I do not see any difference in desktop behaviour at all when I run them in Windows 8. Often I even forget that I run Windows 8.

Here's how I'm reading what MS's position is:

iStore envy. 

Step one, start removing the ability to run older programs on the desktop.  While you are doing that, institute your own app store that can run the future apps.  They don't have to be great in the beginning, they just need to get a foot in the door.  Take Eve online.  The producers over at CCP didn't make their Dust 514 game compatible with the Xbox because of MS's restrictions with their servers (Xbox's private cloud so to speak).  So it had to be PS3 only.

Once you do that, you can get rid of backwards compatibility.  Windows would be able to check to see if what you are trying to run is a legit MSstore app and if not, shuts it down.  You load up windows and it checks via the internet that you didn't try to mod it or jailbreak it. 

See right now, MS gets zero from poser sales.  Zero from Renderosity sales.  Zero from steam sales (hense steam looking to migrate to Linux).  Money is a prime motivator in life and MS wants more.  Locking down what you can run on your PC to being only things you can get via their store (the apps will get better, no doubt about that), is one way to assure you are going to get more money.  Windows is 80%-85% of the marketplace, once the iStore went up, the greed kicked in.

MS is just being methodical and slow about it.

No doubt they want to cache in on the metro apps and they will promote it. But their big cache cow is Office and the Server division. If they would restrict themselves to Windows 8 and Metro, they would cut off their own feet. That is not going to happen. How the enterprises are going to react to the metro UI is a complete unknown. By the time they will make up their minds, Windows 9 will be there and the process will start again. There are still an awful lot of legacy applcations which these companies are running (and which other users do not want to lose) and prevents MS to limit or remove the desktop in anyway.

And there is another thing: Microsoft already has done the certification track a couple of times - sometimes succesful, sometimes not (remember the logoo programs?). That never has been a restriction on which apps could be sold. At that time it was costly as well (in at least one of those programs you had to pay for the certification process).

The real question is why would you want to be in the store? Better exposure, better marketing, potentially more customers. So it is attractive to be in there. That is what Microsoft is gambling on. But this is in no way going to interfere with their much more profitable business

A bit OOT: In the early 80s Microsoft demonstrated the first demo version of Windows to us (pre version 1). Guess what it had? It was a tileable window environment with live content (although a complete different look, we'te talking about CGA video). In the released version, the live tiles went away, but still it is almost back to the beginning.

cache instead of cash, intentional pun or freaudian slip?  ;P

Well, I can see it coming down to this: ego and timing.  Ego would be MS saying we are going with metro no matter what, everyone else will just have to get used to it.  Then there's timing.  DOS didn't go away in win 3.1.  It didn't go away in Win 95.  Nor in 98.  You could still run DOS through XP.  After that, no more DOS.  The only thing I see happening this time is instead of multiple iterations to get rid of the DOS, it'll be 2 or 3.  This one is the introduction and getting people used to the app store.  Next time, there will be a big push for the MS app store (and like XBox, certification will cost money).  For Win 10 at the latest, it'll be your only option.

See, now windows is going to have the tools to enforce certification.  And people are used to it because of the iStore and Sony.  This is the best time (new interface) to start pushing forced certification on developers.  You want to have your app on the WinTab?  Ok, get certified and only sell it in our store.

Want to isn't going to be a part of using the store.  Required to in order to be on windows will be.  As for office and server, those will probably be WinStore only for Win 9, if not Win 8.

Here's the thing, MS is nasty about protecting it's stuff.  My PC recently crashed.  Recovery disks (to fix things) cost more money because of MS's license agreements.  You can only make one set on your PC because of licensing agreements.   Oh, and now MS is trying to automate spying on you in your home.  You don't get a patent like that unless you plan to either make money on it or to use it.

I really think MS is going to try and do away with the whole open platform thing, in part of Apple's successes and in part of their own Xbox experiences.

A small admission that's bugging me.  I really was open to the possibilty of win 8 even if my feelings were against it.  If there was a big enough boost in preformance I might have changed my mind.  It just seems like in the time since I've posted, I'm learning more and more about the future of windows and I'm not sure I like it.

I've even toyed with the thought of going linux.  Seriously.  :O

Anyways, I didn't mean to go this way when I started this so I want to say sorry.  I'm glad I know more now, but things got away from me.

I have been too long in this industry to believe in these type of conspiracy stories. Microsoft wants to make money and is not going to alienate all of its customers with these type of restrictions. Certification of the store - yes, preventing other apps running on Windows? No way.

Well after 3 days my new system is up and running with most of the programs loaded.  I stuck with Windows 7 as I have grown used to it and Windows 8 is too new for me to be tempted.  Most of my extra speed comes from using an SSD for the programs and Intel Rapid Storage which, while the SSD cost a little more, was better value than Windows 8.

Windows 7 64bit home version can only hanlde something like 16 gig of memory and you need tp go pro for more. Does anyone know if windows 8 is the same way?

Quote - Well after 3 days my new system is up and running with most of the programs loaded.  I stuck with Windows 7 as I have grown used to it and Windows 8 is too new for me to be tempted.  Most of my extra speed comes from using an SSD for the programs and Intel Rapid Storage which, while the SSD cost a little more, was better value than Windows 8.

SSDs are nice, until that final write. Keep it backed up on something just incase.

My PCIexpress one spent more time in the mail than in my machine...

Good idea in theory, until it dies....

Yeah, I ditched the SSD as well. I built a new machine early this year before Windows 8 came on. People who talk about the difference between Windows 7 and 8 interface I can sorta relate to; I went from a single core processor on Win XP SP2 to a hex core i7 processor running Windows 7 Pro. I have 64Gb of RAM, and 7 Tb of internal storage (cloud? who needs a cloud?). A definitely noticable change in performance, let me tell you.

Having said that, Windows 8 looks nice, and you can get a 60" touch screen for $4000... although really I'm mostly interested in it for a laptop/tablet hybrid...

The MS conspiracy theories are... sorry, they're nonsense. There is no hint of such a thing, and even if they wanted to do it, at least in some big markets (e.g. Europe) they wouldn't get away with it legally. Look at what the EU did to them with regard to browsers--and in that case, frankly, it is beyond a stretch to call what they had a monopoly; it's absurd. To put it bluntly: they wouldn't even dare to try what is being suggested in this thread.

My old apps work fine on Win 8. Even my ancient Lotus Word Pro (2002).

Certainly, there's things I dislike. I'm aggravated by the whole administrator privileges thing in Win8--but keep in mind that I migrated directly from XP Pro, so most other folks have already experienced most of those growing pains. And I don't like the interface, or the fact that I have to click something in order to get to the desktop. And I hate the native apps; I'm too old school to want to use an app that I can't even close.

But as far as the tiles... they're okay, I guess. There's a myth going around that they're limited to what MS chooses, or what comes from the store (name your story). Not true. I have the apps of my choosing displaying wherever I want them on the tile screen, and have hidden or outright uninstalled ones I don't want.

I could have got Win7, but my understanding is that with Win8 Pro, I can virtualize Win7 without an extra license, anyway, and as a web dev, I may make use of the built-in virtualization capabilities for other things. Plus, it's slightly faster/more robust, so that pushed me over.

Stability: pretty good for a new OS, I'd say. I don't think I've crashed the OS itself yet. I'm not sure though if all the apps are as stable as I would have expected, given how powerful my system is.

I suspect this will be like every version of Windows I've had. Hate it at times, but work with it.

I really like W8, i've deleted all my W7 installations. I'm going to receive my Surface, my next Lumia 920 or HTC 8X :D

Quote - > Quote - Well after 3 days my new system is up and running with most of the programs loaded.  I stuck with Windows 7 as I have grown used to it and Windows 8 is too new for me to be tempted.  Most of my extra speed comes from using an SSD for the programs and Intel Rapid Storage which, while the SSD cost a little more, was better value than Windows 8.

 

SSDs are nice, until that final write. Keep it backed up on something just incase.

My PCIexpress one spent more time in the mail than in my machine...

 

 

Good idea in theory, until it dies....

Thanks for the warning, I do understand where you are coming from. I have been watching the SSDs for a while now and I am aware of the potential problem but they had reached a price where I felt it was worth the gamble.  So cheap infact that if mine keeps having to be sent back I might buy another one as a back-up and just keep rotating them.  I also paid a lot for the motherboard that had m-sata and decided it was worth trying the potential. The two SSDS I have come with a three year warranty so I have a while to decide the way forward.  I also did a lot of research and not all SSDs are equal with some companies having a reputation for returns much higher than others.

Choosing between SSDs and Win 8 was easy as I saw the 'metro' look on the Nokia mobile phones and hated it from day one.  I have no problems with Win 7, which I love, and so there is no problem I am looking to fix.  

Finally I do keep an image of the 'C' drive, which I do on all my machines, irrespective of the type of storage.  The other SSD is just running acceleration so if that fails the associated hard drive continues to work unaccelerated.

I believe SSDs actually have a better track record than regular hard drives....

Quote - I believe SSDs actually have a better track record than regular hard drives....

That depends on how you look at it. But, I have sent more SSDs back that I ever have hard drives total. Hard drives have been out for years, SSDs are new and I have seen more SSD total failures already.

Another thing to consider is that an SSD is doomed by design. You can write to the same sector on a hard drive about a millions times on average. You can write to a SSD cell about 10k max. The memory areas degrade with every read as well, just not as fast as a write does.

Some companies SSDs come with a much better warranty, and service, than others as well. I won't name names thou....

I belive this image speaks for itself regarding this debacle ;D

In a perfect world end users & developers will discover that MS tryin' to certify compatibility w/ W8, gouge every penny possible from them, & be Big Brother is a BAD THING & will refuse to buy/ support it. Existing W8 users will roll back to Win7 or XP, devs will be forced to follow suit 'cuz makin' progs fer an unused OS would not be financially responsible, & eventually MS would get the point & DUMMY THE HELL UP.

Unfortunately our world isn't all sunshine, lollipops, & unicorns shootin' rainbows out their asses, so I doubt it'll play out this way.

My own opinion is; fine... do whatever ya want w/ the new OS, MS, but don't call it a Windows product. Develop it as "MS Doors" or some such and offer it as an alternative to Windows for those users that want what it has to offer, & keep Windows on its' own track for those of us that don't want this type of "progress".

Yup, more sunshine & lollipops.