Shared publicly  - 
Dennis Harrison (RaySun2Be)'s profile photoJohn Livingston's profile photoAnton Wahlman's profile photo
I'm a gamer, OS performance actually makes a significant difference to me.

I recently saw an article comparing how well Skyrim ran in Windows 7 as compared to Windows 8, the results were not promising.

Your article focuses on browsing, startup/shutdown, and metro apps. That's fine and all for the low-end users, but let's be honest +Harry McCracken, is the average user really going to care how long it takes to startup, shut down, or launch IE in metro?

There are two true tests for a computer's performance. How well does it do video editing and how well does it do high-end gaming. Unless the test is one of these two situations, you're not really pushing the OS hard enough to make any meaningful comparisons between OS'.

There was a HUGE jump in performance going from XP to 7. On the same exact machine (just wiping the machine clean and installing 7), running the same game, I got significantly better performance out of 7 than XP. I want to know what kind of performance I will get out of 8.

I'm still going to buy 8, the $40 deal is too good to pass up. However if it decreases my performance I might just download 8 to a disk and let it collect dust on my shelf.
How many people will have a touch screen to take advantage of the Metro features? Very few at first, so most people will be dealing with the apples to apples comparisons on their desktops and laptops. Perception is reality, so if the "new way of doing things" slows conventional users down, guess what, it's slow. And as John said, gamers and high end users (cad, etc.) need good OS performance.
+Dennis Harrison The metro actually isn't bad to use with a mouse. My only real complaint about the metro interface is getting the charms to come up with a mouse.
Add a comment...