Bad Maths: Windows 8 In 2012

Reversi! Now there's a game

OK, I’ve spent far too long wondering about this before, but can someone please explain to me how we’re only on Windows 7 now, and then Windows 8 next year? We’ve had Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME, XP, Vista and 7 on the consumer front, plus NT, 2000, 2003 and 2008 on the business/server front, plus any number of sub-versions. Grah! Do I really trust a company that cannot count to 7 properly with so much of my life?

Anyway, Windows 8 is next, and turns out it’s due next year.

Windows 8 isn’t the official name as yet, though Microsoft’s funny-lookin’ CEO Steve Ballmer has referred to the operating system as such in public, along with claiming a 2012 release date. Not impossible that Microsoft will decide to return to the days of slapping meaningless words or initials on the end for the release version, though.

What will the new Windows entail, and why should we care as PC gamers? The latter we don’t know as yet, although there has been earlier talk that 8 will see Microsoft attempt to become a force for, rather than impediment to, PC gaming again. Mind you, they’ve been saying that they still care for years without doing a whole lot about it, though Fable 3 being a proper PC version rather than a shonky port was fairly promising.

Right now, it sounds as though the main new-newness of Windows 8 is its suitability for tablets and low-end machines like netbooks. This will pose an interesting dilemma for RPS – should we start to cover tablet gaming if, in theory, PC gaming moves to include it?

Believed to be in Windows 8, based on leaked very early builds and feedback from testers, is a ribbon-based interface for Explorer, similar to the that overloaded giant thing at the top of the latest version of Office, native PDF and ISO reading, a new theme (as always) and, most tellingly, an app store. Anyone and everyone’s been predicting Microsoft would adopt that latter sooner or later, and that could be big news for games if it’s not a horrible mess.

Said Ballmer at a Tokyo press conference, reports Develop, “As we look forward to the next generation of Windows systems, which will come out next year, there’s a whole lot more coming. As we progress through the year, you ought to expect to hear a lot about Windows 8. Windows 8 slates, tablets, PCs, a variety of different form factors.”

‘Form factors’ is such a silly phrase. My PC is currently contained within a case that looks a bit like a giant metal landsnail. Now that’s a form factor.

Anyone feeling ready to upgrade? I’m really very happy with Windows 7, I must say – and it’s been a long time since I said that about another version of Windows. You can find various proto-screenshots of the new OS’s early, internal builds on the Windows Supersite, if you’re so moved.


  1. Alez says:

    i just realized that windows 7 is not…the seventh one. I never really thought about it. I knew of the others but i guess i never really counted them. You made me feel silly.

    • Pop says:

      I think 95,98 and ME are essentially the same operating system with tweaks between each version (like OSX with it’s minor changes between 10.n and 10.n+1).

      I think the series is actually: Windows 1, 2, 3, 95-likes, XP, Vista and 7, so the numbers work!

    • Decimae says:

      No, that isn’t true. XP and further are a derative of the NT-line, not of the 9x and ME line.
      It goes this way:
      1 – 2 – 3 – (95 – 98 – ME)
      1 – 2 – 3 – NT 4.0 – 2000/XP – Vista/7

      7 is actually windows 6.5, but they call it 7.

    • CMaster says:

      Type “ver” at the command prompt. It’s actually 6.1.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      95, 98 & ME don’t have much to do with current Windows platforms any more.

      The NT platform started at 3.1 followed by 3.5 then 4.0. Then they decided just using version numbering was too easy & started putting marketing names on them.
      NT 5.0 was named Windows 2000
      NT 5.1 was named Windows XP (5.2 became Server 2003 & XP 64-bit)
      NT 6.0 is Vista & Server 2008
      NT 6.1 is Windows 7 & Server 2008 R2.

      Technically we’re not even at version 7 yet going by Microsoft’s version numbering & Windows 8 may internally be called NT 7.0 to make it even more confusing.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      And to make it more confusing:
      Vista is windows 6.0, as is Server 2008
      Win 7 is v6.1 as is Server 2008 R2

      And then you have various levels of services packs and 32 or 64 bit versions of the above (except that 2k8 R2 only comes in 64 bit version).

      Confused yet?

    • Premium User Badge

      Joshua says:


      It is only 6.1 because, apperently, changing the number to 7.0 caused a lot of programs not to work anymore (Probably programs shouting that they are incompatible with this Windows version, even though they actually are compatible). So they set it to 6.1 But microsoft does see Win7 as 7.0.

    • Aemony says:

      @Malibu Stacey:
      The reason why Windows 7 got the version 6.1 was because it’s mostly compatible with Vista device drivers. Calling it NT 7.0 would make most Vista driver installations fail to install, an event that would in many way simulate the fiasco that was Vista and it’s initial device support.

      It’s understandable that Microsoft didn’t want such a thing to occur (as it was one of the main complains about Vista at the release) hence they opted to call it NT 6.1 strictly for backwards compability reasons.

      But yeah, no matter how I might argue it away Microsoft should stick with one naming scheme. I’d rather Windows 8 be called just that than another “nickname” as Vista or eXPerience. Or the year name, as they are equally bad.

      But Windows 2012… Makes you think about 2012, doesn’t it? XD

    • Kdansky says:

      Windows Aztec?
      Windows Apocalypse?
      Windows Rapture?

    • mbp says:

      Perhaps Microsoft are just so embarrassed about ME and Vista that they are trying to pretend they never existed.

    • omgitsgene says:

      Actually we didn’t some of the Windows here in the US, and the ones we got were dumbed down versions of the Japanese editions, so the numbering here reverts us back to the Japanese numb…. wait a minute.

    • dangel says:

      Sigh – it’s amazing to see people believing old wives tales on t’internet. Yes, Window 7 is the seventh (of the NT line of OS) and yes, internally WIN_VER is 6.1 because of compatibility issues discovered at an early stage (and frankly, after the agonising pain MS suffered due to Vista’s new driver model you’d of made exactly the same decision). The iteration of NT is most relevant to the marketing name and hence the choice (plus, it kinda sounds good). There’s shedload of (pretty good) compatibility stuff in 7 to get things to work – this includes WIN_VER being 6.1 but extends all the way up to using VM’s to run old apps – they really went a long way to try and get old (crappy) apps to work.
      MS try (*try*) for a three year cycle – the hacking of XP into something useful failed (it’s a mess) and so the project rebooted as Vista with much that was all new – the cost was time and this let XP live on far longer than it should. That coupled with Vista’s new driver model making children scream at MS (a little unfairly, the new model is brilliant compared to XP’s BSOD inducing crap) meant Vista got a very poor reception (even though it introduced much of what W7 fan’s love today) as well as sucking the dear life out of low powered PCs and laptops (it was usually fine on a desktop). The latter point is why performance was king for W7 at MS and why it can run so well on older systems.
      Those that cling to XP fill me with despair there are many (very good) reasons to move on – XPs complete lack of any real security being just one. I don’t fix XP systems anymore – I just tell them to go to 7, sort it out and never see a complaint (ever). I’m a developer, and W7 wasn’t my idea but it’s certainly my ideal OS in 2011 ;^) As for 8 – great – nothing is known yet but i’m always interested to see what’s coming next and whether it’s a good move for me, my users and my company.
      Luddites the lot of yers!

      I just wish Lotus Notes *DIDN’T* work on 7 :P

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      Yes, Window 7 is the seventh (of the NT line of OS)

      If you’ve discovered some logical method of counting to seven, you’d be the first. Go on, try. I get six, counting major releases.

      Calling it NT 7.0 would make most Vista driver installations fail to install

      Nonsense. I still compile drivers with the DDK for Windows XP and they run absolutely fine on Windows 7. Features (ie, APIs) matter, not version numbers. And for the most part, it’s safe to assume forward compatibility.

    • viverravid says:

      Nonsense. I still compile drivers with the DDK for Windows XP and they run absolutely fine on Windows 7. Features (ie, APIs) matter, not version numbers. And for the most part, it’s safe to assume forward compatibility.

      The issue, according to MS, was software that checked the major version number and failed when it was higher than expected.

      I don’t see why you wouldn’t always do this as if(OSVER >= TARGETVER) but hey.

  2. DainIronfoot says:

    You can prise my Windows XP from my cold dead hands!

    • Teddy Leach says:

      Same here!

    • dee says:

      No thanks, I’ll stick with 7.

    • PatrickSwayze says:

      How’s 2002?

    • Hoaxfish says:

      Vista was shockingly bad, but I think 7 is pretty nice. The only issues for gaming are some compatibility issues, but stuff like Dosbox and the rise of Virtual Machines (I think 7 uses one for XP compatibility issues now) means those should hopefully reduce over time.

    • Tomm says:

      I don’t get all the Vista hate, it runs my games and it runs thems well.

    • Baboonanza says:

      7 is a wonderful advance over XP. It’s worth it just for the Start Menu search alone – I don’t ever open the actual menu anymore, just type what I want and hit return. It means I can completely forget about having to keep the f-ing thing organised too, which I used to be completely anal about. Now you can just dump everything in there and let Windows sort it out.

      Combining Windows 7 with an SSD is the nicest thing I’ve done to my PC in a long time.

    • heretic says:

      XP’s still working absolutely fine.

      Will only be getting 7 with my new rig because I get it for free from my uni.

    • Kent says:

      Yeah, I don’t get the obsession about MS new versions. XP runs really well and without really any problems. It’s compatible with many of my old favorite games too. Why do MS keep making new OS without making them backwards compatible for the older games? I think they should really start to care a little for the gaming market instead of expecting us to mindlessly buy their redundant products.

      New interfaces and interface features are nice. But that’s all they’re is… nice.

    • Decimae says:

      link to

      Windows 7/vista start menu for XP. Using it myself, works nicely.

    • skinlo says:

      Don’t quite get all the hate for Vista, but I did get it quite late after it came out. Windows 7 is pretty awesome though.

      Why should Microsoft make Windows 7 backward compatible for 11/12 year old software and hardware. Times change, accept it instead of being so rigid.

    • DdCno1 says:

      Vistart is nice, used it myself for quite some time, but way slower and less reliable than the original.

      Get someone who has access to a cheap copy of 7 at a school or university and have a blast. 7 is just a great OS, clearly the kind of software Vista should have been.

    • MikoSquiz says:

      My desktop came with Vista (long story short, I have no intention of ever building my own PC again if I can help it at all) and frankly it has never been bad enough to be worth the bother of changing it. I think most of the “lol vista” stuff is from people who have never used it but did hear nasty stuff about the first pre-service-pack version?

    • El_MUERkO says:

      I’d much rather no backward compatibility and real innovation in both the OS and CPU arena.

    • Mattressi says:

      I’d much rather backward compatibility than forced incompatibility. For example, DirectX 10 and 11 should be able to run fine on XP, but Microsoft will never let it happen. It’s how they get people to upgrade. It’s also how they make me never upgrade so that they never get another cent of mine.

      If I could just buy a DirectX 10/11 license for XP, I would. I don’t give a crap about the rest of the ‘features’ of Windows 7 (woo, searching makes everything easier…for people who’ve no idea how to organise their stuff). Plus, Windows 7 seems to not be able to play more than half of my games collection, so there’s no chance that I’ll upgrade. Besides, all the good games which come out today still support DX9, so why bother upgrading?

    • mouton says:

      Still trying to make myself upgrade from XP to W7. Can’t get around to it for years now and really, can’t see how is it essential.

    • Theory says:

      I can’t quite believe that this “DX10 on XP” conspiracy is still going. Vista introduced an entirely new driver model. You may as well whine that there is no DX10 on Mac OS!

    • Tei says:

      Windows 7 is Windows XP with a different kernel and change on the topmost surface of the GUI.

      The ridiculous thing, is to do something like check what version of your graphic card you have, you have to do this:

      New window in W7 => new window in W7 => Window that already exist in WXP => Windows that already exist in Windows 95. => you see the version

      So the gui of Windows XP is bloat on top the Windows 95 gui, and Windows 7 is bloat on top of Windows XP bloat.

      The right way to do it:

      New window in W7 => you see the version

      Also, I am sure that somewhere, in some weird area, is that data, but the whole thing is so ofuscated, that the only real way to find it is using these.

      Using Windows 7 is like navigating trought layers of history. I bet theres more than one file in Windows 7 with copyright of 1985. And some are compiled at a more recent date ONLY because Microsoft created a overflow protection tecnique, so recompiled a lot of old software with this new protection. That protection lasted a few weeks, until the crackers figured out how to bypass it. If not where for that, abou a 90% of the files of Windows 7 would be the same files from 1985.

      Windows NT 4 was a decent OS, in some ways superior to all other windows OS created after it. Windows XP “tainted” the server versions to feel like a desktop computer. Windows NT was POWERFULL, you was always in control of the computer. Crazy games that take fullscreen and make your system unstable? NT laught at that. Games that don’t like alt-tabbing? NT laught at that. The feeling of NT was the feeling of a OS with real multitasking. Windows 2000 and Windows XP and all the next OS where a step back here.

    • Theory says:

      Type “Dev m” into the start menu and hit enter.

      But yeah, I did raise an eyebrow when all of the new Explorer windows gave way to ye olde dialogue boxes.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      I’m still holding on to my XP as well. I’ve messed around with Vista and Win7 on other machines, but I like the control I have with XP. The whole UAC/run as admin thing bothers me, as well as the complete screen shift when bringing up the task manager.

      My OCD can’t handle it.

    • Ziv says:

      Oh god… you make me sick.
      And then you complain that no one supports the PC and we don’t get any advancements, it’s because developers have to program for three APIs! who the fuck would want to do that? so they settle for writing DX9 games with DX10 sparklings on top. so we are stuck in games that look like console games, you do not give the developers reason to advance!

    • malkav11 says:


      You’re right. DirectX should support OS X.

      Well, okay, now that we’ve all had our daily laugh, I’ll go with something a little more rational: it would have been nice if, all those years ago, developers had opted to build games using libraries and development tools that didn’t require massive rewrites to port to other operating systems and non-Microsoft platforms.

  3. Cryotek says:

    I keep thinking it will be some sort of integration of Games For Windows Live into the actual OS, which will probably start a bunch of anti-trust lawsuits from Valve, D2D, and everyone else (just like with the integration of IE). Considering how bad MS’s prices are and how much PC gamers hate GFWL, though, I don’t see them getting much other than the casual market that wants an easy way to buy Bejeweled 4.

    I can’t imagine there will be a new Direct-X, as 10 and 11 are barely used as it is. The consoles are unfortunately still holding everything back :/

    • dadioflex says:

      No antitrust if GFWL happily works alongside Steam and Impulse, as it obviously, frustratingly does.

      Windows 8 will be a load of hoopla about nowt. It’s ARM support and removing more legacy support for old programs and hardware. In which respect it’ll be a lot more like an Apple OS upgrade.

      XP was good in its day but Windows 7, must say, is where it’s at now.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      There is vague talk of an App store style thing, similar to how desktop Macs are getting/got the ipad/iphone app store, and Linux’s package managers, etc.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      “No antitrust if GFWL happily works alongside Steam and Impulse, as it obviously, frustratingly does.”

      Yeah because there were such massive problems with IE operating alongside other browsers & Media Player operating alongside similar applications when the anti-trust suits were being pursued.

    • Decimae says:

      No, there will be antitrust, as they are pushing their game platform with their monopoly. However, if they introduced “enhancements” for gaming that integrated with GFWL(but with an open API, so other developers can build for it as well), that would be allowed.

    • thegooseking says:

      I can’t imagine there will be a new Direct-X, as 10 and 11 are barely used as it is. The consoles are unfortunately still holding everything back :/

      That’s not really true. The consoles aren’t holding anything back, because while the PC has far more raw horsepower than a console, DirectX introduces a hell of an overhead which actually slows the PC down. The extent of that slowdown does depend on how well the developer (or the port team) knows how to use DirectX. It depends a little bit on what version of DirectX they use, but not as much as it depends on coding skill.

      That said, I’d be interested in seeing how many Xbox 360 games actually use DX9. They don’t need it, because the 360’s GPU is standard. If you write a game for one 360’s GPU, it will work on all 360s, and you don’t have the performance overhead of DirectX getting in the way. If it’s the case that not a lot of 360 games actually use DirectX (which is total speculation on my part, I admit), then it shouldn’t play a part in what version of DirectX is chosen for the PC version (which kind of needs DirectX because of the variety of GPUs). In that case, I think it’s probably the people commenting on this post who don’t want to give up Windows XP that are holding developers back from using DX10 and DX11 (though I’m sure there are some other reasons as well, such as DX10’s notoriously confusing API).

    • Starky says:

      That isn’t true either though – the overhead of DirectX or any layer of abstraction or API really isn’t that large at all – if it was then PCs would have been graphically behind consoles when they first launched. they weren’t.
      This whole issue came up a while back when some guy from ATI ranted about direct to metal coding and dx overhead, and it was rubbish then and he was rightfully called out (and then retracted what he said).

      It is a combo of lack of PC focus, which lets face it for most multiplatform titles is maybe 15-20% of your sales.
      Then comes the sheer cost of producing really high fidelity assets that only 2-5% of gamers will run in the lifetime of your product, given that out of that 20% PC gamers maybe only 20% of them will have a top end system that can run all that at a reasonable frame rate.
      Then you have the fact that marginal graphical improvements cost a fortune in CPU/GPU cycles and performance – Ambient occlusion, tessellation, Anti-aliasing (above 4xAA anyway, 2 is usually more than enough with a decent resolution) all require massive chunks of performance for minor graphical improvements.

      Back in the old days, doubling the number of polygons, or pixels in a texture made a huge noticeable difference – now both those things are so high and so detailed that it is a minor, hardly noticeable one.
      Back in the day adding shadows was a massive cost in CPU cycles, but made a obvious and striking visual difference. Ambient occlusion in comparison makes shadows slightly more realistic, as does various other shadow processing effects, all of which cost hefty prices in available memory/processing overhead for improvements you have to squint at screenshots to notice.

      For almost all devs it just isn’t worth it – not in sales gained, not in time and effort required, and not in cpu/gpu/memory budget.

      Not when that budget might be spent on things the user might actually notice. Things that might sell more copies of your game, improve the gameplay, AI or such.

    • dangel says:

      I’m curious as to what people think XBOX games use to talk to the hardware? There’s a reason why porting from/to the 360 to the PC is relatively simple y’know ;^)

      @dadioflex oh so no new UI layer for touch then? ;^) There’s strong rumours and it’s a must for tablets (it’s not just about supporting the ARM achitecture).

    • Firestem4 says:

      I’ll bet it’ll be called Apps for Windows Live, and be integrated with GFWL.

      (So if you stop your subscription, the software will bug and you can’t run any of your games/apps offline).


      …so glad I can use linux for everything but gaming :)

  4. Corrupt_Tiki says:

    Wow, excuse me? Another OS next year? This is just getting fucking stupid. How can devs keep up? Or does microsoft expect me to download and install more “Fan Patches”? (Had to do it recently with C&C The First Decade)
    I hate macs more, but seriously Fuck You Microsoft.

    • cliffski says:

      Devs can’t keep up. I’m very happy with DirectX9, and C++, for example. no .NET or C# or Directx11 for me. They offer me nothing except hell in learning new stuff .

    • Corrupt_Tiki says:

      It makes me quite angry that devs should have to keep adapting, along with users, gamers, etc etc.
      I just can’t see why you would release a new OS almost annually, I mean Vista okay, that was fair enough, it was a bloated POS.

      But Didn’t we have XP for a while? Or maybe I’m just getting jaded and thinking of the ‘Good ‘ole Days’

    • Prospero424 says:

      Windows 8 x86 (not the ARM version) will almost certainly use all of the same APIs that Vista and 7 do. The only changes devs will have to make will most likely have to do with icons and system tray functions and perhaps touch-screen capability. It’s really not a big deal.

      The only compatibility issue will be 16-bit apps, and that will be the same issue they have currently under Win 7 x64 (which most people use). And let’s face it: if you’re still running a 16-bit app outside of an emulation/virtualization environment like DOSBox (which works fine under 7 x64 and will work fine under Win 8 and is integrated with Steam for 16-bit games), there’s something wrong with you.

    • skinlo says:

      Microsoft never initially planned for XP to last so long. Unfortunately so then, technologically backward people still think its at the cutting edge, and/or have the viewpoint ‘why should I upgrade my 11 year old software?’

      Cliffski, fair enough, but your games aren’t exactly cutting edge graphics wise, so you have no need to know how to do it.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nathan says:

      If you look at the timeline, XP was very much an anomaly with respect to its longevity, with respect to both Windows and other operating systems.

      Frankly, development and progress, especially with regard to operating systems is a good thing; I don’t understand why MSFT gets such specific hate for doing so.

      In my opinion it’s the backwards compatibility that holds Windows back the most: if they were brave enough to make a clean start on a blank slate and disregard support for any pre-existing software, Windows might come out all the stronger for it in the end (its codebase would certainly be infinitely cleaner, with the liklihood of it running with much more stability at greater speeds).

    • mashakos says:

      In my opinion it’s the backwards compatibility that holds Windows back the most: if they were brave enough to make a clean start on a blank slate and disregard support for any pre-existing software, Windows might come out all the stronger for it in the end (its codebase would certainly be infinitely cleaner, with the liklihood of it running with much more stability at greater speeds).

      Um, that’s what they did with Vista. The architecture was completely changed in vista to accommodate more modern features found in opreating systems like OSX and Linux for almost a decade. The result: LOL

      and I’m typing this on a Vista machine. Didn’t face the numerous issues others had but then again when I installed it in 2006 it was on a Core 2 Duo, 4GB ddr2, 8800GTX powerhouse.

    • myca77 says:

      @ mashakos

      That’s what they promised with Vista, but it never really panned out that way, they kept on removing new features and adding legacy support to please certain user, which is why Vista became an almost bastard child of XP and Win 7.

      They do have a fine line to walk with their OS, as their user base is so big, it would have been nice to see them do what apple did with OS9 to OSX, but that still took till about OS 10.3 to really get things going well, and it took years for some of the larger devs to really update or make use of the new APIs (I’m looking at you Adobe). Hell Apple haven’t yet released Final Cut Pro as a 64 bit app!

      I think Apple could, and still do, get away with dropping legacy stuff as their user base is so much smaller, and it allows them to add obsolescence into their hardware that they will happily sell you again at a premium.

      Anyway, I’d love to see MS do a one OS fits all like apple, rather than having about 8 flavours, and also do an OS that can run in either 32 or 64 bit without a re-install, and use both 32 or 64 bit applications in a more transparent way whether your OS is 32 or 64 bit.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nathan says:

      No, they didn’t do that with Vista. Vista still supported a decade’s worth of software.

    • trjp says:

      @skinlo and others of that school of thought…

      XP lasted so long for 2 reasons

      1 – it worked
      2 – Vista didn’t (and years + 2 service packs still doesn’t)

      As for DX – DX10 offers very little that developers absolutely need and so they shun it to get max. players. DX11 is almost like the guy which turns-up at the party when everyone else has gone home – he’s a sideshow for a sideshow.

      MS have no idea about games anyway – just look at GFWL – a monkey with a brain injury could do better…

      W7 being decent is a massive surprise to people – I still run XP on some machines tho, simply because it works better on anything other than decent hardware (see almost every netbook and most laptops made even now).

      XP – so good they had to physically prevent us using it :)

    • Alegis says:

      I’ve been using 7 for almost 2 years now (Aug 7 2009). late 2012 would mean 3+ years.

      Not as long as XP-Vista long but not too quick.

    • Phydaux says:

      In my opinion it’s the backwards compatibility that holds Windows back the most: if they were brave enough to make a clean start on a blank slate and disregard support for any pre-existing software, Windows might come out all the stronger for it in the end (its codebase would certainly be infinitely cleaner, with the liklihood of it running with much more stability at greater speeds).

      The two things you have mentioned there (backwards compatibility, and code reuse) are two fundamental things which have made Windows such a success. The idea of starting from a clean slate and removing backwards compatibility is naive.

      Code doesn’t rust, or degrade, or decay. Old code that has been around for many years WORKS. It is free from bugs, it has been tested in the real world by hundreds of thousands of users. Writing new code from scratch WILL contain bugs, and it wont have had anywhere near the level of testing the old code had.

      Backwards compatibility gives people a reason to buy the new OS. All the software that an individual or company has, must work on the new OS. Many companies also have their own programs that are internal, these would need to be worked on to run on a new OS that isn’t backwards compatible which would either be very expensive or impossible (if the source has been lost).

      Just Imagine buying Windows 8 and they have decided to forgo backwards compatibility. None of the applications you are using now will run on it (lets say they decided to change the OS-API and other things to reflect a new shiny “bloat free” OS). And when I say none I mean none, there may be some new MS Windows 8 only programs that will run. But things like Steam, Firefox, Excel 2010 etc. wont work. Can you imagine anyone who would buy that? Why would they? And as no one buys the new OS, developers don’t develop for it (because there is no one to buy their new software), and the vicious circle continues.

  5. Teddy Leach says:

    “8 will see Microsoft attempt to become a force for, rather than impediment to, PC gaming again.”


    • Hoaxfish says:

      This announcement comes from Microsoft’s department for the promotion of Déjà vu.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      “And by the way, Bioshock: Infinite and Batman: Arkham City are now XBox exclusives. But we promise you lots of Facebook integration in all future PC games. Kisses!”

    • Daiv says:

      Have they tried doubling down? If not, they should totally do that.

    • Stochastic says:

      @Lars Westergren

      Shhhhhhhhh! You might give them ideas.

    • Nick says:

      Hey guys, everyone enjoying running their games straight from the disc?

  6. Vexing Vision says:

    I’m okay with Windows 7. It works stable enough to surprise me, but I hate the fact that as an admin, I don’t have access to all those pesky hidden folders.

    The app-store fills me with dread. “Apps for Windows Live” anyone?

    • Prospero424 says:

      All you have to do to make hidden folders viewable and accessible is choose to do so in the Windows Explorer folder options.

    • Vexing Vision says:

      This works for most folders, yes, but I STILL get told I’m not admin enough if I try to access the hidden document/settings-folder.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      That’s User Access Control (UAC) & it’s there for a reason. Before anyone goes off on one my Macbook & Linux machines have very similar systems to Microsofts UAC.

      You can always turn it off & make your machine inherently less secure but that’s been the case with every OS released since the dawn of PC operating systems.

    • Prospero424 says:

      It’s not UAC, it’s actually a base-level permissions denial. Different system and different user prompt altogether.

      The underlying issue that Windows still exhibits in these later versions is something rather silly: it uses a three-tiered permissions system (regular user, power user, and administrator), but it calls both power/super-users and administrator users “administrators” and hides true administrative access for some functions under “administrator” (power/super-user) accounts. A lot of these denied folders are virtual links that don’t have any real utility (for the end user) anyway, but still…

      It’s one of the few big mistakes I think they’re still unwisely invested in, but at least it’s better than it was in the past.

    • AlexV says:

      c:\documents and settings isn’t actually a folder. It’s a junction to c:users. Windows 7 installs these junctions for backwards compatibility, so that badly-written apps hard-coded to use the “documents and settings” path still work, even though the place the files are stored has changed.

      The permissions on them are set up in a special way so that everyone is denied the permission to list the contents of the folder. This means you can still open, for example, “c:\documents and settings\desktop.ini”, you can’t list the contents of “c:\documents and settings”.

      The reason for this, I think, is partially to discourage its use and to get you used to using the new location, but more importantly to prevent recursion. It isn’t so important with that particular junction, but if you consider the “C:\Users\*name*\AppData\Local\Application Data” junction which points to “C:\Users\*name*\AppData\Local”, you can see that if you allowed someone to explore into it, they could keep opening “Application Data” subfolders forever.

      While perhaps merely funny for someone doing it in Windows Explorer, it would be catastrophic for something like a (badly written) backup or batch copying tool that tries to copy everything including subfolders, it would get stuck in an infinite loop of opening subfolders until it crashed.

      So, for safety, the backwards compatibility junctions installed by Windows 7 have a specific permission to disable listing of their contents. You (as an administrator) can always change these permissions, but I really wouldn’t recommend it.

      (probably more than you wanted to know, but I found it interesting, maybe others will too)

    • oceanclub says:

      “(probably more than you wanted to know, but I found it interesting, maybe others will too)”

      No, that’s very useful – I suspected that’s what those weird folders were for but the clarification is nice.


  7. Gothnak says:

    I think MS have tried to forget ME and Vista like the rest of us.

    • LionsPhil says:

      It amuses me that they’ve tried to bury Vista even quicker than they did ME.

  8. Phoshi says:

    It’s entirely based off of the NT line, not the DOS line. That’s NT 3.1, 3.5, 4, Win2k (5), XP (5.1), Vista (6) and finally 7 (6.1)

    Why they gave it a name that actually needs explaining with a knowledge of the internals, I don’t know, but that’s microsoft for you.

    • skinlo says:

      If they renamed it NT7.0, it would mean a lot of older drivers would stop working.

    • Tomm says:

      Or counting properly
      1) NT 3.1
      2) 95
      3) 98
      4) Win2k
      5) XP
      6) Vista
      7) 7

    • viverravid says:

      Or counting properly

      The whole point of the post you are replying to is that that method of counting (including the 9x OSes), is not “properly”

  9. pyjamarama says:

    The official version number is 6.1 but that’s not a very marketable name so 6+1=7 problem solved.

  10. myca77 says:

    Bah, XP still works for me on the gaming front, Snow Leopard for everything else.

    I may upgrade to Win 7 at some point when I upgrade to a DX11 card, plus most people I know have praised Win 7 by saying “It’s not shit”, which for a MS OS is good enough for me.

    Think I’ll skip Win 8, just like I may skip Lion, unless something magical happens with both of them.

    • MD says:

      Does the release of a new version mean Windows 7 will be cheap for a while? I’m hoping there will at least be some cheap copies going while shops clear out their inventories, even if Microsoft immediately stops shipping it. I’ve actually never bought an operating system seperately from a PC, so I don’t really know how the market works.

    • myca77 says:

      I don’t think so, XP never really had much of a price drop, so I doubt Win 7 will. There are places online where you can buy keys for pretty cheap, but I’m not too sure if these are completely legit.

      I was happy with my Snow Leopard purchase, as it was about £30, and felt right for an update of the OS I already had, charging between £90-£200 for an OS always seems like too much.

    • Alfius says:

      Not a Shattered Horizon fan then I guess?

    • skinlo says:

      Only one MS OS has only ever truly been shit, and that was ME. Vista was quite bad initially, but the service packs fixed it.

  11. Prospero424 says:

    (Sort of) simple: Vista was NT kernel 6.0. Windows 7 is NT kernel 6.1, but they wanted to distance it from Vista. Hence the 7.

    But yeah, Microsoft being really bad at marketing (except for maybe XBox) is a cliche at this point, and a deserved one.

  12. Mr Chug says:

    I had a computer scientist explain why it was 7 to me once; he reckoned it was do with the Kernel they’re using, and that 95 and 98 are basically the same thing, and ME doesn’t count, and everyone kind of wants to forget Vista happened, so they just amalgamated two of them and called it 7 instead, ignoring the servers completely.

  13. Lucky7s says:

    ME and Vista never happened

  14. Aymes says:

    I don’t see what all the fuss about Vista is.

    I’ve used it for years without a single problem :o

    • Corrupt_Tiki says:

      From all that I could tell. it was that it seemed to use up way more resources than necessary. (Just look at the requirements on the back of most modern games. – Vistas will be almost double in most areas.)
      Also I think vista broke a lot of things (At least on launch)

    • Prospero424 says:

      I liked Vista. Win 7 is much better, but it was okay for its time. The only negative about Vista that still sticks is its ridiculous memory usage. Compared to both XP and 7 out-of-the-box, Vista has a bigger resource footprint.

      But if you’ve got 4GB or more of RAM, it’s not an issue anyway 95% of the time.

    • Aymes says:

      Ah, that explains why I never had any issue then.

      Well, not bothered about yet another version of Windows yet while this is still running fine.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nathan says:

      Same, I have never had a problem with running Vista. My home PC has skipped Windows 7, but I guess an upgrade to 8 isn’t unreasonable.

    • kikito says:

      Vista was a resource hog compared to XP. This meant that if you tried to “upgrade” from XP to it, it was very likely that your machine would just crawl.

      This was the first problem. The second problem was that PC manufacturers, like HP, started selling PCs that *barely* worked with the minimum requirements (things like 1GB of RAM, etc). They were slow as hell, and would hang if you opened IE and winamp at the same time. All this while announcing the PCs as “Vista Compatible”.

      The third problem was driver compatibility. There’s plenty of hardware out there that has XP drivers, but not Vista or 7 ones. Things that you not necessarily update, like network cards, sound cards or printers.

      A strange thing happens now – some of this “old” hardware works ok in Ubuntu (I print from Ubuntu now). So there’s hardware out there that works better in Ubuntu than on Windows xD

    • Theory says:

      (Windows 7’s memory footprint isn’t that different from Vista’s; both are perfectly reasonable. The difference is one of PR management on MS’ part.)

    • oceanclub says:

      I’m not sure if they eventually patched Vista into an acceptable state, but there was a vast difference in performance (of just the GUI mind; not games) between my laptop with Vista and when I upgraded to Windows 7. I actually loathed Vista.


    • Theory says:

      That always happens after an OS change/reinstall (less disc fragmentation?). I swear it happens after a service pack install too, but that’s probably a placebo effect.

    • Stellar Duck says:

      And XP wasn’t a RAM gobbling hog in 2001? Does nobody remember anything?! Does nobody remember all the moaning about XP being a bloated mess that had too much eye candy?

      I seem to recall only really liking XP after Service Pack 2. *sigh*

    • malkav11 says:

      7 is definitely an improvement, but Vista was perfectly fine, allowing for the generally awful design of Windows in general. (Mac OS fan here, if not current Mac operator.)

    • Obliter8 says:

      @ Stellar Duck:

      Amen to that! Always makes me chuckle to hear all the wails, moans and gnashing of teeth that accompanies change from a certain proportion of society.

      It seems to me that every other MS OS has integrated new back-end features which are buggy and unstable, while the one that follows polishes those features and is the OS everyone loves. ME evolved into XP, Vista into 7. That theory means 8 will be a bit ragged, so I think I’ll avoid!

  15. Merus says:

    I think Microsoft are trying to avoid the situation they had with XP, where it was out there way too long and all the stuff it didn’t support had to be patched in after the fact. XP doesn’t support USB drives out of the box.

    “How can devs keep up?”

    They can do things right the first time. PC game developers are notorious for letting their games break on OS upgrades because they exploited bugs in the OS that are later patched. Many a Mac game is unplayable without a very thorough emulator for similar reasons.

    • Baboonanza says:

      Out of curiosity, are you a developer?
      Because when you program to a complex API like DirectX or Win32 you often have no way of knowing whether you’re exploiting a bug or not, because the documentation frequently isn’t specific enough and there are large grey areas caused by legacy support and (in the case of DirectX) graphics driver behaviour.

      To blame devs generally for not writing code that will run on an OS it was never designed for is a little unfair. There’s certainly no shortage of shoddy software practices around (boy are there) but that’s not always the cause of portability problems.

    • LionsPhil says:

      XP doesn’t support USB drives out of the box.

      This is false. You’re probably thinking of 9X; 98 had fairly servicable USB support but omitted a generic mass storage driver.

    • Joe W-A says:

      XP doesn’t support USB drives out of the box, if the box is the one you bought the day the OS was released, and hasn’t any service packs or updates included. It probably isn’t though.

    • Baines says:

      I agree with Baboonanza. Microsoft’s documentation at times was abysmal, being incomplete, out of date, and even contradictory. I remember frustration at even trying to figure out the “proper” way to do certain things, and that is without even getting into situations where the “proper” way had other issues.

  16. Dozer says:

    Tablets aren’t PCs, but if they become Windowsified you could start a sister site to journalise them.

    Have you registered yet?

    • juandemarco says:

      So… you play on your PC using a shotgun as your preferred input device? :)

    • Hoaxfish says:

      clearly years ahead of the Kinect

    • Peter Radiator Full Pig says:

      I would definitly say that tablets shouldnt be covered. They are as much PCs as consoles.
      Which means a bit, but they are fundamentally different in what this site deals with.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      If you ask the right/wrong people, it’s not just PC Gaming that’s dying… it’s PCs as well.

      Just make sure to punch anyone who uses the phrase “post-PC era”

  17. tomeoftom says:

    I cannot wait for Google’s Chrome OS so I can finally escape the breathtaking idiocy of Microsoft (not W7, I actually quite like it, but everything else they force you through). Here’s hoping enough game devs migrate across.

    EDIT: Oh, wait, it’s totally different than what I thought it was. :(

    • Baboonanza says:

      Yeah, Google’s OS means being a slave to the cloud. Goodbye Personal Computer.

    • tomeoftom says:

      Know what would be cool? A cloud computing system that worked off of a guaranteed anonymous and blind protocol, that meant you could have the “security-in-the-cloud” of Google, which is amazing for productivity, access, and storage, but not owned or even known by any one entity, so the danger of information monopoly didn’t exist. Kind of like storage in P2P, shared amongst the free processor cycles and storage space of servers around the globe. But of course that’s extremely wishful thinking.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nathan says:

      Yeh, that would be “goodbye” games too. Chrome OS isn’t intended right now for the desktop PC market, but it’s brilliantly suited for the Notebook market.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      I’ve just spent ~a week talking to BT, and 3 engineer visits later and yes, it’s their line-connection that was at fault.

      I’m certainly not going to lock my stuff up like that any time soon.

    • skinlo says:

      Can’t think of anything worse.

      I like to keep my data, not have it shipped off to ‘the cloud’, and especially not Google, who are not known for their privacy.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Well, if you can’t wait for Chrome OS, just uninstall everything from your computer except Chrome-the-browser, put it in your Startup folder, and delete all your data. Ta-daa!

      Oh, you might need to uninstall Flash too.

    • MDevonB says:

      Seems theres a standard reaction to Chrome OS. “Oh, a Google OS. That should be good. What? It’s just a browser? Why?”

    • absolofdoom says:

      I hate to be that guy, I really do, but…

      Chrome OS is already out. It’s called LINUX. DERP

      We now return to the scheduled cloud-computing (deserved) bashing.

  18. subedii says:

    This would have more weight if they hadn’t been saying it repeatedly since 2006.

    link to

    This is what, the fourth or fifth time now they’ve “re-affirmed their commitment” to gaming on the PC?

  19. Nero says:

    I’m still on Windows XP, mostly because my PC is rather crap so I see really zero reason to upgrade right now. Using Vista on a laptop that I’m sorta borrowing from my parents and it does the work. I’ve used that laptop quite a bit and from my experience I’ve never understood the hate for Vista.

    There’s a few things that I’ve seen in Vista/7 that I find much nicer in XP (explorer is one thing).

  20. arghstupid says:

    Ah good looks like a mac style non-update so no real need to get out the wallet. Unless they deliberately break backwards compatibility, mac style.

  21. Koozer says:

    Ribbon interface like the new office? Oh no. Nonono. Noooooooooooooo…

    PS. Do Android games. Don’t ask me why, just get on with it.

  22. Bishop says:

    XP stands for extreme programming. It’s an agile software development management style. 2 programmers to one keyboard!

  23. juandemarco says:

    “This will pose an interesting dilemma for RPS – should we start to cover tablet gaming if, in theory, PC gaming moves to include it?”

    If this is the case, you should already be covering tablet gaming. Windows isn’t the only OS for PC, and Mac gaming is (slowly) rising. Apple also ships iPads, that are not PCs (as tablet running Windows won’t be), and Android tablets are now being sold. If you decide to cover one you should cover the others as well.

    BTW, I don’t think you should. PC gaming is one thing, tablet gaming is another. RPS is a great resource for PC gamers, don’t lose the focus to include something that is not arguably the same field, probably not even the same sport (just as foot massage and…). :)

  24. tsmike says:

    Hasn’t it been announced that 2012 was a misstatement?

    (Update: Just kidding, says Microsoft! A spokeswoman emailed to say that Ballmer misspoke. “It appears there was a misstatement. We are eagerly awaiting the next generation of Windows 7 hardware that will be available in the coming fiscal year. To date, we have yet to formally announce any timing or naming for the next version of Windows,” the spokeswoman said.)

    link to

  25. Valvarexart says:

    I’m absolutely fine with Windows 7. And no, don’t review tablet gaming please :) Avoid casual gaming.

  26. Premium User Badge

    Risingson says:

    When I discover why Windows 7 has so many problems with network connection (sudden loss of dns resolve), I will migrate. For the time being, I’m suffering it in my working laptop, not in my gaming pc.

    • skinlo says:

      Must be your copy, Windows 7 doesn’t have built in DNS problems.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      I, as a IT Tech, have got a couple of persisting “sync” issues with some laptops (we’re using some ugly work arounds, but suspect it’s more to do with server issues), but no DNS issues.

      The only other persisting issue seems to be the time it takes to delete/move a large quantity of files seems to occasionally be huge.

    • Premium User Badge

      danoot says:

      I’ve got five machines in this house running windows 7, and ~20 at work, and only one of them has any issues with dropping the default gateway from LAN adaptors – the one that goes to sleep if you don’t poke it every now and then. I think it’s an issue with recovering from sleep/hibernate more than a networking issue per se. Certainly my main machine has no troubles with network connectivity; you might find that your desktop is more stable than your laptop for similar reasons.

  27. Slimu says:

    More Micro$oft pr0n, hurray! Windows 7’s body is not yet cold and they want to release a new upgrade? Windows 7 is the best OS I’ve had in the last years and until they make a good (Fable) game, I’m sticking with it. I smell GREED and don’t feel the love.

  28. y3k-bug says:

    “To date, we have yet to formally announce any timing or naming for the next version of Windows.”

    link to

  29. Hoaxfish says:

    The one thing I’m kinda looking forward to in Win8, is the Metro skin which it’s apparently getting. It’s constantly tempting me to get a Win7 Phone.

    Though, my home machine is XP and getting old, so I’ll be buying a new machine rather than actually just buying a new OS.

  30. Spacewalk says:

    I tried to click “OK” on that image.
    It did not work.
    Never again.

  31. HexagonalBolts says:

    I think Windows 7 is really rather good, I’m a bit dubious about 8. What frustrates me is that Microsoft have SO MUCH POWER and so many intelligent people and so much money, the sorts of (potentially very profitable) things they could be doing to support PC gaming don’t seem that cryptic even to stupid old me, and yet still they don’t do them?

    • LionsPhil says:

      A lot of their smart people have been doing very clever things that never get directly shown to the end user, only their knock-on effects.

      For example, the way 7 can recover from a graphics driver crash is, frankly, an incredible feat of OS engineering and a world ahead of Linux/OS X.

    • Theory says:

      Vista did that too. Saved me lots of heartache when my video memory started to break down!

  32. Kaira- says:

    Everytime you mention Ballmer, this starts playing in my head.

  33. Zanchito says:

    Using Win7 x64, it’s SO much better than XP it’s not even funny. Not feeling the urge to upgrade to Win8 unless it has something really awesome.

    As for tablet gaming, If Win8 for tablets is the same as Win8 for desktops, then the same games would run in both environments (at least theeoretically), so I don’t see why not. Tablet-oriented games (which would still be playable on a desktop) would probably get smaller articles, like flash games do right now, which is totally fine by me.

  34. Ian says:

    Stupid sequelitis. Why can’t they create a new IP?

    • Hoaxfish says:

      At least they’re not using subtitles.

      “Windows: the Dragon King”

  35. Radiant says:

    Hello nerds. I’ve missed you.

  36. Radiant says:

    You can get the metro style windows phone thingum for your desktop from here btw:
    link to

  37. PearlChoco says:

    Uh-oh the ribbon interface for Explorer?

    Please explain me why they switch to this hideous space-consuming bloated interface, in an age where everyone is converting to wide 16:9 screens which have almost no vertical screen estate?

    • Gunrun says:

      What do you mean almost no real estate? I’m typing in a comment box that is about the size of the screen I used when the current windows UI was designed. We have oads of screen real estate now. The ribbon is pretty awesome, especially compared to having to navigate through 8 layers of drop down menus.

    • Kittim says:

      Got to agree with Gunrun here. The ribbon seems to be given a lot of bad press. While I don’t think it’s the best thing since sliced bread, it’s not that bad and I prefer it to menus. The problems start when users who knew where things were using menus get phased by not finding what they want. People tend to ignore that the keyboard short-cuts in office haven’t changed. I’m interested to see what will happen when Office 15 ships, it’s got a new interface, it’s gone all “Metro” :)
      Screen real estate: 16:9 aspect ratio sucks. The only reason monitor manufacturers this is because it’s cheaper to make and then market them as “Full HD”. Pah!.
      Go for 16:10 1920 x 1200 it makes a big difference. The only down side is you get black borders at the top and bottom of the screen when watching DVD/Blu Ray at full screen. That should not bother anyone.
      As for the site, PC all the way! Stop these fondle slab shenanigans, it will only end in tears. The sister site idea sounds good, you could call it “Pebble, Tissue, Spud Gun”.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Monitors have not gotten substantially physically bigger.

    • MDevonB says:

      I’m with Pearl. While your current monitor is bigger than your previous ones, most of the increase is in horizontal space. Since most websites are (In my opinion thankfully) still using thin vertical columns to hold their content, it seems odd to put the UI at the top and push it off screen at the bottom, no?

      I recently moved my tab area and taskbar to the side of my monitor, and while it looks worse, it is a much more comfortable experience. This is coming from someone who actually likes the ribbon interface by the by.

  38. kikito says:

    I think Microsoft has thought that calling it “new version” is much more lucrative that calling it “service pack”.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      Well, generally Windows SPs are bundled security updates rather than new features, or overhauls of existing stuff. While new versions tend to be gutting some features in favour of reworked designs.

      Apple seem to like bundling both security and new/changed features as new subversions/SPs, and then charging for it.

      Both of course get gradual security roll-outs for free.

    • JuJuCam says:

      Win 7 has had a Service Pack out for about a month now.

  39. derella says:

    I doubt I’ll waste the money upgrading to 8. I’m fine with 7.

  40. RegisteredUser says:

    I really wish they would allow the OSs to acclimatize themselves longer and give developers more time to develop for a stable OS platform.
    XP lasted and ran fine for close to 10 years, why can’t we have Windows 7 until 2020?

    It’s one of the first halfway functional Windows OS, it’s 64 bit, stuff actually does what it is supposed to and it’s the target of all GoG ports.

    Now why go ruin that with YAUOSU – Yet Another Useless OS Update. They seem to be getting every second consumer OS semi-right lately (Win 98 was okay, ME a nightmare, XP was okay, Vista disgusting, Win 7 is okay and now comes Win 8), so I would love for them to just support and extend Win 7 more.

    • Theory says:

      It is stable. Vista changed a lot, but 7 and 8 work from the same base and are compatible with it and with each other.

      XP was around for five years. MS’ usual schedule is a new release every three years, but Vista was delayed.

  41. skyturnedred says:

    I’m still using XP. Might finally get Windows 7 when Windows 9 comes out.

  42. JuJuCam says:

    I work for an on-site computer repair company and we have so so many clients perfectly happy with their Pentium 4 XP machines with 512 meg of RAM. Only one I’ve come across still using dial-up though. They seem to be more vulnerable to viruses and malware too.

    Not that I mind. I get paid by the hour.

  43. Eukatheude says:

    I guess it’s about time i give up XP.

    • Zarunil says:

      I clinged to XP for a long time until I finally gave Win 7 a try. Never had any regrets. Can’t believe I switched earlier.

    • Dreamhacker says:

      I clinged to Win 2000 until 2005 when I was forced to swithc to XP. I’ve regretted it ever since.

      There’s no way I’m giving up XP for some crappy kludge with a higher number on it. I like my stability, customizability and backwards-compatibility, thank you very much.

    • Eukatheude says:

      I actually have tried Win 7, and loved it very much. But since i barely can afford to upgrade my hardware, to me it seems crazy to pay hundreds of euros for an OS. So i guess i’ll just wait ’til i get an all new machine.

  44. MythArcana says:

    It finally took me 16 months to work out all the quirks of Windows 7 x64 to where it is stable and runs well. The compatibility issues were insane compared to XP SP3 which took about a week or so to properly burn in the way you like. I’m sure they will force us to move to Win 8 like they did with the rest by holding DirectX 12 hostage for $300. The funny thing is, developers just don’t use DirectX 11 much at all…and to my utmost respect because it doesn’t add all that much in terms of gaming anyway and Microsoft’s forced platform policy is for the flippin’ birds.

    • GallonOfAlan says:

      Funny, the three Windows 7 x64 machines that I use took less than a half a day to get set up and nary a hitch since. Then again, I did make sure everything was compatible and had 64-bit drivers first.

    • dangel says:

      What the hell are you doing frankly – W7 is a doddle to get up and running and *by far* the most stable OS from MS period. 16 months? Christ!

  45. Holysheep says:

    Am I the only one to think they could put a black list in their native ISO reading thing, a bit like Anti Viruses
    do when they find a crack or a keygen, and update it ?

  46. GallonOfAlan says:

    A lot of the Vista hate is because a bloke said it down the internet, so it must be true. Service-packed up, it’s fine.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Also because it a was a problematic pile of shit. (First-hand experience supporting for a family member before I shoved them to 7, thanks.)

  47. Perkelnik says:

    If an article about Microsoft and gaming is written, one brave person with big cojones must stand up and say: “Fuck this bullshit, if you Microsoft care about PC gaming, then allow Remedy to port Alan Wake to PC. Also, on related news, return the souls to the guys at Remedy. Also, give us Alan Wake on PC you big bad corporation!”

    Well here I am. So, what I came here to say is: “Fuck…”

  48. DevilSShadoW says:

    I’ve only just managed to learn most of the inns and outs of windows 7 so i will be sticking with it until i either hear that WIN8 is just /too/ good or till they stop supporting it.

  49. Vinraith says:

    I’ll be getting around to a Windows 7 upgrade this summer, probably. I’m amused that there’s already another one on the horizon, and look forward to ignoring it completely for a few years.

  50. pipman3000 says:

    oh boy can’t wait to shell out even more money so i can play whatever game microsoft is forcing into a DX12 exclusive!

    i hate pc gaming

    • Lukasz says:

      Oh be quite. there were only a handful of directx 10 exclusive game…