sliderider wrote:

... Oh and you realize the girl in that picture is naked from the waist down, right? NSFW

Scandal! It's a scandal!

In Japan each version of Windows is impersonated by a cartoon called OS-tan (you know the japs).

This is Windows 7's OS-Tan:

And this is Tiles 8 OS-tan:

Ooops sorry wrong pic:

My all time favourite is Windows 2000:

Which as you can see is dressed according to the rules of decency and decorum.

Malik wrote:

There is no reason for a Windows 7 user to upgrade to Windows 8, whatsoever (unless you're thinking to get a new Windows based Tab).

OK, for all the things I've said to defend Windows 8 as not being a complete POS, this is DEFINITELY a valid point. If you already have Windows 7, then Windows 8 is not going to be life changing for you in a good way since you lose some compatibility with older games and software in the process of upgrading to it.

If you're actually buying a new OS and not just upgrading, that's when it might make more sense to go with 8 over 7, but again, it depends on what you intend to do with the system.

Gemini000 wrote:

since you lose some compatibility with older games and software in the process of upgrading to it.
If you're actually buying a new OS and not just upgrading, that's when it might make more sense to go with 8 over 7, but again, it depends on what you intend to do with the system.

You must know if you are going to play games on the system or if you are going to carry it on the bus for surfing the web while holding it in your hand and controlling it with your finger.

Sorry I just cant help it.

The OS-tans and Windows seem to evolve in the same direction.
But somehow it feels backwards.

Gemini000 wrote:

If you already have Windows 7, then Windows 8 is not going to be life changing for you in a good way since you lose some compatibility with older games and software in the process of upgrading to it.

...Really? I don't think I've heard that one before. I mean, Windows 8 has no support for XDDM video drivers, but you probably wouldn't be using those in Windows 7 either. So have there really been reports of specific games that work in 64-bit Windows 7 but not 64-bit Windows 8?

Jorpho wrote:

Gemini000 wrote:

If you already have Windows 7, then Windows 8 is not going to be life changing for you in a good way since you lose some compatibility with older games and software in the process of upgrading to it.

...Really? I don't think I've heard that one before. I mean, Windows 8 has no support for XDDM video drivers, but you probably wouldn't be using those in Windows 7 either. So have there really been reports of specific games that work in 64-bit Windows 7 but not 64-bit Windows 8?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, anything using Direct3D 8 only runs properly windowed in Windows 8, suffering horrible aliasing and poor framerates when running full-screen. Anything using Direct3D 7 or earlier is hit or miss as to whether it will even run in the first place. :P

I also have a program called Texture Maker which works fine in all other Windows OSes, but in Windows 8 it just flat out doesn't run. Doesn't even pull up an error message. Changes to compatibility settings don't make a difference at all. :/

I see. I thought you were referring to something else.

It's not just a matter of drivers, is it? Has there been some discussion of technical details out there about what specifically has been lost?

Jorpho wrote:

It's not just a matter of drivers, is it? Has there been some discussion of technical details out there about what specifically has been lost?

Yes, though anyone can see for themselves. What's specifically been lost are the DX7 and DX8 DLLs. :P

See, here's the thing. DX9 would support games made with earlier versions of Direct3D by actually including the DLLs for them! Direct3D 8 worked in DX9 perfectly fine because DX9 would stuff DX8 games into an actual DX8 context, not a DX9 context.

Windows 8 will flat-out refuse to utilize DX8 or earlier, even if the DLLs are present (which they aren't by default). This is because Windows 8 absolutely requires DX11 to be present and when you attempt to run a game using DirectX 8 or earlier, Windows 8 has some kind of special coding present which catches the DLL call and shoves the game into a special legacy emulation layer in DirectX 11 which hasn't been written very well at all. In fact, when you do a dependency walk of DX8 or earlier software on Windows 8, the DX11 DLLs show up as dependencies! (Which shouldn't even be possible!)

DX9 and DX10 games work perfectly fine though because Windows 8 natively supports them with the proper DLLs.

*shrugs* This whole situation could be resolved with a little bit of coding magic on Microsoft's part to properly emulate the earlier DirectX interfaces through DX11, but nope, they just wrote something incredibly basic and figured no one would notice or care because DirectX 8 is "too old"... except most of Pop Cap's games from not too long ago such as Plants vs. Zombies utilize DX8, and thus trying to play them full-screen is just painful. x_x;

Funny thing with PvZ actually: If you turn OFF hardware accelerated graphics when running full-screen, the framerate improves a little and the aliasing isn't as bad. THAT'S how bad DX11's emulation of earlier versions of DirectX is. x_x;

Interesting, thank you. That is indeed pretty terrible.

Gemini000 wrote:

except most of Pop Cap's games from not too long ago such as Plants vs. Zombies utilize DX8, and thus trying to play them full-screen is just painful. x_x;

Funny thing with PvZ actually: If you turn OFF hardware accelerated graphics when running full-screen, the framerate improves a little and the aliasing isn't as bad. THAT'S how bad DX11's emulation of earlier versions of DirectX is. x_x;

This has come up before; it's actually a DX7 thing and most of PopCap's games will also look like crap in fullscreen in Windows 7. The solution is to change your desktop resolution to something with a 4:3 ratio before starting the game. (Never mind all the Free-to-Play stuff; if there's one reason to hate on PopCap and EA, it's their refusal to fix this.)

...Of course, Windows 8 might have some other problem when it comes to these particular games and I'm just assuming it's the same root cause as this other phenomenon.

If you're a student, you can get Windows Server 2012 R2 for free through dreamspark.com.

Jorpho wrote:

This has come up before; it's actually a DX7 thing and most of PopCap's games will also look like crap in fullscreen in Windows 7. The solution is to change your desktop resolution to something with a 4:3 ratio before starting the game. (Never mind all the Free-to-Play stuff; if there's one reason to hate on PopCap and EA, it's their refusal to fix this.)

Curious... I'm going to have to look into this more because I thought for sure that game ran fine under Windows 7 (mind you, I was going by info from friends for that one...)

I also assumed it was DX8 because that's the system requirement listed on Steam. *shrugs*

Plus it wouldn't explain why I get similar results with other pre-DX9 stuff on my Win8 system, such as Tank Universal and Sonic Adventure...

...or wait... *looking up more stuff* ...Sonic Adventure is DX9?? o_O

...or wait again... *looks up more stuff* ...Freelancer runs perfectly fine but it too is showing DX11 in the Dependency Walker, even though it's a DX9 game...

*scratches head* ...I'm so confused now. I'm gonna have to try out some more older games instead of just the ones I feel like playing and see if I can recognize a pattern. I THOUGHT pre-DX9 stuff was the pattern... I was really sure of it, especially after discovering that the DLLs for DX8 and prior don't exist, knowing what I know about how DX7 and DX8 support works in DX9... now though, I'm not so sure anymore...

I'm not doing this testing today though because there's some major storms heading my way and I don't want to be caught tinkering with stuff when the bad weather hits.

...though... it might be DirectDraw related. I'm fairly (but not 100%) certain that DirectDraw is removed from current DirectX implementations, which is why I can't get DOSBox working beyond Surface and OpenGL output modes, as well as why some of DOSBox's scalers don't seem to work.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

You can still install the DirectX 9 runtime in Windows 8/8.1.

Another change in Windows 8 may be rearing its ugly head though. In Windows Vista and 7, you could turn off the Desktop Window Manager (hardware windows compositing used by Aero Glass etc.) on the compatibility tab. In WIndows 8.x, its mandatory. So if you application worked right only with it turned off in Windows 7, you are out of luck on 8. The reason for this is that stupid Metro apps REQUIRE DWM in order to render onscreen. So Microsoft not only forces it on, they added in a CPU sucking software renderer if you happen to have an ancient machine that doesn't support hardware DWM acceleration.

NJRoadfan wrote:

You can still install the DirectX 9 runtime in Windows 8/8.1.

Yep! And it won't install the DX7 or DX8 DLLs when you do! :P

...nor do they ever get used if you install them manually. :/

What are the DX7 and DX8 DLLs named, anyway? My XP system only has a d3d8.dll and a d3d8thk.dll . (There's also dx7vb.dll and dx8vb.dll , but those are just for Visual Basic. Technically there's no support for those in Vista/7 , but I think they still work if you copy them over manually.)

Jorpho wrote:

What are the DX7 and DX8 DLLs named, anyway? My XP system only has a d3d8.dll and a d3d8thk.dll . (There's also dx7vb.dll and dx8vb.dll , but those are just for Visual Basic. Technically there's no support for those in Vista/7 , but I think they still work if you copy them over manually.)

I should clarify (since I'm not doing a good job of it) that DirectX (at least in the past) only used previous interfaces for Direct3D support. IE: DirectX 9, given a DirectX 7 game, would shove the graphics into a Direct3D 7 interface, though the other components still run through DirectX 9 as expected.

To that end, when I'm talking about the DLLs, I'm talking about the Direct3D DLLs, which are named D3D__.DLL, with the underscore being the version number. For DirectX 7, this is D3D7.DLL, for DirectX 10, this is D3D10.DLL.

Paul Thurrott on the "it was designed for computer illiterates" quoted above:

Is This Really Why Microsoft Made Windows 8? - No, but it's a nice story

"In an interesting bit of history rewriting, a Microsoftie has now retroactively explained that Microsoft simply had to make Windows 8 and its touch-based "Metro" environment ... so that it could then make the desktop better than ever. It's a nice story, and should make power users feel a bit better about the future. But it's also contrary to the available evidence, not to mention everything I've heard from high-placed insiders at the company.

The irony? Thanks to the terrible reaction to Metro, Microsoft is now going down a path to fulfill that fantasy. But this wasn't the original plan, sorry."

"Reality check. Microsoft's most important customer group is business users, and businesses require as few UX changes as possible to save retraining costs. Microsoft pushing Metro on everyone was categorically stupid."

... That was never actually the plan. It may be—should be—the plan now, given how customers have universally trashed Windows 8. But it was not the plan. Microsoft was pushing the desktop out with the trash. If it is no longer doing so, well cheers. But that is something new, not part of some long-term plan.

It also doesn't explain why the frick Windows Server was changed to accommodate this silly new UI that this guy insists was made entirely for casual users.

That irony isn't lost on me. The moment I saw the live tiles system for the first time, back when it was still referred to as "Metro", the VERY first thought I had was, "Just let me customize those tiles however I want to and I'll be happy." But at the same time, I too noticed that the addition of "apps" while shoving the desktop itself into an "app" seemed like they were trying to ultimately ditch the desktop entirely.

However, I think the fact that Microsoft has taken a round-about approach here and is no longer trying to destroy the desktop is a GOOD sign. It means they're learning from their mistakes and this is one of the reasons why I don't hate on Microsoft anywhere near as bad as other large companies like Google or EA. Don't get me wrong though, they still make PLENTY of mistakes, but what I find MORE ironic is people hating Microsoft because of Windows 8... so they go use Windows 7 instead, which is ALSO a Microsoft product. :P

Gemini000 wrote:

... Microsoft has taken a round-about approach here and is no longer trying to destroy the desktop is a GOOD sign. It means they're learning from their mistakes ...

I'll be delighted if that happens, but will only believe it when I see it. For the moment all I can see is more bullshit, disinformation and deceiving.

And just for the record if anything I'm a Microsoft fanboy, been on MS operating systems since the pleistocene (DOS) just dodging the turds like Tiles 8. Never had any Apple gadget (no walled gardens for me, thanks), and only really felt the urge to start exploring Linux a couple years ago, right after testing The Horror.

Maybe now that Ballmer's been bounced we'll see some positive changes. I read he got the boot because of the millions of Surface tablets that aren't selling but I suspect mass rejection of Windows 8 hot on the heels of the mass rejection of Vista also has something to do with it. Microsoft's misadventures with the Zune, public ire over Windows Mobile users being left in the dust with the release of Windows Phone 7, Hmmm..what else have I missed?

Whatever happens, I think things are going to have to get much, much worse before MS starts losing substantial market share to Ubuntu or whatever. By the time that happens, desktop computing as we know it will probably be in serious trouble (if it isn't already).

Gemini000 wrote:

To that end, when I'm talking about the DLLs, I'm talking about the Direct3D DLLs, which are named D3D__.DLL, with the underscore being the version number. For DirectX 7, this is D3D7.DLL, for DirectX 10, this is D3D10.DLL.

But I have no D3D7.DLL on my XP system, and I can still run DirectX 7 games. Or at least I think I can – I've never really tried, and anything that old is probably going to have issues with the video card drivers.

Jorpho wrote:

But I have no D3D7.DLL on my XP system, and I can still run DirectX 7 games. Or at least I think I can – I've never really tried, and anything that old is probably going to have issues with the video card drivers.

Odd... If you try to run DXDIAG and test Direct3D functionality, what tests get performed?