Microsoft: Top 7 Reasons for a PC Gamer to Get Windows 7

You never know man. This is MS we're talking about here. My DOS games didn't work on XP unless I use DOS box. I hope they make playing DOS games easier on Windows 7. If they do, then it'll make the PC my dedicated game machine.

 

To be serious, they are going the same route as DOS box in Windows 7. For maximum compatibility you can run Windows XP software in a Virtual PC.

 

I stuck on windows 98 for a long time due to that reason. Till 2005, so in the end I had directX 9.0c and .NET 2.0

I cursed microsoft for not providing a better VM. DOS games under XP actually run under a VM, which can be supplemented with vdmsound to get less rudimentary sound support.
Even DOS inside of Windows from version 2.x/386 till windows ME used a kind of VM, using a feature of the 386 processor : VM86 mode.

Dosbox is more than a VM, it's an emulator. Thus pretty slow and you need a modern enough PC to run demanding games (it's been improved, now guesses amount of CPU cycles to emulate)

 

To be honest, I grew up around computers and computer shows, and I rarely saw legit copies of windows or office. Even the computers sold be the independent stores often came without licenses.
Microsoft's online activation scheme with XP probably netted them so many additional sales that would have been lost to piracy.

Windows 7 is just microsoft's Wii rebranding of Vista.
The only item on the list that sounds interesting is the automatic updates of games, and honestly I'd rather just avoid physical media altogether and go with steam.

And sure Windows 7 is a bit faster and flashier. But I'm running a Kubuntu virtual machine right now within Vista. I get full game support, and I get a speedy and attractive OS to use that I don't have to worry about hosing my system.
Sadly, I'm finding that many of the things Microsoft uses as selling points in Windows are done good enough, just as well, or better by free programs. Like everything Ultimate includes over the basic versions.

Games are the only thing holding me to Windows at the moment. I'm still hoping that Microsoft expands the Xbox to be a platform and makes their dev kits automatically produce PC and Xbox versions that come on the same disc. You've got managed programming languages now MS, use them!

Strange, I have many old games that show up fine, but many new games that don't.

Unlike almost every other VM product on the market, Virtual PC has no 3d acceleration support.
And forget about getting those Windows 95 Glide games to run accelerated...

 

Well, i'm a "gamer", and Windows 7 is good (i had no problem with Vista tough), but, i've a problem...

My setup is :
Q6600
4gb
8800gts 640
blabla
and the interesting part : dual-monitor

When i was under Vista X64 SP2, it was ok, i had good performance in windowed game, even if they were on the monitor number 2, i can do things on monitor number 1, no slowdown.

Now, i am on Windows 7, and, when i do something on the monitor 1, which involve some kind of transparency (so nearly everything with Aero...) i've big slowdown in games on monitor 2.

I'm 100% positive that i hadn't this issue with Vista, even with the same driver set, so i guess it's a "bug" with WDDM 1.1, since when i was on Vista (WDDM 1.0), all was ok.

To confirm my "point", i just install 182.50 , WDDM 1.0 under 7, and all is OK again, so I guess, for now, WDDM 1.1 and dual monitors don't mix very well :-/

 

Wasn't the big improvement of WDDM 1.1 that it won't keep duplicate copies of the windows in vram and system ram? Perhaps that has a negative impact on performance.

 

This is already done with WDM 1.0 for Direct3D 10.0 since the beginning. For Direct3D 9 there was an hotpatch (that becomes part of SP1) that reduce the number of textures that need to be stored twice as much as possible.

 

Huh? As far as I know, there's no DX10 "path" for WDDM 1.0 based Windows Desktop Manager?

 

This negative ? It's crazy... with 182.50 (WDDM 1.0), i put a game on monitor 2, i work on monitor 1, no problem, steady 60fps (vsync). With *ANY* Wddm 1.1 drivers, i put a game on monitor 2... if i just open the windows start menu on monitor 1, bam, about 25-30 fps. If i close the menu, few seconds later i hit 60fps again.

I really hope it's a bug within nVidia drivers, because if it's not, i would have to switch back to Vista (or find a way to "force" a driver in WDDM 1.0 mode)


EDIT : Or maybe it's a problem with D3DOverider and WDDM 1.1 ? ... too lazy to reinstall a driver for now...i'll let you know anyway.

EDIT 2 : Ok it's a vsync thing... If i disable the vsync for the game on monitor 2, i can work on monitor 1 with a wddm 1.1 drivers, the frame rate don't move, BUT , it's "choppy", like big stutter even with a 100+ steady fps. Heck, even with no game, Aero is smoother with a 1.0 driver...

 

It would be accessable via a link in the start menu just like like Media Centre. This would just be a more convenient way of accessing it should you have the 'native' controller.

I see no reason for it not to be navigatable by any normal gamepad though, but failing that, the keyboard or mouse.

 

Yeah but as you say, its completely optional. As a hardcore user you can completely ignore its existance if you want just as you might with media centre. But for casual users, I would think this would be a much more user friendly games interface than trying to use the pretty terrible games explorer.

In terms of development effort to implement, I don't see it being that great. Afterall, all I'm asking for is a much slicker, and slightely more intergrated version of GfW Live. And the slickness side can just be lifted off the xbox.

 

Real men don't give up or quit, they go back and get the job done!

 

Microsoft pushed the PC as a major gaming platform particularly hard when Vista was released. It has since largely failed in achieving this objective. Microsoft’s head of their Games for Windows Live division was laid off earlier this year, and just before that the ACES and Ensemble studios were shut down. These are just a few key indications of how Microsoft is taking its Games for Windows Live initiative.

How many games have you bought for Vista, specifically because of DX10?

Windows 7 isn’t much different than Vista in terms of PC gaming support. DX11 may have a larger impact than DX10 in the long-run, but it will start off just as slow. PC gaming has been in a free-fall in terms of both marketing and support for the past several years. I don’t see Windows 7 solving any of the issues that plague it either, starting with piracy being the dominate concern.

While I feel that the way forward and future growth for PC gaming is clearly through Windows 7 and DX11, I don’t think it will have the impact that some believe it will. Compare Windows XP to Vista and then to Windows 7 in terms of specific gaming support. I’m not feeling the urge to go out and buy a DX11 video card tomorrow.

In all likelihood, we’ll see the next generation of consoles succeed in bringing DX11 and Microsoft gaming support, just as Windows 7 passes to its successor.

 

It failed achieving the "objective" because it never really set out to achieve it in the first place, it was largely smoke and mirrors while they tended to their baby, the 360.

And why not? A closed platform environment where they never have to worry about piracy to a significant degree and can charge you for frickin' avatar outfits, whereas PC gamers are used to getting mods and levels that drastically change the experience for free. Not to mention MS is desperate to get their entertainment division profitable on a yearly basis.

I think their abandonment of PC gaming is not a wise long-term strategy however. The OS competition is fiercer than ever, and as Microsoft's own studies touted while they were hyping up Vista's new gaming stance, games are in the top 3 reasons why people use PC's. If you take that away, or at least reduce it to a casual games device (which any other platform can do just as well), you've undercut a primary benefit of your platform.

The PC has problems and some of those are out of MS's control, but on the other hand no other company has the resources to make it work better than it does. It will not replace consoles and never will, but you don't need to hit in the kneecaps to guard against any cannibalization paranoia. The two platforms can co-exist.

Want to make a statement how you're behind Win7/Vista as a gaming platform, MS? Frickin' well port Gears of War 2 and Halo3 to the PC. How about that - MS publishing PC games! What a concept.

 

Agreed. The lack of effort put into the GFW Live initiative is truly sad. They could really be trying to differentiate themselves from Steam (who's app is sorely dated IMO) and other online retailers/services, but it's clear the desire and resources just aren't there.

 

Great post Dave, I completely agree. I've just bought a major PC upgrade to go with Windows 7 which should last me atleast 2-3 years but if PC gaming keeps declining at its current rate (due in major part to Microsofts actions/inactions), then by the time I'm next due an upgrade I can't see much of a reason to stick with Microsoft. Hell, might even go crazy and get a macbook! The iphone has really changed my outlook towards apple.

 

Whut? You like paying more just to be told you cant do everything you want?

 

+1, Mac what?

 

Current Macbooks are quite able little Windows machines, for those times you want that. So your comment is a little off.

 

Noooo, The Precious......