• Carmack: Nothing exciting about Windows 8
    135 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Foda;37066591]oh, you know, a new market store, new form-factors (tablets, directx on phones). carmack is a programmer yet doesn't know about winrt? or any of the new directx apis? what about directx 10 and 11? no wonder why Rage ran and looked like shit.[/QUOTE] Carmack has time and time again displayed his utter hatred for DirectX.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37101177]"eh there's just nothing really exciting about windows 8 for me" fucking BRUTAL jesus christ john carmack is bashing the shit out of windows 8 christ alive[/QUOTE] Typical FP response post - ignore actual point completely, exaggerate comments on the side to the moon, bathe in funnies from your brilliant satire [QUOTE=Elspin;37100365][b]it seemed ridiculous that he said there was nothing exciting about it yet at the same time said windows 7 was an "attractive" upgrade because of the performance enhancements... and there hasn't been this many enhancements built into a version of windows in a long long time[/b][/QUOTE]
What performance improvements does Windows 8 actually bring? I see a lot of stuff about improvements to Direct2D and the font rendering that this powers, lower power usage through better memory management and better boot time, none of which really apply to games (certainly not OpenGL ones that Carmack works on)
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;37103575]What performance improvements does Windows 8 actually bring? I see a lot of stuff about improvements to Direct2D and the font rendering that this powers, lower power usage through better memory management and better boot time, none of which really apply to games (certainly not OpenGL ones that Carmack works on)[/QUOTE] Well, general performance improvements. Significantly lower RAM and CPU usage, and in general Windows 8 is just more swift than previous iterations. I don't think much has been improved regarding gaming performance, but then again - what sort of new Windows OS has improved upon that? Vista and Windows 7 didn't bring more than new DirectX features and such, and to my knowledge gaming performance is pretty much equal across the board. And even if Microsoft did bring in some new stuff to take advantage of, people would just bitch about it - just look here: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1078629[/url] And it's not like Microsoft is gonna drop DirectX. But try it out, the performance improvements are seen elsewhere.
People still on XP have [I]no business[/I] talking about 8
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;37103835]Well, general performance improvements. Significantly lower RAM and CPU usage, and in general Windows 8 is just more swift than previous iterations. I don't think much has been improved regarding gaming performance, but then again - what sort of new Windows OS has improved upon that? Vista and Windows 7 didn't bring more than new DirectX features and such, and to my knowledge gaming performance is pretty much equal across the board. And even if Microsoft did bring in some new stuff to take advantage of, people would just bitch about it - just look here: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1078629[/url] And it's not like Microsoft is gonna drop DirectX. But try it out, the performance improvements are seen elsewhere.[/QUOTE] I should fucking hope that an OS has low CPU usage, and as for RAM, as far as I can tell from the Windows blog, real world memory usage has been cut by around 100MB from all the benchmarks I've found, which is a lot, but considering the type of PCs that id target have many gigabytes of RAM, it isn't a huge amount. Windows 7 was a big change (especially if you came from XP like Carmack notes), and as Carmack notes in the video, Windows 7 improved virtual memory allocation to be hundreds of times faster according to him, and since as I said, he came from XP, I'd imagine WDDM is a lot nicer too (though again, he notes that he was perfectly happy with XP).
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;37106473]I should fucking hope that an OS has low CPU usage, and as for RAM, as far as I can tell from the Windows blog, real world memory usage has been cut by around 100MB from all the benchmarks I've found, which is a lot, but considering the type of PCs that id target have many gigabytes of RAM, it isn't a huge amount. Windows 7 was a big change (especially if you came from XP like Carmack notes), and as Carmack notes in the video, Windows 7 improved virtual memory allocation to be hundreds of times faster according to him, and since as I said, he came from XP, I'd imagine WDDM is a lot nicer too (though again, he notes that he was perfectly happy with XP).[/QUOTE] As far as I understand, the changes in Windows 7 weren't all that dramatic - don't get me wrong, I like Windows 7 very much, but the changes in Windows 8 are pretty darn large compared to Vista -> 7. Sure, maybe not XP -> 7 large, but that's 8 years worth of technology and developement right there. And "You should fucking hope that an OS has low RAM usage" - yeah, you should. Windows 8's RAM usage is half 7's on start-up, yet it's much faster and boot time is literally cut in half. I really just don't get what you complaining about - yeah, Carmack isn't going to care about 200MB of RAM (that's what I've seen at least), but cutting RAM usage in half - even with Windows - is quite a feat.
Yeah but what changes are there that game developers would care about in 8? All I asked was why Windows 8 is so much faster, and all anyone can say is that it boots faster (which I said) and that it is "faster". I'm asking why it is faster. Boot time is irrelevant when you spend 8 hour a day on a computer. For a game developer like Carmack, what does Windows 8 do that is dramatically better than 7? I'm sure there are lots of little nice changes, but I can't see a single stand out one that someone like Carmack would care about [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] P.S. if you are going to quote me, use my words instead of making it up
Now, after using the Consumer Preview and Release Candidate for a few months now, I jumped on the RTM. And, guess what? I still prefer W7. The omission of the startmenu just kicks me too bad. I guess 17 years of habit don't die fast.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;37120306]Yeah but what changes are there that game developers would care about in 8? All I asked was why Windows 8 is so much faster, and all anyone can say is that it boots faster (which I said) and that it is "faster". I'm asking why it is faster. Boot time is irrelevant when you spend 8 hour a day on a computer. For a game developer like Carmack, what does Windows 8 do that is dramatically better than 7? I'm sure there are lots of little nice changes, but I can't see a single stand out one that someone like Carmack would care about [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] P.S. if you are going to quote me, use my words instead of making it up[/QUOTE] I stated in my first post in this thread that there's probably not much exciting for people like Carmack. I never disputed that. When you spend 8 hours a day it doesn't matter whether the boot ime is fast? Yeah, you're kind of right - but there' [I]general[/I] speed improvements. That means your computer is faster in general. Starting application, going from one thing to another - isn't that kind of cool? And even if you find that boot time means nothing when you use your computer so much, it's kind of ignorant. The new stuff coming out isn't big desktops, it's ultrabooks, laptops and tablets. Lowering RAM and CPU usage is a big deal, and start up time means something if you go around with your laptop all day and want to save battery by turning it off completely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.