The best OS for gaming.

Which is the best OS for gaming? Windows 7 HP, Windows 7 Pro , Windows 7 Ultimate, Windows 8.1, or Windows 8.1 Pro.

While the 8.1 and 8.1 Pro are new, I heard that they have compatibility problems with some games (old ones) and Steam.

I'm planning to buy a new laptop but can't decide on which OS will suit me best.

 

i would say windows 7 pro or ultimate after reading lots of negative post with 8 and gaming.

sadly sounds like 7 will end support within the next year though.

 

How about 7 HP? It's the cheapest among the 7s.

 

no idea as never used it. i guess as it should be fine as its still windows 7

 

Nope extended support is until 2020. It's only mainstream support that's ending next year.

 

Personally, as much as I'm not a fan of Windows 8 for their desktop UI choices, I haven't had an issue with gaming using it. I'd say pick either one, because by this time next year Windows 9 will be out the door and unless MS is totally stupid, it should be a great improvement in all aspects, including DirectX 12.

 

thats good to know then.

 

I have Windows 7x64 Ult Sp1 that I use for gaming but just remember older XP games will not work or install properly on W7.

Yeah and games use Dx12...very doubious here....most Dx11 has to be fully utilized for true gaming experiences. Windows XXXX or whatever....I believe it when I see a release to buy if anything was ever learned....

 

Games will be developed to use DirectX 12. Just what level of support is available for previous OS and hardware is still TBD.

 

Probably Windows 7 with UAC disabled. UAC disabled improves compatibility with older games designed for Windows 98 or XP that store all their data in their installation folder. Home/Professional/Ultimate doesn't make a difference for gaming.

Whether 32-bit or 64-bit Windows 7 is preferable depends on whether you prefer the latest and greatest (and thus most memory-intensive) games, or if you have a soft spot for old classics that are 16-bit or have 16-bit installers despite being 32-bit themselves. 64-bit is probably the answer for most, but might not be if you do more retro gaming than latest-and-greatest gaming.

Windows 8 doesn't introduce that many compatibility issues from what I've read, though I don't doubt some exist, but neither does it introduce any compelling features for gaming. It took until 2012 or so - 5+ years after Vista's release - for DX10 to really be used in a lot of games (and start to be required in a small number). So I wouldn't consider DX12 to be a factor at this point. By the time it is, you'll probably have upgraded again.

 

If you with Nvidia go with Win 8.1
If with AMD go with Win 7

HARDOCP - Conclusion - Battlefield 4 Windows 7 vs. 8.1 Performance Review

 

Windows 8.1 ftw

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

As far as real world performance goes Windows 7 and Windows 8/8.1 are one and the same. There is NO difference between them. I have thrown a plethora of games on both and all my Steam games run 100% the same with no negligible difference between either OS.

The only issue I ever encountered were a few games would not INSTALL because there was compatibility issues with the METRO desktop and that was Windows 8. I haven't tried them with Windows 8.1 and I wouldn't be surprised if they now worked.

Actuallly, this may sound dumb but Windows 8.1 looks more like a gaming OS than Windows 7 just from it's esthetics and UI design.

 

From a gaming perspective, there's absolutely no difference between the different versions of Windows 7. Professional only brings a few corporate-oriented features, and Ultimate only adds additional languages and Bitlocker on top of Professional. I'm sure the same is true between Windows 8.x and 8.x Pro.

Personally, I use 7 Ultimate on my desktop (solely because university provides Professional and Ultimate at the same very-low price for students), though I did try out 8 (non-Pro) on it for a few days and noticed absolutely no performance difference from the OS alone (hardware was the same). It just boils down to "I like the Windows 7 interface" vs "I like the Windows 8 interface", which is a purely subjective call.

 

The UI is perfect for gaming. Sectioned groups of tiles with different genres. All games instantly available with one click.

 

Do not disable UAC... just use the compatibility settings. There isn't a single game that I haven't been able to run by fiddling with compatibility settings in Win7. Even some significantly older ones like Diablo2.

Win 7 home is fine... professional adds domain functionality, ultimate adds bitlocker, language support, and the ability to boot natively to a vhd.
Understanding Virtual Hard Disks with Native Boot
While power users are advised to pick up ultimate for the vhd booting alone, if all you want is to game, home will be fine.

 

One thing not mentioned is Win7 Pro and above are needed for more the 16GB. There is no game out there right now clamoring for mare than the 16GB limit but thought I would mention it.

 

Try modding games that store their scenario editing files in their install folder when UAC is on and they are installed to C:\Program Files (x86). Virtual Store will quickly drive you bonkers, if your modding works at all. A common symptom is everything looks okay in the game's editor, but your changes don't actually show up when you load your mod in-game.

That said, if you do install the game to a custom location outside of C:\Program Files, that also avoids the issue. But most people tend to go with the default install location, at least if their C:\ drive is spacious enough to do so. My advice to people running into issues with modding older games (or having their save files mysteriously disappear, which I've also seen) is to install to a non-Program Files location if they want to have UAC enabled.

We could argue whether UAC is worth it, too, but that probably wouldn't be a productive argument. I run non-UAC-enabled OS'es at home, and have UAC disabled on Windows 7 at work, and haven't had any issues as a result of it, and haven't had any issues with not having it versus the many annoyances and issues I had with it. So I agree with Apple on UAC. I can see the theoretical benefit for someone who tends to get a lot of malware on their PC, but for a modder and developer who practices safe Internet browsing, I just don't think it's worth it.

This is a good point for a couple years down the line, but indeed it's not currently relevant for gaming. Windows 8 (non-Pro) allows 128 GB, so in a few years that may be an advantage assuming you don't want to pay extra for Pro. But it's also one of those things where you'll probably have upgraded your hardware by the time you need it. And if not, there's always Windows Anytime Upgrade.

 

win 7 pro or ultimate.... 64-bit

 

Why? There no practical benefit of professional or ultimate over the home version of Windows 7...

 

But but, it sounds so professionally. Always go to the max!

 

There's multiple benefits that made me bite for pro:
1- 16GB RAM limit only on Home Premium
2- Remote Desktop Host, so you can log in to your machine remotely
3- Network backups
4- Location aware printer setup
5- Windows XP Mode, although not as needed these days unless you have a "must have" XP app that isn't compat with 7

 

Once you get past the Metro UI (and really, anybody with half a brain can easily set up Win 8 to look and function like Win 7) Win 8 is just fine. There are a bunch of programs out there (some free) that bring back the good old start menu. You can set your preferences to never again see the Metro start menu.

Overall, after using it for some time alongside Win 7 on my old desktop, I prefer Win 8. Faster, smoother, cleaner, boots up in record time and shuts down in 3 seconds.

Plus, you know, DX11 support and all that.

 

Placebo and misinformation if anything. Boot times are nearly identical wrt Windows 7 and Windows 8/8.1 unless you have UEFI enabled in the BIOS and set boot to "Ultra Fast", even that is not a game changer. Apart from that Windows 8/8.1 boots slightly faster but not by much. Smoother? How? Both OS'es perform equal in terms of real world performance.

If anything Windows 8/8.1 hampers slightly the CPU with it's aggressive sleep/wake management of the CPU.

 

Meaning to say, the 7 does not support DX11? I did not know that. Well, thanks. I'll go with 8.1. But wait, 8.1 or 8.1 Pro?

 

Windows 7 supports to DX 11.1, 11.2 is at the moment a 8.1 thing. It is not that Windows 7 is missing features to support DX 11.2 but that they are trying everything under the sun to get 8.1 accepted. Especially though since I am not a gamer these decisions trying to force me to use the UI only furthers my resistance to the change.

 

I'm reading stuff about 8/8.1 not working with steam. For those of you who have both (steam + 8/8.1), is this true? Or at least can the problem be easily solved?

 

I haven't tested my whole steam games library, but, it is working just fine for everything I tried.

I can easily find reports of steam not working on windows 7, Windows vista and Windows XP as well. My take on the story is that people will experience problems with steam sometimes regardless of the OS.

 

Those are good non-gaming reasons to go for 7 Pro, and if OP wants/needs those features, then go for it. Though I'm just looking at it from a purely-gaming perspective. XP Mode would be nice for older XP-era games, however.

 

I tried Windows 7/8/8.1 at various times and no issues with Steam. Currently my Steam Box is dedicated to Windows 8.1 and everything works fine.

Note: Make sure you enable .Net 3.5 and run the DX 9 setup runtime. Windows 8 doesn't require DX 9 but many games still do. And I believe the DX 9.0c used by Steam won't work with W8.1 :hi2:

 

By running the DX9 setup runtime, will that overwrite the DX 11 setup that comes with the 8.1?

What implications does the "DX 9.0c used by Steam won't work with W8.1" bring?

 

No !

The version of 9.0c is for Windows 7. It will not properly install in Windows 8/8.1 so any games that require 9.0c will report missing drivers. The 9.0c issued by Steam affects only Windows 7.

 

So any game that requires DX 9.0c will not work with the 8.1? Sorry ig i'm not getting it.

 

Placebo? Misinformation? I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure 10 seconds is less than 30.

And then there's the fact Win 8 was designed to boot up faster. And then there's all the reviews confirming this.

But no, you're right. It's surely just a placebo.

 

It counts on the hardware. With a fast SSD boot is extremely fast even on Windows 7, the primary difference there is the posting past a standard bios as compared to UEFI. The difference here is possibly 1 second on a bare Windows 8 here compared to a mature and bloated Windows 7 install. So this is a YMMV situation. Boot time, unless really outrageous, should not be too much of a consideration for the machines gaming potential.

IMHO the few seconds, if any, saved in boot is lost to the UI both in time and even more so in frustration. As they say though too each their own. With the market share the way it is the consumers have spoken loud and clear despite leverages against their resistance to upgrade or accept the new UI. At least as a gaming OS/UI/DEVICE there is little time spent having to launch the game(s). My guess here is they knew the consumer did not want to spend time in the UI so they had to try and get the boot up and ready to play as fast as possible.

 

Windows 8 doesn't use DX 9.0c so that should answer your question as well as why the 9.0c update from Steam won't let you play the games that need it. Most games in the last 5 years do. That's why DX 9.0c runtime is needed and not the 9.0c update.

 

It's all placebo an illusion. Sure if you want to say Windows 8 boots 2-5 seconds faster than W7 then yay you win. It's NOT a game changer Capisce?

What you are seeing is an illusion. There is no screen UI present during the boot process. I timed a clean install on both W7 and W8/8.1 and it's at best 5 seconds whoopie. But if boot times will sell you an OS and bragging rights, you win ! :hi2:

 

Windows 8.1

It looks beautiful and is fast as , and I haven´t had any issues what so ever with it. That´s pretty much all I want from my OS.

 

I have never had any problems with the WLAN auto connect.

Now, there is a lot more to gaming than boot times.

 

I disabled UAC the day I got my laptop, and haven't had a single issue since. I also went for Win 7 Pro mainly for the >16GB memory. Though I doubt I will ever come close to needing that much, having that option is always nice.

 

The thing with disabling UAC is that if you have your first "issue" you'll (a) never get a warning sign, and (b) won't discover it until it is too late.

You only need to be in one motorcycle accident without a helmet to understand why helmets are a good thing.

 

And that's exactly what a clean image, working backup SSD, and secure erase is for. (ie the "helmet")

The last couple times my computer contracted malware, UAC was enabled (on the highest security setting I might add) and it did absolute nothing.

 

If you're going to go by which OS has the fastest boot time to decide which is best for gaming, you might as well go with Windows 95. It probably boots in a fraction of a section (after the BIOS) on a halfway decent SSD.

In other words, the OS boot time is not a good metric for an OS for gaming. Boot time will be much more heavily by what you have running at boot (drivers, anti-virus, utilities, etc.) than the OS, anyway. As well as whether you have a traditional hard drive or an SSD. Although even that can easily be outweighed by software. A hard drive install will beat an SSD install if the latter has significantly more resource-intensive programs running at boot.

I wouldn't consider not using UAC akin to not wearing a helmet while motorcycling for a few reasons. One is that, if you perform proper backups, the possible losses are a lot lower. But a better analogy in general than UAC being like a helmet for motorcycling is UAC being like drinking a Red Bull before driving when tired. It could indeed save you, but if you avoid the risk factor in the first place (driving tired/going to shady sites), you don't really need the help (Red Bull/UAC). You might still get pwned (deer jumps in front of your car/malicious ad gets put on a reputable site), but neither the Red Bull nor the UAC will save you from everything.

Social engineering is as much of a factor in malware infection as UAC. Why did my friend with UAC enabled on Windows 7 get adware? Because he clicked a link on an unknown site that said he needed up update Flash Player, and then approved it because he thought he needed to update Flash Player. He got a warning, but because the social engineering worked, it was useless. Now he knows about that, and (hopefully) won't fall for it again. I don't have UAC, but I know to always download Flash from Adobe rather than some random page that says I should do so, so I don't get that malware.

 

Thank you for that eloquent post (and the awesome analogy -- "deer jumps in front of car" = you pwned LOL)

Indeed, avoiding high risk sites and the dark corners of the Internet and some common sense really goes a very long way.

 

I don't understand what this means. You get infected, or you *suspect* you got infected, and you promptly switch drives? Really? An infection can have data uploaded to <some weird third world server> at SSD speed.

So your solution to this was to simply disable UAC. You don't know how many malwares were actually stopped by it.

"Well, I fell off my bike wearing a helmet, and I screwed up my shoulder and my knee, so screw it helmets clearly don't work."

 

If I suspect an infection, the first thing I'd do is kill any network connections, meaning physically unplugging the modem and router. Then I would secure erase the SSD, and load the clean image back in. The backup drive is more a fail safe than anything else. (If you're alluding to BIOS viruses, fair enough, although these are exceedingly rare)

Well it's been 3 years since I disabled UAC on my Toshiba, and it's yet to have any malware infections, so yeah I'm pretty sure I can live without UAC. Also a more accurate analogy would be "I wore a helmet riding a bike but I still caved my head in".

 

Important to note that the minute you think you are too smart to get malware is the moment you have just admitted the exact opposite.

Even wisely browsing will not save you from zero-day exploits or system security holes. None of the browsers are immune and even if you never go to anything but the most reputable websites, this isn't a guarantee that you are safe. Certainly, making good choices as a user is helpful, but every bump you can put in the road for a would-be attacker is wise.

Working without UAC enabled is being lazy. You are disabling something Microsoft assumes you are using.
When you disable it, portions of your OS are now vulnerable where they were not before. When Microsoft patches zero-day exploits, they assume you are using UAC.
When you are patched, but not using UAC, you may no longer have any real protection. The result is that disabling UAC is similar to being too lazy to patch Windows because you think you are too "smart".

Instead, if you MUST mod in the Program Files directory, perhaps a little reading about how windows file permissions work would be wise.
Simply (logging in as an administrator) and unchecking "inherit permissions" will likely solve many of the problems. You can now give yourself or even just system any rights necessary on that folder alone. (instead of opening up your whole computer to attack)

If you turned off UAC, its similar to walking around in the nude without any sunscreen because sunscreen and clothes were too restrictive claiming you were too smart for sunburn. /shrug

 

You're welcome!

Oops, accidentally closed the tab with my reply before posting. Anyway, I never said that it isn't possible to get malware if you browse safely. Indeed, that was the part of the analogy about it still being possible to get in a car accident no matter what. My point was that UAC only protects against some of the risks, and not every risk-lowering technique is worth it for every user. Another analogy could be car theft. Locking your car lowers the risk of theft. If you park your car in a shady area, it would be a good idea to lock it (though it might get stolen anyway). But if you live in a safe area and park it in a garage at night, locking it after you park it and before you walk into your house may not be worth it, particularly if this is a car without remote-controlled locking. Yes, locking the car technically lowers the risk of theft, but it may not be worth the inconvenience. (And also note that I mentioned that if you have UAC off and want to go to a shady site, you should take precautions such as using a Linux live CD - the equivalent of locking the car when parking in a shady area. Temporarily turning it on wouldn't be a bad idea, either, although depending on how shady of a site it is you might want to do more).

As one of my security professors said, security is about tradeoffs. Not all of them are worth it. Everyone at NBR has decided that accessing the Internet is worth the higher risk of computer malware, for example. Some people might occasionally use unsecured wireless networks. And so forth.

And while I don't work at Microsoft, I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't decide, "oh, this vulnerability doesn't affect you if you're using UAC, we're going to leave the barn door open." Microsoft surely realizes that UAC is not a silver bullet to stop computer infections; it would be foolish for them to not vulnerabilities by reasoning that it's less likely to be exploited if UAC is on. Also noteworthy is that "less likely with UAC on" doesn't mean UAC prevents it; social engineering can still easily bypass UAC.

More similar to walking around nude without sunscreen on the beach on a hot summer day would be running any of several Linux distributions designed for hacking as your daily OS. Damn Vulnerable Linux, at Damn Vulnerable Linux: [DVL]: How to Install DVL, for example. Not running UAC would be more like not putting on shoes when you cross the street to buy lunch from a food truck. You might step on glass and injure your foot, but unless the parking lot is full of glass, you'll probably be okay. Even with shoes, you might step on a particularly sharp piece of glass that cuts through your shoe and still injures your foot.

UAC is certainly useful for some users. I just don't think it's worth the tradeoff for everyone. And I suspect that many of the people for whom it is notably beneficial would get more benefit than they currently do from UAC by learning how to browse the Internet safely.

 

As for the inherit permissions option, I'm not sure how that works. Considering that I've been a member of a community for a game that stores all its mods in Program Files since a few months after Vista's release and have never heard that suggestion, that likely means that it's quite poorly known. Pulling up a folder on my work laptop with Win7, in this case C:\Program Files\Audacity, the most similar thing I see is if I go to the Security tab, then Advanced, then Change Permissions, and then there's an "Include inheritable permissions from this object's parent" check box. Is that the one you are referring to? If so, I'd guess it's the "Remove" option that would be appropriate for this scenario?

If so, that may be a decent option for those who wish to leave UAC enabled. But it's very difficult to discover. When someone wonders why their hard work disappeared when they definitely did click Save, they aren't going to think to look there. For that to really be an effective option, Windows would need to warn the user when they are trying to modify files in C:\Program Files that their changes won't apply there, and give instructions as to how to change that behavior if modifying files there is required. Currently, it just silently hides it with Virtual Store if UAC is enabled (or in some cases - probably programs that check the return value for their save call - reports that the save failed due to a permissions error without instructions about how to fix it).

That would solve one of my major complaints with UAC, if it were widely known, however - the "ignore this folder for crying out loud!" case. The other one is the "ALWAYS approve running this program as administrator" case. Nothing like developing in VB6 (not my first choice, but the pay was good) and always getting a UAC prompt when starting up your IDE half a dozen times a day. Ideally, it'd just be once, but some programs, like VB6's IDE, just aren't stable enough to last all day.

 

Why are we still arguing?

Let me just quote this rather well-written post: