"Blizzard Games Will Stop Working on Older Windows Versions"

[Deleted]

There are always drawbacks. What's important is that 95% of the changes is movement forward and just 5% is movement back. Welcome to real life.

Good joke. More like 95% is useless improvements barely anyone even notices and 5% works even against you. For example who cares about vastly improved hdd preformance when you run ssd anyway? You can't sell features people don't need.

[8bithamster]

Good joke. More like 95% is useless improvements barely anyone even notices and 5% works even against you. For example who cares about vastly improved hdd preformance when you run ssd anyway? You can't sell features people don't need.

Please... please be joking. You can't be serious here right? Please?

/headdesk.. as someone who works in IT for a living, I can tell you how stupid and ignorant this thought is.. wow..

Incoming: "Lawl i was totally being sarcastic haha scrub you fell for it"

[Deleted]

Please... please be joking. You can't be serious here right? Please?

/headdesk.. as someone who works in IT for a living, I can tell you how stupid and ignorant this thought is.. wow..

Incoming: "Lawl i was totally being sarcastic haha scrub you fell for it"

So you fail at your job? Sorry to hear that. It's factual after all that it did barely anything for ssd's and most have one nowadays.
Hell you could even compare overall system performance and what did you get? Do you really want to peddle it as some huge improvement?
It matters fuck all, especially if you play older games like wow where your hardware from 5 years ago is already enough.

[tss]

Indeed, anyone who values performance would have upgraded to at least 8 or greater.

This post, your signature, and your avatar. You should be run over by a commuter train.

[HuxNeva]

There are always drawbacks. What's important is that 95% of the changes is movement forward and just 5% is movement back. Welcome to real life.

What if 95% of the improvements are irrelevant to me, but the 5% drawbacks realy hurt? I'm quite happy with Windows7. I don't like the post 7 UX, I don't like the tie-ins. I have 0 compelling reasons to migrate to 10. How many fps improvement are we talking about here? I can see kernel improvements, especially for edge cases. Not much in it for the old laptop gamer tough.

[rda]

Good joke. More like 95% is useless improvements barely anyone even notices and 5% works even against you. For example who cares about vastly improved hdd preformance when you run ssd anyway? You can't sell features people don't need.

We were talking about performance. For that, Windows 8 is more than 95% movement forward alright.

If you have issues with the UI or other things, I understand. Many people have issues with that, me included. (FWIW, Windows 10 largely solved all that, at least in my opinion.) But that's different from performance. With respect to performance, Windows 8 was a very real upgrade, period.

- - - Updated - - -

What if 95% of the improvements are irrelevant to me, but the 5% drawbacks realy hurt? I'm quite happy with Windows7. I don't like the post 7 UX, I don't like the tie-ins. I have 0 compelling reasons to migrate to 10. How many fps improvement are we talking about here? I can see kernel improvements, especially for edge cases. Not much in it for the old laptop gamer tough.

Just replied to the same point. In short - no issues with that. Yes, performance is not the only thing that matters. That's why many people skipped the upgrade to Windows 8 and went from Windows 7 straight to Windows 10.

PS: If we are talking about moving from Windows 7 to Windows 10 on an old laptop, then that perhaps won't bring much in terms of performance. Let that laptop stay on Windows 7. But for a new system, get Windows 10, absolutely.

[Deleted]

We were talking about performance. For that, Windows 8 is more than 95% movement forward alright.

If you have issues with the UI or other things, I understand. Many people have issues with that, me included. (FWIW, Windows 10 largely solved all that, at least in my opinion.) But that's different from performance. With respect to performance, Windows 8 was a very real upgrade, period.

- - - Updated - - -



Just replied to the same point. In short - no issues with that. Yes, performance is not the only thing that matters. That's why many people skipped the upgrade to Windows 8 and went straight to Windows 10.

How do you describe something like this


as 95% improvement please? That's below 10% and as i said - you simply don't need that small boost in our current enviroment. So the problem of UI & other changes remain as the sole decision point.

[haxartus]

No, you don't. Patches are not applied until you reboot the system. You will automatically install whatever the maintainer puts into the security repository, without any control over it.

Why do you need the source code? You are unqualified even to read it, leave aside changing or fixing it.

1. Patches are applied immediately, unless it's a kernel patch, which requires a reboot.
2. I have a few years of development experience in C, so I'd say I can read Linux source code fairly well

[Tackhisis]

What is the use of the fourth value of the coff header?

It contains 0.

[rda]

How do you describe something like this ... as 95% improvement please? That's below 10% and as i said - you simply don't need that small boost in our current enviroment. So the problem of UI & other changes remain as the sole decision point.

You apply 95% to the wrong thing. The point was that changes related to performance that they (Microsoft and others) do are nearly always good. The few bads are regressions that are taken care of in patches, typically, quickly.

Your picture shows that the performance improvements in the part you are interested in - gaming - aren't automatic. Games have to adjust to take them. Yes, this is true, I'd have told you that without charts. But when they will take those improvements, they will run much faster on Windows 10 than on previous versions.

[Tackhisis]

1. Patches are applied immediately

No, they are not. The package manager create new files which are not used until all processes are terminated and all unlinked files are closed. The patched files will not be found until then.

[kaelleria]

1. Patches are applied immediately, unless it's a kernel patch, which requires a reboot.
2. I have a few years of development experience in C, so I'd say I can read Linux source code fairly well

Then go back to Linux as you're not contributing anything to this conversation except recycled FUD.

[rda]

No, they are not. The package manager create new files which are not used until all processes are terminated and all unlinked files are closed. The patched files will not be found until then.

(a drive-by comment) ...and if the patched files are used by an always-on system daemon, that will happen only after a reboot. The Windows solution: ask for a reboot. The Linux solution: ignore that the system stays unpatched before a reboot and do nothing. (Then optionally boast about the system never asking for a reboot, unlike that damn Windows that is so annoying...)

[haxartus]

No, they are not. The package manager create new files which are not used until all processes are terminated and all unlinked files are closed. The patched files will not be found until then.

Which doesn't require a reboot of the machine, just the service. Unless it's a kernel patch.

[Xjev]

Stopping support is different than "stop working"

[Zoneseek]

If you can't even be running an OS from the last decade, pack it in with PC and just buy a console.

[Deleted]

You apply 95% to the wrong thing. The point was that changes related to performance that they (Microsoft and others) do are nearly always good. The few bads are regressions that are taken care of in patches, typically, quickly.

Your picture shows that the performance improvements in the part you are interested in - gaming - aren't automatic. Games have to adjust to take them. Yes, this is true, I'd have told you that without charts. But when they will take those improvements, they will run much faster on Windows 10 than on previous versions.

The question here is how much that costs (the new pipeline is more work after all) and whether devs are willing to pay it or if they rather invest devtime elsewhere in features that net them more customers. You can look exemplary at multi-core usage. The motto is "good enough" and especially with multi-plat development going cutting-edge went out of style. Maybe with the next console iteration.

[rda]

The question here is how much that costs (the new pipeline is more work after all) and whether devs are willing to pay it or if they rather invest devtime elsewhere in features that net them more customers. You can look exemplary at multi-core usage. The motto is "good enough" and especially with multi-plat development going cutting-edge went out of style. Maybe with the next console iteration.

If we are talking about switching to DX 12, then it costs a lot (of dev time) and the worst thing is that the success is not assured, shall I say. You have to rethink what you are doing and it is very likely that in order to get perf benefits you will have to change more than you anticipated.

But the future is definitely there, in DX 12. Or Vulcan, if you will, it's the same thing speaking at large. New games should aim for the features that DX 12 / Vulcan offer, it's a no brainer. And further versions of both will help.

[MrHappy]

What? As an IT professional, i hate windows 10, and i "hate" any of our clients who use windows 10. Its literally problems on top of problems on top of problems. Every update i spend 1 week fixing issues on clients pcs(via remote control like logmein or teamviewer) caused by windows 10 update. Printers stop working, win 10 no longer recognizing them, network not working, PCs not seeing each other, settings changing on their own or resetting to defaults etc. Win 7? No issues, everything works, can see everything, all drivers are out there(and that is funny, because literally every client has 1 pc with win7 for all the stuff that wont work on win10, and they have to switch to it completely for a while every update/change in win10 till its fixed on all their other pcs). Win7, set them once, its set forever and everything works.
In couple of years since win 10 became the only option, ive had more issues with them and had to work more fixing stuff than with whole lifespan of win xp and win 7 combined.

Ive got in fight with my boss who got windows 10 on everything in our company, as he is like "its new, and faster", and then i have to deal with all the issues. Hell, recently i had to remove win 10 from one PC and install win7 that no one works on, just for certain stuff that just cant be done and doesnt work on win 10.
Funny enough, now couple of years afterwards, he(boss) hates it and is threatening buying Macs or going Linux, because he has issues on win10 literally every single day. And my PC still has win 7, and i had no issues since i installed them. Everything needed for work in our company works on my pc with 7, and is either insane trouble and days or weeks wasted trying to get it to work on win10 or we never get it to work at all (the reason why i had to put win7 on one new pc just so people that need to do some of those things can just sit at that pc and do it, and not bother me with it all the time).

I facepalm every time i see someone saying "just get win 10, its much better". They are probably worse than even win8 and vista, yet so many are forcing them on everyone. I dislike that win 7 removed some features and options that xp had(their ongoing crusade against features and options, as everything has to be for noobs so they cant mess stuff up, but us who know how to make use of those features, screw us. And thats been just worse and worse with 8 and now 10), but win7 is still light years ahead of win10. I just dont see how can anyone in their right mind recommend win10 to anyone, unless they have something to gain from it of course, or its your only pc and you do nothing at all on it except gaming.
Or those that just check mail, use word and stuff like that, the most basic of things. Stuff that windows are made for now. Anything other than basics and its became worse and worse with each new release.

Only hope is that win7 will last until they release good ones again. 8 and 10 are just garbage(design wise) and just spawn more problems.

Cool story bro. But your issue is not windows 10 its your company's outdated software that has compatibility issues. So really the issue here is the developers not releasing new version or your boss not wanting to buy the new release. Otherwise your story is bullshit. Mac's have even faster release schedules than windows so your issues would be compounded and if you can run linux then i don't know why are we having a windows debate. I'm genuinely curious what can't be done on 10 that you do on 7?

[8bithamster]

So you fail at your job? Sorry to hear that. It's factual after all that it did barely anything for ssd's and most have one nowadays.
Hell you could even compare overall system performance and what did you get? Do you really want to peddle it as some huge improvement?
It matters fuck all, especially if you play older games like wow where your hardware from 5 years ago is already enough.

We have a european company, we have a ton of laptops, desktops etc without SSD's.. so our company fails? hahahahahahaha.. you're adorable

Then again, we all use Windows 10 here without issues. Because we know what to do with it.