One part of it is the gamers, but the other part of it is tools. The tools on windows are better. The only safety you have in the FOSS tools world is a potential to solve a tool bug yourself, which is not something people do on a practical level - it's hard to justify the time and cost to do so to an employer. This is actually a non-trivial hurdle: Why would companies build AAA titles for a platform with minimal adoption, all the while using a hodge-podge of tools with massive variation in quality to build it? Game devs are on windows because they generally don't have to fight the toolset to get things done. It's bad when you can say Emacs or Vim (with all the necessary plugins) is about the best "IDE" you can get on Linux. Anyone who thinks Eclipse is fantastic, I don't want to hear it - I've just had my workspace file corrupted - again - because Eclipse had an "error" while I modified some project settings. Fucking pile of garbage.
I'd just be happy to see some decent development suites on the Linux side. Given that eclipse is one of the biggest, and it's still terrible in terms of stability and speed, I'm convinced that 99% (1% is the Linux kernel) that "high quality open source" is really just an oxymoron.
iOS's UI and metro are two peas in the same pod. One uses icons, the other uses tiles. There's more power in the metro interface, but it's all tucked away and you need to be trained to find, but that's not an issue for some. On iOS, it's not there to find, but at least it makes for a very simple interface - More limited, but simpler, which for some is better. However, at least on non-iOS systems you can do obvious things like, plug it in to a computer and copy an mp3 to it just using OS tools. iOS requires iTunes for this most basic function. iTunes is a terrible piece of software, and the crap it drags on to your system with it and hijacks your media settings by default (bonjour service, quicktime, airplay service) makes it completely unacceptable as a medium just to copy your music to your device. The iTunes requirement make iOS less simple than Android or Win8.
In the case of a full EV like a Model S, you're also paying for all the fluids, belts, parts changes, spark plugs, oil, oil filters, starters, alternators, clutches, hoses, wires, brakes (if you know what you're doing), rotors, 12V batteries, mufflers, catalytic converters, etc. and all the associated labor. People don't actually get how expensive it is to actually maintain a gas vehicle, especially as it ages.
Also, in the case of the model S, it is priced in the same range as the cars it competes with. People spending that much on a car are already not very concerned about the price.
Windows on the desktop. Android on mobile. Yes, windows itself doesn't offer freedom, but the ability to build a high-powered machine trounces that. I have no problem using Windows until the Linux desktop is as good, which will happen eventually. Until then, I use a virtualized Linux instance which I connect to via Putty (or sometimes Mintty in Cygwin if I'm at work). Best of both worlds for me.
Perhaps you're not aware, but there is a large PC gaming market that is not interested in consoles, the main reason being something akin to "Mouse and keyboard pwn controllers". Also, these people can use their PC as their hotrod, and build and configure it to suit their desires or needs, while being able to upgrade it later. Consoles are closed-down, underpowered, highly limited gaming platforms. As for the games coming out for linux, so far that's very limited. However, if (hopefully) on day all games are running on Linux, watch as the PC gaming community just stops buying those OEM copies of windows. They'll love that because it saves money on one item that for them is just a system component, and it could make up the difference between a mid and high-end GPU.
I'm not a fan of the metro screen, but I don't hate it enough to go back to 7. All I care about is a flat search, which I guess is back in, a less jarring transition from desktop, and booting to desktop. All those issues are addressed. For those with touchscreens, Win8 is far better than 7. I have an HP touchsmart thats a few years old now. It's touchscreen wasn't very usable with 7's interface, it's fine with 8. I do like the concept of a single OS on all devices, and hence you get all the apps and content you buy in all locations automatically. However, MS is still falling short on that vision.
They want it because they can use things like office or the creative suite. They want it because it allows for far cheaper systems than their one main competitor (the other greedy, immoral company), they want it because games are written for it and it runs without issue on their gaming rigs.
And it used to be that laptops were a generation or two behind desktop machines. That gap has mostly been erased. You're conflating current technology status with trajectory. Tablets are slower now mostly due to battery limitations and heat issues. Those are not immutable limitations.
Running the same generation of technology is irrelevant. Laptops are power and heat constrained. Desktops are not. Laptops run scaled-down, power constrained versions of desktop hardware. Laptops have been running the same generation of hardware that desktop have been running for years now, and yet they aren't catching up, especially in the GPU arena. Tablets are even more constrained than laptops, this will cause them to always be behind. This is just physics.
And they have the disadvantages of not being portable. As for speed, I suspect in time that except for consumer and light office grade uses you'll find the performance gap will greatly diminish in a few years. I'm typing this on a PC built in 2005 which works just fine and isn't much faster than a lot of tablets on the market today. I do accounting, light graphics, work instructions, some pretty heavy spreadsheet work and more and there is no reason a tablet with a few peripherals attached could not do all the same stuff.
While I don't doubt it is possible to have a PC slower than a tablet, even now, that doesn't mean that desktops won't always have more power potential. Eventually CPU power may start to converge as we get close to a 2 nm process, so we can expect single-threaded task performance to converge. However, a desktop will not have the space limitations a tablet will have, so it will be a more powerful parallel machine. We already see this trend: Intel CPUs are not gaining the performance per generation that they used to, but GPUs are still increasing in capability by 30-40% every generation by just packing in more cores. From the GPU perspective, tablets and laptops are never, ever going to catch up to the desktop. Desktop GPUs have remained 50-100x faster than their tablet counterparts since the tablet first came on the market.
All modern PCs are more powerful than modern tablets, unless you're looking at netbooks. i7 series processors are in the 10 IPC range, compared to tablet ~3 IPC. For GPUs, there are sites that have already done that testing, such as this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6877/the-great-equalizer-part-3
Tablets are just an order of magnitude slower than PCs in CPU, and two orders of magnitude slower in terms of GPU.
Virtualize it, or run a windows partition on your hardware. If you're the type to let religion prevent you from using the right tools, then by all means, use a less than ideal solution to suit yourself.
They are fundamentally computing devices. Where they differ is in power potential. A tablet CPU now is as fast as a PC CPU 7-10 years ago. In GPU land, it's a far more vast gulf. Desktop-class PCs will always have the advantage of space, power, and cooling. They will always be faster. Ultimately, however, I do expect them to be much more expensive relative to tablets (ie. tablet prices have to drop a long ways down from where they are).
Casuals also sometimes make the switch to 'dedicated', too. Those people will probably stay on the most powerful platform with the best experience. That remains the PC to this day. There is also the PC enthusiast class, which is well correlated with the PC gaming class, and this market is actually growing.
I don't think so. Windows 8 already has a far higher percentage of the reported OSes than OSX according the their hardware survey. Gamers don't care about the OS, but they do care about performance. To them, the OS is just one part of many they put into their rigs, and price *is* an issue. Apple stuff is and always has been viewed by the gaming community as expensive, under-performing, and inflexible. If all games worked on linux gamers would simply put linux on their rigs and put the $100 saved into a better GPU or an SSD. If it comes down to it, gamers will go linux because that is the platform that properly embodies their mentality.
Slashdot Mirror
One part of it is the gamers, but the other part of it is tools. The tools on windows are better. The only safety you have in the FOSS tools world is a potential to solve a tool bug yourself, which is not something people do on a practical level - it's hard to justify the time and cost to do so to an employer. This is actually a non-trivial hurdle: Why would companies build AAA titles for a platform with minimal adoption, all the while using a hodge-podge of tools with massive variation in quality to build it? Game devs are on windows because they generally don't have to fight the toolset to get things done. It's bad when you can say Emacs or Vim (with all the necessary plugins) is about the best "IDE" you can get on Linux. Anyone who thinks Eclipse is fantastic, I don't want to hear it - I've just had my workspace file corrupted - again - because Eclipse had an "error" while I modified some project settings. Fucking pile of garbage.
I'd just be happy to see some decent development suites on the Linux side. Given that eclipse is one of the biggest, and it's still terrible in terms of stability and speed, I'm convinced that 99% (1% is the Linux kernel) that "high quality open source" is really just an oxymoron.
But it's dead simple to install a 3rd party start menu. Also, 8.1 boots to desktop, so now you don't need to see the new interface.
It's safe until you burn it. Then it changes the composition of the atmosphere. Safety is not guaranteed at that point.
Tesla cars can burn under certain conditions. I guess they really are just like all the other cars out there.
WindowsDesktop would also have a consumer variant, and would probably be profitable enough to carry at least a couple of the other items.
Now they do but it wasn't always this way. The damage has been done.
iOS's UI and metro are two peas in the same pod. One uses icons, the other uses tiles. There's more power in the metro interface, but it's all tucked away and you need to be trained to find, but that's not an issue for some. On iOS, it's not there to find, but at least it makes for a very simple interface - More limited, but simpler, which for some is better. However, at least on non-iOS systems you can do obvious things like, plug it in to a computer and copy an mp3 to it just using OS tools. iOS requires iTunes for this most basic function. iTunes is a terrible piece of software, and the crap it drags on to your system with it and hijacks your media settings by default (bonjour service, quicktime, airplay service) makes it completely unacceptable as a medium just to copy your music to your device. The iTunes requirement make iOS less simple than Android or Win8.
In the case of a full EV like a Model S, you're also paying for all the fluids, belts, parts changes, spark plugs, oil, oil filters, starters, alternators, clutches, hoses, wires, brakes (if you know what you're doing), rotors, 12V batteries, mufflers, catalytic converters, etc. and all the associated labor. People don't actually get how expensive it is to actually maintain a gas vehicle, especially as it ages. Also, in the case of the model S, it is priced in the same range as the cars it competes with. People spending that much on a car are already not very concerned about the price.
He's not a MS shill, he's just a dumbass detector.
Macs are on the decline. The alternative people see is the iPad. The only growth in the PC arena currently is with Lenovo and custom-built machines.
I'm pretty sure Slashdot is one of the most anti-MS sites there is. If MS were smart, they would always be paying close attention to it.
It's not perfect, but unfortunately for almost all of us, it's the best option, outside of just getting an iPad.
Windows on the desktop. Android on mobile. Yes, windows itself doesn't offer freedom, but the ability to build a high-powered machine trounces that. I have no problem using Windows until the Linux desktop is as good, which will happen eventually. Until then, I use a virtualized Linux instance which I connect to via Putty (or sometimes Mintty in Cygwin if I'm at work). Best of both worlds for me.
It's not quite that bad. You'll be able to upgrade from RTM to final in-place, but you'll have to reinstall all your apps and desktop applications. If you just wait until the final release, you won't have to reinstall anything. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-8.1-Windows-RT-Public-Preview-TechED-Michael-Niehaus,22985.html
Perhaps you're not aware, but there is a large PC gaming market that is not interested in consoles, the main reason being something akin to "Mouse and keyboard pwn controllers". Also, these people can use their PC as their hotrod, and build and configure it to suit their desires or needs, while being able to upgrade it later. Consoles are closed-down, underpowered, highly limited gaming platforms. As for the games coming out for linux, so far that's very limited. However, if (hopefully) on day all games are running on Linux, watch as the PC gaming community just stops buying those OEM copies of windows. They'll love that because it saves money on one item that for them is just a system component, and it could make up the difference between a mid and high-end GPU.
I'm not a fan of the metro screen, but I don't hate it enough to go back to 7. All I care about is a flat search, which I guess is back in, a less jarring transition from desktop, and booting to desktop. All those issues are addressed. For those with touchscreens, Win8 is far better than 7. I have an HP touchsmart thats a few years old now. It's touchscreen wasn't very usable with 7's interface, it's fine with 8. I do like the concept of a single OS on all devices, and hence you get all the apps and content you buy in all locations automatically. However, MS is still falling short on that vision.
They want it because they can use things like office or the creative suite. They want it because it allows for far cheaper systems than their one main competitor (the other greedy, immoral company), they want it because games are written for it and it runs without issue on their gaming rigs.
And it used to be that laptops were a generation or two behind desktop machines. That gap has mostly been erased. You're conflating current technology status with trajectory. Tablets are slower now mostly due to battery limitations and heat issues. Those are not immutable limitations.
Running the same generation of technology is irrelevant. Laptops are power and heat constrained. Desktops are not. Laptops run scaled-down, power constrained versions of desktop hardware. Laptops have been running the same generation of hardware that desktop have been running for years now, and yet they aren't catching up, especially in the GPU arena. Tablets are even more constrained than laptops, this will cause them to always be behind. This is just physics.
And they have the disadvantages of not being portable. As for speed, I suspect in time that except for consumer and light office grade uses you'll find the performance gap will greatly diminish in a few years. I'm typing this on a PC built in 2005 which works just fine and isn't much faster than a lot of tablets on the market today. I do accounting, light graphics, work instructions, some pretty heavy spreadsheet work and more and there is no reason a tablet with a few peripherals attached could not do all the same stuff.
While I don't doubt it is possible to have a PC slower than a tablet, even now, that doesn't mean that desktops won't always have more power potential. Eventually CPU power may start to converge as we get close to a 2 nm process, so we can expect single-threaded task performance to converge. However, a desktop will not have the space limitations a tablet will have, so it will be a more powerful parallel machine. We already see this trend: Intel CPUs are not gaining the performance per generation that they used to, but GPUs are still increasing in capability by 30-40% every generation by just packing in more cores. From the GPU perspective, tablets and laptops are never, ever going to catch up to the desktop. Desktop GPUs have remained 50-100x faster than their tablet counterparts since the tablet first came on the market.
All modern PCs are more powerful than modern tablets, unless you're looking at netbooks. i7 series processors are in the 10 IPC range, compared to tablet ~3 IPC. For GPUs, there are sites that have already done that testing, such as this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6877/the-great-equalizer-part-3 Tablets are just an order of magnitude slower than PCs in CPU, and two orders of magnitude slower in terms of GPU.
You might be right. Unity enables the creation of games that are true shit.
Virtualize it, or run a windows partition on your hardware. If you're the type to let religion prevent you from using the right tools, then by all means, use a less than ideal solution to suit yourself.
They are fundamentally computing devices. Where they differ is in power potential. A tablet CPU now is as fast as a PC CPU 7-10 years ago. In GPU land, it's a far more vast gulf. Desktop-class PCs will always have the advantage of space, power, and cooling. They will always be faster. Ultimately, however, I do expect them to be much more expensive relative to tablets (ie. tablet prices have to drop a long ways down from where they are).
Casuals also sometimes make the switch to 'dedicated', too. Those people will probably stay on the most powerful platform with the best experience. That remains the PC to this day. There is also the PC enthusiast class, which is well correlated with the PC gaming class, and this market is actually growing.
I don't think so. Windows 8 already has a far higher percentage of the reported OSes than OSX according the their hardware survey. Gamers don't care about the OS, but they do care about performance. To them, the OS is just one part of many they put into their rigs, and price *is* an issue. Apple stuff is and always has been viewed by the gaming community as expensive, under-performing, and inflexible. If all games worked on linux gamers would simply put linux on their rigs and put the $100 saved into a better GPU or an SSD. If it comes down to it, gamers will go linux because that is the platform that properly embodies their mentality.