backtop


Print 80 comment(s) - last by Ammohunt.. on Oct 22 at 10:58 PM


Q1 2013 likely left Microsoft's Ballmer sweaty and frustrated.  (Source: YouTube)
Some divisions profit, but Microsoft faces uncertainty as it races ahead to Windows/Windows Phone 8

Earnings week for the tech industry has brought a lot of bad news, with a few pleasant surprises (like Intel Corp. (INTC)).  Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFTearnings definitely fall into the "bad news" category.

Microsoft, which operates two fiscal quarters ahead of the calendar quarter, saw itself narrowly miss analyst targets in both revenue and net income (profit).  The company pulled in $4.47B USD (expected: $4.72B USD) in profit on revenue of $16.008 USD (expected: $16.416B USD).

A key to the miss was plunging revenue from the Windows unit, which saw a big drop in Windows 7 sales.  Microsoft better hope that predictions of Windows 7 being the "next Windows XP" aren't true, because it's counting on Windows 8 to revive sales, with movement of the once-sterling Windows 7 slowing to a sluggish pace.

Steve Ballmer, chief executive officer at Microsoft, roared at his critics, commenting in the earnings release, "The launch of Windows 8 is the beginning of a new era at Microsoft.  Investments we’ve made over a number of years are now coming together to create a future of exceptional devices and services, with tremendous opportunity for our customers, developers, and partners."

Windows 8 Upgarde
Microsoft is currently selling Windows 8 upgrades via pre-order.

Microsoft did defer $1.36B USD (as it typically does) in pre-order revenue from its Windows Upgrade Offer program.  Windows 8 official launches next Friday on Oct. 26.

One bright spot in the earnings report was Microsoft's servers unit, which saw an 8 percent bump on revenue, mainly on big growth in SQL Server and System Center.  And in the also-somewhat-good news category, Bing and the online service division crept a bit closer to no longer being massive money losers, with revenue 9%, driven by a 15% increase in revenue per-click.  That's particularly good as the dominant force in the search market, Google Inc. (GOOG), saw a large decrease in revenue per-click after traffic acquisition costs (TAC).

The Entertainment and Devices division earnings were a revenue draw (down 1 percent).  It is currently focused on reviving Microsoft's smartphone bid with Windows Phone 8, which launches next week.  It also was able to brag that the Xbox 360 remains sales king of the American consoles market, with a 49 percent estimated market share.  The Xbox 360's successor, which some are expecting to be named the Xbox 720, is not expected to land until sometime in late 2013 or early 2014.
HTC Windows Phone 8X
Windows Phone 8 launches next week. [Images: Nokia (left), HTC (right)]

Microsoft remains one of the best earning and most successfully diversified hardware/software giants in the consumer electronics industry.  However, it continues to be defined by the burden of high expectations, speculation, and intense scrutiny surroundings its "misses".

Shares of Microsoft were hammered in morning trading, down almost 3 percent to $28.70 USD/share.

Sources: Microsoft, FT [analyst estimates]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Misty Dingos on 10/19/2012 12:52:56 PM , Rating: 1
I really hope that Microsoft continues this innovation in the OS sector. I am not saying that Windows 8 is the the best thing since sliced bread but be honest. It is a real change in a market that really hasn't changed (other than speed and gimmicks) in about forever. Forever in this case means Windows 95. And I will include Apple in this also. When was the last real change to the GUI?

We have hardware that in 1995 would seem like science fiction but the interface is almost exactly the same.




By kattanna on 10/19/2012 2:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because using the same one for 20 years isn't cutting it.


and just how is it holding you back?

and just in what ways does the new overly busy interface help expand computing?


By andrewaggb on 10/19/2012 3:28:44 PM , Rating: 3
Because windows xp and 7 tablets sold so well!

There is nothing wrong with the desktop for desktop pc's, which is why windows 8 still has it with minor improvements. Realistically it's not going away, probably ever. Stuff like visual studio won't ever make sense in metro or touch. The server products likewise.

But for touch computers you need a new interface with apps specifically designed for touch.

For battery powered computers they are understanding that they need instant wake, connected stand by, and minimal multi-tasking.

I think MS is headed in the right direction. Windows 8 gets them started, Windows 9 will probably get it right.

So far windows 8 is working well for me. The hot corners in desktop is a bit weird, but it also keeps things consistent with the new way of doing things.


By 91TTZ on 10/19/2012 4:00:43 PM , Rating: 5
Windows 8 looks good on tablets. I think the main concern that people have is that Microsoft is forcing that UI on the vast majority of the public that uses PCs. Microsoft has more than 90% of the PC market and now we're all expected to run a tablet-optimized OS on it? No thanks.


By Sazabi19 on 10/19/2012 4:09:49 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly! How hard would it be to have it bundled with a "regular" Windows 8 and then an option of installing a Windows 8 *Touch*. This would solve so many problems and get this UI out of my desktop environment. Though I still have a beef with my Start menu being taken away and the weird obtuse way of navigating the OS now. Everyone knows, if I press the "x" the window will close, it's universal and now they are going to rip that from under us? Move the window down all the way and it will close it? I do that sometimes to just move it out of the way for a second to look at something behind it but keep it the active window, this isn't helpful. Want to have several windows up and once and just bring 1 down to look at another with Metro? Too bad. No true multitasking for you.


By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:29:37 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, there should be two 100% compatible versions of windows, a metro version and a desktop version. Let people with PCs choose which one they want.


By marvdmartian on 10/22/2012 11:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
This. Don't know about anyone else, but I don't necessarily want to move away from Windows 7 right now, and having ONLY the choice of Windows 8 on a new computer might very well cause me to look in another direction.

Might be that Microsoft's actions will end up being a boon for Linux!


By Maiyr on 10/20/2012 9:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft is forcing that UI on the vast majority of the public that uses PCs


This seems to be what a lot of people think, but I just do not get it. I have been using Win8 RP since it came out on my laptop and the only time I ever see Metro is when I decide to see it; which is mostly never. When my laptop boots or comes out of sleep it goes directly to the desktop. It does not go to Metro. I use my laptop the same way I did with Win7. Anyone that wants a start button can install this for free.

http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

Metro does not have to be used at all. I can only think that folks that are saying Metro is an issue really just haven't even installed Win8.

To each their own, but I like the option of having a different "interface" available should I so choose to use it.

Maiyr


By augiem on 10/20/2012 3:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Metro does not have to be used at all. I can only think that folks that are saying Metro is an issue really just haven't even installed Win8.


Blanket assumptions are almost always wrong. I've installed Windows 8 three different times during its development and could not stand the workflow. Just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it won't bother someone else.


By kitfox on 10/21/2012 9:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed his point. With the apps we have now, metro is completely optional.


By vol7ron on 10/19/2012 4:17:51 PM , Rating: 2
You know, one of the things I was hoping for with Windows 7 was a free, decent hypervisor. Not just the ability to run an application "in" XP.

There really isn't much difference in the interfaces of OS X and Windows 7, but Windows 8 does take things in a new direction, which I'm also a fan of, if I can quickly get back up to speed in my tasks. Automation and customization was one of MS's best features - the new interface could mean a start from scratch. And a start from scratch might mean, re-evaluate all the options on the market again, not just sticking with Windows.

One of my biggest peeves about the new interface is cosmetic. For some reason the two-tone, square icons really irritate me and I don't know why. I hope you can customize those, but I'm not a huge fan of squares - yes I'd even prefer triangles :) On the other hand, it's fluid free-movement between zones/pages.

Now, one the that impressed me with OS X was all the programs that came installed with it. There was postgres, perl, apache, mysql, php, ruby, python, git - the list goes on. There were about 150 pre-installed applications that were actually useful, which Windows doesn't come with. Not only was it nice to have them, but it saves so much time when setting your environments back up. They're right at your fingertips. Other than that, I feel that Windows is much more responsive (no waiting or errors that OSX seems to have).


By Labotomizer on 10/20/2012 7:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
You're forgetting Hyper V 3.0. Which is an enterprise grade Type 1 hypervisor you're getting for free. And it works insanely well. I've even built up VMs on my Windows 8 workstation and then moved them to our Hyper V cluster once I have everything the way I want it. That way I can work on the plane or in the hotel room without depending on connectivity back to the network until I actually need it. And vice versa, I could take a Windows 8 laptop and move a few VMs to it in a pinch if I absolutely had to.


By Sazabi19 on 10/19/2012 2:35:04 PM , Rating: 4
Why is not staying with the current scheme feasible? The OS is just the base of your computer, the UI, nothing more, nothing less. It is the placeholder and pointer for every application on your computer. It is there to simply give you pictures to make everything easier. There doesn't need to be a huge overhaul like this. Give me some awesome under the hood refinements in speed and efficiency and I would be incredibly happy. There is no reason to have Metro unless you like the look of it, I do not but I do like Aero with the frosted glass outline that I can see through. I don't need pretty crap for my computer, it is nice but not needed. Optimize Win 7 and we have a deal, but not with Win 8. I've been using it on my laptop since dev preview and have not liked it yet. There is such a huge learning curve in it that its ridiculous. The only reason it boots faster is because it loads nothing accept the start screen. If you go to the desktop it still takes just as long because it then loads everything else. There was no reason to pull the start menu out at all. Have the Metro junk and everything else as AN OPTION, don't force it on us. It is nice for touch devices sure, but not on my desktop or laptop. I hope Win 8 falls flat on its face, hard. Maybe then they will say sorry for trying to force this on us and make Win 9 better again.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/19/2012 3:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
Very very well said. Under the hood optimizations and streamlining of the existing UI is what really matters, not reinventing the wheel into something that isn't any better or is worse than what exists.


By zero2dash on 10/19/2012 4:12:02 PM , Rating: 1
Upvote this man!

I've played around with 8 in VM's several times and I cannot stand it. I don't have a touchscreen and I don't want Facebook integration in Windows. I will continue using 7 for the foreseeable future.

I think the argument of "they need to change" is laughable. Why do they need to change? To appease tablets and smartphones? Even Apple, in their high and mighty "we know what's best for people" mantra, wasn't dumb enough to try to bastardize OS X across all platforms; they forked off iOS, just like Microsoft should have forked off Metro. Clearly they didn't want to do that, however, but they STILL could have saved all this outcry by giving users the option to forego Metro in favor of "classic Windows" in OOBE/setup.


By JohnWPB on 10/19/2012 10:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
I ran out of votes before I got to this one, so alas, all I can do is add to the agreement, that MS opens it's eyes and starts listening to the vast majority of users, that DO NOT want a touch screen desktop, with some really stupid ideas, for a desktop OS.

Come on MS, wake up before you lose more fans!


By Labotomizer on 10/20/2012 7:30:50 AM , Rating: 5
Severely lacking in forward thinking.

You need to understand the trends and the way computing is going in general and then, perhaps, it will make sense. The funny thing is having two options is exactly what you have in Windows 8. The desktop is still there. It still works like it did it Windows 95 through 7. Are you really saying the lack of a little glowing orb in the bottom left has changed the desktop that drastically? How can you be so small minded? The Start Screen functions EXACTLY like the Start Menu, only you have larger choices, more information, etc. And since, like I did with Windows 7, I have my desktop icons turned off on Windows 8 and all my high usage apps pinned to the start menu, I see the start screen a couple times a day at most. And usually it involves hitting the Windows Key on the keyboard, which has always been the more efficient way of acccessing the start menu, and typing "cmd", right click, Run as Administrator. And occasionally to get to the Hyper V manager and some control panel settings. All of which are done through search. In no way is it slower than the previous way.

But back to the forward thinking. Mobile device processing power is advancing in leaps and bounds. By the time Windows 9 is in full swing, say ~4 years from now, it's unlikely the vast majority of users will even buy a PC anymore. You'll buy a dock for your phone or tablet that may have additional storage and processing power. Perhaps even an external GPU. You'll connect that to your monitor/TV/Keyboard and Mouse. When you're using that you'll have access to all your mobile apps via the new UI and access to all your legacy stuff with the old desktop.

Especially if Intel has its way and it really takes off on x86 highly mobile chips. Their architecture is already setup in such a way that they could accomplish this today with Thunderbolt. Guess what we're missing though. A UI that can bridge the gap between mobile/touch screen and desktop. That's why Windows 8 is what it is. I can't believe so few people lack the mental processing power to understand such a basic concept. How is the current UI holding us back? By not allowing us to have a truely mobile device that can also be a true production powerhouse when needed.


By Labotomizer on 10/20/2012 7:32:23 AM , Rating: 2
Wish we had edit - I have them pinned to the task bar. Not the start menu.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2012 9:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But back to the forward thinking. Mobile device processing power is advancing in leaps and bounds. By the time Windows 9 is in full swing, say ~4 years from now, it's unlikely the vast majority of users will even buy a PC anymore. You'll buy a dock for your phone or tablet that may have additional storage and processing power. Perhaps even an external GPU. You'll connect that to your monitor/TV/Keyboard and Mouse. When you're using that you'll have access to all your mobile apps via the new UI and access to all your legacy stuff with the old desktop.


I bet you a thousand dollars, straight up, that this won't be a reality by the time Windows 9 (or whatever comes after 8) hits the market.

There's "forward thinking" and there's just wild unrealistic predictions. PC's aren't just going away, certainly not that soon.


By delphinus100 on 10/20/2012 1:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. It isn't all a matter of processing power. For those who want to do something productive, and not just consume media, there are certain ergonomic issues that push you back to something that at least looks like a PC on a (literal) desktop, and also don't lend themselves to tablets/smartphones, or assume (or even require) continuous broadband Internet connections.


By 91TTZ on 10/19/2012 3:39:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The really funny thing is so few people who are complaining about Windows 8 even remember how it was during the transition from DOS to Windows 95


The transition wasn't from DOS to Windows 95. Nearly everyone had Windows 3.1 first.

DOS-Windows 3.1-Windows 95. There were others, but they didn't really catch on.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/19/2012 4:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
It is a ridiculous comparison either way. One is a move from CL to GUI, the other is taking an existing GUI and compromising its mouse and keyboard input.


By themaster08 on 10/20/2012 3:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's obvious why Microsoft are doing it this way. They need to do this in order to leverage their ecosystem.

If Microsoft simply released its OS strictly for tablets it would likely see the same success as Windows Phone. Whilst the product itself may be fantastic, people are not interested. People know what an iPad is, and to a lesser extent, know some Android tablets. People go with what they know. The competition is much too dominant and have much larger ecosystems of applications and other media content.

PC sales have already taken a nosedive. This is not something Microsoft can sustain. Even if Microsoft released a new OS with similar interface as Windows 7, to the average consumer, it would be more of the same, and they'd simply purchase an iPad, or an Android tablet. At least with Windows 8 it can usher in an entire host of new devices to get people interested in the PC market again.

Of course there are going to be many people that will be pissed off by this, but Microsoft are not the type of company to relegate themselves solely to the enterprise. Whilst what Microsoft is doing will not please everyone, as a company, it is something they have to do in order to stay relevant. People will adapt. As always, it takes time. Windows 8 may turn into the next Vista, but I don't think Microsoft will mind, because that will still be hundreds of millions of PC/device sales, and a massive leverage for their ecosystem.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/21/2012 12:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that this is a "trojan horse" method of getting their desktop OS, which will sell well no matter what, into tablets.

The iPad is the only reason why this is all happening.

Microsoft watched Apple singlehandedly kill netbooks and help flatten traditional PC sales (the Mac excluded since MBP sales continue to grow). That scared the daylights out of a company whose business still depends primarily on desktop Windows and Office. If the iPad becomes the lingua franca of computing, Microsoft is relegated to a sideshow.

And to be totally clear, obviously this wouldn't replace the desktop/workstation segment. Even Steve Jobs in his whole "post PC world" thing said something to the effect of "you'll always need a truck" when referring to desktops and laptops.

But replace the need to have a desktop or laptop for a large number of users? Quite possibly. At the very least it would reduce the need for multiple computers in a household, and this move is Microsoft trying to make sure they have their foot in these sorts of devices. They may not be sticking the execution in terms of clearly segmenting desktops and tablets, but as per usual they'll iterate until they get it right.


By Labotomizer on 10/20/2012 7:35:59 AM , Rating: 2
Win 3.1 was a program running on DOS. DOS still existed and was at the core. And the complaints about moving to the GUI is exactly what these complaints sound like now. Trust me, I worked with people who echoed statements exactly like what I hear in these comments. "Microsoft needs to leave my DOS alone, keep it running so I can keep using it, it's faster than Windows and I can do more" blah blah blah. And yes, the move to an OS that can finally bring us unified computing devices that can cover all needs is an equal step as moving from CL to GUI.


By Spuke on 10/19/2012 6:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's a good thing to push the UI in new directions.
I agree with you but most people don't like change and some don't like ANY change. You hear "reasons" why and they seem logical but if you go back a few years, you'll see the similarities. IMO, it's why iOS hasn't changed cause people don't like that. I do like the fact that there are new things (be they ideas, products, services) to satisfy those of us that don't mind change. I'd be bored sh!tless if there wasn't. MS is taking a big chance with Win8. I hope they pull it off but we'll see.


By delphinus100 on 10/20/2012 1:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree completely. The really funny thing is so few people who are complaining about Windows 8 even remember how it was during the transition from DOS to Windows 95.


Uh, some of us went through Windows 3.x on the way to 95. I can still find my 'Windows 3.11 For Dummies' that has an introductory section on Windows 95. It was truly not a step of the same magnitude...


By Hieyeck on 10/21/2012 12:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
The train of thought has been, and always will be: Is the current UI setup broke? No? Don't fix.

Yes people griped about DOS > Win, but you forget that it was still DOS based. What they SHOULD be doing is taking Win7, and throwing Metro on top, just like the transition from DOS > WIN if they're looking to evaluate a new design. It took 4 versions of Windows to really get people over to a GUI from DOS, I don't expect people's mentality to change.

Remember that fiasco with Office 2007? Look where 2010 went. Right back to 2003, except the file menu is now a shiny button instead. For all intents and purposes, there has been no change.


By MrBungle123 on 10/21/2012 12:39:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes people griped about DOS > Win, but you forget that it was still DOS based. What they SHOULD be doing is taking Win7, and throwing Metro on top, just like the transition from DOS > WIN if they're looking to evaluate a new design. It took 4 versions of Windows to really get people over to a GUI from DOS, I don't expect people's mentality to change.


ummm... isn't that basically what Win 8 is? At its core its basically Win 7.5 except the UI has this extra layer of crap on top of it getting in your way all the time.

Windows offered some clear advantages over DOS that made the trouble of learning the new UI worth it... Multitasking, more intuitive file management, and a much shallower learning curve for new users are huge advantages. What does Metro offer that the desktop does not? Better multitasking? --nope multitasking functionality in a pure Metro environment is inferior to the desktop. Better file management? --nope, they send you back to the desktop to do that stuff. Shallower learning curve? --debatable, but 95% of the computing world already knows how to navigate windows... 100% of all windows users will have some growing pains adjusting to the new UI..

Lets face it, unless you're a touch user, its going to be a bunch of trouble learning a new UI so you can have inferior multitasking capability, an extra layer of stuff to click past to manage your files, and you gain very little beyond a new version of task manager and some more informative file copy dialogs...

quote:
Remember that fiasco with Office 2007? Look where 2010 went. Right back to 2003, except the file menu is now a shiny button instead. For all intents and purposes, there has been no change.


No, the ribon that most users dispised in 2007 is still there in 2010/2013. All this shows is that MS will do what they want no matter how much the userbase complains.


By lyeoh on 10/21/2012 3:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
If you can come up with a touchscreen UI that allows something like Starcraft/WoW/Excel/Photoshop to be used much better then I think you will have made an advance in UI. If you haven't then go back to Angry Birds and stop bothering the rest of us.

Windows 95 was not a push in new directions. Go see the Mother of All Demos video.

The next real step would be a combination of thought macros and gestures. It will look like magic.

Touchscreen is fine for simple consumer stuff, but it is not an _advance_. And it is not as good as mouse+keyboard if you really want to do more complex stuff quickly and precisely.


By tviceman on 10/19/2012 1:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
That is because there hasn't been anything invented that can obsolete the mouse. For precision controls, the mouse is still king.


By bobsmith1492 on 10/19/2012 1:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
If you see no difference between Windows 95 and Windows 7, it's because you know nothing other than what the desktop looks like. Under the hood everything has changed dramatically for the better.


By cknobman on 10/19/2012 1:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
You fail at reading comprehension.

Of course things have changed under the hood. The OP was referring to basic UI and how they still follow the same patterns/layouts/principles.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/19/2012 3:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have hardware that in 1995 would seem like science fiction but the interface is almost exactly the same.


No offense but this is hyperbole. MS didn't change the Windows8 UI because they suddenly came up with a better way. They did it so they didn't have to write two different operating systems in their entirety.

Windows 8 is optimized for touch first, not keyboard and mouse. So your argument doesn't really add up on the desktop. Sure we have faster hardware, so what? We still have the same "basic" UI format because it's been proven to be THE most productive and intuitive by far.

I'm not sure how throwing the Metro UI on Windows OS is some "innovation", but that's just me. It's different though.

And sadly our hardware isn't that good. Science fiction predicted by the year 2000's we would have virtual reality out the wazoo and hover cars and our computers would be able to become "sentient". Not quite there yet :P


By 91TTZ on 10/19/2012 3:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's because the interface is well-designed and logical for the task at hand. "Different" isn't always a good thing. Unless your new product is genuinely better, people will just get pissed at you for arbitrarily changing things around.

Cars have had the same basic layout for a long time. Why? Because it's a direct, straightforward design that just makes sense. Others can try to be "different", but usually the products are inferior. How about 3 wheeled cars? They're different so idiots who like change tend to like them. The problem is that they just don't work as well.


By Spuke on 10/19/2012 6:57:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They're different so idiots who like change tend to like them.
So people that like change are now idiots. LOL! Well I've always considered people that hate change to be stupid, old men so I guess your comment is fair. BTW, I think 3 wheeled cars are stupid. Car design is constrained by rules and regulations. It hasn't changed because it can't. Look back to when it wasn't constrained and you'll see what I mean.


By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:34:33 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone play around with the latest version of chrome OS. I think this OS has the potential to put some real hurt on Microsoft. Its so lightweight that its lightning fast on light hardware and is dead simple to use. Add the fact that its by far more secure than windows and its looking like a true competitor.


By Ammohunt on 10/19/2012 6:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
I was eyebaling the new ARM based Chromebook for $249. Personally if i did purchse one of those the first thing i would do is remove ChromeOS and put full blown distro on it to make it useful.


By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 6:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you probably don't fit the market for it then. Its designed to be a truly secure no hassle internet appliance.


By Spuke on 10/19/2012 6:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
ChromeOS is like Linux. It's just a playtoy for nerds (I'm a nerd BTW). You can't do anything on it.


By Ammohunt on 10/22/2012 10:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
My interest would be in the ARM based hardware not the Web Broweser google calls and OS.


By Argon18 on 10/19/2012 4:44:12 PM , Rating: 3
Since when does "innovation" equal stupid unusable UI's? Change for its own sake is idiotic. When you've taken a design, and honed it and finely tuned it for a number of years, and everyone likes it, what's the point in changing it around? What does that achieve to break everyone's workflow, and change something that no one was asking for or complaining about?

Look at the iPhone. Essentially the same design for years, and its selling like hotcakes. Why? The design is damn good.

Or Coca-cola. Same recipe for decades. Coke tried changing it - remember Coke Clear? Or Crystal Pepsi? Complete market failures. Why? They got it right the first time, there's no need for a flashy gimmick that doesn't add any value.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/19/2012 5:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since when does "innovation" equal stupid unusable UI's? Change for its own sake is idiotic. When you've taken a design, and honed it and finely tuned it for a number of years, and everyone likes it, what's the point in changing it around? What does that achieve to break everyone's workflow, and change something that no one was asking for or complaining about?


Exactly! I mean, were there hordes of people crying for a Windows with a Metro-like UI because they hated the current one that I missed somehow? I didn't hear them...


By Spuke on 10/19/2012 7:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
Why even make a new version of Windows when all that it's supposed customers want are tweaks? I'm not a change for the sake of change kind of guy either, I still have a 7 year old DLP TV in my house that works just fine. Hell, you could just call it Windows (no version numbers) and add the tweaks with Service Packs. If it works, it works right? That would seemingly make everyone happy yet most everyone here is running at least WinXP. Seems contradictory to me.


By JohnWPB on 10/19/2012 10:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
"They got it right the first time, there's no need for a flashy gimmick that doesn't add any value."

I love it, you hit the nail on the head Argon18. Like what you and others have said, why change something that has worked for quite a while now. Personally, I think the answer to that question can be answered by MS wanting more of our money to by newer OS's. Their not gonna make a lot of money by making changes in their updates, so they bring in some gimmicks that "some" people will like, but the vast majority will NOT like.

I wonder what all these people who run businesses are thinking of with Win8 coming out. A lot of them were not happy to re-educate their workers when Win7 came out, so what does MS do...... well they bring out Win8 and make everyone learn a new way of doing things, just so some of the guys on here can say "wow, you guys want to stay in the dark ages for ever?"

Well guys, if it has worked so good, and no one threw a hairy cause they didn't have a touch screen OS, why the heck did MS change it. I will say it again...... they want you to buy their new OS ( whether it is better or not ), just so they can get in your wallet!

Thanks MS, but NO thanks!


By MrBungle123 on 10/20/2012 12:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're not exactly right about Windows 8.

MS is making Win 8 what it is not so they can sell a bunch of OS licenses (yes thats part of it) but the main motivation is to push the Windows App Store. By forcing Metro on all the entire windows user base they get the "critical mass" of users necessary to get developers interested in the OS and making Apps so that there is a viable software ecosystem under the new Metro paradigm. That is why there is no choice, that is why the keep ignoring users, they know that if all they did was release something like Win RT that it would flop because it will have no software. So they cram Metro down your throat, devs make touch based Metro apps because there are millions of Win 8 PCs and MS gets a 30% cut of every app sold on their app store. This is a calculated risk, they're betting they can leverage the entire windows install base to get this off the ground and if it flops they probably won't lose the enterprise market with only one bad windows release (think Vista) and they can correct their course with Win 9 if it all goes south.


By TakinYourPoints on 10/21/2012 4:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
^^^ Gets it


By Motoman on 10/21/2012 5:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
That's because the UI is essentially in it's optimal form. Any significant deviation from that will be a "degrade" - not an "upgrade."

Children need to learn that something that is "new" is not automatically better than something that is "old." But that's the mindset people have. It's new, therefore it must be better than what came before.

The only traction MS is going to get with this P OS is whatever sales of new PCs are. Nobody is going to spend money to put this craptastic catastrophe on their existing laptop or desktop. And business sure as hell aren't even going to be remotely interested.

Biggest OS flop in history. This is gonna make Vista look like unbridled genius.


Change we can't believe in.
By Zaranthos on 10/19/2012 11:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, my first few hours using Windows 8 drove me crazy. I hated it. I've used computers all my life and to say I'm stuck in some rut is naive. The Microsoft cheerleaders can't change the fact that Windows 8 isn't a very good desktop PC experience for a lot of people. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by not having a real interface choice for people who are comfortable with the classic start menu and desktop. Mark my words, it'll cost them.




RE: Change we can't believe in.
By MartyLK on 10/20/2012 1:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
The last good and useable Windows OS was Win XP. I can do whatever I need in Win XP. Not so in Win 7. The Windows Paint program, for instance, in Win XP, if I need to make a square or rectangle filled with my choice of color - be it a custom color or a preset color - I can do it in Win XP. Win 7 won't let me make a square of rectangle filled with my choice of color. It will only allow me to make a black square or rectangle. It will let me make an outlined square or rectangle where the outline is my desired color, but not filled in with the desired color.

Microsoft scewed us all when they changed to Win 7 from Win XP. Win 8 will be even worse than Win 7 for being unusable.

I have strong hopes for s future Google PC OS. MS needs to be put to the past.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/21/2012 10:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Win 7 won't let me make a square of rectangle filled with my choice of color. It will only allow me to make a black square or rectangle.
I just did this, so no, you are wrong.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By MartyLK on 10/21/2012 1:17:57 PM , Rating: 1
And you're a lying sack of dogshit. So no, you are wrong, you fucking idiot.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/21/2012 1:22:21 PM , Rating: 1
Yep, I sure did but I am lying sack of shit. Think what you want. I really don't give a fuck what you think I did or didn't do.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By MartyLK on 10/21/2012 1:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's people like you who lie their asses off about things that keep the world from getting better. I bet you are the moron that associated with the worthless Win7 paint program. Makes sense you'd want to defend your worthless effort.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/21/2012 1:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't care if you think I am lying, I am sorry that you can't do it. I did and that's all there is to it.

I posted an image just to prove you it's possible, call me a liar if you like, I really don't care.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By MartyLK on 10/21/2012 2:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
You don't get it. I've tried every logical way I could find to make a geometric shape filled with the "color picker" choice I needed and it wasn't possible.

The part you don't get is, even if it is possible to do this in Win7, that it isn't obvious or easy like in Win XP. MS has taken Windows and made it for people who are more into computer programming than the common guy. The paint program in Win7 is just one example of the unintuitive nature of Win7.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/21/2012 2:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously it's YOU who doesn't get it. I don't USE Paint and was able to do it in a matter of minutes.

It IS possible and obviously can be done...

Anyway, I am not going to continue to feed you anymore, it's there, I am sorry you aren't bright enough to figure it out.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By MartyLK on 10/21/2012 2:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
The Win7 paint program DOES NOT have that ability that I spoke about above. Just because YOU say it's there doesn't mean it is there in Win7. You might be using an added-in program or some other customized version of Windows.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/21/2012 2:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
I opened the default MSPAINT and did it....nothing extra. Again, sorry that you can't figure it out.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By fleabag on 10/22/2012 12:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Marty, you have to choose "fill" then "solid color", then select a color for "Color #2" in order to draw a shape filled in the color you choose. I just tried out paint in Windows 7 for the first time and was surprised they finally improved upon it unlike Paint in XP which hadn't been changed since Windows 95... I love XP over 7 but there are definitely improvements in Windows 7. I'd just wish I could have the compatibility and footprint of Windows XP in Windows 7.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By twhittet on 10/22/2012 2:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wow - your posts are so out there I almost wonder if they are an advanced form of sarcasm I don't quite understand yet. Are you from the future?

It didn't take me minutes to do what you wanted to do in Paint, it took me seconds. I also never use paint, and have no 3rd party paint programs.


RE: Change we can't believe in.
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/21/2012 1:27:09 PM , Rating: 1
www.darkimpulse.net/oops2.png

whattttttttttt? it's not possible! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

sit the fuck down...


Poor PR and marketing
By tayb on 10/19/2012 1:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft deserves a lot of criticism for their poor PR and marketing on Windows 8. People are clueless on Windows 8, Metro, and Windows RT and in my opinion Microsoft has done almost NOTHING to combat it. The overwhelming opinion on Windows 8 is negative and a lot of the negativity is based on false information or false pre-conceived notions. (A lot of it is deserved as well, mind you) What has Microsoft done to address these concerns or false information floating out there? Even their BUILD conference left developers scratching their heads by some decisions that lacked explanation.

I expect Windows 8 to move a lot of copies simply because it's super cheap and will come pre-installed on virtually every desktop/notebook sold. If Microsoft can't manage the negativity, quickly fix design mistakes with Windows 8 (hello booting into the desktop?), and better educate the public (namely the techies) Windows 8 will go down with Vista as a "miss." Fortunately for Microsoft even if Windows 8 is a miss they'll still print money because they are well diversified.




RE: Poor PR and marketing
By Labotomizer on 10/19/2012 1:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
Even a "miss" with Windows 8 will lead to an ecosystem of ~250 million systems for RT apps. Which means there will be no lack of development for it. So if for that reason alone I'm not worried.

As for booting into the desktop, I don't see the big deal. Especially since I only boot when updates install once a month anyway, other than that it's sleep so it goes right back where I was.


RE: Poor PR and marketing
By tayb on 10/19/2012 1:28:04 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft already has an existing ecosystem, Windows. Most software written today will run on XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8. I think your expectations for Metro apps are pretty optimistic. If I choose to develop with WinRT for Metro I give up a lot such as freedom to distribute, MS app approval, lost revenue to MS Store, and no compatibility with prior versions of Windows.

On Windows 8 why would I want to be running Metro apps? I have access to the entire Windows software catalog. What type of Metro app would I want to run? On Windows RT I don't have a choice, it will ONLY run Metro apps, but the Windows RT tablet market share is 0% at the moment. I'll watch the launch and see what happens the first few months but as of right now I don't see many compelling reasons to develop Metro apps.

Hell, I can't even develop a WinRT app unless I'm using Windows 8 because it won't run on anything BUT a version of Windows 8.


RE: Poor PR and marketing
By kattanna on 10/19/2012 2:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still of the opinion that windows RT is a mistake.

for most people they will assume it is simply a new version of windows and buy the device and once home will try to install their quicken or other such real windows apps and find that they willnt work. then take the device back as being defective.

they really should have called it anything else but windows. its going to cause confusion to the masses


RE: Poor PR and marketing
By Mint on 10/19/2012 2:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think Microsoft's biggest marketing failing is avoiding how to show users that the UI is better/faster 90% of the time even if you never touch any Win8 apps. Obviously this shouldn't be a national TV ad, as MS wants the Win8 market to succeed, but some web videos with side by side comparisons would quell a lot of the criticism.

If they advertised the quick access menu, the better task manager, how launching programs takes equal or fewer clicks with a customized start page, and that the whole notion of "leaving the desktop" is entirely psychological, I'm pretty sure these hardcore users wouldn't be so riled up.


RE: Poor PR and marketing
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
With more and more computing moving to the cloud the underlying OS is becoming less important. If you do everything through chrome browser you have about the same experience on a mac, pc, linux, or chrome OS for that matter. Even if you don't like or can't use google docs, you can now do MS office in the cloud. Cloud computing can really make the compatibility factor of windows basically a non issue.


RE: Poor PR and marketing
By Spuke on 10/19/2012 7:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
See this is where my old man kicks in. :) I don't all or even most of my stuff on the cloud. I want an OS that helps manage my stuff that mostly local. I think the ChromeOS is stupid and is only good for web surfers.


RE: Poor PR and marketing
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
Windows RT should allow for simpler, cheaper, longer battery life mini laptops and tablets. I personally think its a good idea. Having a wintel tablet automatically puts you behind price wise to an android/arm tablet.


RE: Poor PR and marketing
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
I expect Windows 8 to move a lot of copies simply because it's super cheap and will come pre-installed on virtually every desktop/notebook sold.

I'm not so sure that win8 will be an automatic success like previous versions. The goal of win8 was to move into the growing tablet market. If MS can't convince people that win8 on a tablet is a better experience than iOS or android I think it will be considered a failure.


I like Windows 8.
By Hexus on 10/19/2012 2:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's too bad Windows 8 gets the negative PR.

Yeah it's different, but once you see how the interface works it's not largely different than Windows 7. Your start menu is now a whole screen.

I pulled my copy off of Dreamspark and installed it a week ago and I have to say I like it a lot.
Setting up Windows Mail is easier than ever to set up and I like how integrated a lot of the features are (Facebook Chat, Xbox Live)

It would be very easy to set everything an entry level user would need on the start page, being just a click away.

Hopefully this passes.




RE: I like Windows 8.
By ComfyNumb on 10/19/2012 3:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
really they should have just made a tablet based windows... strictly rt... and kept win 7 for desktop..... would have been much easier of a transition for destop users once windows rt was out for a couple years... Greed and wanting to do to much at once is the problem here...


RE: I like Windows 8.
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, this would have been a great idea.


RE: I like Windows 8.
By Jeffk464 on 10/19/2012 4:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
although if MS doesn't take a significant market share in tablets it would make win8 look like a disastrous failure.


metro is a JOKE
By cyberserf on 10/21/2012 8:57:06 AM , Rating: 3
so many MS shills or just moron's supporting this OS. LOL
these people probably don't do anything on the OS except for checking email/browsing.




Not really a 33% drop
By Lonyo on 10/19/2012 1:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
Since I think they had to defer all the WIn 8 revenue until it ships, I assume that typically Windows 7 licenses sold to OEMs would have been included in the quarter's sales figures, while as Windows 8 isn't available, they have to defer those license sales until next quarter, which means it's not a 33% real term decline (hence the non-GAAP consolidation), but a 33% decline in Windows license sales which can be attributed to the quarter, as all the Windows 8 pre-sales can't be included.

A 33% drop would therefore indicates that there are a lot of Windows 8 sales which have replaced Windows 7 sales, although some of the drop will be due to the decline in shipments, so OEMs at least don't seem to be holding on to Windows 7 forever.

Also Windows 7 is likely to remain as the main OS in enterprise mainly because it takes a while to transition, and people will have spent time preparing for a mature Windows 7, and won't want to move to an immature Windows 8, so in terms of timing, Windows 8 will probably miss the boat anyway, and not be that helpful (in terms of the major change - UI) for enterprise anyway, so Microsoft probably won't be too fussed if enterprise sticks with Windows 7.




Windows 8 UI
By johndiii on 10/19/2012 10:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
As I work in the corporate IT world largely in Active Directory Environments, Windows 8 has a lot of great performance enhancements and features centered around manageability. Assuming that they all work right. I have to admit, though, that the interface is clunky and stupid. I still think most people will eventually get used to it if they have to. My big problems with Windows 8 as I have been running the RTM from technet since it was released there in mid-August, is the requirement for everything to have a Microsoft account. I can't set up the Windows 8 mail client to use its built in Microsoft exchange support unless I first provide a Microsoft e-mail account. As an aside, the "metro" version of the music app does not connect to a Windows Homegroup for music streaming, you have to use Windows Media Player in the desktop. All the way around it's just the little things that it appears MS didn't pay attention to that are the most annoying. Why do have 2 version of Internet Explorer 10? Why do we have 2 different Media player apps, one for "Metro" and one for the Desktop? Why can't I play solitaire without signing into an Xbox Live account? None of these things are huge issues. They're just stupid. I will be sticking with Windows 7 also until MS decides to let me use my OS without a Microsoft account. Even Apple will let you install OSX without giving the OS an Apple ID. You just can't use the App Store or the iTunes store. So what? I think Microsoft tried to "out Apple Apple" and they're going to fall on their face because they didn't do their due diligence on many of these little issues that make the OS seem ready to go.




Tick - Tock
By SuckRaven on 10/22/2012 2:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
Well, MS is nothing if not consistent. Just like Intel with its tick-tock model of die shrinks / new architecture, it seems MS has settled into a predictable cycle of crap OS / decent OS / crap OS / decent OS... (more or less). LOL.

Think I'll skip this next one.




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki