backtop


Print 129 comment(s) - last by acturbo.. on Jan 13 at 1:51 PM

Windows 7 had more than 10 times the usage at this point in its lifecycle

Three weeks after its 2009 launch, Windows 7 had seized 4 percent of the operating system (OS) market, and would go on to become the fastest selling OS in Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) history.  Three years later and Microsoft has another release -- Windows 8.  But some signs point to the operating system as being a sales bust, early on.

Microsoft had bragged weeks ago that it had sold 40 million licenses, a number that it said surpassed sales of Windows 7 for an equivalent period in 2009.  But some complained that license sales were not actual device sales; they cite reports of Windows 8 computers languishing on store shelves.

Now the critics have ammo to back those claims. Market research group Net Applications, a research service that tracks traffic across 8,000 affiliates' sites and 3 million registered users, reports that Windows 8 at the end of December accounted for a mere 1.72 percent of traffic.  

In other words, after two months Windows 8 appears to have about a third of market share Windows 7 garnered in less than one month.  By two months into its lifecycle, Windows 7 has soared to 21 percent of the market's traffic (Windows 7 is now the top PC OS with 45 percent of traffic).
 
Windows 8 Surface
Windows 8's adoption pace appears to be more sluggish than Windows Vista's.
[Image Source: Microsoft]

Windows 8's numbers look more like those of Windows Vista -- but even a bit worse.  Vista posted about 2.2 percent of the total traffic at the same 2-month point, about a third more than Windows 8's percentage [source].

Merle McIntosh, a product manager SVP at top online computer retailer Newegg, was cautious in his criticism, confirming that Windows 8 "did not explode" onto the market. But he remains hopeful, noting that sales have been slowly creeping upward.

Windows 8 is an incredibly bold redesign on the part on Microsoft.  While, the move to a more touch-friendlygraphically rich operating system certainly mirrors the general direction of the device market, but that has done little to shield Microsoft from loads of criticism. Many have wondered whether it went too far with the graphical gloss, whether it was disrespecting developers with its shift to a walled-garden "Windows Store" app distribution model, and whether it was forsaking traditional desktop power users.

So will Windows 8 be the next Vista sales wise?  The critics certainly would say so.  But at this point it's kind of early to say; about all that's safe to say is that the picture might not be as rosy as Microsoft wanted you to believe.

Sources: Net Applications, ComputerWorld, ReadWriteWeb



Comments     Threshold


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

The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By SAN-Man on 1/4/2013 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 3
Is the reworked process scheduler.

Everything else, and I mean everything, I have absolutely no use for.

I've been using Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit going on four years now, I see no reason to upgrade.




RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By SAN-Man on 1/4/2013 12:47:26 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, upgrade is the wrong term because it's not an upgrade, it's just a change.

“I know engineers. They love to change things." - Dr. McCoy


By perspicacity on 1/9/2013 9:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
I hated Windows 8 more before I installed it on my laptop and actually used it. But my laptop is not my full-time computer so... I'm not locked into it.

In many ways it is quicker... I like that... and I understand the metro-screen push for the touch experience. But it feels unfinished.

The left lower corner right click menu provides convenient access to everything important... but was it really necessary to take away the excellent Windows 7 start menu?


By JasonMick (blog) on 1/4/2013 12:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is the reworked process scheduler.
What about the support for new security standards (DirectAccess VPN over IPv4) or UEFI?

Or the revised file transfer client?

Or the reduced memory/process footprint??

Even if you're solely enterprise targeted, I could see those as being desirable features.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By Motoman on 1/4/2013 1:25:33 PM , Rating: 5
Those are all fine.

The problem is the inexcusably moronic decision to put a cell phone UI on a desktop/laptop OS.

You can point all fingers for the failure of Win8 at one issue - that UI.

Despite the vocal protestations of a few, the vast majority of people think that UI is horrific. And that's why it's not making any headway...and won't.

MS can issue a "patch" to just put the normal desktop and Start menu in there, in lieu of the Metrosexual interface, or they can continue to watch Win8 wither on the vine.

Their choice.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By kleinma on 1/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By Motoman on 1/4/2013 1:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows 8 is a hybrid of a touch interface for when you want it and where it makes sense, and the traditional desktop interface for when that is where you need to work.


No it isn't. You're trying to put lipstick on a pig.

You know where the "touch interface" is wanted, and makes sense, on a desktop/laptop? Nowhere.


By kleinma on 1/4/2013 2:30:31 PM , Rating: 1
Have you used a gesture touchpad/trackpad with it? That works quite well on a laptop. I will admit I have not tried any of the standalone ones for the desktop, so I don't know how they perform.


By dubldwn on 1/4/2013 2:00:59 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Everything else I do, I get done on the desktop, and never, ever have any need to go into the start screen unless I want to run some metro app.

Yeah that’s the trick. Then why is it there? How about I start up my rig and am greeted with a professional looking desktop that’s used by an adult and not some kiddy BS that looks like Fisher Price puked up a juice box. They want some of that app store money and I’m not buying it.

And I had Win8 on my test rig from Feb/Mar to Nov and I’m back with 7.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By twhittet on 1/4/2013 2:03:37 PM , Rating: 5
This coming from a troll of Windows 8 UI.

Everytime I see someone voice their opinion about the interface, I see you saying "I really don't know why everyone claims to have such a hard time with it, but I really believe those people have not actually used it."

We think it sux. We have used it for months. We have used it as primary systems, we have used it on laptops, we have used it as HTPCs. So we HAVE used it, and you just like to assume EVERYONE who ever complaints about it is stupid and/or "have not actually used it".

The sales numbers and general opinions tell a clear picture - people do not like the UI. So stop pretending they don't just because you are in love with it.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By kleinma on 1/4/2013 2:14:48 PM , Rating: 1
I just don't understand why everyone cries soooo much about the start screen. All it did was replace the start menu. Were you that in love with the start menu from windows? Did you really spend a good portion of your day in the start menu launching programs? I think Windows 8 is far from perfect, I just think people tend to bitch about things just to bitch about them. Ohhh no, they made the start menu full screen, the sky is falling!!!



By cyberguyz on 1/4/2013 4:22:27 PM , Rating: 5
If it were just the start screen, I would still be using it. They also f**ked uup the actual desktop as well.

I have a registered copy of Windows 8. I also have access to it via my MSDN subscription. I've used it for months and have found that i just simply hate it. Why did I have the top version of Windows 8 available and still have to PAY MICROSOFT EVEN MORE for Media Center? Seriously?

This was written on my Desktop PC running Windows 7 x64 Ultimate. The Windows 8 DVD sits in a corner with all the other dvds full of lame software that I will never use again.

No some will love the WIndows 8 UI. But the rest of us are voting wioth our wallets and telling Microsoft in no uncertain terms that we are not impressed with the latest incarnation of their operating system.


By cyberguyz on 1/4/2013 4:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
and as you can see- I can't type worth a sh!t.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By kleinma on 1/4/2013 7:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you are going to say something like "They also f**ked uup the actual desktop as well." then you could at least elaborate on what you mean. Minus a start button, my desktop is exactly the same as the windows 7 one.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By althaz on 1/5/2013 3:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
That's demonstrably not true. Windows 8 adds back the "Up" button in the File Explorer, adds very useful backup features, it's faster and more responsive, it starts up quicker, it is 1000x times better at copying files (to be fair Windows 7 and earlier were incredibly bad at it), there's (much) improved multi-monitor support, better class-drivers, better cloud integration, more keyboard shortcuts and probably more stuff that I've missed.

As an added bonus the start screen is many times better than the truly crappy start menu. It let's you find your most used programs much more easily than the desktop or start menu ever have, plus as an added bonus every time you launch an app that isn't on your taskbar, you don't lost your entire windows hierarchy.

The Start Screen is also a great place to check if you have any appointments or messages, what the weather is or if there's any updates on Facebook or Twitter. It's optional, but it is actually useful.

Much worse of course is the whole concept of metro apps, the best thing about windows apps is the windows, why can't metro apps support multiple fixed-sizes of window as well as full screen? This is the fundamental flaw of Windows 8, just about everything else about it is actually better.


By overzealot on 1/5/2013 6:08:13 PM , Rating: 5
Nope. I tried using the start screen for a month, then bought Start8.
2 reasons:
- Having to click Desktop on startup to get out of Start Screen (if you could leave it by pressing the Win key I wouldn't have cared).
- I still find it much easier to click things on the Start menu when searching. Dragging the cursor to the bottom left completely (no aim required) then a slight readjustment is a massive gain for mouse users on high resolution desktops. And far less distracting animated tiles to worry about as well.

I used the metro PDF reader for a while, but like all metro apps, it's great until you want to close them. The best way to dismiss them is to just go back to desktop (top left charm) but I really just want to close it. That leaves me with Alt-F4 or dragging from top to bottom - which once again, doesn't work well with a mouse on a high-res desktop, and both of these choices still drops you back at Start Screen.

There's plenty I like about Windows 8, but its insistence on pushing Metro on me is not one of them.


By Sta5h on 1/7/2013 7:11:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(if you could leave it by pressing the Win key I wouldn't have cared).
Err, well I can :D

I completely agree that removing the Start button was a mistake for most users, but really, about 30 seconds training from me has made several over fifties "MS Office" style users completely happy with Windows 8 and commenting on how their desktop/laptop feels faster. This is from in-place *upgrading* their Windows 7 installations.

Agreed on the Metro PDF and Picture viewer apps though, they're pretty terrible IMO.

Seriously, I'm finding very little to dislike about Windows 8 (the operating system) and a lot to like about it.


By hood6558 on 1/7/2013 8:41:37 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with your assessment; Windows 8 is better in enough ways that I'd feel I was missing something if I went back to 7. The start screen UI is useless on a desktop, but easily avoided with Start8 or a simple registry hack. I have a new Z77/i5/SSD system that runs smoother and faster on Windows 8, which was designed purposefully to take advantage of new memory controllers, fast SSDs, CPU architecture, chipset features, etc. I believe it's really the most "mature"
OS available, under the hood. Too bad all most people see is the teenage girl phone UI and instantly decide that it can't be any good in any way. Maybe it had to be done to stay with changing markets, that I can understand. But to not give the choice to eliminate or bypass the blatantly greed-inspired "Metro" and "Windows Store" aspect was a bad mistake. They could have been a hero had they given the choice, and the stupid store and all it's useless "apps" would have to live or die on it's own merits. I looked through a lot of apps trying to find anything worth using, tried 2 radio apps and a wiki app, all crashed or were so slow to load as to render them useless. But to pay money for these useless things would be utter stupidity. They need to separate the mobile side from the desktop side from the enterprise side, just as they have always done. Don't force the desktop team or the enterprise guys to work with kiddy toys.


By cyberguyz on 1/6/2013 11:25:42 AM , Rating: 3
"If you are going to say something like "They also f**ked uup the actual desktop as well." then you could at least elaborate on what you mean. Minus a start button, my desktop is exactly the same as the windows 7 one. "

Are you blind? Where is the Aero theme. For that matter where is ANY desktop theme? What they replaced the Aero theme with is this flat-color with absolutely no character at all. In short they replaced the Aero desktop with Win-7's "lite" desktop and gave you no way to enhance it t all.

Start menu gone. Before you say the Win 8 start menu is soooo much better, realize you have to endure a jarring swap OUT OF the desktop to get to it. Also realize the Win 8 start panel is absoutely desktop UN-friendly.

Win7's start menu is at least still on the desktop. I don't have to LEAVE THE DESKTOP.

Say what you want about the desktop gadgets in Win-7, but I like them and have a system powerful enough to support them. Does Win8 have them? Nope.

What about Media Center? I opted to upgrade Win 7 Ultimate to Win 8 Pro. Guess what, no Media Center. Microsoft now wants you to pay extra for that. Why should I have to? I had it in Win 7 Ulti. When I upgrade Win 7 ulti, i expect that to be upgraded too. I didn't get MORE like I would expect with an upgrade software. I got less!

The start menu and gadgets issues can be resolved by jumping thru some 3rd party hoops. The missing media center can be 'purchased' from microsoft. But why should I have to? Just to get that lame Metro garbage? I don't even like it.

So did Microsoft fuckup the Win 8 desktop? Damn right they did!

Is that elaboration enough for you?


By timothyd97402 on 1/4/2013 4:33:49 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, I really like the start menu. I have two Windows 8 computers and the one I use alot has a 3rd party start menu replacement. It also disables the hot corners and boots me straight to the desktop. I have also set my defaults as much as possible to use desktop programs rather than Metro apps.

I do not use any Metro apps and have no need or desire to do so. I use professional desktop programs exclusively. Why does Microsoft insist that I must be switched over to the Metro UI at any excuse?


By JediJeb on 1/4/2013 7:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did you really spend a good portion of your day in the start menu launching programs


I rarely use the Start menu because I do what most hate as much as the Metro interface, I put my shortcut icons on my desktop. I happen to arrange them around the edges where they take up very little space, unlike the metro tiles that take up the whole screen so that I can arrange my working windows stacked around the screen leaving the icons available to open other programs quickly without having to move, minimize or close the others. With large screens it is more efficient to have several programs open and available than having to constantly switch from one to another in full screen mode.

Also I don't really like the live tiles where stuff is always playing even when you are not interested in it. Seems like that would just be wasting processor time and battery life.


By Mike Acker on 1/5/2013 7:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
i've followed this whole brouhaha from the inception of the "Ribbon Menu"

everyone I had to help with it hated it intensely: the presentation of "everything at once" -- as advocated by Julie L-G -- just doesn't work -- for a lot of us .


By Piiman on 1/5/2013 9:46:31 AM , Rating: 2
"I just don't understand why everyone cries soooo much about the start screen. All it did was replace the start menu. Were you that in love with the start menu from windows?"

Dude even you added it? lol


By delphinus100 on 1/6/2013 1:43:21 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I just don't understand why everyone cries soooo much about the start screen. All it did was replace the start menu.


First, yes I do miss the Start Menu. But...

When I start up a Windows machine, once at the desktop I typically either click an icon to open a program, or an Internet shortcut I've created, to go to a particular site.

Going to the Start Menu is rarely the first thing I do.

So, why would I want to be presented with the Start Menu's 'replacement' every time I boot up the computer?


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By 91TTZ on 1/4/2013 2:24:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Windows 8 is a hybrid of a touch interface for when you want it and where it makes sense, and the traditional desktop interface for when that is where you need to work.


I agree, but that's the problem. Microsoft had to make some compromises to incorporate touch features into the OS. The problem is that 99% of the buying public is using it on their non-touch screen desktop or laptop. So those people felt the negative effects of those compromises without being able to experience the positive effects. It was a net-loss to them.

A small fraction of Windows 8 users felt that these compromises were a net-gain to 8's usability, the vast majority felt that they were a net-loss. They decided not to buy the product and now Windows 8's adoption is even slower than the nearly universally reviled Vista.


By timothyd97402 on 1/4/2013 3:46:24 PM , Rating: 5
No, they did not have to compromise. They chose to bastardize the OS by remove options and choices.

Windows Pro should have a choice to turn Metro off, boot to the desktop and have a start menu. Their should be an option to use Aero if we like.

Microsoft removed these choices for one simple reason, to leverage their OS monoply into a share of the phone, tablet and app markets.


By SwampEagle on 1/5/2013 5:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
6


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By althaz on 1/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By boobo on 1/6/2013 8:25:30 PM , Rating: 3
Some things I used the Start menu for, Metro COULD have been a lot better at, but they chose not to.

I used the Start menu to bring up the taskbar during driver (and other installshield) installations. The installers decided that they should have the right to cover the entire screen and make the taskbar inaccessible. With the Start button, I just had to press the Windows key and the taskbar was instantly in the foreground.

Windows 8 could have given me this too, if they had kept the taskbar visible in Metro. It seems so easy and logical! Why would you want to stop multitasking when using apps? They took my Windows-key taskbar popping function and on top of that, they also hide the taskbar while Start-menuing.

Something else I did with the Start menu was organize things.

In the Start Menu's "Programs" I just had 5 folders: Drivers, Office, Programming, Art, and Games. Subfolders guided me to where I wanted to go.
Art->Static->2D->Natural->Corel->P ainter:bunch of icons
Games->Adventure->Point and Click->Detective->GOG->Tex Murphy->2: bunch of icons

The Start menu also let me easily put shortcuts to the same game somewhere inside "Detectives" and also somewhere inside "SciFI".

Windows 8 could have given me this too with something as common and simple as collapsible tiles. Every node based application has had them for years! Not only did they decide that groups could not be collapsed; they also decided to flatten the hierarchy so that now you can't even have 1 subgroup level! The top level groups are the only level of organization and they all have to be visible at once.

I have over 200 games from GOG alone, each with its uninstaller and link to the manual and map, etc. Finding the correct icon in that sea of hundreds of tiles with only one level of organization is not in the same Galaxy as where the Start menu was. I don't even have any Steam games in Start anymore because then it would be thousands, all uncategorized.

So now, unless I remember the name of the executable, I have to search for a game in the Start Screen, in the Steam interface, the Gamefly interface and the Gamestop interface until I find it.

Categorization and a multi-tasking Start Screen that includes the taskbar. Two vital features of the old Start menu that I have trouble living without.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By rsmech on 1/6/2013 11:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows 8 could have given me this too, if they had kept the taskbar visible in Metro. It seems so easy and logical!


Try moving you mouse to the upper left corner in metro and you have open programs. they gave it to you and better. you just missed it.


By boobo on 1/7/2013 4:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your help, friend, but my OS must be broken somehow. I have 5 programs open: Chrome, JimmyRig, Zbrush, Lightwave, and PhotoPaint. In the start screen, I go to the upper left corner and there is only one block that pops up (which looks like a snapshot of my desktop). That is not comparable to the taskbar that has an individual button for every single open program/document (I've set it to "never combine"), so mine must be different from yours or I'm just not getting it.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By rsmech on 1/6/2013 11:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the Start Menu's "Programs" I just had 5 folders: Drivers, Office, Programming, Art, and Games. Subfolders guided me to where I wanted to go.


I'm staring at a file explorer icon lower left windows 8. click it you could have been staring at something very similar to what your talking about. you missed it. I've only had windows 8 for 5 days.


By boobo on 1/7/2013 4:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your valuable advice! However, I never tried to imply that Windows 8 did not have the tools to categorize that way. The post I was replying to said that the >Start Screen< could do everything that the Star menu could (and better). So I tried to limit myself to the problems of the Start Screen itself. Since the file explorer is not technically part of the Start screen, we're actually substituting the Start Screen with something more akin to the old Start menu, when we use the file explorer. The original post said that it was crazy to substitute it with anything. So, I think we agree 100%.


By rsmech on 1/6/2013 11:27:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I have over 200 games from GOG alone, each with its uninstaller and link to the manual and map, etc. Finding the correct icon in that sea of hundreds of tiles with only one level of organization is not in the same Galaxy as where the Start menu was. I don't even have any Steam games in Start anymore because then it would be thousands, all uncategorized.


there is a neat little tile on metro that takes you to desktop. once done there is a nice little file explorer lower left you can set up with any files and sub folders you wish. you can make it as easy or as complex as you want. Metro isn't the best option for every action you want to take, it's just many short cuts in one place. you don't have all your hundreds of games on your windows 7 desktop why would you even complain you can't in Metro. Kind of silly argument. your windows 7 desktop couldn't even hold them.


By rsmech on 1/6/2013 11:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Categorization and a multi-tasking Start Screen that includes the taskbar. Two vital features of the old Start menu that I have trouble living without.


You can do on desktop file explorer 1 click. you have to organize them just as you organized windows 7 start programs.
Multi-tasking start screen, Metro ui move your mouse to upper left corner.
You don't have to live with out.


By Sta5h on 1/7/2013 7:23:36 AM , Rating: 2
Not being funny, but since you already have Steam installed, why wouldn't you use it for all your games, keeping them entirely out of the start menu?

Uninstalling? Personally, again, I just use the built in Windows uninstaller for that (and Steam for actual Steam games obviously).

The manuals… I guess some games you're going to read them more often (personally I just about never do), but if you *do* already have the shortcuts in your start screen/menu, can't you just start typing the name of the game and you'll see it? I honestly don't see the problem people have with doing this since you must know the name of the app/game you're trying to launch (you don't need to remember the name of the executable if there's a shortcut in the start screen/menu)? I'd honestly like it explained to me.

Don't get me started on Gamestop/Origin (grrr). Honestly, until something else better comes along, and since most of my games are already in there, I just add any non-Steam games right into the Steam interface when I buy them, and then I just go to Steam whenever I want to play a game.


By Wererat on 1/9/2013 5:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
"Art->Static->2D->Natural->Corel->P ainter:bunch of icons
Games->Adventure->Point and Click->Detective->GOG->Tex Murphy->2: bunch of icons"

Really? You moused through six levels of start menu to do ANYthing? This is the justification for why you want to keep a start menu?

Personally I HATE the start menu for just this reason. If I want anything that complex, I'll just bring up the file manager/explorer and go find it already. In addition, MS never mandated an organizational structure for installers, so some programs will try and add a simple "<Name of Program>" shortcut or folder, and others are in love with their company name and will bury the only executable under "<company>/<suite of programs>/<program>" (including Office) so you're several clicks in to just start working.

Sure you CAN reorganize it as you've done in Win95/98/XP/Vista/7, but I could also spend that time finding spare socks, too.

Crud, go build a directory structure like this with all the pointers(shortcuts) at their roots (which is all the vaunted 'start menu' is anyway) and map a tile to its head.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By simsony on 1/5/2013 1:23:37 PM , Rating: 5
I was initially positive about Windows 8, especially with the speed bump but I now find the new UI getting in the way.

I've been using it since launch, my desktop and taskbar is now very cluttered. I cannot switch between apps as easily as Windows 7. I always have to have a hand on the keyboard, it's like using a broken command line interface.

I think if there was a boot to desktop option, a start search bar on the desktop itself, and if the apps bar showed all apps, not just metro apps, it would at least be functional. Also the hot spot stuff should probably only be triggered for metro apps.

Windows 8 is a tablet OS. That's the reality.
For desktop users, even with all the improvements, the effective user experience is a step backwards. I don't see why desktop users have to suffer because the iPad is doing so well.

This is a fail on Microsoft's part. Win8 will probably earn a reputation worse than Vista.


By acturbo on 1/13/2013 1:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
imo, MS should have just upgraded the icons of the old destkop to be Tiles. That's it. Not complicated. This would eliminated the dual Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde schizophrenic dual desktop (new Live Tiles vs old Desktop Icons) and it would have given Windows an interesting fresh interface for users and developers alike. Instead, they released 2 desktops, that offer 2 drastically different experiences, not to mention 2 programming APIs (Win32/64 vs WinRT). It's a mess at all levels. And unlike how Win7 fixed Vista, I don't see how Win9 will be able to fix Win8's blunders.


By Donkey2008 on 1/6/2013 10:24:39 PM , Rating: 3
Strange. I used Win8 all through the Beta and then the retail for a few months. I hated every minute of it. Going back to Windows 7 was the best thing I have ever done.

Feel free to categorize me under "Used it extensively, yet still do not like it" people.


By acturbo on 1/13/2013 1:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
I did the same thing, except i skipped all previews and used the shipping version of Win8 intensely for 3 weeks (i was very excited about the new Live Tiles, and still am). But since all my Windows apps are obviously Win32, i kept having to use my old desktop to run them. This makes no sense why MS created this dual desktop mess. Then, i reluctantly had to reformat my drive and put Win7 back on. And, yes spent the mandatory 2 days re-installing every app (VS 2005 to VS 2012, Adobe CS6, etc. etc. 50+ apps). I've been a MS techie for 20 years ... i even worked at MS as a sr. product manager .... but i'm at a loss for words what MS did here.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By 91TTZ on 1/4/2013 1:39:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
he problem is the inexcusably moronic decision to put a cell phone UI on a desktop/laptop OS. You can point all fingers for the failure of Win8 at one issue - that UI. Despite the vocal protestations of a few, the vast majority of people think that UI is horrific. And that's why it's not making any headway...and won't.


Quoted for Truth™


By mcnabney on 1/7/2013 10:25:46 AM , Rating: 3
Even Microsoft supports you on this.

Look at the Windows 8 adds on TV (they are EVERYWHERE).

What do they show? - phone/tablet applications - with a big emphasis on touchscreen painting and Angry Birds Star Wars.

You don't buy a NEW PC to play Angry Birds. Anything made in the last 8 years can play it.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By ritualm on 1/4/2013 1:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with Windows 8, to me personally, is to use a primarily touch-oriented UX on a touch-deficient computer i.e. most desktops and laptops out there. I can live without the start button or any of the pre-8 holdovers. Using a mouse/trackpad for those live tiles, however, strikes as a bit awkward.


By johnsmith9875 on 1/6/2013 5:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
No the real problem is the Microsoft Windows 8 UI just doesn't make any sense.

If you could use the Apple Tablet OS with a mouse, it would still be as easy to use as with your fingertip.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By W00dmann on 1/4/2013 3:24:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You can point all fingers for the failure of Win8 at one issue - that UI.


Totally agree. It defies all rational explanation as to how Microsoft could have come up with something as ugly, garish, and EGA-inspired as that UI. Not only that, but they force it down everybody's throat (typical Microsoft) a la "we know what's best for you, shut up and use it, you'll like it". As a home user, I see no benefit to Windows 8 whatsoever and I will never upgrade to it. Period.


By geekman1024 on 1/4/2013 9:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
They just want to save the money they'd have spend on hiring Graphics Artist. Any chimpanzee with basic knowledge of point and click using a mouse can come up with those icons used in the Metro themes. Just give the chimp a computer with either CorelDraw or Fireworks already launched and a few hours later, you will have a plethora of Metro style Icons and UI graphics ready to use.


By gorehound on 1/5/2013 10:35:33 AM , Rating: 2
The people at MS are only smelling money but this time they will have a real big failure.
The World is not going to just revolve around people using smart phones, ETC.
I only own a fliptop and use it as a phone and nothing else.Nor do I ever care about doing my Computing on some small hand held type Device.
I am like many other Users who love Desktops and know how they Work so we do work good with our Machines.
MS Blew it big time on this one.
And yes I did try it out and even bought this mess for 14.99
It is not going to go back on my machine.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By superPC on 1/4/2013 10:07:28 PM , Rating: 3
I think you're missing the point here. Vast majority of people who think win 8 UI is horrific are all power user or heavy user like you and I. I hate win 8 ui when i have a lot of stuff to do. Having brought up start screen that obscured all that i'm working on just to launched something to support what i'm working on is jarring & uncomfortable. Having stuff that has to run full screen, half screen, 1/3 screen or 2/3 screen is highly limiting (i'm talking about metro apps obviously).

Then I gave an Iconia w510 to my parents & they loved it. They got to do the stuff they usually does with a better interface and more mobile device. Than i realize it's more fun to use start screen and metro apps for fun stuff.

Win 8 UI is awesome for a majority of regular jane and joes. The only problem is pricing. It's priced way to high. Wait a while when we have Haselwell and Silvermont/ValleyView with better performance and better power consumption. At that time maybe dell, acer, hp, lenovo, toshiba, sony, and all the other would realize that just because it has a touchscreen doesn't mean it can be sold at ipad level of pricing, even if it has better performance and power consumption.

PC is always about quantity over pricing. If last year anyone can buy core i3 laptop at ipad price than it should also be true this year even if the i3 has a touchscreen and win 8. The sooner they realize that, the better it is for them.


By Piiman on 1/5/2013 9:58:22 AM , Rating: 3
"Having stuff that has to run full screen, half screen, 1/3 screen or 2/3 screen is highly limiting "

I love how MS touts this as a feature. LOL run Two, count'em,Two apps at once. Hopefully one app is designed to run in a 3 inch wide screen!


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By Piiman on 1/5/2013 9:42:46 AM , Rating: 3
agree they should have done what they've always done an offer options. Like do you want a desktop install , Metro install, tablet install. But no they want to be like Apple and stick their fingers in everyones apps sales. Make no mistake that metro crap is to start walling in the garden.

I used 8 since it came out and just yesterday went back to Win 7. It was like coming home. Half the time Metro apps would just close and send me to the desktop anyways. And when half the people have to Google how to shut down their PC with win 8 on it you know something is fooked up about the UI.

Even if you found the "charms" (don't know what's so charming about it) who would think the shut down was under "settings"? Its boggles the mind.


By johnsmith9875 on 1/6/2013 5:26:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think the idea of "just type it in" to search is rather strange and counter-intuitive


By rsmech on 1/6/2013 11:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'll get rated down but all I can say is I went from XP to windows 8 and it's amazing. I don't need the metro ui, but for my kids it's great. they stay out of everything else. what I want them to use is on their metro ui and I remove everything else. parental control supper. My brother in law runs a small computer shop and he will have nothing to do with 8 either. He doesn't even have a valid reason. All this I don't like metro or where's my desktop. If you were a real power user you could figure it out. I missed vista and 7 and have no problems but I don't need baby steps to accept change. All tech's tell everyone stay away from 8. Well tech users technical issues don't apply to the general public. This is great for them, maybe not you, but you are not the majority. You should be able to make 8 as friendly as you like if you are a power user. This is 7 and more. don't be afraid. the only thing you lost was your start menu.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By Mitch101 on 1/4/2013 2:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
There are things I like and a few benefits but there are a few I don't.

1 - I have Outlook 2013 installed and there are times when I click on e-mail in Windows 8 that its taking me to the mail client built into Windows 8 that I have not configured because I have Office 2013. It should bring me into my Outlook 2013.

2 - I don't like the picture viewer app that built in and when I exit it doesn't bring me back to my previous app/file explorer instead it puts me in the start menu which if you know me start is where programs go to die I work on the desktop with pinned apps I never go to start which is why I wouldn't miss it.

3 - Ive also encountered a few graphics anomalies but after running the latest ATI beta driver that seems to be resolved. Generally its with flash based websites with video playback they eventually hose up the video driver.

The question is are these enough for me to go back to Windows 7 or stick it out on Windows 8? Im on the fence. Ive got 16gigs of ram on this machine so Im not worried about chewing up a few more megs. I believe I notice the scheduler is better in Win 8 than Windows 7.

I suspect Windows 7 is the new Windows XP where most will give it up from their cold dead keyboards.


By Rhonda the Sly on 1/4/2013 4:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
1.) The tile and notifications you're clicking on are for the Mail app, not Outlook. Consider uninstalling the Mail app.

2.) Also consider uninstalling the Photos app.


By Mitch101 on 1/5/2013 8:24:02 AM , Rating: 2
Good idea I think thats my next step instead of trying to force the app.


By Xplorer4x4 on 1/4/2013 8:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suspect Windows 7 is the new Windows XP where most will give it up from their cold dead keyboards.

And when Win 9 roles around and remains a hybrid OS, people will love it. Hopefully it get's refined in some areas. One that comes ti mind is choosing windows border text color. Try choosing a black window color, and your explorer UI becomes butchered.


By Sta5h on 1/7/2013 7:34:51 AM , Rating: 2
1) I've seen plenty of people running into this issue, just remember Mail != Outlook. Just right click on the Mail tile and "unpin from start screen".

2) The Windows 8 photo app is horrible, again, uninstall or unpin from start screen.

3) Cant speak for AMD drivers, but the NVIDIA ones are just fine, so I'd imagine the next set of WHQL drivers from AMD should sort out all/most issues. I like my games a lot and am having no issues due to Windows 8 over Windows 7.

Honestly I don't see any problem with anyone sitting out Windows 7 or jumping right on Windows 8. It's all personal preference. However, I do think there are advantages to switching to Windows 8 for the sake of £25 if you can just get over the "No start button, and it's now a screen" thing. It's really not all that big a change once you realise you can still just type in and fine things like that (I've been working that way for 6 years already).


By sage1 on 1/4/2013 3:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
1) If there really are improved features found in Windows 8, why not issue a service pack for Win 7 users?

2) Whenever I see a commercial for Windows 8, I only see people drawing on the screen or surfing the web. Microsoft fails to mention any significant improvements over 7.


By Nyu on 1/4/2013 9:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
The negatives far outweigh the positives.


By krazeyivan on 1/5/2013 8:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 8 has DPC latency issues BIG style
Microsoft have sacrificed too much to the god of power conservation - not to mention the fact that directX 10 is completely broken in windows 8............

The good tweaks they have made are blown away by the bad, and anyone installing before SP1 is taking quite the gamble


By Piiman on 1/5/2013 9:33:25 AM , Rating: 2
Those features don't mean diddly to the masses.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By Amiga500 on 1/4/2013 12:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see no reason to upgrade.


Indeed. Along with probably 95+% of the rest of the world.

There is little functionality (for the masses) that W8 adds to W7 that cannot already be achieved through third-party (free) software for W7.


By GulWestfale on 1/4/2013 1:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
i think the crap interface is what stops most people from buying win8 machines. walk into any computer store and try one out, it's unfamiliar and in some places counter-intuitive.

and then there's one really thing that nobody at MS has seemed to notice: windows 7 is just fine. win98 needed an upgarde, winME was bad, winXP was great and that's why it lasted so long (we still use it at work). then came winME 2 (aka vista), which was not so good, and now we have win7, the true successor to XP. why do we need win8? is there any real technical reason (stibility, compatibility, new tech taht's relevant to masses of people)?
no there isn't, so a lot of people aren't going to spend money on this when they don't need it.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By BrgMx5 on 1/4/2013 2:10:21 PM , Rating: 3
It´s not just unfamiliar and counter-intuitive, it's also inconsistent.

The same action (ie scrolling to a said point) doesn't always yields the same result (dropping menu or other).

It´s confusing as sh!t.

Sometimes you drop back to the old desktop, sometimes you don't.

The app store is a piece of sh!t, (some apps don't work until an upgrade that doesn't start).

It looks like OSX designed by blind people. I like the UI in phones, but it´s not for desktop.


RE: The only thing that interests me in Windows 8
By Nortel on 1/4/2013 2:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
OSX is the most intuitive OS I've come across after using Windows for 20 years. MS could have taken W7 and added the non GUI changes in W8 and it would have sold without issue. Once they start down the drastic UI change road, it confuses people and that's never good for a first impression.


By TakinYourPoints on 1/5/2013 3:46:24 AM , Rating: 1
OS X has the fastest and most logical UI out there, purpose built for multitasking on multiple actual and virtual desktops. Windows 7 is great but there's a reason why W7 is basically a Steam launcher for me while I use OS X for actual work these days.


By Breathless on 1/4/2013 2:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
"OSX designed by blind people".

I actually lol'd at that one.


By Gondor on 1/4/2013 2:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why do we need win8?


We (users) don't, but Micro$oft says we do so it can sell us something yet again. Thanks, but no thanks.


By Donkey2008 on 1/6/2013 10:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. Windows 7 IS Windows Vista. The interface is 95% the same and by the time Vista SP2 arrived, the issues with Superfetch were resolved (the Hard Drive crunching at first login). Almost all problems with Vista were 3rd party driver related and no fault of the OS. It just happens that most driver issues were fixed right about the time Microsoft released Vista SP3, aka Windows 7. To compare Vista to ME has to be the most naive statement you can make.


By gorehound on 1/5/2013 10:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
I am also sticking with Windows 7 Professional 64-BIT.
I bought the Windows 8 Professional 64-BIT for 14.99 and I set it up.I fooled with it.I dug into it a bit and used it for a few intensive days of playing around with applications I use.
I installed an open source Addon (stupidly forgot name) which a lot of you guys use to bring back a bit of the old Start Button, ETC.
In the end I deleted it and restored my fully working OS IMAGE.
Windows 8 totally blew lunch.It can not decide if it wants to be a desktop or a smart phone.I can not live with this type of OS at all.
If this is the krap they will force on us with Windows 9 then I am afraid I will not be upgrading this machine for many years to come.


By superkev72 on 1/6/2013 9:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Wow -how ignorant are you. System refresh, reduced memory usage, USB 3.0 native support, included anti-virus, Full copy bootable from USB stick (great for firmware updates of your SSD's etc..), vastly improved search (but I still use X1), much better control over the task bar and notification area, much better multi-monitor support and as you said the vastly reworked task manager are just a few of the improvements. These are all very good improvements. Was just $39 for the upgrade from win7. Seems fair to me.


By Donkey2008 on 1/6/2013 10:59:22 PM , Rating: 1
How many people will actually use System Refresh? 1%? How many "average" users even know what it does? .0001%?

Reduced Memory usage? 8% to 10% less than Win7 in average systems with 4GB of RAM standard. Whoopidy do.

Native USB 3.0 support. Is it really that hard to install a driver? Wouldn't most OEM systems come with this preinstalled?

Included Anit-virus. The majority of people wouldn't know where to get Security Essentials for free in 3 mouse clicks, but I will give you a win there.

Vastly improved search? Which search? The one in Metro or the one in the classic Explorer window? The Metro one is pure shit, the explorer one is the same as Windows 7. FAIL.

More control over taskbar and notification area? A retarded monkey could use the Windows 7 taskbar. And why do desktop users care about Metro notifications? I am sure it is great for an iPad-inspired tablet, but for a desktop user it serves zero purpose (unless you are one of the 3 people who bought a Win8 tablet and are jazzed about the Microsoft app store I guess).

Better multi-monitor support? How so? After using Win8 for a year I still find the Win7 multi-monitor support works perfectly fine.

Task Manager. Ok, it is cool, but how often do I need to do advanced analysis of my usage? Normally all I care about is committed memory and processor usage. Maybe closes a process now and then. The old task manager does this just fine.

Like others have said - the negatives far outweigh the positives.


By marvdmartian on 1/7/2013 9:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
My only questions are:
1. When does Windows 9 come out?
2. Will Microsoft realize the error of their ways with pushing Win8 on non-tablet (non-touchscreen) platforms, and go back to everyone's comfort zone with their next O/S??

Honestly, if I were in the market for a notebook right now, I'd either find one running Win7, or buy one running Linux.


The only reason
By KFZ on 1/4/2013 1:02:18 PM , Rating: 1
I even have a Windows 8 notebook is because OEMs adopted it. If given the choice at purchase (no pre-installations or a trial period where you could receive a Win7 license in exchange for deactivating your Win8 license) this OS would be an even bigger embarrassing flop.

I do not have a touchscreen. I do not want a Microsoft account and I do not want to go to their "app store" to get SKYPE (currently using portable version). I cannot believe the EU dragged MS to court over not offering free choice of web browser, but if that was anti-competitive, what the hell do you call this? If that's how touchy the EU is, where was the cry to recall Win8 completely? Where is the outrage in the U.S. over this?

It smacks of desperation, a realization that Linux is on the rise, Apple has a good thing going with their walled-garden and they're scrambling to sink their teeth into their userbase before waking up one day to find millions of people suddenly have no reason to stay with them and pay their "Because we made sure you have no other choice" fees for Win/Office.




RE: The only reason
By GoodBytes on 1/4/2013 1:15:24 PM , Rating: 4
The interface works very well with a keyboard and mouse. I use Windows 8 on my 4 year old laptop, and my gaming desktop machine. Both have no touch screen, and once I got used to the interface, I prefer it over Windows 7. Granted the new UI is not perfect, but nor was Windows 95 Start Menu, I expect improvements with the project Blue update with new user telemetry data collected. The current flaws aren't killer. People are just looking at screen shots and being total over the top vocal about it. USE IT, for at least a month, and NOW you can judge, and present a review.

I wonder if someone will file a claim at the FTC, like they did for Mass Effect 3 ending. Just stupid.

Anyway,

You can download Skype for desktop. You should learn how to read. Anyway, here is the direct link: http://beta.skype.com/en/download-skype/skype-for-...


RE: The only reason
By Vytautas on 1/4/2013 2:23:13 PM , Rating: 3
No it really doesn't work that well. Dumbed down interfaces work for beginners, non professionals, low level end users (granted those are like 95% of all users, may be even including you). But when you are an advanced user you have your way of doing things which you have optimized over the years and it won't make you happy to be forced to do things in another non optimized way. Examples in my case: I don't and I won't use any other music player except winnamp or winnamp like (qmmp in linux) where the automatic music organizer is optional and I do have the option to use MY OWN music classification with directories on the hard disk. My movies and books also have their own classification, but it's less of a problem than music. This is just a simple multimedia situation but sadly already excludes almost all the music player software out there. Office. I'm a translator, so I actually use office software for a living but after trying (and sometimes being forced to try again when on internet cafes or friends houses) the ribbon interface I have had to go back to office 2003. The ribbon interface is just too slow for any real work (for example: you can get the same work done in four hours instead of five if using office 2003 instead of any version with ribbon). That damn ribbon interface slows work up 10-20%, besides being ugly and making things I could access with just one click, two or even three-four clicks away. So thanks, but no thanks. At this point in time Libre office is just coming up to be "may be enough" for most cases (they have finally added wordcount "symbols without spaces" which was the last function I really needed that libre(open)office didn't have). At least it has an acceptable working interface when compared to ribbon. Yes, you do have to adjust, but after doing that you aren't loosing productivity anymore.
I suppose I could use win8 and actually tried it on for a very short while. May be with additional software restoring the start menu and hiding the damn start screen on startup win 8 would be a passable option, but just that.If win7 did fumble a bit with the network administration interface, win8 have fumbled much more and all over the interface spectrum.
Instead of going the way of UI advancement with instruments that have been on other platforms like linux for years (like multiple virtual desktops with different desktop backgrounds for different kind of work. That's actually an useful function) they went the dumbing down for the masses way.

Again, thanks, but no thanks.


RE: The only reason
By Vytautas on 1/4/2013 2:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
And another thing. I don't get why everyone is calling windows 8 a "graphically rich" interface when it's not. Win7 with Aero glass that has the more graphically rich and appealing interface. It's like going from windows 95 to windows 3.11 and say, windows 3.11 has a more graphically rich interface. :) :) :)


RE: The only reason
By Maiyr on 1/4/2013 3:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
ding ding ding and we have a winner folks. You nailed it! Microsoft, like any company that wants to stay in business, designs for the 95%. Why would they give a crap about 5% of their users. 5% of their users don't pay the bills, 95% does. Smart business makes the majority happy at the expense of the minority. Kind of the opposite of our gov't. :)

Maiyr


RE: The only reason
By Vytautas on 1/4/2013 3:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's possible. But if we start doing things for the lowest common denominator the situation will only deteriorate, as people will just keep getting stupider :). Besides I can't consider that an acomplishment, that an operating system is only good for begginers, computer illiterate and non professional people. In other words a desktop operating system designed only for content consumption, not creation. Does Microsoft really want to leave the enterprise and professional markets it has been entrenched for so long? Just to become "another ran" in mobile space? If they could have separate OS production lines (windows NT and windows 9x) fifteen years ago, why can't they do the same now? Seeing as windows blue will continue the stupid UI design of windows 8 It seems most advanced users and professionals will have to stay with windows 7 for another few years or slowly migrate to osx or linux.


RE: The only reason
By Prime2515103 on 1/4/2013 8:27:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But if we start doing things for the lowest common denominator the situation will only deteriorate, as people will just keep getting stupider


Welcome to America.


RE: The only reason
By Piiman on 1/5/2013 10:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
You do know they sell this around the world don't you?


RE: The only reason
By Motoman on 1/4/2013 5:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
...the problem being that in this case, there's only about 5% who think the new UI is any good.

It is definitely Fisher-Price. But easier to use?

Not at all. I have met *no one* who likes it - at all. None.

As you can see, there's a few idiots running around here spewing about how great it is - but in the real world? *Everyone* is running away from it.


RE: The only reason
By Wererat on 1/9/2013 5:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
"But when you are an advanced user you have your way of doing things which you have optimized over the years and it won't make you happy to be forced to do things in another non optimized way."

Yea, and we all progressed past using command lines and vi for all our editing, too. "TOAD user" was an epithet for a short while at my work, until people realized that the GUI made everyone faster.

"I'm used to it" is not a viable argument in my book.


duh
By Shadowmaster625 on 1/4/2013 1:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well maybe if it didnt cost $999 frickin dollars for an i5 tablet, then maybe more of them would be selling. These guys are just so far beyond stupid it hurts to imagine Microsoft/Intel are as big as they are. I can get an i5 notebook for $399 all over the place. A tablet shouldnt have a bill of materials beyond $150 more than a budget notebook. (++$60 for a decent IPS panel upgrade, ++$30 for 64GB of flash upgrade, ++$60 in chassis engineering) So duh, of course they arent selling, because they are a frickin frackin rip off. It's not like I'm asking for a lot of cpu power. It doesnt have to be i5. It just needs to be faster than atom.




RE: duh
By kingmotley on 1/4/2013 2:31:00 PM , Rating: 2
Please point me in the direction of a laptop/notebook with:
Core i5 Processor
4GB of RAM
1920x1080 (FullHD) screen
For $399 - or $499 - even $599.


RE: duh
By kingmotley on 1/4/2013 2:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Cheapest on BestBuy.com: $1,428.99
Cheapest on Buy.com: $1,149.99
Cheapest on Amazon.com: $829.00
Cheapest on Amazon 2 : $848.00

So add in a few $ for SSD, touch screen, web cams, etc and you're way over the *Retail* price of $899 for a surface pro.


RE: duh
By superflex on 1/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: duh
By Helbore on 1/4/2013 4:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
You are comparing new products to a refurbished product? You just proved his point that you won't be able to find a similar laptop, if the best you could pull up was a refurb unit.

People who are expecting i5 tablets at iPad prices are just being ridiculous.


RE: duh
By superflex on 1/4/2013 3:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the Inspiron 15R Special Editions on the Dell outlet. Wait for a 20% or 25% off coupon. They come out at least once a month.
I'm looking at one right now for $749 with Core i5, 6 gigs RAM, Radeon 7730M dedicated graphics and 1080 display. With coupon well under $599.
Next time, try doing your homework.


RE: duh
By 91TTZ on 1/4/2013 4:02:31 PM , Rating: 3
That's not really a fair comparison, though.

This tablet's i5 processor will be slower than a laptop's i5 processor, and quite a bit slower than a desktop i5 processor. Just because they have the same name doesn't mean that they'll be similar in performance.

For instance, the fastest desktop Sandy Bridge i5 is 3.4 Ghz, has 4 cores, and 6 MB L3 cache compared to the fastest laptop Sandy Bridge i5 that is 2.8 Ghz, has 2 cores, and 3 MB L3 cache. You can get a desktop Sandy Bridge i3 that is 3.3 Ghz, has 2 cores, and 3 MB L3 cache.

These tablets will most likely have an even slower version of the chip that's specially made for them.


Win7 followed a disaster; Win8 didn't...
By voodoobunny on 1/4/2013 1:50:30 PM , Rating: 4
I think one big reason why Win8 is tanking is that it is a radical change to a *successful* and *popular* OS. When Windows 7 came out it was the antidote to Vista (which was horrible), so people flocked to it. Windows 8 instead has a very strong predecessor from which people don't want to upgrade - more like Vista coming after XP.

Windows 9 may have more of a chance if they refine it and market it better.




By Ramstark on 1/4/2013 2:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on this one. Win 7 was an antidote, Vista "Fail" was so known to the market that when 7 was called "the solution" for it, everyone and their cats went for it. Win 8 is a real upgrade, something "not needed", like when you change your phone for the new model, does exactly what the previous one did, but better and plus 1 or 2 extra things. So yes, is is going to be a slow adopting cycle and yes, the design also has something to do with it, but NO is not going to be a failure "Windows 9 has to solve"...


RE: Win7 followed a disaster; Win8 didn't...
By dbwells on 1/4/2013 5:57:52 PM , Rating: 3
You're right, and this makes me wonder, did MS mess up Windows 8... ON PURPOSE?

I can imagine the laughter in those meetings as they tried to think of ways to make it as bad as possible, but not so bad that people would catch on to their little charade. "Hey, I got one, let's see if we can make an interface with 16 colors! HAR HAR HAR!"

Then Windows 9 rides in like a white knight in a year or two and totally cleans up. Hmmmm...


By JediJeb on 1/4/2013 8:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
To me it is like replacing the steering wheel in a car with a joystick. Both work but one everyone is used to and the other is just something different for the purpose of being different.


By ven1ger on 1/10/2013 4:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
Whether on purpose or not, it's just Microsoft history repeating itself.

Remember the failures with windows Millenium (sp?), and Vista.

I think it's just MS rushing a product to market, thinking they know what's best for consumers, then when the consumers fail to bite, they regroup, lop off some heads (figuratively), and then review what consumers were griping about and then put that into their their next release. Such as Win XP and Win 7.


They should have learned....
By jnemesh on 1/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: They should have learned....
By Cheesew1z69 on 1/4/2013 1:18:38 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I would say hold out for "Windows 9", but by the time they get that out the door, Microsoft will be totally irrelevant in the market!
Ok Tony...

MS isn't going anywhere and certainly not anytime soon.


RE: They should have learned....
By Argon18 on 1/4/13, Rating: 0
RE: They should have learned....
By Maiyr on 1/4/2013 3:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Define "much longer" in this context please.

Maiyr


RE: They should have learned....
By ven1ger on 1/10/2013 4:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft will not be gone for awhile because it is too big to give up right away. But they are losing relevancy in terms of tablets and smartphones. Android and Apple are the predominant players in the tablet and smartphone market, Microsoft is trying to push into this market, and there trying to ram Windows 8 down the throats of MS users to get the penetration (marketshare) they wanted may hurt them in the long run specifically in the tablet and smartphone marketplace. I can understand what they were trying to do but I don't know if it was a good idea. If you start pissing off your base, they'll look for alternatives and that in the long term isn't doing Microsoft any good as there are lots of competition out there that have better software and better equipment but just don't have the Microsoft penetration or the lock-in that Microsoft has on a lot of companies, but once those companies move away from Microsoft they don't usually come back to Microsoft.


RE: They should have learned....
By kleinma on 1/4/2013 1:45:20 PM , Rating: 3
Tony, the only thing people overwhelmingly reject are any of your nonsense drivel postings on DT. You must have the lowest poster rating of anyone on this site. We know you drank steve jobs' kool-aid a long time ago, but you need to take off your blinders.


I Think This is Meaningless News...
By Arsynic on 1/4/2013 3:07:50 PM , Rating: 3
How do these statistics relate to new PC sales in general? Are consumers buying new PCs and asking for Windows 7 downgrade licenses or are people just not buying new PCs in favor of iPad and Kindle tablets?

This is a typical Windows 8 hit-piece that lacks substance.




By TakinYourPoints on 1/4/2013 8:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
Its a combination of things.

DIYers like myself and everyone else I play games with aren't buying Win8 licenses, and new PCs aren't flying off the shelves because people are buying tablets and smartphones instead.

The latter bit of info comes from OEMs. Their sales were slow over the holiday season. In the meantime iPad sales are through the roof. People are keeping their PCs for much longer and are instead putting their money into portable devices that are useful in places other than the desk.


By stilltrying on 1/4/2013 8:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
I buy for our enterprise and strictly look for windows 7 even though 8 can run all of our applications. No thanks MS.

You think they made a bad choice with windows 8 go read up on VDA licensing, talk about RAPE. $100 a year per desktop to operate a VDI environment on a zero client, WOW.


People don't buy PCs, period
By Da W on 1/4/2013 4:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's all about the tablet craze. For that mather i haven't seen a Windows 8 tablet with an Intel CPU NOT being sold out.




RE: People don't buy PCs, period
By 91TTZ on 1/4/2013 5:33:30 PM , Rating: 3
Your claim doesn't reflect reality. Windows 8 tablets have not been selling well.

http://seattletimes.com/html/microsoftpri0/2019835...

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/micros...

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/144584-two-mo...

Also, you'd think that Windows 8 would be selling like crazy, since it was claimed that it works great on PCs and even better on tablets. If it's so great on tablets and people are buying all these tablets, why are the sales numbers so poor?


By TakinYourPoints on 1/5/2013 3:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
Because it isn't a tablet market, its an iPad market. It is a huge source of revenue that other companies want a piece of, but its looking like it will be even more Apple dominated than the iPod was.

Everyone else has a huge chicken-and-the-egg problem right now. Apps are one of the main reasons why the iPad is so popular, but how do low selling WinRT and Android tablets convince developers to target their own tablets when nobody is even buying them? WinRT actually has the benefit of a good SDK, something Android doesn't have, and Microsoft is still going to have problems courting developers because they can't even sell Surface in the first place.

As for standard Windows applications, if you're spending about a grand then most people are just going to get an ultrabook instead of a Surface Pro.


A review that makes sense.
By AskTheChief on 1/4/2013 2:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
If you have the time, here is a review that explains why Windows 8 is a failure. I agreed with almost everything the author said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTYet-qf1jo

Review the video then tell me how much sense Windows 8's design makes in comparison to previous Operating Systems.




RE: A review that makes sense.
By Norseman4 on 1/5/2013 10:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I like the review that's on the list of related links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0fsyb-ttcw

Brian Boyko specifically said he gave up after about half an hour. (That could be an exaggeration though since he said he wanted to spend a month hashing the OS out.)

This video actually shows some of the UI problems and they come to the conclusion that the Win 8 is almost not terrible.

My new laptop has Win 8 on it, but I made sure that it had a touchscreen as well. I had tried the RC in a VM and had many of the same frustrations as Boyko except the accidental swipe gesture so I knew I'd have trouble with just a keyboard/trackpad interface, so I made sure that it was a touchscreen, and also bought a cheep wireless mouse. The combination works well enough.

When I rebuild/re-create my main PC, it will have Win 7 though.


Its not a Desktop OS
By KOOLTIME on 1/9/2013 8:07:35 PM , Rating: 3
Bottom line is windows * is more geared for touch screen use.

Most folks with desktop monitors, are not going to run out and buy an expensive they are way over-priced touch screen just to use windows 8.

Other then that win 8 to win 7 there is no real world gains for 99.9% of users. Sure the claims of the faster or other small changes, but 99.9% of the computing world could care less about a 1ms time savings, when the human eye or fingers cant even react that fast anyways to them.




The silent majority has spoken.
By 91TTZ on 1/4/2013 2:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
This should really come as no surprise. The fact is that most people do not like the new tablet interface on their desktops and laptops. They made an informed decision based on their own needs, just like I did.

Instead of blindly hating Windows 8, I downloaded the release candidate and tried it out. Some features I liked, some features I didn't. I kind of like the fonts, the leaner OS graphics, and the general look of the US. It seems lean and clean. But the dealbreaker was the optimizations for tablets. It serves no useful purpose on a desktop or laptop and just gets in the way. It was also a departure from the established usability methods used in all previous Windows releases since 95. It makes everyday tasks slightly more awkward on a desktop/laptop. Since the vast majority of systems running Windows 8 are desktops/laptops and not tablets, those optimizations tend to detract from the user experience.

I think that Microsoft could have easily averted this controversy by simply giving consumers the choice at install to use desktop or tablet mode. Why not include an option for a Start button? It was obvious that removing it was a controversial decision- why alienate a large chunk of potential buyers by trying to force a controversial decision?

It was this bold decision to take away choice from the consumer that doomed Windows 8.




What a shocker
By Beenthere on 1/4/2013 5:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
...or NOT! Anyone with a clue knew that Doze 8 was a POS, hodge-podge crapware O/S. No one except Microsucks expected people to be dumb enough to actual buy or use that crap. Microsucks is so in denial that they are putting themselves out of business and that's good for those who want to develope a proper, secure O/S.




Pricing
By TakinYourPoints on 1/4/2013 7:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Something to note is that Win8 has this low of an adoption rate even at a price that Microsoft is giving it away at.

Brutal.




Money Talks
By titanmiller on 1/4/2013 8:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
MSFT was quick to say that users wanted this touch interface on the desktop (yeah right!), but I think that this will be a lesson to them not to push a touch interface to the desktop where keyboard and mouse are king.




Not a surprise
By rs2 on 1/4/2013 9:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 was and still is a better option than Windows 8 for the majority of users. Windows 8 is only a compelling option if you have a tablet/touch-screen device. For the typical keyboard-and-mouse driven desktop experience, Windows 7 makes more sense.

But at the end of the day, the only thing that's really happened is that Microsoft has another 'Vista' on its hands. I'm sure Windows 9 will right the wrongs of Windows 8, just like Windows 7 righted the wrongs of Vista. That seems to be the way of Microsoft's release cycle (Win ME -> awful, Win XP -> great, Vista -> awful, Win 7 -> great, Win 8 -> awful, ...).

Here's to sticking to my original plan of keeping Windows 7 until Windows 9 comes out. It's best just to ignore the 'awful' iterations in the release cycle.




Diversity would have been better
By yeeeeman on 1/5/2013 5:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think that Windows 8 is not bad. The problem that I see is the fact that we do not have options. We have so many versions of Windows (Professional, Pro, Home, etc), but they did not bother to make a version without the Start Screen.
I sincerely do not imagine that any user, who really wants to do serious work on his computer, would ingurgitate that colorfull childish interface.




By johnsmith9875 on 1/6/2013 5:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
What was Microsoft's objective? Apple's was clear, to make a dedicated tablet OS that had nothing to do with any desktop or laptop OS, with dedicated apps that are meant from the start to work through a touch screen.

Microsoft has given us a rather bizarre frankenstein OS which is Windows 7 and Windows 8 at the same time, but neither.

What's even more bizarre is the mono-color tile motifs have migrated their way to their new products for no concievable reason. Sharepoint 2013, Office 2013, even Server 2012 has it.

As a network admin, I can't stand the Server 2012 interface but it looks like there's little choice in the matter, once 2008 R2 becomes EOL, we're stuck with the goofy Server 2012 interface.

This latest group of product launches are absolute disasters. This beats the ribbon bar ten times over in terms of suck.




Waht did you expect?
By cyberserf on 1/6/2013 10:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
some many features gone.....
removed "Window color and appearance settings" which was invaluable to get the system to be usable if you didn't like how GUI looked.
removed "system properties" which had tabs to make is super easy to get things done.
everything that is left is dumbed down versions with stripped features.
flat colors through-out because of new theme.
aero gone for those who like transparency.
new classic view sucks
dumbed down task manager.
removed cascading Start menu after XP not windows 7 and that is why people probably didn't like the start menu.
Segui Ui as font instead of giving option for Tahoma 8
crippled search. XP was better
Windows explorer dumbed on.
navagation pane view on/off gone since Vista.
Veritical folders which take up much more space. lame
IE10 sucks. see much less then IE8/9.
list goes on and on......
Microsoft is so lost.
LOL




Is this a surprise
By jingle10 on 1/6/2013 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
Ignoring the like or dislike argument for a moment.

Everyone is aware that desktop/laptop usage in general is in decline, so how can you expect Win8 to sell as well as Win7. In addition, Win8 in tablet form is competing against well established competitors, so how can it be expected to sell in any sort of volume. It will take time to get any sort of market share.

Like it or hate it, a lower sales volume compared to Win7 at this point is not a fail. It will be more interesting to see where things stand in a years time.




By dark matter on 1/9/2013 2:47:50 PM , Rating: 1
Because, to be honest, I wouldn't even pirate it, I find it's that shit.

I truly believe that people would rather pirate windows 7 than windows 8.

And that is just shocking.




The only reason people are complaining ...
By InsGadget on 1/4/13, Rating: -1
By EnzoFX on 1/4/2013 3:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
Do all of you who say you're never on the start screen not realize that it isn't a pro, but a con? Especially to consumers that are on the fence, which is most of them apparently with this low of a market penetration.


RE: The only reason people are complaining ...
By Dextor41 on 1/5/13, Rating: -1
By Piiman on 1/5/2013 11:09:54 AM , Rating: 1
"They're either MS haters or stubborn ignorants."

How do you figure this? I guess if you like it everyone should or their stupid? Maybe its you that is too stupid to realized its fooked to put a tablet UI on a desktop PC.

I had it on my main PC since it was released and guess what? I have now gone back to win 7 as of yesterday and its like coming home after a long trip. It actually put a smile on my face when I saw the Win 7 sign on screen.

And no I don't hate MS but I do hate Apple sorry pirks.
Seriously pirks you're one to talk Mr. iFanboy.


RE: The only reason people are complaining ...
By cyberguyz on 1/6/2013 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 1
Actually I love Win 7. I don't hate Microsoft. I just don't like the direction they are taking Windows after v7.

I understand their desire to have a single OS image for everything, but the simple matter is that UI designs that work great for a tablet/cell phone make using a desktop less productive.

UI's for cell phones and tables lend themselves best to focused activities due to their limited display real estate. A task flipping metaphor works best for them. Desktops and laptops which commonly have monitors anywhere between 15-30" are great for being able to monitor and juggle several tasks at once. You can't do that in a simple task switching paradigm. You can how ever do that in a multi-windowed environment such as the desktop.

I don't hate Microsoft. Why should I, as I make large amounts of money developing software for their operating system. One thing I can tell you is that my clients are NOT beating down my door looking for Windows 8 versions of my software (though it runs very nicely in the Windows 8 desktop -- it just is not a Windows 'app store app' and never will be).

The only thing that will get me to upgrade my Windows 7 further is:

1. Give me the choice of how I want to interact with my system. If I don't want the 'metro' start screen or windows 'Apps' dont install the RT infrastructure.

2. Give me my start button/menu without makking me go to 3rd parties for it.

3. Give my my damn Aero themes back. The desktop looks like it has been reverted all the way back to Windows NT. In short UGLY!!


By KiwiTT on 1/6/2013 2:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't Microsoft release two versions like they did with Windows XP. You had Windows XP and Windows XP Tablet Edition. That would have made more sense. They have Windows 8 Phone edition, what is the problem with one extra edition.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














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