Is Windows 8 a planned failure to promote Surface?

I was just sitting here tonight reading some posts on Windows 8 and the Surface tablet and I've almost convinced myself that Microsoft knows that Windows 8 is going to flop on the desktop because of a lack of touchscreen, so conveniently they are going to release the Surface tablet around the exact same time, possibly at a super low price tag of $199 simply to give people a reason to use Windows 8 in the way it was meant to be used, and get them into the RT version that is more locked to their store to ensure they control all sales of software and skim some off the top along the way.

It's like the "chicken and the egg". Which comes first. Does Microsoft need Windows 8 to sell the surface, or do they need the surface to sell Windows 8?

I don't think so, but I don't seem to be into the paranoid theories...

Windows 8 has had some MAJOR planning that I've never really seen from Microsoft. OEMs built some prototypes of new tablet PCs and Microsoft had their input on them to make them perfect. Intel is building new Atom chips with Microsoft's new always on, always connected feature of Windows. NVIDIA has been waiting for Windows 8 for a while now and have chips ready to go. But the amount of WinRT tablets is a bit surprising to me as I expected only a few from a couple of OEMs, but there are more than that expected to be released this October.

I HIGHLY doubt a 200 dollar price tag will be associated with the Surface Pro or RT. That level of engineering DOES NOT COME CHEAP, AT ALL. Some rumors with a good standing claim the new RT tablets, Surface probably as well, will be ranging at 500 to 850 to compete with the ipad head on as that is the new competition.

You need both the sell the chicken and the egg. Hardware fails without good software, and software fails without good hardware. Case in point, old graphics drivers and vista. A graphics card needs a good driver, vista needs decent hardware. I don't really know WHY Microsoft decided to build a consumer tablet, but they're sticking to it. Some speculation is that they're looking for people to fill job openings pertaining to the Surface 2. But, I bet the Surface came about in an effort to be more symbolic than simply sales. It's the quintessential Windows 8 tablet PC. Hardware fades to stage the software in full glory, but flexible to do what you need from it. It might also be a design template for OEMs as well. Microsoft needs to win over people drooling over a pixel dense display on a large ipod touch that does nothing more than the iphone or itouch can do. I find the Surface primarily does that.

I think it's pretty bald faced clear that they are "Leveraging" their captive Windows audience to promote the tablet and phone.

They already knew that they could sell as many copies of windows 8 as they wanted. What they have virtually ZERO sales of are tablets and phones! So putting a new interface on them is not going to sell one single copy of windows ever.

Once Windows 8 rolls out and people play with the new toy interface, those that like it are going to cast a "Hmmm" over to the Win8 tablet and phone when it comes time to purchase one...

Most people have/own their PCs, lappys, and smart phones, but most probably do not have Pads. At least in my world. Can we say, on average, that PCs and lappys get upgraded every 5 years? Phones at every 2 years, since most carriers offer the new-in-two policy? Is that fair to state?

If so, then I feel the Pad market is the one to target. And who has most of that market share? iMe! I think it brilliant that M$ is mimicking Apple in approach. Is that not what it seems they're doing? "If you can't beat them, join them" so to speak. If it works for Apple, why not anyone else?

"Which came first, the chicken or the egg" has been debated for centuries. Here, though, I think it was both, thanks to Apple. Does not their iPad hardware and software work hand-in-hand? Keep in mind the iPhone. Never owned a Apple product, so I wouldn't know about the integration amongst their devices. Perhaps someone could fill me in.

So, M$, in mimicking them, has performed the same. Both 8 and the Surface were created for the other. Keep in mind the Windows phone also. There will be integration there so far as I know. I believe the Windows interface became so popular because it was/is user friendly -> easy to learn and use. It may have not been the most stable of OSs, but easy to learn and use. M$ has always made it somewhat easy to fix when it broke. Even easier in 8. At first it was DOS, then came Windows. DOS was not complicated for the Pro, but for the average Joe like me, Windows was a cinch. The rest is history.

I remember when I spent my fair share on my new rig preloaded with Vista. I was as excited as a kid opening a present on Christmas morn! Then came the disappointment of instability! I started spending more time fixing the damn thing than using it! I lQQked into other OSs. Call it brain-burned, comfortable, or whatever. I wanted my Windows! Thank God 7 came along so quick!

Now we have a double whammy here. Not only has there been a change in interface in OS 8, but M$ is getting into the hardware business as well. It gets a bit complicated, or does it? Doesn't seem to be complicated for Apple. I just don't get the big who-do I read on the forum.

So what if 8 is not a perfect fit on a PC or lappy so as to cater to the Pro? I understand the grievances here, but who's to say not that some day it will?

Target: -> The Pad <-

I highly doubt they spent 3-4 years developing an OS (which I find to be awesome on my PC) just to promote a $200 product. What if the Surface flops?

eXcite said:

I highly doubt they spent 3-4 years developing an OS (which I find to be awesome on my PC) just to promote a $200 product. What if the Surface flops?

Click to expand...

That is /exactly/ what they did.

And as for your question... Indeed...

MS made an almost unbelievably risky move with Windows 8, especially given the amount of force being put into required Metro on the desktop when it really has little use there.

Anyone that can get by with just the metro interface on the desktop doesn't need a desktop at all, they should just throw it away and get a surface with kb. So.. no actual REAL desktop user needs or wants Metro whatsoever. The level of alienation they are causing is extremely high.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but what if I actually *do* want my desktop, tablet, laptop and phone to all behave the same way?

(Truth be known, I don't like Metro. The only Metro app I use with any consistency is a little Backgammon game from the Microsoft store, and that could be just as easily designed to run as a normal Windows application. Long before Win8 developers have provided software and games that run in full-screen mode: why should I need to launch it from Metro at all?) The Win8 desktop doesn't do anything for me that Win7 doesn't - except that it's uglier without Aero. I don't need Metro and I don't like the extra step required to drop through to the desktop. (Some apps launched from Metro open in the desktop anyway.)

I do not own a Windows phone or a tablet, and I don't really want either of them. My little Win7 netbook serves me well as a lightweight full-function computer: I found out that I was wasting my time putting Win8 on that.

Things that work well on a 4.5 inch screen in a very simple and limited way, become insanely and unusably limiting on a desktop. Why even HAVE a desktop, if they do the same thing and your phone is already there with you in your pocket?

People are already complaining about how totally useless the Metro mail app is.

If the desktop gives you no more control or features over a task than your phone then why have a desktop at all?

But those of us that do want to be able to sort our mail locally on our desktop need a REAL mail app on our desktop, NOT the same simple mail reader that is on our phone. That's the entire purpose of having a desktop, because phones, tablets and even laptops are woefully insufficient for the many complex tasks that we require from our desktop machines.

My phone can do only one thing at a time, my desktop can do 10 things at a time. Having a single unified One Thing At A Time interface on a desktop makes no sense at all.

Now... I've said a million times, Metro on the desktop /could/ have been useful had they made it work more like a desktop app... But they had to heavy hand it