I don't think we will know any of this until it is released and goes through its first initial patches. No one is forcing anything on anybody. Corporate users can just as easily use commercial UNIX which is well supported and very stable. The operative word is "workstation," these employees will be doing work, not playing games, getting on facebook or playing World of Warcraft. I don't think I can name a single successful modern company that does not use Windows 7/ Server 2003 on a great number of their workstations. My college runs Server 2003 with Windows XP plus a slew of systems that run Windopws 7 through VMWare. Anyway, each company is different and it is a little late to be declaring Windows 8 a definite flop. We simply do not know yet.
You are mixing up the desktop market with the corporate workstation market. The two are mutually exclusive.
I don't play World of Warcraft here either but I wouldn't say I have a corporate desktop either! The main problem seen with most any newer version of Windows from the start is pointed at compatibility.
Now how does that effect the typical user as well as the corporate environment. On the corporate side companies have invested heavily in not only tooling their entire office staff with hardware but laid out the do re' me for softwares! As a tule they are never in any rush to go out and simply jump on the new version band wagon just because it has some new "Bells and Whistles"! They upgrade according to their own busniess needs.
As for "Joe Home User" Vista was setback to some degree with some pc games as well as desktop apps and driver support. The release itself had seen several delays resulting in 6yrs. after XP. Fat support was also removed with the apparent thinking it would no longer be needed. Wrong! External devices including usb peripherals for cell phones with cameras and digital camera connected to pc by usb see Fat volumes. UB flash drives come with Fat by default for cross OS compatibility not just for Windows only. Plus you tack on exFat for external hard drives just being seen following Vista's release by the number.
MS realized soon that 7 had to see Fat support return. Another thing beside stressing the OEMs for driver support was an improved form of backward compatibility for those things that wouldn't install and run on Vista but will especially on the 32bit 7. That includes a number of XP written pc game titles as well as desktop apps.
For 8 however the gamers while the rave about performance is supposedly better in 8 then 7 according to who? Blog writers are now finding many of their older not the latest titles simply won't run on 8 but manage on the 64bit 7.
As far as a progression of improvements seen with each new version skipping over ME? XP was rushed to replace ME with it's main improvement going with the NT core since NTFS is obviously the more secure and stable platform. But it was rushed out too fast where each SP finally brought in much needed fixes that weren't addressed in XP pre-SP1.
For Vista is mainly accurately indicating the actual correct amount of physical memory installed not being reported prior to SP1 while XP lacked well over 1,000 items needing to be fixed. Many opted to keep 2000 if not 98SE, 98PLUS!, or even ME on! Yes there are some ME users still out there.
The problem with 8's progression again wouldn't be so much as far as the core elements improved upon but how MS left no options for any form of traditional desktop. Vista was far better off by how it was handled with the choices of Aero or Classic Windows. At least there every user private or corporate saw options available which are lacking in 8! This will likely be the maker or breaker in the long run.
Interresting assertion and I agree. Microsoft attempts to make all UIs look the same from cellphones to desktop. The only thing they will succeed is having computers with Metro UI and other without. That will be a real mess. There will be poeple (or organisations) for whom W8 (and its Start screen) will be impossible even to contemplate using, and other who will use it daily.Originally Posted by MaxIt must be recalled that XP was designed to address a main instability issue in W98, bring efficiency improvements with new APIs and the (theoricaly) more reliable file system. But they messed it up by making as easy as possible for viruses to infect your computer. Safety was so terrible that it was unthinkable to run it without a firewall and an antivirus. On top of that they added several layers of useless complexities such as services and multi-user by default.Originally Posted by Night HawkThen Vista was released to address the safety issue still present in XP SP3, just as XP was to address the stability issue in W98 (which was solved along the years BTW). Vista brought the infamous UAC, infamous but IMO, a great security improvement. But again, they messed up with ridiculously high bloat, HD foot print, ram use etc just because Aero was buggy and the indexing service was turned on by default.Originally Posted by NHMoronic mistakes which were finaly addressed in W7. They didn't mess W7 with anything so they created W8. Was a long time they didn't mess with their last OS with something ludicrous so W8 fills that need, sort of.Originally Posted by NH
My point about playing World of Warcraft on a desktop PC as opposed to running business software at a workstation was meant to illustrate the vastly different needs of a corporation and a desktop user.
I do play WoW on my Windows 8 box and it does really well, for me.
The main thing about the drastic change seen with 8 is gearing the OS at the portable touchscreen type market while leaving the desktop user stuck in a hard place as far as the gui is concerned. Compatibility issues as far as softwares and drivers has always been the excepted risk with any newer version to come along.
Tablets are smaller than Desktop monitors and have, in general, much lower CPU speed "under the hood". Playing games on a tablet, unless it is solitaire or minesweeper, would be very difficult. I don't feel that I am trapped with Windows 8 on my desktop. Everything on the "desktop" and in Metro can be quickly accessed through keyboard shortcuts.
Most applications do run faster on the "desktop" interface. but it is easy to switch back and forth using the meta key and <meta>-D. I also run Windows 8 on my Acer Aspire One netbook and it sails. Thus, I think it is a matter of the set-up and the whole question might be moot if businesses choose to use their keyboards (and not touch or the mouse) to go in and out of Metro. Notice that most, if not all, non-metro apps run from the "desktop interface anyway. It takes a second to switch from Metro to desktop. On the other hand, I can see how an extra second or two could start to become irritating for a lot of people
An exception would be in the programming of industrial machinery, but in those cases, the operator is standing rather than sitting over the workstation. Thus, the touch screen is irrelevant to desktop users who can remember a few key-combinations. I would say that because of the small screen sizes, the touch screen will be almost mandatory for the tablet.
I hope that MS will add some more options for applications but we can only hope.
I guess I don't have a problem since I have never owned a Microsoft tablet or a "Zune" phone although I can see where Windows 8 would be fantastic on such devices. Maybe MS could add extra functionality for desktop users (tabbed browsing or a shortcut toolbar for IE 10, Metro). I think that Metro's "start menu" is big and clumsy but maybe I will change my opinion. Right now,. I have been using Win8 on both of my production systems and it is what it is: a place to do work and, hopefully, to play some games (and no, I don't play games on my phone or netbook.)
What I meant was a more easily accessible tab bar. This is great for a tablet PC (or a phone), but it is a hassle for a desktop user. The "tabs" open and close very slowly and there are only two options for them: on and off." The history bar (F4) is a much more useful way of getting around.
I assume that Microsoft wants us all to "pin" our favorite web pages to the start menu, but I am too lazy and have been using the history bar and the search bar to get where I need to go. I truly believe that the touch interface will slow things down considerably (but I'm talking about my preferences). Metro can be completely accessed by the keyboard arrow keys.
I do not feel that MS is fragmented. They are the best and most popular system available. The fact that Windows 7 and XP are still available is an issue of free choice and not fragmentation. The fact that MS provides so many systems for so many different preferences means more money to Microsoft and more people doing what they please with their computers. The fact that WinXP is still
rich4421972 Windows XP is NO longer available except from a 3rd party. I believe you meant Vista and Windows 7 is still available.