Why would I want Windows 8

[ADRz]

I don't know if it's really worth it. I felt the difference because I went from Vista immediately to Eight, I only tried out Seven afterwards. Yes, it's slightly faster, but I don't know much more changes. In my opinion, one of the few things that stands out for a new user is the Metro interface, but I don't know if that will motivate people to leave Seven.

As for me, I'm willing to leave seven as soon as Windows 8 is officially out, as I'm terrified of BSODs and Eight made them look more friendly. Really, I used to have nightmares about it when I was a kid.

BSODs? I have not seen one in the last five years!!!! Keep your drivers updated and you would never see one. Not only did Vista made them exceedingly rare, but I have not seen any with multiple systems since all of them were upgraded to Win7. However, BSODs were very rare (if ever) in my system since WinXP SP2.

Are you getting too many BSODs???? If so, there many things going wrong in your system and Win7/Win8 have the least to do with it.

 

[ADRz]

Why would you buy a Win8 ARM tablet and not an Android 4.0 (ICS) one?

What I saw of Android, it seems to hold together with rubber bands and band aids. E.g. the poor success of the superb Motorola Xoom was mainly because of the poor quality of Honeycomb (high price was probably another reason). Plus most applications were rather shuddy because Google did not control anything.

I would expect the Win8 tablets to be of a higher standard. And I am sure they will provide the twenty or so applications that the average user needs. After all, tablets are toys and not designed for serious work.

Key to the success of the Win8 tablets will be price. An entry price of $250 with an average configuration at $350 would work. But an entry price of $499 or more will not fly. MS is not Apple that have fans who buy anything at any price that Apple sells.

What then have you seen of Android? Not much, right? No, the problem with Motorola's Xoom was not Android 3.0 (although originally only a beta was utilized) but it was the lack of content. Many have pointed it out. Purchasing the iPad was a straight proposition with consumers. They knew what they were buying. But with the Xoom, they had no ikling as to what to do with this machine. However, this prompted Google to start its own music and book store and also Amazon and B&N to follow. Now, the Amazon Fire and the B&N Nook sell like hot cakes (and they run Android). The reason is quite obvious, isn't it? The price is about $200, and with that you get a tablet and access to a huge amount of content. So, why pay more?

There is no way on this green earth that Dell, Lenovo and HP would ever come out with $200 Win8 tablets. The current ones are actually sold at cost (as Amazon revealed) because they make money for Google and Amazon from sales of apps and content (music, movies, books) and in advertising. Neither Dell, Lenovo, HP, Asus or others have access to this content. So, they cannot afford to sell their tablets at cost (and also pay a license to Microsoft). They are in the hardware business and they are in the hardware business to make money!! It is as simple as this. And we are talking here only for ARM-based Win8 tablets which would run only Metro apps.

Now, going to Intel-based tablets, these even require internal fans to cool the processors, so any price point below $600 is likely unrealistic (with a $130 licence to Microsoft). These would supposedly compete against the iPads. Considering that the iPads would be in the 3rd generation and iTunes is the most popular destination, I see MS getting creamed here in the consumer market. Some of these tablets may go to industry for some vertical applications, but I just do not see any of them becoming a popular consumer buy.

I suggest that revise your opinion on Android. In fact, Android is in the mobile space very similar to Windows (amazingly so). You would feel a much closer affinity to Android on a smartphone than to Windows Phone (which copies the iPhone model). Android in version 4.0 is quite mature and incorporates a lot of innovations. Win8 in tablets would be a poor match for Android 4.0 (ICS). Let's not even forget that by the time these tablets are our, Android would be in version 5, and before MS offers any meaningful upgrades with Win9, Android would be in version 9.0!!!! Microsoft works on "enterprise speed" while Google and Apple work on "consumer speed". This alone will decide the outcome.

 

[Coke Robot]

Why would you buy a Win8 ARM tablet and not an Android 4.0 (ICS) one?

What I saw of Android, it seems to hold together with rubber bands and band aids. E.g. the poor success of the superb Motorola Xoom was mainly because of the poor quality of Honeycomb (high price was probably another reason). Plus most applications were rather shuddy because Google did not control anything.

I would expect the Win8 tablets to be of a higher standard. And I am sure they will provide the twenty or so applications that the average user needs. After all, tablets are toys and not designed for serious work.

Key to the success of the Win8 tablets will be price. An entry price of $250 with an average configuration at $350 would work. But an entry price of $499 or more will not fly. MS is not Apple that have fans who buy anything at any price that Apple sells.

What then have you seen of Android? Not much, right? No, the problem with Motorola's Xoom was not Android 3.0 (although originally only a beta was utilized) but it was the lack of content. Many have pointed it out. Purchasing the iPad was a straight proposition with consumers. They knew what they were buying. But with the Xoom, they had no ikling as to what to do with this machine. However, this prompted Google to start its own music and book store and also Amazon and B&N to follow. Now, the Amazon Fire and the B&N Nook sell like hot cakes (and they run Android). The reason is quite obvious, isn't it? The price is about $200, and with that you get a tablet and access to a huge amount of content. So, why pay more?

There is no way on this green earth that Dell, Lenovo and HP would ever come out with $200 Win8 tablets. The current ones are actually sold at cost (as Amazon revealed) because they make money for Google and Amazon from sales of apps and content (music, movies, books) and in advertising. Neither Dell, Lenovo, HP, Asus or others have access to this content. So, they cannot afford to sell their tablets at cost (and also pay a license to Microsoft). They are in the hardware business and they are in the hardware business to make money!! It is as simple as this. And we are talking here only for ARM-based Win8 tablets which would run only Metro apps.

Now, going to Intel-based tablets, these even require internal fans to cool the processors, so any price point below $600 is likely unrealistic (with a $130 licence to Microsoft). These would supposedly compete against the iPads. Considering that the iPads would be in the 3rd generation and iTunes is the most popular destination, I see MS getting creamed here in the consumer market. Some of these tablets may go to industry for some vertical applications, but I just do not see any of them becoming a popular consumer buy.

I suggest that revise your opinion on Android. In fact, Android is in the mobile space very similar to Windows (amazingly so). You would feel a much closer affinity to Android on a smartphone than to Windows Phone (which copies the iPhone model). Android in version 4.0 is quite mature and incorporates a lot of innovations. Win8 in tablets would be a poor match for Android 4.0 (ICS). Let's not even forget that by the time these tablets are our, Android would be in version 5, and before MS offers any meaningful upgrades with Win9, Android would be in version 9.0!!!! Microsoft works on "enterprise speed" while Google and Apple work on "consumer speed". This alone will decide the outcome.

You're right about content. But even then, amazon isn't making money off the tablets, they're relying on content. Dell, Asus, Acer, and Samsung will have access to new content and old content when 8 is RTMed. Of course there wouldn't be a lot. ARM tablets have their own battle.

Speaking of such, Intel based tablets will be running the refreshed Atom series processors which basically won't require major cooling apparatuses, as is true right now. I can buy a 300 dollar, Intel based netbook. With efficient manufacturing and Microsoft making deals with 8, I'd see a Windows 8 tablet with an Intel Atom for somewhere in the 200 dollar range.

Too bad people use PCs to use Windows. I've never seen average android users do anything fantastic other than call, text, and use apps. That's actually what I was told today by a friend of friend who spent 200 dollars on an android 3 phone. The only times I've ever seen a phone physically abused by being dropped intentionally on the ground, thrown at the ground, thrown at a wall, or at a trash can is when it's an android phone. Literally. Never iphones, but androids. That's just from what I've seen in person. android is a fragmented market that is continuously being fragmented. Consumers are initially mesmerized by a new android phone, but all they do is call, text, and use apps with difficulty in between. By the time Windows 8 is out, android will be in its fifth version, probably still leeching off from original ideas from either iOS 6 or Windows again. Consumers don't like updating Windows as it is, no one will EVER, EVER, EVER, upgrade to android 5 to 9 in two, three years. Probably by then, android 4 will be the crap version being peddled. I highly doubt your last statement.

 

[ADRz]

You're right about content. But even then, amazon isn't making money off the tablets, they're relying on content. Dell, Asus, Acer, and Samsung will have access to new content and old content when 8 is RTMed. Of course there wouldn't be a lot. ARM tablets have their own battle.

Speaking of such, Intel based tablets will be running the refreshed Atom series processors which basically won't require major cooling apparatuses, as is true right now. I can buy a 300 dollar, Intel based netbook. With efficient manufacturing and Microsoft making deals with 8, I'd see a Windows 8 tablet with an Intel Atom for somewhere in the 200 dollar range.

Too bad people use PCs to use Windows. I've never seen average android users do anything fantastic other than call, text, and use apps. That's actually what I was told today by a friend of friend who spent 200 dollars on an android 3 phone. The only times I've ever seen a phone physically abused by being dropped intentionally on the ground, thrown at the ground, thrown at a wall, or at a trash can is when it's an android phone. Literally. Never iphones, but androids. That's just from what I've seen in person. android is a fragmented market that is continuously being fragmented. Consumers are initially mesmerized by a new android phone, but all they do is call, text, and use apps with difficulty in between. By the time Windows 8 is out, android will be in its fifth version, probably still leeching off from original ideas from either iOS 6 or Windows again. Consumers don't like updating Windows as it is, no one will EVER, EVER, EVER, upgrade to android 5 to 9 in two, three years. Probably by then, android 4 will be the crap version being peddled. I highly doubt your last statement.

The only reason that you had netbooks at the $300 price point is because wireless companies subsidized them. There is no way that Win8 tablets can hit the $200 price point. At this price, the tablets will be given out at cost. If you do intent to make a profit from something else, then this is becoming a totally useless exercise. Dell, HP, Lenovo are hardware companies. They do not have bookstores, music stores or app stores. Their business model is selling hardware for profit.

Now, I would not answer your comments on Android because they are not serious. At least, you can try to read a review.

 

[Ivan the SoSo]

I'm nobody of any importance but you need to keep the conversation civil....The mods and admins don't play, and this conversation is starting to heat up....if you wander into rudeness/flaming they will ban you:shock:....and we need everybody here....Keep in mind that Eight is a work in progress and may change very much before the final release

 

[Coke Robot]

You're right about content. But even then, amazon isn't making money off the tablets, they're relying on content. Dell, Asus, Acer, and Samsung will have access to new content and old content when 8 is RTMed. Of course there wouldn't be a lot. ARM tablets have their own battle.

Speaking of such, Intel based tablets will be running the refreshed Atom series processors which basically won't require major cooling apparatuses, as is true right now. I can buy a 300 dollar, Intel based netbook. With efficient manufacturing and Microsoft making deals with 8, I'd see a Windows 8 tablet with an Intel Atom for somewhere in the 200 dollar range.

Too bad people use PCs to use Windows. I've never seen average android users do anything fantastic other than call, text, and use apps. That's actually what I was told today by a friend of friend who spent 200 dollars on an android 3 phone. The only times I've ever seen a phone physically abused by being dropped intentionally on the ground, thrown at the ground, thrown at a wall, or at a trash can is when it's an android phone. Literally. Never iphones, but androids. That's just from what I've seen in person. android is a fragmented market that is continuously being fragmented. Consumers are initially mesmerized by a new android phone, but all they do is call, text, and use apps with difficulty in between. By the time Windows 8 is out, android will be in its fifth version, probably still leeching off from original ideas from either iOS 6 or Windows again. Consumers don't like updating Windows as it is, no one will EVER, EVER, EVER, upgrade to android 5 to 9 in two, three years. Probably by then, android 4 will be the crap version being peddled. I highly doubt your last statement.

The only reason that you had netbooks at the $300 price point is because wireless companies subsidized them. There is no way that Win8 tablets can hit the $200 price point. At this price, the tablets will be given out at cost. If you do intent to make a profit from something else, then this is becoming a totally useless exercise. Dell, HP, Lenovo are hardware companies. They do not have bookstores, music stores or app stores. Their business model is selling hardware for profit.

Now, I would not answer your comments on Android because they are not serious. At least, you can try to read a review.

What wireless companies?

And I have read all the negative and positive reviews of android. I know what people use android for, call, text, and use apps, nothing more, nothing less. I know quite a bit about a system I don't particularly mind for so I know what I don't like about it.

 

[whs]

call, text, and use apps, nothing more

I would add on-line shopping.

 

[ADRz]

What wireless companies?

at&t, Verizon, Sprint.....

And I have read all the negative and positive reviews of android. I know what people use android for, call, text, and use apps, nothing more, nothing less. I know quite a bit about a system I don't particularly mind for so I know what I don't like about it.

And how do you think the Android apps differ from the Metro-style apps that would be offered by MS??? In fact, what do you expect that you would be able to do with these apps that you cannot do with Android apps????

 

[whs]

Maybe one of you wants to start a thread Windows8 verus Android. I had started this thread to explore the unique and desirable items of Windows8. It would be nice if we could get back to that discussion.

 

[ADRz]

Maybe one of you wants to start a thread Windows8 verus Android. I had started this thread to explore the unique and desirable items of Windows8. It would be nice if we could get back to that discussion.

You seem defensive. How are these "items" in Win8 unique if they can found in all other mobile OSes? If you ask for uniqueness, then, I presume, that you are open to a discussion on what is available elsewhere. Because if it is available elsewhere, then it is not unique. Or have I misunderstood you again?

 

[Ivan the SoSo]

whs IS somebody of importance.....

 

[Coke Robot]

What wireless companies?

at&t, Verizon, Sprint.....

And I have read all the negative and positive reviews of android. I know what people use android for, call, text, and use apps, nothing more, nothing less. I know quite a bit about a system I don't particularly mind for so I know what I don't like about it.

And how do you think the Android apps differ from the Metro-style apps that would be offered by MS??? In fact, what do you expect that you would be able to do with these apps that you cannot do with Android apps????

Last that I checked, netbooks weren't being sold by network carriers. They're sold like laptops, and are incredibly small laptops.

The point of having an integrated metro design all around is because simply you don't actually interact with a home screen or the Start Screen enough to have that experience. It's like running itunes in Windows, it look just flat out odd with the rest of the design of Windows. You don't look at a home screen enough to feel a design. A user wouldn't be solely in the Start Screen, they will be in apps that are metro designed, so you they can feel of a common design thread. Like Office 2010 in Windows, it looks like it should be there. If that helps get my point across...

 

[Coke Robot]

Getting back on topic, Space Pools! I still don't fully understand this feature, but if it works like a true RAID that runs on whatever interface the hard drive is connected to, that is a step towards progres.

-I don't know if this is a desktop benefit, but the Start Screen will have Grouping to basically revamp a compact folder view of the start menu.

 

[The Howling Wolves]

Hey Coke,
Do you and ADR like to see yourself talk?

Be nice if you two could start your own post so the rest of us can move on.
There's even money in the house on who is more boring.
I found 2 pennies so I am throwing my 2 cents into the pot!
Just My Humble Opinion.
THW

 

[Vertex]

Coke and ADRz have had a long debate, it was even longer on the "Windows 8 would be irrelevant to PC users" thread. Metro UI vs. non Metro, Windows 8 vs. Android. Coke is the most diehard defender of Metro on this forum, whilst ADRz is the most diehard critic. It goes on forever.

What I want to see is to see more built-in features in the Beta. And by then, I will have a better judgment.

 

[CovertDeath]

here is my view on windows 8

i think the biggest thing holding everyone back from windows 8 is the metro launcher screen. well i ask you this, if it booted up into the desktop first and EVERYTHING else we have seen was still included in win8, would you hesitate near as much to upgrade?

i'll answer first, if win8 was everything we have seen so far, yet booted to the desktop (classical) first, i would buy it upon release, the performance gains and all around efficiency changes to the OS alone make it worth the upgrade.

now i ask you one more question. where has it been stated that win 8 will FORCE you to boot into Metro???? right now currently on my win7 machine, i can make it boot up into a classic win98 desktop with boring grey taskbars and everything. the classic desktop is already built into win8 as we have all seen (and used if you have the wdp) so why does everybody think there won't be an option in the control panel, or desktop properties to have it boot up to the desktop first?!

i personally think Microsoft will include this option and give users the CHOICE of WHICH theme to boot into, both will always be in the OS but i don't see what would stop them or make them not want to give us the option. we have not heard them say that it is impossible to boot into the desktop first, all we see is them showing off METRO because it is there new interface but i think we take that too far and assume that since that is what we see boot first all the time that that is the ONLY way it will be done.

i would put money that it will be an option to change on the release version and that we can boot into desktop first if we so choose. to push my point further for all of you who say "well why isn't it an option in the developer preview?" to that, i say there are many features that are not in the build yet that should be, such as an easy way to shut down the PC lol... currently i have to CTRL+ALT+DEL and click shutdown to get it to a FULL shutdown.

have faith, i think we will have the option to boot to desktop and thus making win8 MUCH more desirable for many of us

 

[ADRz]

here is my view on windows 8

i think the biggest thing holding everyone back from windows 8 is the metro launcher screen. well i ask you this, if it booted up into the desktop first and EVERYTHING else we have seen was still included in win8, would you hesitate near as much to upgrade?

Probably no, considering that I have a number of licenses already. However, my Win7 installations are very stable and perform very well, so this is not something that I will undertake for simply having "the latest". It must have some value to me.

i'll answer first, if win8 was everything we have seen so far, yet booted to the desktop (classical) first, i would buy it upon release, the performance gains and all around efficiency changes to the OS alone make it worth the upgrade.

Probably so, we have to see. I am not opposed to any upgrade that substantially increases the efficiency of my computing experience

now i ask you one more question. where has it been stated that win 8 will FORCE you to boot into Metro???? right now currently on my win7 machine, i can make it boot up into a classic win98 desktop with boring grey taskbars and everything. the classic desktop is already built into win8 as we have all seen (and used if you have the wdp) so why does everybody think there won't be an option in the control panel, or desktop properties to have it boot up to the desktop first?!

It has been so stated by the "Windows 8 Development Team" and it exists in the "developers" version. I know that that the Windows 8 Development team has gotten an earful of complaints on this but there is no evidence so far that it has decided to make the Metro Start Screen optional. In fact, the indications so far are to the contrary. If you are booting directly on to the desktop, then you have hacked the "developers" version that you are running.

i personally think Microsoft will include this option and give users the CHOICE of WHICH theme to boot into, both will always be in the OS but i don't see what would stop them or make them not want to give us the option. we have not heard them say that it is impossible to boot into the desktop first, all we see is them showing off METRO because it is there new interface but i think we take that too far and assume that since that is what we see boot first all the time that that is the ONLY way it will be done.

I disagree. I do not think that MS would make it optional running the Metro Start Screen. Virtually all development for Win8 was to create a mobile OS that can be "slapped" on top of Win7. In essence, Microsoft has created something akin to Android (Let's call it WinRT, as they do) and this system virtualizes Win7. Thus, you are in essence running a mobile OS that allows you access to the desktop, not the other way around!!

Then, MS has strong inducements in not making the Metro Start Screen optional. If it is optional, only a small minority of users will enable it, as it has little to no utility in 99.999% of Windows installations today. Microsoft has spent a lot of money creating a new Win8 Martetplace and expects to make money by selling Metro-style apps (by the way, the WP7 apps are incompatible). I do not expect MS to give up the game without strong pressure from the users. If you think that MS is likely to make Metro optional, I think that you are mistaken.

i would put money that it will be an option to change on the release version and that we can boot into desktop first if we so choose. to push my point further for all of you who say "well why isn't it an option in the developer preview?" to that, i say there are many features that are not in the build yet that should be, such as an easy way to shut down the PC lol... currently i have to CTRL+ALT+DEL and click shutdown to get it to a FULL shutdown.

have faith, i think we will have the option to boot to desktop and thus making win8 MUCH more desirable for many of us

Microsoft has strong inducements not to do what you wish it to do. In fact, it is ready to forgo virtually all upgrade revenue. Microsoft does not disagree that the Win8 is irrelevant to current users. It has never argued otherwise in any public forum. MS expects the following:

(a) Virtually no revenue from upgrades
(b) All revenue from sales of new PCs (desktops, laptops) that would sport a "touch" screen (I think that they are dreaming)
(c) Revenue from the sale of tablets and smartphones
(d) Revenue from the Win8 Marketplace

 

[Coke Robot]

Coke and ADRz have had a long debate, it was even longer on the "Windows 8 would be irrelevant to PC users" thread. Metro UI vs. non Metro, Windows 8 vs. Android. Coke is the most diehard defender of Metro on this forum, whilst ADRz is the most diehard critic. It goes on forever.

What I want to see is to see more built-in features in the Beta. And by then, I will have a better judgment.

 

[Coke Robot]

here is my view on windows 8

i think the biggest thing holding everyone back from windows 8 is the metro launcher screen. well i ask you this, if it booted up into the desktop first and EVERYTHING else we have seen was still included in win8, would you hesitate near as much to upgrade?

i'll answer first, if win8 was everything we have seen so far, yet booted to the desktop (classical) first, i would buy it upon release, the performance gains and all around efficiency changes to the OS alone make it worth the upgrade.

now i ask you one more question. where has it been stated that win 8 will FORCE you to boot into Metro???? right now currently on my win7 machine, i can make it boot up into a classic win98 desktop with boring grey taskbars and everything. the classic desktop is already built into win8 as we have all seen (and used if you have the wdp) so why does everybody think there won't be an option in the control panel, or desktop properties to have it boot up to the desktop first?!

i personally think Microsoft will include this option and give users the CHOICE of WHICH theme to boot into, both will always be in the OS but i don't see what would stop them or make them not want to give us the option. we have not heard them say that it is impossible to boot into the desktop first, all we see is them showing off METRO because it is there new interface but i think we take that too far and assume that since that is what we see boot first all the time that that is the ONLY way it will be done.

i would put money that it will be an option to change on the release version and that we can boot into desktop first if we so choose. to push my point further for all of you who say "well why isn't it an option in the developer preview?" to that, i say there are many features that are not in the build yet that should be, such as an easy way to shut down the PC lol... currently i have to CTRL+ALT+DEL and click shutdown to get it to a FULL shutdown.

have faith, i think we will have the option to boot to desktop and thus making win8 MUCH more desirable for many of us

There are easier ways to do a full shutdown. Win + I and the power icon is in the Settings menu. The shutdown feature is literally a hybrid of hibernate and shutdown. Restart will do the full shutdown. To make shutdown a true shutdown, go to Power Options for the Desktop Control Panel, and select "choose what the power buttons do" and there's a link that says "Change settings that are currently unavailable", there's a tick mark that enables Hybrid Boot. That should do it for ya!

 

[Vertex]

Well, they better put a much easier shutdown button that you can access directly. The way they had the power button under the Settings menu is a design fail!