Solved Let's stop moaning

[legacy7955]

And Microsoft believes that the world is moving to a touch-based computing model. They believe that is where the demand will be. Further, they don't want to confuse users by providing different user interfaces for touch and mouse. That's what they've been doing for 2 decades and it hasn't worked.

This is not just Microsoft. Apple is moving in the same direction. Macs don't even *HAVE* an equivalent of the start screen, or the old start menu. They just have the dock, and an applications folder.

Microsoft believes they are catering to future demand with Windows 8, they believe that traditional desktops can work just fine with this UI, but the vast majority of their revenue will come from touch based devices. Why cater to people that make up what they consider to be a tiny percentage of their future revenue?

"Microsoft BELIEVES that the world is moving to a touch based computing model."

Where did they gather this supposed information from?

So because CNN and the other broadcast media likes to tap on giant 60 in screen TV monitors....that often times DON'T RESPOND to the touch (it's amusing to see the constant fails live on the air!) and a marketing or consulting company created data that says it?

I,m telling you, that touch stuff while is a selling point is still NOT going to be a huge presence in the consumer marketplace for some time to come if ever, because it is NOT practical. Sure there will always be the "metro" consumer markets where hipsters posing will have their tablets playing stupid games like Angry Birds and such but for most ordinary consumers the reliable and practical lap top will still OWN the market. After all it has a REAL keyboard. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to deny the practicality of it, not to mention the reliability as well.

I increasingly see that these large companies surround themselves with yes men that will tell them what they want to hear. That is delusional.

 

[Barman58]

Thanks for the input Barman. I can see the logic of you post, and certainly don't begrudge M$ as a busines to seek the market that brings in the greatest return ... they'd be crazy not to.

However, why do they refuse to provide switches for direct boot to desktop and legacy start menu for geeks, etc? It's a simple thing to do. And surely something they wouldn't begrudge their loyal army of supporters over the past few decades. But not only did they not provide it, they proactively blocked the early regedits to provide direct access to desktop. That seems very mean spirited to me.

No doubt the multitude of persons familiar with smartfones will have no problem adapting to and using the Metro start menu. But I would seriously question the efficacy of that with businesses, government offices, educational facilities, defence/police forces, and a multitude of others who are accustomed to and want/need a traditional desktop ... especially a start menu. IMHO there will be a huge outcry at the loss of this, which will not be heard until it's gone.

Anyhoo, as has alredy been stated, time and the consumers will be the final judge. And yes, it's true my rig is atypical with extreme mobo/cpu (12 threads), 3 GTX graphic cards SLI bridged, 12GB RAM, and SATA3 SSD HD. But with that setup I don't really see any significant degree of speed increase with W8 over W7, if any. So I will continue to use W7, at least for my main OS, until I'm forced to upgrade, or a SP comes out which gives the desired options in W8.

I'm open minded but for my purposes can't see a better setup than I already have with W7.

Businesses and the like are often more limited in the scope of application available to employees, those who wish to be successfully as businesses anyway, I've set up a fair few business networks in my 30+ years in the IT business.

the main requirement from the management is often the wish to limit what an employee can do with their company PC, even to the extent that users only have access to those applications that are deemed required to perform the job they are paid for, No multimedia, or admin tools Internet highly limited with social networking and such like blocked. it may be that the metro interface is too open for these organisations - I've not looked at the group policy options available as yet or those available via server 2012.

In the old days I have set up systems where an application or two was automatically opened on boot and the only other access a user had was to files on a file server. Most organisations these days take the view that some non productive computer use is acceptable but even amongst there they will sometimes provide separate systems in specific areas which may only be used when users are on break times to check email, social media etc. This may seem draconian but if you are a manager the last thing you want is an employee playing angry birds or something bringing down the system and costing thousands - believe me this type of thing does happen

 

[mdmd]

 

[Mustang]

Businesses and the like are often more limited in the scope of application available to employees, those who wish to be successfully as businesses anyway, I've set up a fair few business networks in my 30+ years in the IT business.

the main requirement from the management is often the wish to limit what an employee can do with their company PC, even to the extent that users only have access to those applications that are deemed required to perform the job they are paid for, No multimedia, or admin tools Internet highly limited with social networking and such like blocked. it may be that the metro interface is too open for these organisations - I've not looked at the group policy options available as yet or those available via server 2012.

In the old days I have set up systems where an application or two was automatically opened on boot and the only other access a user had was to files on a file server. Most organisations these days take the view that some non productive computer use is acceptable but even amongst there they will sometimes provide separate systems in specific areas which may only be used when users are on break times to check email, social media etc. This may seem draconian but if you are a manager the last thing you want is an employee playing angry birds or something bringing down the system and costing thousands - believe me this type of thing does happen

That's fair comment and I have to admit makes sense.

My experience as an employee in large offices included working for the Depts of Treasury, Taxation and Bureau of Census and Statistics. That was a few years agos now, and from what you say, things have changed quite drastically. Back in those days we did everything on work computers from paying our bills to buying stuff on eBay; and management didn't seem to mind.

But even now, as a case in point, I have a friend who works in the Justice Department as a part time clerk, and constantly sends me personal emails as well as general articles, jokes, etc. The only restriction to her emails is incoming; and even that's only partially blocked by the system admin. Some of my emails get through, and others don't.

Even so, I'm still not convicned that Metro will be well received. I imagine most businesses will want to modify W8 to the extent of working on the desktop with shortcuts pinned to the bottom task bar for ease of managing files when several programs are open simultaneously, as with stock brokers, market anaylysts, etc. And for purposes of mutli-filing, referencing/comparing data benchmark charts, etc. Certainly at least at the level of mid-management.

To have to leave the desktop and constantly go back and forth to Metro would be very cumbersome. And it's problematic whether businesses will gain enough from upgrading to W8, if they gain anything over W7, to have to go to all the trouble and expense of setting it up to work as they want it to when W7 already does it all. I mean what is the big gain in W8 for them, versus the inconvenience of re-tooling? As a business owner I couldn't see the sense in doing that.

 

[Barman58]

Businesses do not upgrade individual systems they upgrade the complete infrastructure, the take-up of Windows 8 in business will be strongly linked to how good the complete package is, the desktop, the servers, and maybe even the mobile devices. I do not expect many businesses to upgrade from there current set-ups for quite some time, after all it's often the state of the hardware that triggers an upgrade, and many will have just gone through an infrastructure rethink with the obsolescence of XP. The OS is just what comes on the new hardware, with only the odd piece of recently acquired hardware actually being upgraded. If Windows 8, works with the infrastructure that they are retaining then it will be accepted.
Often a business is not concerned with a big gain, but a small gain or even maintaining things as they are. There are some new technologies under the skin of Windows 8 that might well give this edge.

If you ignore the aesthetics of the start screen and just look at it as a new start menu, the ability for using items pinned to the desktop is still there, it's different yes but as long as it can be made to work it will be used. I'm sure Microsoft has been getting a lot of feedback from all it's potential customers, and I'm equally sure that if the business sector's feedback was as bad as the press, (who love negativity, as it sells papers, gets blogs read ), then Microsoft would have listened, despite what some may think they are not stupid enough to alienate their main markets.

Time will tell

 

[Mustang]

@ Barman. That makes sense. On that basis, if large numbers have upgraded the infrastructure in the last two years, which would include W7, then they would more than likely not upgrade to a new OS only, unless it offered big adavantages.

However, as you stated earlier, W8 may simply be M$ vanguard into the smartfone/tablet market, with any businesses windfalls being a bonus. Time will tell but either way it doesn't help my cause.

 

[Mystere]

"Microsoft BELIEVES that the world is moving to a touch based computing model."

Where did they gather this supposed information from?

The fact is, the traditional PC market is dying. HP's revenues are down 60%, while Apple's become the highest valued company in the history of companies.

Companies making traditional PC's have been struggling to get people to buy. We're seeing a huge shakeup. Devices are selling like hotcakes, PC's are not. Microsoft is following the money.

It's not just the economy. If that were the case, it would affect all markets equally.

Read this article: HP, Dell Problems: PC Makers In Desperate Need Of A Reboot

 

[FSeal]

"Microsoft BELIEVES that the world is moving to a touch based computing model."

Where did they gather this supposed information from?

The fact is, the traditional PC market is dying. HP's revenues are down 60%, while Apple's become the highest valued company in the history of companies.

Companies making traditional PC's have been struggling to get people to buy. We're seeing a huge shakeup. Devices are selling like hotcakes, PC's are not. Microsoft is following the money.

It's not just the economy. If that were the case, it would affect all markets equally.

Read this article: HP, Dell Problems: PC Makers In Desperate Need Of A Reboot

It's a lot more complex than all that.

It's the economy, it's the fact that machines are overly powerful and lasting years longer than in the past, it's partly due to tablet and laptop inroads.

Problem is, while a desktop may not be necessary for every single person wanting to get on the net, they are a VITAL tool for most all professional markets as well as a fairly massive enthusiast/gamer/DIY market.

The unfortunate upshot of this "tragedy of the commons" outcome is going to be that PC prices are going to start raising soon and like quality monitors, they won't go away but will simply cost 5x-10x as much as they do today. (Quality monitors are a perfect example of where desktop PCs may be heading).

The bottom rung of the market can go where it wants too, and if windows merely becomes a toy OS then it'll be time to say good bye and switch over to where ever the rest of the people that need PCs end up.

 

[Mystere]

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that most of the MONEY is going to be in devices in the coming years, and that's why MS has focused Windows 8 on touch.

 

[FSeal]

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that most of the MONEY is going to be in devices in the coming years, and that's why MS has focused Windows 8 on touch.

Well no one is disputing that. Just their methods. Unfortunately that is an area where MS has /never/ done well. We can still be rightfully upset that in order to gain their dream goals that we desktop users have to suffer through their tabletizing and blandizing of the desktop in desperation

 

[Fredledingue]

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that most of the MONEY is going to be in devices in the coming years, and that's why MS has focused Windows 8 on touch.

It's a lot more complex than all that. as FSeal said, but there is one more reason why it's more complicated than just More handheld devices = Less PC sales. 10 years ago, and up to 5 years ago to some extent, poeple had no other choice but buying a bulky case with a very heavy and voluminous monitor, a keyboard and a mouse, preferably on drawer under the desk they bought especialy for their computer. That's what they needed to buy if they wanted to chat online, download mp3 or send mails. Today poeple discover than they don't need to buy all these gears and can do it almost as easily (if not easilier) on deices that they can put in their pockets or their handbag. It's much more fun. Poeple hae their things that they need for what they are doing.

The fact is, the traditional PC market is dying

It doesn't mean howeer that the poeple who did tasks which do require a PC are disapearing or that these tasks are now useless. At the ery least many poeple still feel they need a laptop with a decent monitor size. Personaly I don't see the real difference between a laptop and a desktop PC (except the size). The desktop PC become a more specific piece of engineering. Today if you buy a desktop PC, it means that you know what you are doing and you know what you will be doing with it. You know why a laptop won't be as good for that. And those who buy something smaller than a laptop also know very well why they buy it for. And it's not to use it as a PC.

and that's why MS has focused Windows 8 on touch

Since I'm positive I'll stil use non-touch devices within the next 10 years, I can't accept that as a justification to destroy Windows-for-PC.

 

[Mystere]

Windows 7 will be supported until 2020. If you don't want windows 8, you aren't being forced to buy it.

Microsoft, however, has a lot of things they need to support in the coming years, including software that works on multiple architectures (x86 and ARM right now) and an OS that works in multiple form factors, including non-traditional ones. The entire computing paradigm has shifted, and desktops, as much as I love them, just aren't going to be where the money is. And the money is what drives new development.

I think Microsoft believes that if they don't change, they might as well just shut down. Because there won't be any money to keep the lights on.

 

[Mustang]

Nobody blames M$ for going where the $$$$ are. They'd be crazy not to. And while there's no doubt the burgeoning market for hand held mobile devices that provide social iNet and pics/vids will take away something from the traditional desktop market, it will not be that much.

It's more a case of the overall market expanding to include a new group of devices without diminishing the old market significantly. Almost everyone I know personally have multiple devices of smartfone, laptop or tablet, AND desktop. It's not either/or, but both/and. And the reason is simple. They serve different purposes ... mobility versus flexibility. Same reason off road vehicles will never replace stretch limos.

The real dilemma for the desktop/tower user is that M$ have virtually held a monopoly in this area of the market for a long time ... especially for the flexibility it gave the DIY enthusiast, which is the main reason, aside from cost, why everybody has not flocked to Mac.

So if M$ go belly up in this area of the market, where do the desktop users turn?

No doubt many will keep using W7 in the hope they will will either bring in a SP for W8 with the desired options, or sit it out till W9 comes along. Or another player enters the market.

However, the question still remains unanswered, if M$ are looking down the barrel financially, why aren't they doing everything in their power to retain their grip on the desktop market by providing a few simple switches to give us what we want. It's not a case of can't, but won't.

I feel they owe their past supporters that much. Or at least give us the improvements in W8 OS as a SP to W7.

 

[Barman58]

The desktop market is no longer the only platform that Microsoft have to support, the Windows 8 Metro idea is an understandable route for them to go. business is where Microsoft have to maintain their market dominance, (the consumer market will, I think, adapt to Windows 8, as they always seem to ), and I'm sure that the movers and shakers in the big corporates IT departments were well in the loop during the design of Windows 8 and Metro, and their input is included in what we see now

One area that may cause Microsoft more concern is the talk, in major corporations, of migration back to the old distributed computing model, low power, thin client "Dumb" terminals on the desk fed from servers. With the internet infrastructure now at the level it is (in the developed world ), the possibility of distributed computing to branch offices is a possibility, of course Microsoft is not ignoring this possibility with the push to cloud services and virtualisation.

Time will tell

It's been over fifteen years since the last major refresh to the UI of Windows, the Start Button in windows 95, who knows perhaps Metro will become as much of an institution as the start menu

 

[Mustang]

The desktop market is no longer the only platform that Microsoft have to support, the Windows 8 Metro idea is an understandable route for them to go. business is where Microsoft have to maintain their market dominance.

That's fair enough, and no one is asking them to stop supporting Metro and making it their priority, but why not support both when it's so simple to do as evidenced by Classic Shell?

It's almost like they've gone out of their way to kill the desktop off. Why disenchant that group of consumers?

I can't really see an alpha numeric start menu ever being replaced by a tile start menu, simply because the former is so compact, occupying so little space to hold so much information, and efficient. I believe consumer demand will bring it back.

 

[Barman58]

Oh I agree that the IFKAM selection method is not as useful to me for program selection as the start menu, but I've been using the start menu everyday for probably 8 hours a day since 1995

I'm learning the interface slowly and the underlying OS has it's benefits, I've been on a smartphone daily for about 18 months now and so can see that a alternative UI has its merits, the Tiled UI is the only way for some devices, so would the retention of the Start button interface cause more confusion in the long term, I don't know (my crystal ball had a BSOD in the night ), I'ts a brave decision by Microsoft but if it's a right one Who Knows, the major markets will decide in october .

(IFKAM = The Interface Formally Known as Metro)

 

[SIW2]

why not support both when it's so simple to do as evidenced by Classic Shell

MS want to keep showing you the start screen - that is how they get you to into their online services and apps.

That is why they don't want you to boot straight to desktop and have another steering wheel ( e.g. start menu ).


You are right - they could have included both - but they didn't for the above reason.

 

[Mustang]

The Tiled UI is the only way for some devices.

Yes I certainly agree that a tiled menu is the best UI for smartfones/tablets; but not for traditional desktop.

I don't know, (my crystal ball had a BSOD in the night)

Good call Barman, you got a genuine laugh out of me with that one.

And yes, in the final analysis, only time will tell. Or as my dear departed mother used to say: " God only knows, and He wont' tell!" However, I might hazard a guess ...!

Why not support both when it's so simple to do as evidenced by Classic Shell

MS want to keep showing you the start screen - that is how they get you to into their online services and apps.

That is why they don't want you to boot straight to desktop and have another steering wheel ( e.g. start menu ).

You are right - they could have included both - but they didn't for the above reason.

Yes, have to agree, that's the only logical answer that makes any sense to me.

 

[jeffrys]

"Jeff, I was actually complimenting win2000 "

Yes Barman, I know, but I was not that crazy about Win2000

Jeff

 

[Barman58]

Jeff,
my first experience with Win2000 was a system with two servers and about 50 workstations most of which were involved in real time data acquisition from various exotic hardware, It all communicated on day one and never failed at all during testing, (and as far as I know never in service, Other than a drive failure, in a redundant array, so the system never even stuttered).

After a few years fighting with windows NT, ( which was stable compared to the consumer OSs of the day), it was such a refreshing change, win 2000 could do no wrong from then on, and it rarely did, just like win7 has been for me