This will be Microsofts biggest ever flop, far bigger than Vista.

[Max Peck]

I consider every OS that I have tried from W98 thru to 7, (with the exception of Millenium which I skipped), to be an improvement on the previous one. OK Vista took a bit longer to get the bugs sorted out, but still better than XP.

Can't say the same of 8. It has radically departed from the general structure of all past versions. And I have no doubt it will cause mayhem to the average joe.

Smartfone/tablet users will be OK. However the skills involved in using these devices does not carry over carte blanche into a desktop PC.

I have a Sony Android Smartfone, and there is no comparison between that and desktop. In fact I think of it as a hybrid computer/phone and not really that good at either. Try typing a word doco on a tiny screen. And the web sites need to be magnified 300 - 400% to make them readable, with 3 or 4 scrolls to read a line. You can't print a hard copy receipt for bank transactions. And so it goes on.

Concur. Personally I think it will fragment the market to a certain degree. Certainly there will be some adopters of it but people that use Windows for desktop are going to be hard-pressed to retool their system just for the bolted-on "Metro" (OK - Modern) GUI. What value does any of that stuff add? OK, so the O/S is slightly optimized for speed - however it's an incremental improvement. I don't rebuild my systems for incremental improvements, I doubt corporate desktop environments will. My employer has 30,000 employees using desktop Windows. Heck ... they're not even all up to Win7 as yet. I doubt we'll see them deploy Win8 any time soon. They may develop a Metro (oops, Modern) app at some point but will IT burden itself with forcing Win8 on the entire organization? I seriously doubt it. Not until there's something about the thing that just knocks the socks off the management or saves some serious bucks. MS has one hell of an uphill battle with this one, particularly in the corporate environment.

-Max

 

[rich4421972]

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.

 

[Night Hawk]

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.

 

[Fredledingue]

Personally I think it will fragment the market to a certain degree.

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.

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.

It 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.

As for "Joe Home User" Vista was setback to some degree

Then 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.

MS realized soon that...

Moronic 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.

 

[rich4421972]

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.

 

[Night Hawk]

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.

I never said games wouldn't run on an 8 desktop but would run into some serious issues when tried out on a Tablet PC. Likewise I couldn't see spending hours in front of a Tablet pressing a finger on the screen all the time either. If you are into sales and make a call you can press and drag items on the screen for show. But for practical desktop application?

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.

 

[rich4421972]

I never said games wouldn't run on an 8 desktop but would run into some serious issues when tried out on a Tablet PC. Likewise I couldn't see spending hours in front of a Tablet pressing a finger on the screen all the time either. If you are into sales and make a call you can press and drag items on the screen for show. But for practical desktop application?

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.

My mistake. I never use the mouse or touch in Metro. On a desktop PC, such movement (reaching up to the screen and down do the keyboard) is ergonomically unhealthy. I expect that business users will not use a touch screen, either.

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.)

 

[R0bR]

Personally I think it will fragment the market to a certain degree.

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.

The market for Windows products is already fragmented, different versions of Windows are being run, Xbox has (had) a different interface, Windows Phone had a different interface. The goal of Metro is to unify the experience so it doesn't what matter platform you access the experience is familiar. If anything once everything is running Metro there will be less fragmentation.

Maybe MS could add extra functionality for desktop users (tabbed browsing or a shortcut toolbar for IE 10, Metro).

Tabbed browsing already exists in IE 10 Metro, just right click anywhere and the tabs show up at the top.

 

[rich4421972]

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

 

[Mike Lonewolf]

rich4421972 Windows XP is NO longer available except from a 3rd party. I believe you meant Vista and Windows 7 is still available.

 

[PaulGo]

[h=1]Why I’m uninstalling Windows 8[/h]
As a cruel trick on myself, about a month ago I installed Windows 8 on my main PC to see what it was like.

The answer is: abysmal.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Windows 8 is the worst computing experience I’ve ever had. As a desktop operating system, it’s annoying, frustrating, irritating, and baffling to use. I’ve tried on many occasions to explain exactly why it’s so awful to use day-to-day, and most of the time, smoke starts pouring out of my ears. I thought it would be better to get down exactly what the issues are and why you should avoid it.

Full article at:
Why I

 

[PaulGo]

PC Makers: Windows 8 May Not Be All It's Cracked Up to Be

Acer and other PC makers lower forecasts for second half 2012 PC shipments

While many PC makers saw the coming of Windows 8 as an opportunity for growth and increased competition against Apple, those feelings are slowly fading.

Acer Inc., Quanta Computer Inc. and Compal Electronics Inc., three major PC makers, have all lost hope in Windows 8 being the savior of PC sales for the second half of fiscal year 2012. This opinion differs from those heard by the same PC makers earlier this year, who were happy to show off Windows 8 laptops, all-in-ones and ultrabooks at the Computex trade show in Taipei. Acer even said that Windows 8 PCs would bring growth to his company once again.

But these opinions changed as PC makers see no customer enthusiasm for personal computers running the Windows 8 operating system. Another issue, according to analysts and the PC makers, is that Windows 8 laptops and ultrabooks will likely be much too expensive upon release.

Full article at:
DailyTech - PC Makers: Windows 8 May Not Be All It's Cracked Up to Be

 

[SIW2]

I gather you are not very keen on it, then.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

It is possible, with the right following wind, MS may shift a fair few tablets. ( A number of things will have to fall in MS favour - but it may happen).

We may then see Desktop users taking the opposite approach. After the rush to get the giveaway price - the rest might just ignore win8 and stick with what they have.

Fascinating to see what comes of this.

 

[rich4421972]

rich4421972 Windows XP is NO longer available except from a 3rd party. I believe you meant Vista and Windows 7 is still available.

Actually, no. Windows XP is still available (just not supported) and used on over 30% of all internet-connected computers. You can buy genuine discs anywhere (even ones that come with Service pack 3 already patched in). In addition, Internet Explorer 8 is still alive and well and usable by penny-conscious IT departments.

XP is no longer supported by MS and has reached "End of Life." Some companies (and especially colleges will not upgrade) The recent versions of Firefox browser are too unstable for heavy network usage for colleges who tweak the browser to run academic applications and software. at my college, we still use our own version of Firefox 3.6 and WinXP on our student networks.

The IT department at my college uses a heavily tweaked version of XP to run on their servers (We still use Novell network software). We have 8 computers running Windows 7 via VMware. As of this time, Windows Vista has a 6% internet share (OS X weighs in at 6% and GNU/Linux has 1%). Windows 7 makes up the rest of the usage.

 

[SIW2]

Vista is doing the same as OSX - that ain't so bad.

 

[rich4421972]

I don't get understand the numbers, myself, but they are accurate.

I don't think it means an OS is good or bad. It is an interesting factoid, though. Personally, I think Vista is a little too resource-hungry for my taste.

 

[Robert]

You will need to adapt or die, it is the way of life. Windows 9 will be metro, and so forth.

I don't see the big deal with Win8. It's just a big start screen, and you can just go to desktop and do your stuff there.

[video=youtube;qJ4KbXRrd00]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ4KbXRrd00[/video]

 

[Mustang]

You will need to adapt or die, it is the way of life. Windows 9 will be metro, and so forth.

No, W8 will die on the launch pad, and reason and common sense will prevail in W9.

I don't see the big deal with Win8. It's just a big start screen, and you can just go to desktop and do your stuff there.

If you don't get it, there's no point trying to explain.

"For those who believe, (in legacy GUI), no explanation is necessary.

For those who don't believe, no expalantion will suffice."

 

[speedy1979]

[video=youtube;qJ4KbXRrd00]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ4KbXRrd00[/video][/QUOTE]

Now that's the Micro$oft we know and [DEL]love[/DEL].

 

[Robert]

You will need to adapt or die, it is the way of life. Windows 9 will be metro, and so forth.

No, W8 will die on the launch pad, and reason and common sense will prevail in W9.

I don't see the big deal with Win8. It's just a big start screen, and you can just go to desktop and do your stuff there.

If you don't get it, there's no point trying to explain.

"For those who believe, (in legacy GUI), no explanation is necessary.

For those who don't believe, no expalantion will suffice."

You forget that no one is forcing you to buy and use Windows 8. If you feel the need to use outdated OS you are the decider of that.

W8 will not die, it already has a lot of support. It will become mainstream whether you like it or not, when it ships on every single new laptop and desktop.

Metro is just another layer of the package, as was the desktop over DOS.