The real reasons to blame Windows 8 for plummeting PC sale

It's interesting how words gets around:

PS: The technical details (because I know some readers like these things) direct from the engineer:

The new computer is an i7 with a 240 GB SSD (Intel 520 series), a 1TB HDD, and a video card big enough to run Joanne’s two 30 inch screens. Have loaded Windows 7 Ultimate (sorry, but Windows 8 gets too many bad reports) and anti virus, and got on line to update drivers and operating system, so far.

Click to expand...

The Monster has arrived. Thanks to friends… : – ) « JoNova

One of Australia's most respected analysts of the global warming scam. They buy PCs but they don't buy Windows 8.

Your link and quote are exactly the points that have been made in another thread. He hasn't actually tried windows 8, just concluding from other party reports.
As he is a self acknowledged cynic, with no apparent claims to computer no how, this pretty well sums up the thread title.

But, for interest, who is "they" "They buy PCs but they don't buy Windows 8."

I think this article gives a good explanation and I don't think it is biased against W8. The PC market has been declining for years (compared to an overall growing electronics market) and not because of the OS itself.

Hardware has been good enough for a few years to not require so frequent upgrades for most users. Most up to 4 year old PCs learn to fly if you just add an SSD. Private and business users use more mobile devices (instead or in addition to desktops), making the desktop upgrade even less needed.

Nowadays there also is a gray area on what is a PC. Traditionally it was the "Personal Computer" a single employee or user used (instead of mainframes). Over time it became synonym for x86 plattforms (mostly everything not Macintosh). this kind of defeated the "Personal" parts since a Mac also could be used as a "personal" computer.

now the "personal" computer often is a phone or tablet. They counted x86 laptops as PC, but not tablets. Doesn't make sense since we now also have x86 tablets (Surface). MS doesn't have a problem selling their hardware (surface Pro) and an OS along. the problem seems to be with the OEM who have overslept the trend to mobile devices. Apple, and now MS, have recognized what is going on.

So yes, my tablet/phone is my personal computer, my desktop is my primary computer and file server if you will. Overall PC sales are increasing (and people upgrade tablets/phones more frequently than they ever upgraded traditional PCs) and MS wants to get into this growing segment.

They means people generally, I think.

I don't know how anyone can pretend the product offering itself does not affect sales.

:huh:

SIW2 said:

They means people generally, I think.

I don't know how anyone can pretend the product offering itself does not affect sales.

:huh:

Click to expand...

Correct, the product determines sales. But so do the alternatives. W7 sold like hot-cakes since the viable alternatives were either outdated (XP) or had performance issues (Vista). the alternative to W8 is W7, and if you use mouse/keyboard W7 really is great. sure W8 is a bit faster, more secure... but not enough improvement to upgrade from W7. this is less a lack in W8, more a praise to how good W7 still is. If someone buys entirely new, W8 seem the better investment since it has much more product life left (ignoring the awkward UI, but this is here to stay, better embrace it for in 2020 when W7 security patches stop)

Another key here is that there is a lot of upgrade hangover left in a lot of people who jumped on Vista from XP and absoluely hated it - those people will have a naturally fearful mindset and will think not once, not twice, but three times or even more before leaving W7, arguably the best (consumer) OS ever made by M$, to get on board with Win8.

I, myself, avoided it for a variety of reasons, the main one being that I was in the middle of writing my thesis for my Masters degree and simply did not want to have to deal with the headache that was going to come from having to learn how to do things a little bit differently, and neither am I ready for an upgrade from Office 2010 to Office 2013.

I've since graduated, and thesis is done, but now employment is the most important thing - but after that you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll be renewing my old TechNet sub and moving on to new products.

But too many people that got burned (or personally knew people who got burned) by the Vista fiasco are not going to change their minds, and that is regardless of what you do or show to them.

The article seems to assume that everyone bought the $15 upgrade, instead of a new PC.

If that's true, why don't the numbers reported by the "Internet Visits" collators verify this?

The pundits have not correlated the obvious fact that there is a worldwide depression going on at the moment. IMO, the sale of any product which could be regarded as "extra" or nonessential, is well down below normal. I honestly believe that the private user, and the more expensive buyer, are wary at the moment of plunging into any new, or updated product, which cannot be fully justified. At the time of Windows 7 release, economy worldwide was reasonably healthy, and it was time for an upgrade from good old XP. Most had skipped through the Vista period because of it's bad press, and the waiting interval had therefore been extended enough to allow budgeting for an updated product.

davehc said:

The pundits have not correlated the obvious fact that there is a worldwide depression going on at the moment. IMO, the sale of any product which could be regarded as "extra" or nonessential, is well down below normal. I honestly believe that the private user, and the more expensive buyer, are wary at the moment of plunging into any new, or updated product, which cannot be fully justified. At the time of Windows 7 release, economy worldwide was reasonably healthy, and it was time for an upgrade from good old XP. Most had skipped through the Vista period because of it's bad press, and the waiting interval had therefore been extended enough to allow budgeting for an updated product.

Click to expand...

Well stated and couldn't agree more. :thumb:

Then why are Apple/Android tablets and phones doing so well, but Windows tablets and phones are looking somewhat lacklustre? PC sales may have declined, but they are still a major market, but Windows 8 sales aren't looking all that great.

davehc said:

Most had skipped through the Vista period because of it's bad press, and the waiting interval had therefore been extended enough to allow budgeting for an updated product.

Click to expand...

The bad press and word of mouth that Window 8 is getting is what is killing sales also more so than any thing else.

The sad thing is that there's a beaut OS hiding behind that Metro screen, that isn't being given a fair go because of the aforementioned Metro screen.
I don't like the direction MS is heading, but the OS itself is being massively under-rated. Unfortunately a lot of it comes from those who should know better.
For me, the improvements under the hood far outweigh the negligible inconvenience of installing Classic Start and a Start Screen customization program.


Wenda.

Hi Wenda.
Could you post a picture of your (opened ) Classic menu. I want to make a point and that would help.

Sure, Dave, here you go.

I've given you two, one with just the main Classic Start start menu open, the other with All Programs open. I don't use All Programs that much, except for getting things to pin to the Start screen or the main Classic Start menu.
I mainly use either the Quick-Launch toolbar or the Start screen for launching programs.

Hope they're of use to you...

Wenda.

I think a lot of the slump in PC sales is bad times economy-wise plus maybe a resistance to touch screens by many. The computer makers are really trying to plug these things and probably now have severely over-estimated the demand for them.

Tks Wenda. That'll do fine.
Point I am trying to make (and failing) is this.
It took you, how many? three clicks to get here:



It took me one click to get here:



I could, of course, put in quite a few more icon shortcuts, but, if not used quite so frequently, I prefer to leave them sitting in the "All programs" section.

Honestly, ignoring the pretty eye candy in my start menu, which do you think is the most convenient?

Alternatives, as you suggest, is having a number of shortcuts in the task bar, or a mass (I've seen that often) of shortcut icons on the legacy desktop. I may be wrong, and the end result could be minimal, but I believe the latter can use up resources. Possibly the taskbar approach also.

I'd think one click, one hover. Click on start button, hover over all programs But then she has the other choices too...

A Guy

Start screen is a full screen app launcher. Fine for a small screen touch only device.

Start menu is much much more than that. Excellent for those who want to drive the os from the desktop.

Raises the question of why they aren't both there.

The answer is obvious to those who are prepared to see.

Hi there
Why not just create a custom tool bar

For example programs

Then it works almost like the Classical Menu.

You can create these at will -- in fact I find the system BETTER than the standard classical menu - you can organise these into how you want to use the system.

Just start ANY app to get to the desktop and then on 2nd click you've got your menu --- no more than using the old menu in W7 -- in fact it's BETTER as the old menu in W7 wastes a lot of screen real estate.

Cheers
jimbo