Not to worry. Microsoft will claim millions and millions of Windows 8 sales in the first few months. They'll crow about Windows 8 market share in enterprise, thanks to those corporate PC sales by HP, Dell, and others, with Windows 8 pre-installed. But actual usage will be far smaller. Because corporate IT departments around the world will just re-image all those PCs with XP like always. And consumers won't like Windows 8 at all. Only the most rabid Microsoft faithful among them will pay $40 to upgrade. The rest will get Windows 8 by default when their old PC freezes up and they're forced to buy a new one. And they'll hate it.
Indeed , in the case of professional world, the prescriber (the IT Department) is not the actual user (or just a tiny part of it).
Indeed again, an incredibly high number of Windows users quit accessing to Internet, just because .. it's too much trouble , too risky, and the destiny of their PCs is to die "frozen".
Companies replace their PCs when the cost of maintaining them to life exceeds the replacement cost. Consumer users replace them when they are fed up of doing the continuous clean up work (defragmenting, chasing viruses, eliminating incompatible applications , etc ...) it requires.
When Mac users replace their Mac, it is because they cannot resist to the appeal of a new one, but the old one is still functional. They keep it, most of the time, but if not, they can sell it easily on the second hand market.
What is to be pointed out, I think, is that Apple has raised the OS capabilities to an unprecedent level. It is not just discussing how easy it is to access to applications, data (although it does matter), but it is about providing the user multiple means of communication (keyboard (possibly virtual), mouse (idem), but also voice input, gestures ...
Not to mention, also, the Cloud capabilities, which enterprises will of course ban, but which be change the average consumer life.
Microsoft stuff, from this standpoint, will appear as totally obsolete.
Admitedly, this might not be a strong selling point for the prescribers in the professional world, but for the consumers, it will be a different story ...
Ahem...
Personally, I'm pulling for Microsoft 8 to be successful. Apple needs competition. It didn't create the iPhone or iPad because it had nothing better to do.
And per the MSFT haters... need I remind you guys... one of MSFT's biggest fans, is the OTHER Steve... Steve Wozniak.
Per the Huffington Post July 10, 2012...
These new products are so visually appealing, Wozniak joked, it's as though "Steve Jobs was reincarnated at Microsoft."
Wozniak, who has noted his admiration for the Windows Phone operating system before, likes the Jobs-esque artistic vision coming out of Microsoft, marveling at what he perceives as a sharp turnaround in quality:
"I'm glad that Microsoft is starting to show that maybe they're a different company than before," he said. "I don't remember this sort of thing happening in a long, long time from Microsoft."
Frankly, no one cares.
First, Wozniak was a computer geek. He was a genius at soldering components and designing circuit boards. His knowledge of UI for an average consumer is about as close to zero as it can be.
Second, Wozniak's knowledge is incredibly outdated. While he loves to buy geeky things and toys, he hasn't done any serious work for decades. And he NEVER did any UI or OS work.
Because corporate IT departments around the world will just re-image all those PCs with XP like always.
Yeah the interesting thing about MS and serial number keys for XP is that once you have registered and run the PC for a year, you can load that same OS from the disk and re-register the new computer with the same key and continue to run it on the old computer too. This only works if you have a full version of Windows not the OEM restore disk that comes with new computers. Apparently they assume that your old computer died and you transferred the OS to a new computer and rather than deal with the support nightmare they just let you do it.
Vista was streets ahead of XP, but it was fundamentally different because it was by far a more modern OS than the one it was replacing.
Rubbish - Vista was a turd until SP1, and even then it was a polished turd until SP3 (that's Win7). MS gave up on much of the functionality that would have made it decent, like the revised FAT (winFS) that never materialized. File copying was a dog, the graphics stack was a mess (the GDI wasn't even hardware accelerated as it had been in XP and other versions of Windows, and every open window gobbled VRAM) which was only fixed in Win7, audio was butchered and only fixed in SP1 - add on to that the UAC, general bloat and driver issues, and you can say Vista was MS's worse release with the possible exception of ME.
I've heard that comment a number of times from different sources but nobody ever goes on to say why it's so bad. Not sure if it's just MS bashing or if Metro really is that bad. Perhaps someone would care to explain what's wrong with the Metro interface.
I'll try to answer this with my basic understanding of Win 8 (which again, is basic, but also a bit more than the average consumer.)
As far as Metro goes - it's basically a large skin on top of Windows. The traditional Windows environment still exists, programs will still run, but the system boots in this tiled, stripped down quick launch screen. (Imagine your mac boots iOS - simple, functional, but limited, and OSX exists below it) However MS is building stripped down apps specifically for metro - and encouraging developers to do the same - what this means is basically much stricter style guidelines, which is not necessarily a benefit of programs that have been optimized for regular desktop use over the past 15 years. Metro is perhaps cleaner and sleek, but it seems like form over function to me - and I don't see many big developers actually building 'metro' style apps. For example - iTunes - No way will Apple completely redesign iTunes just so it fits into Windows' new theme. Which means when people want to use real applications, they will have to switch back to regular windows mode - making Metro more of an annoyance. I don't think people in general will want to use it.
It gets slightly more complicated with Windows 8 RT, which is built specifically for tablets running ARM architecture (to my knowledge, mobile and power optimized.) Windows and the core MS stuff will run on this, but I'm not sure other applications from 3rd party developers will unless they are specifically optimized. (Again, could be wrong, but it's like how a Windows program won't run on OSX or Linux). The thing is, Windows RT will look identical to Windows, it's called Windows, people will think it's Windows, but it wont be able to run many traditional Windows applications. These tablets may have better battery life and built on hardware the mobile space needs, they may be a good idea in theory to develop a mobile app space - but it seems like running 'Windows' on it will be a confusing step back or not a bold enough step forward.
Rubbish - Vista was a turd until SP1, and even then it was a polished turd until SP3 (that's Win7). MS gave up on much of the functionality that would have made it decent, like the revised FAT (winFS) that never materialized. File copying was a dog, the graphics stack was a mess (the GDI wasn't even hardware accelerated as it had been in XP and other versions of Windows, and ever open windows gobbled VRAM) which was only fixed in Win7, audio was butchered and only fixed in SP1 - add on to that the UAC, general bloat and driver issues, and you can say Vista was MS's worse release with the possible exception of ME.
In some ways it's hard to argue with his comment about being "streets ahead." It certainly had a lot of features that made it better than XP and it was the first Windows OS to follow Mac OS X/NeXTSTEP instead of the old Mac OS system. The problem with Vista was the backend was horrid which makes it odd that Win8 has reversed all that because the backend is pretty damn good but they completely obfuscated the UI and their marketing focus.
- Windows 8 (the desktop part) is exactly the same as Windows 7 so saying it "torches" Windows 7 is a ridiculous thing to say.
Incorrect. The Windows 8 desktop has added many incremental improvements including improved Windows Explorer, multi-monitor improvements, and the loss of Aero and the new flat desktop style.
Let's glaze over all of the under-the-hood improvements and changes, and let's judge Windows 8 on Metro alone.
Metro with a tablet? Metro with a mouse and keyboard is not a good experience. People with desktops and laptops will stick with Windows 7. There is no compelling reason for them to upgrade.
In some ways it's hard to argue with his comment about being "streets ahead." It certainly had a lot of features that made it better than XP and it was the first Windows OS to follow Mac OS X/NeXTSTEP instead of the old Mac OS system.
I don't agree, although I'd hate to use this forum to argue about the merits of a 7 year old version of Windows. At its guts, Vista was still NT (as was XP before it). It came with a shiney new coat (Aero) but there was horrible GUI inconsistencies, poor performance and the actual interface didn't really change. Some windows were glass, others were still grey for example.
There were some improvements of course, 64-bit finally worked properly (although unlike on Mac, it was either/or, it couldn't run in both modes). But even so, I haven't even gone into things like the ludicrous number of versions, pricing, resource requirements, application and driver incompatibility etc. When Apple dumps old technology, it's relatively painless because its users are not so tied to legacy, but when MS does it. Ouch. MS is bound by its own history and 'non-standards', which is pretty funny when you think about it.
I doubt that Windows 8 will be a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space. It will only be a catastrophe for everyone if Windows 8 is successful, and disrupts the old-school Windows XP/Vista/7 gravy train. And only if Surface really does disrupt the legacy Wintel PC model. Only then will we see the mess that Newell predicts.
But, if Surface does succeed (in some distorted alternate universe) it will disrupt the legacy Wintel PC model, and yes, it will be a disaster for the HPs, Dells, and Lenovos of the world. Because they won't be in the loop any more. Microsoft's single Surface OEM will make all the money. The rest will see sales decline, they'll need to ship PCs with Linux installed, and the few corporate IT departments and home hobbyists who actually use Linux will support only a tiny fraction of their former legacy Windows PC sales.
Not to worry. Microsoft will claim millions and millions of Windows 8 sales in the first few months. They'll crow about Windows 8 market share in enterprise, thanks to those corporate PC sales by HP, Dell, and others, with Windows 8 pre-installed. But actual usage will be far smaller. Because corporate IT departments around the world will just re-image all those PCs with XP like always. And consumers won't like Windows 8 at all. Only the most rabid Microsoft faithful among them will pay $40 to upgrade. The rest will get Windows 8 by default when their old PC freezes up and they're forced to buy a new one. And they'll hate it.
I don't believe in doomsday predictions about Windows 8 precislely because Microsoft managed to survive Vista and Office 2007 (and it's confusing ribbon bar interface). And Microsoft didn't grow to its stature in the 90s through refinement or quality. Their sales have never been driven by superior quality or design. They got big in the 80s and 90s because of their OEMs, not in spite of them. That is what troubles me the most about Surface: their commodity PC partners are no longer the platform's strength, not if Microsoft decides that it needs to pay the game Apple's way (integrated hardware and software). The joke here is that Microsoft can't truly do that: if Windows 8 or RT get one Surface-exclusive software feature, the OEMs will raise a stink about Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. On the other hand, if Microsoft tries to support every hardware device with Windows OS, it'll never be as tightly integrated or nimble as Apple's products.
No, Windows 8 will live or die on consumer appeal (enterprise be damned), and compared to the simplicity of the iPad, the slick hardware of the MacBook Pro and Air, Windows 8 will have a tough time.
I can see a great ad campaign coming out of Apple... Switcher v2.
I have had the thought, although I don't think Apple is really doing this, that maybe the reason for the delay in the new desktops is to have them introduced around the time that Windows 8 is introduced and possible get some more people to switch. That goes along with your ad campaign.
I love the counter to your argument that you can still access the Start Button by using hidden keyboard shortcuts. Keyboard shortcuts are great, I use them all the time, but they should never be the primary or only way way you access any GUI element on a desktop OS.
You can just press the Windows key to access the Metro "Start" screen, but the Windows key was probably the least used button on the keyboard. So it works out to forcing the user base to use a button they've decided not to use.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
<...>
Not to worry. Microsoft will claim millions and millions of Windows 8 sales in the first few months. They'll crow about Windows 8 market share in enterprise, thanks to those corporate PC sales by HP, Dell, and others, with Windows 8 pre-installed. But actual usage will be far smaller. Because corporate IT departments around the world will just re-image all those PCs with XP like always. And consumers won't like Windows 8 at all. Only the most rabid Microsoft faithful among them will pay $40 to upgrade. The rest will get Windows 8 by default when their old PC freezes up and they're forced to buy a new one. And they'll hate it.
Indeed , in the case of professional world, the prescriber (the IT Department) is not the actual user (or just a tiny part of it).
Indeed again, an incredibly high number of Windows users quit accessing to Internet, just because .. it's too much trouble , too risky, and the destiny of their PCs is to die "frozen".
Companies replace their PCs when the cost of maintaining them to life exceeds the replacement cost. Consumer users replace them when they are fed up of doing the continuous clean up work (defragmenting, chasing viruses, eliminating incompatible applications , etc ...) it requires.
When Mac users replace their Mac, it is because they cannot resist to the appeal of a new one, but the old one is still functional. They keep it, most of the time, but if not, they can sell it easily on the second hand market.
What is to be pointed out, I think, is that Apple has raised the OS capabilities to an unprecedent level. It is not just discussing how easy it is to access to applications, data (although it does matter), but it is about providing the user multiple means of communication (keyboard (possibly virtual), mouse (idem), but also voice input, gestures ...
Not to mention, also, the Cloud capabilities, which enterprises will of course ban, but which be change the average consumer life.
Microsoft stuff, from this standpoint, will appear as totally obsolete.
Admitedly, this might not be a strong selling point for the prescribers in the professional world, but for the consumers, it will be a different story ...
Frankly, no one cares.
First, Wozniak was a computer geek. He was a genius at soldering components and designing circuit boards. His knowledge of UI for an average consumer is about as close to zero as it can be.
Second, Wozniak's knowledge is incredibly outdated. While he loves to buy geeky things and toys, he hasn't done any serious work for decades. And he NEVER did any UI or OS work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Everything that Microsoft has changed in Windows 8 is wrong.
Someone correct me. I don't want to be right about that, but I can't seem to remember anything I preferred over earlier versions.
I've tried Windows 8 and its an absolute travesty. Its going to hurt them big time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Because corporate IT departments around the world will just re-image all those PCs with XP like always.
Yeah the interesting thing about MS and serial number keys for XP is that once you have registered and run the PC for a year, you can load that same OS from the disk and re-register the new computer with the same key and continue to run it on the old computer too. This only works if you have a full version of Windows not the OEM restore disk that comes with new computers. Apparently they assume that your old computer died and you transferred the OS to a new computer and rather than deal with the support nightmare they just let you do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb
Vista was streets ahead of XP, but it was fundamentally different because it was by far a more modern OS than the one it was replacing.
Rubbish - Vista was a turd until SP1, and even then it was a polished turd until SP3 (that's Win7). MS gave up on much of the functionality that would have made it decent, like the revised FAT (winFS) that never materialized. File copying was a dog, the graphics stack was a mess (the GDI wasn't even hardware accelerated as it had been in XP and other versions of Windows, and every open window gobbled VRAM) which was only fixed in Win7, audio was butchered and only fixed in SP1 - add on to that the UAC, general bloat and driver issues, and you can say Vista was MS's worse release with the possible exception of ME.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
I've heard that comment a number of times from different sources but nobody ever goes on to say why it's so bad. Not sure if it's just MS bashing or if Metro really is that bad. Perhaps someone would care to explain what's wrong with the Metro interface.
I'll try to answer this with my basic understanding of Win 8 (which again, is basic, but also a bit more than the average consumer.)
As far as Metro goes - it's basically a large skin on top of Windows. The traditional Windows environment still exists, programs will still run, but the system boots in this tiled, stripped down quick launch screen. (Imagine your mac boots iOS - simple, functional, but limited, and OSX exists below it) However MS is building stripped down apps specifically for metro - and encouraging developers to do the same - what this means is basically much stricter style guidelines, which is not necessarily a benefit of programs that have been optimized for regular desktop use over the past 15 years. Metro is perhaps cleaner and sleek, but it seems like form over function to me - and I don't see many big developers actually building 'metro' style apps. For example - iTunes - No way will Apple completely redesign iTunes just so it fits into Windows' new theme. Which means when people want to use real applications, they will have to switch back to regular windows mode - making Metro more of an annoyance. I don't think people in general will want to use it.
It gets slightly more complicated with Windows 8 RT, which is built specifically for tablets running ARM architecture (to my knowledge, mobile and power optimized.) Windows and the core MS stuff will run on this, but I'm not sure other applications from 3rd party developers will unless they are specifically optimized. (Again, could be wrong, but it's like how a Windows program won't run on OSX or Linux). The thing is, Windows RT will look identical to Windows, it's called Windows, people will think it's Windows, but it wont be able to run many traditional Windows applications. These tablets may have better battery life and built on hardware the mobile space needs, they may be a good idea in theory to develop a mobile app space - but it seems like running 'Windows' on it will be a confusing step back or not a bold enough step forward.
In some ways it's hard to argue with his comment about being "streets ahead." It certainly had a lot of features that made it better than XP and it was the first Windows OS to follow Mac OS X/NeXTSTEP instead of the old Mac OS system. The problem with Vista was the backend was horrid which makes it odd that Win8 has reversed all that because the backend is pretty damn good but they completely obfuscated the UI and their marketing focus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
- Windows 8 (the desktop part) is exactly the same as Windows 7 so saying it "torches" Windows 7 is a ridiculous thing to say.
Incorrect. The Windows 8 desktop has added many incremental improvements including improved Windows Explorer, multi-monitor improvements, and the loss of Aero and the new flat desktop style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3
Quote:
Apple needs competition. It didn't create the iPhone or iPad because it had nothing better to do.
I've got news for you.
That is EXACTLY what they did.
The interface looks like ass. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Let's glaze over all of the under-the-hood improvements and changes, and let's judge Windows 8 on Metro alone.
Metro with a tablet? Metro with a mouse and keyboard is not a good experience. People with desktops and laptops will stick with Windows 7. There is no compelling reason for them to upgrade.
I can see a great ad campaign coming out of Apple... Switcher v2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
In some ways it's hard to argue with his comment about being "streets ahead." It certainly had a lot of features that made it better than XP and it was the first Windows OS to follow Mac OS X/NeXTSTEP instead of the old Mac OS system.
I don't agree, although I'd hate to use this forum to argue about the merits of a 7 year old version of Windows. At its guts, Vista was still NT (as was XP before it). It came with a shiney new coat (Aero) but there was horrible GUI inconsistencies, poor performance and the actual interface didn't really change. Some windows were glass, others were still grey for example.
There were some improvements of course, 64-bit finally worked properly (although unlike on Mac, it was either/or, it couldn't run in both modes). But even so, I haven't even gone into things like the ludicrous number of versions, pricing, resource requirements, application and driver incompatibility etc. When Apple dumps old technology, it's relatively painless because its users are not so tied to legacy, but when MS does it. Ouch. MS is bound by its own history and 'non-standards', which is pretty funny when you think about it.
He may be scared that MS is going to introduce Gakai streaming games on all their OSs.
Edit : I mean of course I prefer MacOS, but Win8 doesn't look that bad and I just don't understand people who bash without explaining themselves.
Hedging his bets with...Linux? Hilarious. Win8 might be a catastrophe, but that doesn't mean Linux's marketshare will budge an inch.
I don't believe in doomsday predictions about Windows 8 precislely because Microsoft managed to survive Vista and Office 2007 (and it's confusing ribbon bar interface). And Microsoft didn't grow to its stature in the 90s through refinement or quality. Their sales have never been driven by superior quality or design. They got big in the 80s and 90s because of their OEMs, not in spite of them. That is what troubles me the most about Surface: their commodity PC partners are no longer the platform's strength, not if Microsoft decides that it needs to pay the game Apple's way (integrated hardware and software). The joke here is that Microsoft can't truly do that: if Windows 8 or RT get one Surface-exclusive software feature, the OEMs will raise a stink about Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. On the other hand, if Microsoft tries to support every hardware device with Windows OS, it'll never be as tightly integrated or nimble as Apple's products.
No, Windows 8 will live or die on consumer appeal (enterprise be damned), and compared to the simplicity of the iPad, the slick hardware of the MacBook Pro and Air, Windows 8 will have a tough time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
I can see a great ad campaign coming out of Apple... Switcher v2.
I have had the thought, although I don't think Apple is really doing this, that maybe the reason for the delay in the new desktops is to have them introduced around the time that Windows 8 is introduced and possible get some more people to switch. That goes along with your ad campaign.
You can just press the Windows key to access the Metro "Start" screen, but the Windows key was probably the least used button on the keyboard. So it works out to forcing the user base to use a button they've decided not to use.
Gabe has been ripping on Apple since day one.. come to think of it, what doesn't Gabe rip on?