A Windows upgrade? How has that worked out in the past? Windows 7 has probably been the best at minimizing Windows bloat, but with all the upgrades and bug fixes along with residual applications an upgrade is not an attractive option. Also, does anyone get excited about anything MS releases these days? Most folks I talk with don't know or don't care what MS is up to.
MIcrosoft is facing the same problem that Apple has for at least 3 or 4 years.
For MacOS X, the OS has been stable and mature for quite a while. There really isn't any need to upgrade and there aren't all that many new features that need to be added. It just works well for most people most of the time. Windows has only recently gotten to the point that it works pretty well for most users. Windows 7 isn't that bad. Granted, it's clumsier and far more awkward than OS X, but most users have become familiar enough with it that they've learned to live with its idiosyncrasies. So, as an OS vendor, what do you do?
Apple chose to make it very cheap and as painless as possible. The enormous upgrade numbers show that this is a successful strategy. Mac users simply expect that they can painlessly upgrade their OS in just a few minutes and get the security updates and maybe a few minor features for just a few bucks. Microsoft has chosen to go with more than 3 times the upgrade price and a lot less flexibility. In addition, some previous versions of Apple software updates allowed you to install onto multiple computers in your home, although I don't know if that applies for Mountain Lion).
So, right off the bat, Microsoft WIndows 8 has a couple of strikes against it. It's more than 3 times the cost of Mountain Lion upgrade. The price is for a limited time only. And it requires the user to learn a new interface (or find someone who can turn of 'metro' or whatever they're calling it these days. In addition, there is a long history of problems with upgrading Windows computers - these problems were common enough that I know a lot of people (even experience IT people) who never upgraded their Windows computers. They just left them with whatever OS they came with until it was time to buy a new computer.
In the short term, I don't see an easy way around these problems. They could always cut the price, but they depend so heavily on OS revenues that it might have a significant impact on their business. As for the 'ease of upgrading' issue, that will only be solved over time. If they are able to demonstrate that WIndows 8 upgrades perform flawlessly most of the time, that might make it easier for people to buy upgrades in the future. However, it would probably take a couple of cycles of nearly flawless upgrades before people are comfortable with it. Back in the 90s, people had the same concerns about Mac upgrades and it took a while before they learned that these concerns were unfounded.
Windows users, for the most part, are not cutting edge people, and a touch based OS is something that these ancient mouse using people are not used to, and I don't think that Windows 8 will do too well.
2013 could be a watershed year for Microsoft. From what I read:
world wide sales of new desktop PCs are down and going lower -- meaning fewer automatic "new sales" of Windows 8
the Intel Surface-class Tablets aren't really tablets -- and aren't cost competitive enough to drive new sales (and Windows 8)
the UltraBooks are not compelling enough to drive new sales (and Windows 8)
Windows 8 is cumbersome to use compared to Windows 7, with no compelling features -- causing installed users to defer or avoid upgrade sales of Windows 8
Office 2013 offers no real advantages over 2013 -- why buy it?
when times are tight, consumers and companies tend to "avoid spending money and make what we have, work"
All-in-all that's a pretty bleak picture for New Windows 8 and Office 2013 sales.
Indeed. From a software company perspective, it is a crazy decision from Microsoft not to be present yet on the IOS platform (e.g. with some version of Office), which represents a significant part of the market. I am not a fan of Bill Gates, but he was more pragmatic in his time, in developing fro the Mac platform. Also, as said by other comments, such presence on mobile platforms would probably have developed at Microsoft an expertise which they obviously lack, now.
Just out of curiosity - did you have a chance to actually use Windows 8 in any meaningless way?
I tried to use it for a couple weeks at work (I'm in IT so it's my job to test these things out.) Not 100% of the time, just too much stuff to reinstall to get me fully up and running. But I'd say maybe 30% of my day was on Win8.
If you stick to the handful of bulitin Metro native apps, it's OK. I can see Metro working on a touch screen but on a laptop, it doesn't make much sense to me. The problem is Metro apps are all full screen so multitasking is a pain. Then you get to non-native apps. It just pops you over to the "normal" desktop. It's a bit jarring to say the least. And if I want to open another app, the new start menu takes the whole screen. It's very awkward and still has the feel of beta. And before you say 3rd parties just need to release Metro apps, Office 2013 is not Metro native. Sure there's a tile on the start menu, but it just opens in a regular window on the classic desktop.
Other than anything related to Metro, it seems snappy and just as good as Win7. But seeing as Metro is the central UI piece, it's hard to overlook. Imagine Apple replaced the dock in OSX with the Home screen of IOS. Fine for a tablet or handheld, but awkward at the least for a desktop. especially in a work environment.
Maybe I'm just used to the old way. Maybe I need to adapt to Metro. Maybe my experience is not like the rest of the world. Maybe average home users will like the slick new design and I'm not in their target audience. Or maybe Win8 is just plain dumb. Only time will tell.
People like to liken Win8 to Vista. I didn't really have any huge issues with Vista. Incompatibilities with really old hardware and software, sure... but that's to be expected. Still an improvement over XP. But Win8 doesn't seem to add anything over Win7. That's my opinion anyways.
(geez, that became a long post.)
Edit: forgot to mention that I was using the final version of Win8 downloaded via Volume licensing a month ago. Not beta or RC.
People like to liken Win8 to Vista. I didn't really have any huge issues with Vista. Incompatibilities with really old hardware and software, sure... but that's to be expected. Still an improvement over XP. But Win8 doesn't seem to add anything over Win7.
yes.
although Vista is my least favourite Windows version, once I increased memory of the computer to 4GB and disabled UAC, Vista ran well for the years I've been using it. with respect to Windows 8, my stance is neutral so far. i've never had an issue learning the UI of a consumer or enterprise-level OS, and there's nothing i've seen nor read that will indicate I'll have difficulty using Windows 8.
Windows users, for the most part, are not cutting edge people, and a touch based OS is something that these ancient mouse using people are not used to, and I don't think that Windows 8 will do too well.
Ha ha ha ...let's put it this way champ ... Apple itself does't believe that its user base is intelligent .. don't believe me .. check this out
Personally I like windows 8, been using it for quite a while now and don't have any complaints.
What's interesting is when people talk about removing the start menu being a bad idea, you have to compare that with microsofts stats about how often the start menu is actually used in Win7, and the answer is not a lot. The average user launches program's form the task bar and start is used for little more than search.
So will users really care that the start they didn't use has gone? I doubt it. They may or may not use the new start for opening program's, but I'm sure they will like the fact search is now a lot bigger than the tiny start menu it used to be on.
I sure hope you're right. Apple will have to step it the heck up on the server end of things if they want to start the ball rolling, but once it does roll, it will be completely unstoppable.
I don't think Apple wants to compete in the server space, nor do I think they can... Linux already has the infrastructure market wrapped up, with players such as IBM, Oracle, Red Hat specializing in infrastructure...
The server/infrastructure market is too different from the consumer market Apple competes in. Things Apple specializes in like industrial design and UI design doesn't really translate to a cluster of servers...
Another clown-baloon interface from major crap where you can't find anything. And yet does it really do anything different or is it just another wrapper on a plie of manure?
Maybe I'm just used to the old way. Maybe I need to adapt to Metro. Maybe my experience is not like the rest of the world. Maybe average home users will like the slick new design and I'm not in their target audience. Or maybe Win8 is just plain dumb. Only time will tell.
I found your post to be excellent, and just wished others would follow you in the quoted part where you get humble and not opinionated as so many other do.
Look at what he wrote. He made no mention of MS's current revenue being low.nor then conclude they will not be successful next year because it is low. He very clearly started that next year many things, in his opinion, could hinder MS. He included a listed and used the would "could" not "would". There is absolutely nothing in his post that deserves your response.
I've been using Win8 an WinServ2012. I've used WinPh7 and read quite abit about WinPh8 and the Surface. I quite like what they are doing with Win phone and the underlying system of Win desktop but they aren''t gaining traction in the phone dept., doubtful they will make a splash with the Surface or with WIn8 on tablets, and their desktop OS is cumbersome and confusing for a userbase that widely doesn't understand computers and doesn't like change.
My company still uses WinXP for desktops. Vista made a lot of companies scared to change. Win7 is a great upgrade over WinXP but the damage was done. Win8 might be better than Vista on resources but the UI is too much of a radical change that I don't think it will be received well. "If you'll have to relearn how to use a PC OS UI I might as well just get a Mac " is something I expect many people to say to themselves.
Now, I'm quite a fan of MS server OSes. They are simply the best, bar none. This is where their revenue and profits come from. This won't be changing for a long time but if they lose the consumer they will eventually lose that extra barrier of defense if a better enterprise solution comes along. Why does this speculation of a simple chain of events bother you to the point that you have to mention their quarterly revenue that has nothing to do with their collapsing consumer hold?
It just reminded me of negative posts about Apple going down because new XYZ product is not good enough, hasn't got enough new features, looks too much like previous generation, yara-yara-yara... to which some smartass usually responds with good old "Apple is doomed (tm)".
So I guess it was my turn to be a smartass. Very indulging experience.
But seriously; every year can hinder everyone. Every release of new product carry some risk that, for whatever (un)forseen reason, product will not be well received. Be it a Start Screen, Maps or anything else. Or everything else.
MS bread & butter is volume licensing. I don't think anything relevant will change there. Regardless of how many customers will opt to use downgrade rights (and keep Windows 7), MS will be selling Windows 8 licenses as any other desktop licenses before. On server side, their products are less risky and have some great benefits (like Hyper-V's availability of GUI), so I don't think business will change there at all. All of our big customers (though most of them would be considered small or, on a shiny day, mid-size somewhere else in the world) have volume licensing agreements with software assurance, which gives MS great peace of mind regardless of how many of these users actually decide to upgrade to Win 8 or not. In addition, most of them replace their hardware based on SLA's they have, and based on support/maintenance they have from hardware vendors. Be it on 3, 4 or 5 year hardware refresh plan, it happens regardless of MS (but they do get new hardware with MS OEM licenses, regardless of having VL for desktop OS or not).
And no, I don't think people - companies, at least - can just get a Mac. Because companies still depend on their software, much of which is legacy or does not exist outside of Windows ecosystem. And then, companies would have to replace their hardware, their IT support departments (or outsourced support companies), likely change your central management system (like Kaseya) - and still get to train their staff not only to use new OS and new hardware, but also all the apps that are not the same as those they would just carry over from old to new Windows desktops. Replacing one component, like desktop OS, still isn't as logistically challenging as replacing pretty much everything, including desktop OS.
On consumer side, I can see possibility of bigger fluctuations, but I'm not expecting them. People seem to buy new PC when they need one, not when MS releases new OS I don't think that this trend would change in any meaningful way regardless of how well new Windows is received or not. Enthusiasts might opt to upgrade (or not), but they are minority to corporate and more casual users. They will have to balance their (dis)liking of new GUI with improvements related to DirectX and other things important to them, from case to case. Yes, some consumers might decide to move to Mac, but again - they are facing same problem of having to learn new OS anyway, plus replace some of the software they already might have (and can keep using without extra investment).
Real question is, will MS manage to achieve any significant success with their mobile efforts or not. However, they don't have much to lose here, considering how irrelevant they currently are. Plus, their mobile effort doesn't look bad at all.
Based on all that - and yes, it is only my opinion, though reasonably well educated - MS will have financial 2013 comparable to their 2012, if they fail to break into smartphones and tablets. If they do, however, their 2013 might end up being better than 2012. Even if 2012 wasn't bad at all.
I tried to use it for a couple weeks at work (I'm in IT so it's my job to test these things out.) Not 100% of the time, just too much stuff to reinstall to get me fully up and running. But I'd say maybe 30% of my day was on Win8.
If you stick to the handful of bulitin Metro native apps, it's OK. I can see Metro working on a touch screen but on a laptop, it doesn't make much sense to me. The problem is Metro apps are all full screen so multitasking is a pain. Then you get to non-native apps. It just pops you over to the "normal" desktop. It's a bit jarring to say the least. And if I want to open another app, the new start menu takes the whole screen. It's very awkward and still has the feel of beta. And before you say 3rd parties just need to release Metro apps, Office 2013 is not Metro native. Sure there's a tile on the start menu, but it just opens in a regular window on the classic desktop.
Other than anything related to Metro, it seems snappy and just as good as Win7. But seeing as Metro is the central UI piece, it's hard to overlook. Imagine Apple replaced the dock in OSX with the Home screen of IOS. Fine for a tablet or handheld, but awkward at the least for a desktop. especially in a work environment.
Maybe I'm just used to the old way. Maybe I need to adapt to Metro. Maybe my experience is not like the rest of the world. Maybe average home users will like the slick new design and I'm not in their target audience. Or maybe Win8 is just plain dumb. Only time will tell.
People like to liken Win8 to Vista. I didn't really have any huge issues with Vista. Incompatibilities with really old hardware and software, sure... but that's to be expected. Still an improvement over XP. But Win8 doesn't seem to add anything over Win7. That's my opinion anyways.
(geez, that became a long post.)
Edit: forgot to mention that I was using the final version of Win8 downloaded via Volume licensing a month ago. Not beta or RC.
Every big change has potential to polarize users. I've stated a lot of times around here that I personally like changes and new approaches, and am personally not to happy that Apple plays safe with iOS - even if I am fully aware that majority of users, likely, don't want to re-learn everything from scratch too often, if at all. In that light, it is not surprising that I have no issues with start screen, but also that I understand that you or anyone else can have. It's all fine.
The way I see it, idea behind Win 8 is that it is not going to be used in both scenarios equally. Casual users will be sitting mostly on Metro, and much as I have used it, Mail, Calendar, People, Skydrive, Messaging, Metro IE... should cover for such needs just fine. I've set up my "personal life" in Metro and haven't find it lacking. I've added extra Metro apps (Wiki, NZ Herald, ToDos...) just to get some feel of it, and it's fine. True, multitasking is not as elegant as on classic desktop, but for modest needs, Metro split screen and previous apps list should do the trick for casual use, and I'm happy that start screen shows me existence of new emails, FB replies, messages, calendar inputs, todos, weather update, apps updates... without need to open any of above mentioned apps only to check. Integration of FB into people's hub is nice addition. Also, Metro on PC might be especially nice option for casual users who opt to go for Windows Phone or tablet, having reasonably standardised base GUI across devices.
My work sits on classic desktop. Since I'm working on two screens, my right screen shows classic desktop by default, and all my work related applications are taskbar-ed. Since all the work related programs are non-Metro, I can spend whole day sitting on desktop, long as I don't want to check on my personal stuff. Since I upgraded from Win 7, everything was where I left it originally. Win 8 desktop has small but nice improvement on classic desktop - taskbar exists on both screens, and is cloned (same icons on both), so you don't have to move mouse across both screens to click on icon sitting on left side of the taskbar. Also when you have Metro on left screen, you can access your desktop programs without changing Metro to desktop.
I don't have a problem with start screen taking over whole screen. Transition is fast and smooth both ways. Yes the style change might be jarring. I personally don't mind it, but I see your point. I guess that is also the point where MS thinks that people don't use start menu too often, and will end up having their classic apps pinned to desktop's taskbar (thus minimizing start screen popup), or use dominantly Metro, thus minimizing warping to desktop. I've read somewhere that this decision was based on some study MS performed, how reliable study was, well, time will tell.
End of the day, I agree there's not much reason for people to upgrade from Win 7 to Win 8. Knowing how successful Windows 7 is, I think MS is well aware of that. I wouldn't be surprised if simple fact that Win 7 is so successful wasn't one of the reasons MS decided to try something like Win 8 - knowing they have good and still current OS in Win 7, giving option for people who don't want to give Win 8 a go. If they tried something like this in Vista days, options for customers would be much worst.
I found your post to be excellent, and just wished others would follow you in the quoted part where you get humble and not opinionated as so many other do.
Comments
Originally Posted by fatusmiles
how did you know? it is not yet released
I'm using the RC and have been using prerelease Windows 8 for months before that.
It's terrible, and consumer PC users will absolutely hate it. Businesses will, too.
MIcrosoft is facing the same problem that Apple has for at least 3 or 4 years.
For MacOS X, the OS has been stable and mature for quite a while. There really isn't any need to upgrade and there aren't all that many new features that need to be added. It just works well for most people most of the time. Windows has only recently gotten to the point that it works pretty well for most users. Windows 7 isn't that bad. Granted, it's clumsier and far more awkward than OS X, but most users have become familiar enough with it that they've learned to live with its idiosyncrasies. So, as an OS vendor, what do you do?
Apple chose to make it very cheap and as painless as possible. The enormous upgrade numbers show that this is a successful strategy. Mac users simply expect that they can painlessly upgrade their OS in just a few minutes and get the security updates and maybe a few minor features for just a few bucks. Microsoft has chosen to go with more than 3 times the upgrade price and a lot less flexibility. In addition, some previous versions of Apple software updates allowed you to install onto multiple computers in your home, although I don't know if that applies for Mountain Lion).
So, right off the bat, Microsoft WIndows 8 has a couple of strikes against it. It's more than 3 times the cost of Mountain Lion upgrade. The price is for a limited time only. And it requires the user to learn a new interface (or find someone who can turn of 'metro' or whatever they're calling it these days. In addition, there is a long history of problems with upgrading Windows computers - these problems were common enough that I know a lot of people (even experience IT people) who never upgraded their Windows computers. They just left them with whatever OS they came with until it was time to buy a new computer.
In the short term, I don't see an easy way around these problems. They could always cut the price, but they depend so heavily on OS revenues that it might have a significant impact on their business. As for the 'ease of upgrading' issue, that will only be solved over time. If they are able to demonstrate that WIndows 8 upgrades perform flawlessly most of the time, that might make it easier for people to buy upgrades in the future. However, it would probably take a couple of cycles of nearly flawless upgrades before people are comfortable with it. Back in the 90s, people had the same concerns about Mac upgrades and it took a while before they learned that these concerns were unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm using the RC and have been using prerelease Windows 8 for months before that.
It's terrible, and consumer PC users will absolutely hate it. Businesses will, too.
if its terrible then perhaps windows find way to improve it
Originally Posted by fatusmiles
if its terrible then perhaps windows find way to improve it
Windows 8 is their attempt to improve Windows. This is the best they can do, and it's worse than before.
Windows users, for the most part, are not cutting edge people, and a touch based OS is something that these ancient mouse using people are not used to, and I don't think that Windows 8 will do too well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Windows 8 is their attempt to improve Windows. This is the best they can do, and it's worse than before.
Everything that needs to be said is that it's still windows. That's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
2013 could be a watershed year for Microsoft. From what I read:
world wide sales of new desktop PCs are down and going lower -- meaning fewer automatic "new sales" of Windows 8
the Intel Surface-class Tablets aren't really tablets -- and aren't cost competitive enough to drive new sales (and Windows 8)
the UltraBooks are not compelling enough to drive new sales (and Windows 8)
Windows 8 is cumbersome to use compared to Windows 7, with no compelling features -- causing installed users to defer or avoid upgrade sales of Windows 8
Office 2013 offers no real advantages over 2013 -- why buy it?
when times are tight, consumers and companies tend to "avoid spending money and make what we have, work"
All-in-all that's a pretty bleak picture for New Windows 8 and Office 2013 sales.
Indeed. From a software company perspective, it is a crazy decision from Microsoft not to be present yet on the IOS platform (e.g. with some version of Office), which represents a significant part of the market. I am not a fan of Bill Gates, but he was more pragmatic in his time, in developing fro the Mac platform. Also, as said by other comments, such presence on mobile platforms would probably have developed at Microsoft an expertise which they obviously lack, now.
I tried to use it for a couple weeks at work (I'm in IT so it's my job to test these things out.) Not 100% of the time, just too much stuff to reinstall to get me fully up and running. But I'd say maybe 30% of my day was on Win8.
If you stick to the handful of bulitin Metro native apps, it's OK. I can see Metro working on a touch screen but on a laptop, it doesn't make much sense to me. The problem is Metro apps are all full screen so multitasking is a pain. Then you get to non-native apps. It just pops you over to the "normal" desktop. It's a bit jarring to say the least. And if I want to open another app, the new start menu takes the whole screen. It's very awkward and still has the feel of beta. And before you say 3rd parties just need to release Metro apps, Office 2013 is not Metro native. Sure there's a tile on the start menu, but it just opens in a regular window on the classic desktop.
Other than anything related to Metro, it seems snappy and just as good as Win7. But seeing as Metro is the central UI piece, it's hard to overlook. Imagine Apple replaced the dock in OSX with the Home screen of IOS. Fine for a tablet or handheld, but awkward at the least for a desktop. especially in a work environment.
Maybe I'm just used to the old way. Maybe I need to adapt to Metro. Maybe my experience is not like the rest of the world. Maybe average home users will like the slick new design and I'm not in their target audience. Or maybe Win8 is just plain dumb. Only time will tell.
People like to liken Win8 to Vista. I didn't really have any huge issues with Vista. Incompatibilities with really old hardware and software, sure... but that's to be expected. Still an improvement over XP. But Win8 doesn't seem to add anything over Win7. That's my opinion anyways.
(geez, that became a long post.)
Edit: forgot to mention that I was using the final version of Win8 downloaded via Volume licensing a month ago. Not beta or RC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarquisMark
People like to liken Win8 to Vista. I didn't really have any huge issues with Vista. Incompatibilities with really old hardware and software, sure... but that's to be expected. Still an improvement over XP. But Win8 doesn't seem to add anything over Win7.
yes.
although Vista is my least favourite Windows version, once I increased memory of the computer to 4GB and disabled UAC, Vista ran well for the years I've been using it. with respect to Windows 8, my stance is neutral so far. i've never had an issue learning the UI of a consumer or enterprise-level OS, and there's nothing i've seen nor read that will indicate I'll have difficulty using Windows 8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Windows users, for the most part, are not cutting edge people, and a touch based OS is something that these ancient mouse using people are not used to, and I don't think that Windows 8 will do too well.
Ha ha ha ...let's put it this way champ ... Apple itself does't believe that its user base is intelligent .. don't believe me .. check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXTzzxiCfPw
Originally Posted by kheba
Ha ha ha ...let's put it this way champ ... Apple itself does't believe that its user base is intelligent
Not sure you could be more wrong.
What's interesting is when people talk about removing the start menu being a bad idea, you have to compare that with microsofts stats about how often the start menu is actually used in Win7, and the answer is not a lot. The average user launches program's form the task bar and start is used for little more than search.
So will users really care that the start they didn't use has gone? I doubt it. They may or may not use the new start for opening program's, but I'm sure they will like the fact search is now a lot bigger than the tiny start menu it used to be on.
I guess it's a post tablet device?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I sure hope you're right. Apple will have to step it the heck up on the server end of things if they want to start the ball rolling, but once it does roll, it will be completely unstoppable.
I don't think Apple wants to compete in the server space, nor do I think they can... Linux already has the infrastructure market wrapped up, with players such as IBM, Oracle, Red Hat specializing in infrastructure...
The server/infrastructure market is too different from the consumer market Apple competes in. Things Apple specializes in like industrial design and UI design doesn't really translate to a cluster of servers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Windows 8 is their attempt to improve Windows. This is the best they can do, and it's worse than before.
Well let's hope for the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
I guess it's a post tablet device?
Huh?
Another clown-baloon interface from major crap where you can't find anything. And yet does it really do anything different or is it just another wrapper on a plie of manure?
I found your post to be excellent, and just wished others would follow you in the quoted part where you get humble and not opinionated as so many other do.
It just reminded me of negative posts about Apple going down because new XYZ product is not good enough, hasn't got enough new features, looks too much like previous generation, yara-yara-yara... to which some smartass usually responds with good old "Apple is doomed (tm)".
So I guess it was my turn to be a smartass. Very indulging experience.
But seriously; every year can hinder everyone. Every release of new product carry some risk that, for whatever (un)forseen reason, product will not be well received. Be it a Start Screen, Maps or anything else. Or everything else.
MS bread & butter is volume licensing. I don't think anything relevant will change there. Regardless of how many customers will opt to use downgrade rights (and keep Windows 7), MS will be selling Windows 8 licenses as any other desktop licenses before. On server side, their products are less risky and have some great benefits (like Hyper-V's availability of GUI), so I don't think business will change there at all. All of our big customers (though most of them would be considered small or, on a shiny day, mid-size somewhere else in the world) have volume licensing agreements with software assurance, which gives MS great peace of mind regardless of how many of these users actually decide to upgrade to Win 8 or not. In addition, most of them replace their hardware based on SLA's they have, and based on support/maintenance they have from hardware vendors. Be it on 3, 4 or 5 year hardware refresh plan, it happens regardless of MS (but they do get new hardware with MS OEM licenses, regardless of having VL for desktop OS or not).
And no, I don't think people - companies, at least - can just get a Mac. Because companies still depend on their software, much of which is legacy or does not exist outside of Windows ecosystem. And then, companies would have to replace their hardware, their IT support departments (or outsourced support companies), likely change your central management system (like Kaseya) - and still get to train their staff not only to use new OS and new hardware, but also all the apps that are not the same as those they would just carry over from old to new Windows desktops. Replacing one component, like desktop OS, still isn't as logistically challenging as replacing pretty much everything, including desktop OS.
On consumer side, I can see possibility of bigger fluctuations, but I'm not expecting them. People seem to buy new PC when they need one, not when MS releases new OS I don't think that this trend would change in any meaningful way regardless of how well new Windows is received or not. Enthusiasts might opt to upgrade (or not), but they are minority to corporate and more casual users. They will have to balance their (dis)liking of new GUI with improvements related to DirectX and other things important to them, from case to case. Yes, some consumers might decide to move to Mac, but again - they are facing same problem of having to learn new OS anyway, plus replace some of the software they already might have (and can keep using without extra investment).
Real question is, will MS manage to achieve any significant success with their mobile efforts or not. However, they don't have much to lose here, considering how irrelevant they currently are. Plus, their mobile effort doesn't look bad at all.
Based on all that - and yes, it is only my opinion, though reasonably well educated - MS will have financial 2013 comparable to their 2012, if they fail to break into smartphones and tablets. If they do, however, their 2013 might end up being better than 2012. Even if 2012 wasn't bad at all.
Every big change has potential to polarize users. I've stated a lot of times around here that I personally like changes and new approaches, and am personally not to happy that Apple plays safe with iOS - even if I am fully aware that majority of users, likely, don't want to re-learn everything from scratch too often, if at all. In that light, it is not surprising that I have no issues with start screen, but also that I understand that you or anyone else can have. It's all fine.
The way I see it, idea behind Win 8 is that it is not going to be used in both scenarios equally. Casual users will be sitting mostly on Metro, and much as I have used it, Mail, Calendar, People, Skydrive, Messaging, Metro IE... should cover for such needs just fine. I've set up my "personal life" in Metro and haven't find it lacking. I've added extra Metro apps (Wiki, NZ Herald, ToDos...) just to get some feel of it, and it's fine. True, multitasking is not as elegant as on classic desktop, but for modest needs, Metro split screen and previous apps list should do the trick for casual use, and I'm happy that start screen shows me existence of new emails, FB replies, messages, calendar inputs, todos, weather update, apps updates... without need to open any of above mentioned apps only to check. Integration of FB into people's hub is nice addition. Also, Metro on PC might be especially nice option for casual users who opt to go for Windows Phone or tablet, having reasonably standardised base GUI across devices.
My work sits on classic desktop. Since I'm working on two screens, my right screen shows classic desktop by default, and all my work related applications are taskbar-ed. Since all the work related programs are non-Metro, I can spend whole day sitting on desktop, long as I don't want to check on my personal stuff. Since I upgraded from Win 7, everything was where I left it originally. Win 8 desktop has small but nice improvement on classic desktop - taskbar exists on both screens, and is cloned (same icons on both), so you don't have to move mouse across both screens to click on icon sitting on left side of the taskbar. Also when you have Metro on left screen, you can access your desktop programs without changing Metro to desktop.
I don't have a problem with start screen taking over whole screen. Transition is fast and smooth both ways. Yes the style change might be jarring. I personally don't mind it, but I see your point. I guess that is also the point where MS thinks that people don't use start menu too often, and will end up having their classic apps pinned to desktop's taskbar (thus minimizing start screen popup), or use dominantly Metro, thus minimizing warping to desktop. I've read somewhere that this decision was based on some study MS performed, how reliable study was, well, time will tell.
End of the day, I agree there's not much reason for people to upgrade from Win 7 to Win 8. Knowing how successful Windows 7 is, I think MS is well aware of that. I wouldn't be surprised if simple fact that Win 7 is so successful wasn't one of the reasons MS decided to try something like Win 8 - knowing they have good and still current OS in Win 7, giving option for people who don't want to give Win 8 a go. If they tried something like this in Vista days, options for customers would be much worst.
very well said..