Correct. The headline of "hits 100 million in sales" is blatantly wrong.
If we're talking about licenses it makes more sense to refer to them as sold than shipped. We're not talking necessarily talking about plastic metallic discs.
This is one case where MS *should* have copied Apple as they usually do and gone for a full-fledged mobile OS. For whatever reason they failed to do it. Big mistake.
In retrospect you may be right, but we don't really know for sure that the hybrid design of the hardware and OS is what buyers don't like. Maybe the objections to the Surface aren't even related to the OS. Could be price, size, weight... who knows?
I gotta admit, I actually thought the Surface Pro would do pretty well. Think about it -- a full-fledged powerful tablet that runs any software and overcomes the primary limitation of tablets -- awkward typing -- when that's the priority. A common OS means commonality of features, capability and UI across devices. It *seems* like a pretty good idea.
I'm no fan of Microsoft's software, but I thought the Surface was going to be a step in the right direction.
Steam is a very different demographic: gamers. Just because their numbers are not equal to mine does not mean mine don't have a real basis. Quite possibly the professional and student musician demographic is less likely to use Windows 8 than computer gamers.
In retrospect you may be right, but we don't really know for sure that the hybrid design of the hardware and OS is what buyers don't like. Maybe the objections to the Surface aren't even related to the OS. Could be price, size, weight... who knows?
I gotta admit, I actually thought the Surface Pro would do pretty well. Think about it -- a full-fledged powerful tablet that runs any software and overcomes the primary limitation of tablets -- awkward typing -- when that's the priority. A common OS means commonality of features, capability and UI across devices. It *seems* like a pretty good idea.
I'm no fan of Microsoft's software, but I thought the Surface was going to be a step in the right direction.
I think where they went wrong was that people don;t want a tablet UI on their desktop computer. I always saw the "merging" of the two to be one OS, but two different UIs depending on the usage. For instance, an iPhone with the mobile UI we know and love would convert to a full fledged OS X UI when plugged into a dock connected to a monitor.
I gotta admit, I actually thought the Surface Pro would do pretty well. Think about it -- a full-fledged powerful tablet that runs any software and overcomes the primary limitation of tablets...
I think part of the problem was this:
- Surface Pro is a $900 laptop/tablet hybrid with an 11" screen.
Would people buy it to replace their current 14" or 15" laptop? (too small to be your only machine)
Or would they carry both a 11" Surface Pro and their traditional laptop? (unnecessary redundancy)
For me the sweet spot is a 13" or 14" laptop or ultrabook... and a small mobile tablet.
But combining the characteristics of both doesn't sound appealing.
I don't know about adoption but I would think corporate PC sales may come with Windows 8 as part of the purchase. Either by purchasing the version of Windows that allows free a downgrade to Windows 7 or using an enterprise license to format over the factory installed version of a lesser version of Windows 8 that came with the bulk purchases.
There are a lot of computes that you can still specify Windows 7 or Windows 8. I'm don't work for a corporate reseller, so I don't know what is common place right now. But HP does have corporate model desktops that only offer Windows 7. I don't know what are the current hot desktops and laptops that are being sold into the corporate market. But if HP still has Windows 7 model units, chances are Dell and Lenovo (3 biggest mfg that sell to Corporations) are going to have models with Windows 7. Yeah, if a corporate customer buys a computer and they can only buy Windows 8, can they revert back to Windows 7? Does it matter on which models that will will/not work? I couldn't answer that as I'm not currently involved with PC sales like I used to. But MOST companies I used to deal with would typically wait for a "STABLE" release of Windows before they would start migrating to a new OS release and that was typically after SP2, which was a couple of years after initial release. But with Windows 8 using a touchscreen, I don't know how many corporations want to take the change of the potential problems with the ergonomics of touchscreen based products. A lot of people don't want "monkey grip" problems.
Update: I just checked with Dell's site and the Optiplex, which have been historically what Corporate customers would buy for Desktops, offers Windows 7 pro models. So, at least in the mean time they can still buy Windows 7 Pro desktop computers for corporate use.
Corporations buy certain models because they typically have some management software that is designed for the corporate climate. HP and Dell have this software and they put in the models that are sold to the corporate customers. So, it's a pretty good guess that they'll still buy those computers and they come with Windows 7.
I wonder if anyone has the numbers of what the percentage of the Windows users are consumers vs business/government customers. I'll bet that most of these licenses that are being sold are more consumers vs business/government customers. I know that I think it was the DoD did a HUGE Windows 8 purchase, but I think it was to buy other updated software and they probably got a killer discount since the deal was done around the same time Windows8 was increasing the price, so they obviously did get a deep discount on Windows 8 licenses, whether they actually use them.
I wonder how many of those 100 million are still in use?
That would be a *very* interesting statistic.
I think you might end up surprised.
Out of my experience - limited as it is, I do work in IT and know reasonable number of people using PC. While I do read some very vocal complains about Windows 8, I'm yet to know a person who I know has used Win 8 for any reasonable period of time (as in longer than 15 - 30 minutes) and dumped it. This include my company - small as it is, 17 out of 20 people moved to Win 8 and, even if everyone was obliged to make a full backup before moving, no one has restored it.
Last person who upgraded - my boss - was winging for 30 minutes or so, then he got into it enough to start feeling comfortable. An hour later he was happy with it, his backup permanently deleted next day. Granted we are all IT, home users might take a bit longer to get there, but again we are talking hours, not days.
I know only one person who uses one of those Win 8 Start button workarounds, lady over 60. Someone set that up for her. I didn't personally check every PC I know to run W8, there might be more Start-button-sick people, but I don't expect too many of them.
Still the fastest selling desktop OS but how does that compare with previous Windows launches?
I don't think it is easy to compare because MS announced change in their OS release strategy before W8 was released. If this new strategy remains, instead of one expensive OS every 3 years with free service packs in the meantime, they will be releasing one cheaper OS every year, no service packs.
This might convince potential upgraders from XP/Vista/7 to wait until W8.1 is released, and I would also expect that OEMs are reducing their orders as well; Win8 is already mature product, sort of. Contrasty to Win 7 which was still in it's infancy (maybe teens?) half a year after it was released.
And of course, circumstances are different. W7 was saviour after stale XP and (publicly) failed Vista, while W8 came after highly successful and beloved W7. Economy is different. And tablets didn't even exist back in 2009. Taking all that into account, I'd dare to say W8 is doing brilliantly well.
I run a small website with a diverse audience when it comes to computer platform and browsers. Here are my stats so far this month for Windows:
Notice anything missing?
Your web site capability to differentiate Windows 8 from Windows 7 maybe?
I mean, W8 took 2.3% of all Windows traffic 48 days after release. That is not bad considering how many people still use XP, not to mention 7. Surely you should see a few of them..?
Steam is a very different demographic: gamers. Just because their numbers are not equal to mine does not mean mine don't have a real basis. Quite possibly the professional and student musician demographic is less likely to use Windows 8 than computer gamers.
But it proves that Windows 8 isn't as unusable as people make it out to be. And as for the people bitching about the start menu, there are numerous free or paid for options to add it back again
It's interesting, because Microsoft counts all Windows 7 copies now as Windows 8 downgrades - but they still count as a Windows 8 sale. I've been buying a several Dell business class machines that have Windows 7 downgrade option (that I'm opting for). Those are all being treated as Windows 8 sales...
You would have to be a complete muppet to downgrade from Windows 8 to Windows 7. The desktop mode is basically the same experiance, the main difference is machines go from a boot time of a minute to 10 seconds. The whole thing is just faster, its like getting a new machine.
If people dont like the metro interface, dont use it! The stats for Win7 showed a tiny percentage actually clicked the start button and it was only in the main to open a program that then got pinned to the task bar.
Bottom line is people expect touch on PCs now. People all over the world are touching non touch screen screens expecting to be able to scroll or open something. Microsoft probably went a bit to far hiding things like the start button, but ultimately 1 os for all devices is the future and it wont be that long before Apple do it to. They may say its a bad idea, but they also said music on phones was a bad idea.
Lastly the whole argument of how many if those 100 million are actually sold compared to OEMs buying the to sell: 1. That same comment is made about everything MS sell inclusing Windows 7 making it irrelevant when comparing there sales to themselves 2. Why would OEMs buy more licenses if they wernt selling the ones they bought
The whole thing is just faster, its like getting a new machine.
Any clean install of Windows does this. That's what happens when you let any application write to your OS' Registry.
If people dont like the metro interface, dont use it!
Except you're forced to.
The stats for Win7 showed a tiny percentage actually clicked the start button and it was only in the main to open a program that then got pinned to the task bar.
Guess they never had to put their computers to sleep, open the file browser, change any settings, or search for any files.
You know, actually use the computer.
Bottom line is people expect touch on PCs now.
Not a single person expects touch on PCs. What kind of statement is that? Windows 8 doesn't work when it does have touch and it's designed for having it (and being unusable) when it doesn't.
People all over the world are touching non touch screen screens expecting to be able to scroll or open something.
1. No, this isn't happening.
2. A few idiots do this; that's not "people" in your definition.
3. When you design an OS for touchscreens but put it exclusively on devices that don't have touchscreens, you'll get that. And that doesn't mean people want touchscreens. It means you suck at design.
Microsoft probably went a bit to far hiding things like the start button…
Backpedaling already, I see.
…but ultimately 1 os for all devices is the future and it wont be that long before Apple do it to.
Nope. And nope.
…they also said music on phones was a bad idea.
No one said that.
2. Why would OEMs buy more licenses if they wernt selling the ones they bought
People may not "expect" touch capability, but I can imagine there might be a fair number of people who are surprised that it isn't more common. Between phones, tablets, a touch-friendly version of Windows and a handful of touchscreen laptops, it wouldn't be a stretch for people to wonder why their PC doesn't support it.
I know you think it's a stupid idea and I don't want to get into another debate about gorilla arms, I'm just saying that, while I think timgriff84 is probably exaggerating the present situation, I think we will see an increasing number of people wondering why their PC doesn't support touch, and possibly an increase in the number of machines that do just because people seem to want it. That doesn't mean they'll make extensive use of it or that it's a good idea, just that they'll think they want it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
…but ultimately 1 os for all devices is the future and it wont be that long before Apple do it to.
Nope. And nope.
I hope you're right and he's wrong, but for reasons I can't articulate I get the gut feeling that Apple is interested in at least exploring the concept of migrating towards a common OS. I don't know why I think that or what the benefits would be, but the explosive success of iOS devices compared to relatively "meh" Mac sales makes me fear they'll try to make Macs more like iPads.
…I think we will see an increasing number of people wondering why their PC doesn't support touch, and possibly an increase in the number of machines that do just because people seem to want it. That doesn't mean they'll make extensive use of it or that it's a good idea, just that they'll think they want it.
Oh, so do I! I think exactly that. Look at OS X. There are times that I wish I could reach out and touch it, and times that I'm very glad for the Magic Trackpad and its gestures to get around. But more often than not, I'm still glad that I have the mouse to fall back on. There will be multitouch desktop computers. There will be mouseless multitouch desktop computers. I'm of the belief that Apple will be the first in that regard. But it won't have a vertical screen. At least, Apple's won't.
People don't know what they want until you show it to them. They truly don't. It's not just RDF; it holds true outside Moscone West.
They think they want a touchscreen desktop with Windows 8. They don't. They don't because no one is making the RIGHT touchscreen desktop. No one made the right touchscreen desktop when Vista came out (remember those hideous Dell monstrosities?). And I don't believe anyone will make the right kind of touchscreen desktop until Apple shows them how. Which is fine, of course. Apple showed the world how to make a personal computer in 1977, they showed the world how to make it better in 1984, and they'll show the world how to knock up the future in… well, sometime this decade.
I hope you're right and he's wrong, but for reasons I can't articulate I get the gut feeling that Apple is interested in at least exploring the concept of migrating towards a common OS.
I think they're headed for commonality rather than a unified OS. There are things that can't (and shouldn't) ever be done on an iPad that require a larger screen and things that can (but shouldn't) be done on a large screen computer that would be much better served on the iPad.
The future needs both, even if both are touchscreen-based. The world can't run on iPads, but the future can't run on a mouse.
Guess they never had to put their computers to sleep, open the file browser, change any settings, or search for any files.
You know, actually use the computer.
How many people really put there computers to sleep or turn them off? At work people just lock there machine, at home you just leave it to go to sleep on its own.
Opening the file browser is the 1 thing that actually starts off pinned to the task bar by default. The file browser also has a search box to find files.
I'd also question how many people search for files. Pro users maybe (perhaps the small percentage that actually click start), doesn't everyone else just open them from the program or use the file browser? Really basic users just have everything on the desktop.
As for settings, again how many people actually change settings. The wallpaper is also easiest to change by right clicking on the desktop.
There is seriously no need to click start, the same as on OS X there is no need to click launchpad. So apart from clicking the desktop button when your machine turns on, you can completely ignore metro.
Also on the touchscreen argument. Using a crappy trackpad to scroll on a laptop when the screen is literally 8 inches from the trackpad is nuts. People like touch screens, they won't replace mice and keyboards but they do want them.
Comments
If we're talking about licenses it makes more sense to refer to them as sold than shipped. We're not talking necessarily talking about plastic metallic discs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is one case where MS *should* have copied Apple as they usually do and gone for a full-fledged mobile OS. For whatever reason they failed to do it. Big mistake.
In retrospect you may be right, but we don't really know for sure that the hybrid design of the hardware and OS is what buyers don't like. Maybe the objections to the Surface aren't even related to the OS. Could be price, size, weight... who knows?
I gotta admit, I actually thought the Surface Pro would do pretty well. Think about it -- a full-fledged powerful tablet that runs any software and overcomes the primary limitation of tablets -- awkward typing -- when that's the priority. A common OS means commonality of features, capability and UI across devices. It *seems* like a pretty good idea.
I'm no fan of Microsoft's software, but I thought the Surface was going to be a step in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Yeah, any real basis for your numbers…
Steam has 11% Windows 8 users as of April
Steam is a very different demographic: gamers. Just because their numbers are not equal to mine does not mean mine don't have a real basis. Quite possibly the professional and student musician demographic is less likely to use Windows 8 than computer gamers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
In retrospect you may be right, but we don't really know for sure that the hybrid design of the hardware and OS is what buyers don't like. Maybe the objections to the Surface aren't even related to the OS. Could be price, size, weight... who knows?
I gotta admit, I actually thought the Surface Pro would do pretty well. Think about it -- a full-fledged powerful tablet that runs any software and overcomes the primary limitation of tablets -- awkward typing -- when that's the priority. A common OS means commonality of features, capability and UI across devices. It *seems* like a pretty good idea.
I'm no fan of Microsoft's software, but I thought the Surface was going to be a step in the right direction.
I think where they went wrong was that people don;t want a tablet UI on their desktop computer. I always saw the "merging" of the two to be one OS, but two different UIs depending on the usage. For instance, an iPhone with the mobile UI we know and love would convert to a full fledged OS X UI when plugged into a dock connected to a monitor.
I think part of the problem was this:
- Surface Pro is a $900 laptop/tablet hybrid with an 11" screen.
Would people buy it to replace their current 14" or 15" laptop? (too small to be your only machine)
Or would they carry both a 11" Surface Pro and their traditional laptop? (unnecessary redundancy)
For me the sweet spot is a 13" or 14" laptop or ultrabook... and a small mobile tablet.
But combining the characteristics of both doesn't sound appealing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dontuwish
Shipped, not sold to consumers.
It says sold. It infers sold to customers. I think. Maybe the person who wrote the article can verify with Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't know about adoption but I would think corporate PC sales may come with Windows 8 as part of the purchase. Either by purchasing the version of Windows that allows free a downgrade to Windows 7 or using an enterprise license to format over the factory installed version of a lesser version of Windows 8 that came with the bulk purchases.
There are a lot of computes that you can still specify Windows 7 or Windows 8. I'm don't work for a corporate reseller, so I don't know what is common place right now. But HP does have corporate model desktops that only offer Windows 7. I don't know what are the current hot desktops and laptops that are being sold into the corporate market. But if HP still has Windows 7 model units, chances are Dell and Lenovo (3 biggest mfg that sell to Corporations) are going to have models with Windows 7. Yeah, if a corporate customer buys a computer and they can only buy Windows 8, can they revert back to Windows 7? Does it matter on which models that will will/not work? I couldn't answer that as I'm not currently involved with PC sales like I used to. But MOST companies I used to deal with would typically wait for a "STABLE" release of Windows before they would start migrating to a new OS release and that was typically after SP2, which was a couple of years after initial release. But with Windows 8 using a touchscreen, I don't know how many corporations want to take the change of the potential problems with the ergonomics of touchscreen based products. A lot of people don't want "monkey grip" problems.
Update: I just checked with Dell's site and the Optiplex, which have been historically what Corporate customers would buy for Desktops, offers Windows 7 pro models. So, at least in the mean time they can still buy Windows 7 Pro desktop computers for corporate use.
Corporations buy certain models because they typically have some management software that is designed for the corporate climate. HP and Dell have this software and they put in the models that are sold to the corporate customers. So, it's a pretty good guess that they'll still buy those computers and they come with Windows 7.
I wonder if anyone has the numbers of what the percentage of the Windows users are consumers vs business/government customers. I'll bet that most of these licenses that are being sold are more consumers vs business/government customers. I know that I think it was the DoD did a HUGE Windows 8 purchase, but I think it was to buy other updated software and they probably got a killer discount since the deal was done around the same time Windows8 was increasing the price, so they obviously did get a deep discount on Windows 8 licenses, whether they actually use them.
I think you might end up surprised.
Out of my experience - limited as it is, I do work in IT and know reasonable number of people using PC. While I do read some very vocal complains about Windows 8, I'm yet to know a person who I know has used Win 8 for any reasonable period of time (as in longer than 15 - 30 minutes) and dumped it. This include my company - small as it is, 17 out of 20 people moved to Win 8 and, even if everyone was obliged to make a full backup before moving, no one has restored it.
Last person who upgraded - my boss - was winging for 30 minutes or so, then he got into it enough to start feeling comfortable. An hour later he was happy with it, his backup permanently deleted next day. Granted we are all IT, home users might take a bit longer to get there, but again we are talking hours, not days.
I know only one person who uses one of those Win 8 Start button workarounds, lady over 60. Someone set that up for her. I didn't personally check every PC I know to run W8, there might be more Start-button-sick people, but I don't expect too many of them.
I don't think it is easy to compare because MS announced change in their OS release strategy before W8 was released. If this new strategy remains, instead of one expensive OS every 3 years with free service packs in the meantime, they will be releasing one cheaper OS every year, no service packs.
This might convince potential upgraders from XP/Vista/7 to wait until W8.1 is released, and I would also expect that OEMs are reducing their orders as well; Win8 is already mature product, sort of. Contrasty to Win 7 which was still in it's infancy (maybe teens?) half a year after it was released.
And of course, circumstances are different. W7 was saviour after stale XP and (publicly) failed Vista, while W8 came after highly successful and beloved W7. Economy is different. And tablets didn't even exist back in 2009. Taking all that into account, I'd dare to say W8 is doing brilliantly well.
Your web site capability to differentiate Windows 8 from Windows 7 maybe?
I mean, W8 took 2.3% of all Windows traffic 48 days after release. That is not bad considering how many people still use XP, not to mention 7. Surely you should see a few of them..?
But it proves that Windows 8 isn't as unusable as people make it out to be. And as for the people bitching about the start menu, there are numerous free or paid for options to add it back again
It's interesting, because Microsoft counts all Windows 7 copies now as Windows 8 downgrades - but they still count as a Windows 8 sale. I've been buying a several Dell business class machines that have Windows 7 downgrade option (that I'm opting for). Those are all being treated as Windows 8 sales...
If people dont like the metro interface, dont use it! The stats for Win7 showed a tiny percentage actually clicked the start button and it was only in the main to open a program that then got pinned to the task bar.
Bottom line is people expect touch on PCs now. People all over the world are touching non touch screen screens expecting to be able to scroll or open something. Microsoft probably went a bit to far hiding things like the start button, but ultimately 1 os for all devices is the future and it wont be that long before Apple do it to. They may say its a bad idea, but they also said music on phones was a bad idea.
Lastly the whole argument of how many if those 100 million are actually sold compared to OEMs buying the to sell:
1. That same comment is made about everything MS sell inclusing Windows 7 making it irrelevant when comparing there sales to themselves
2. Why would OEMs buy more licenses if they wernt selling the ones they bought
Originally Posted by timgriff84
The whole thing is just faster, its like getting a new machine.
Any clean install of Windows does this. That's what happens when you let any application write to your OS' Registry.
If people dont like the metro interface, dont use it!
Except you're forced to.
The stats for Win7 showed a tiny percentage actually clicked the start button and it was only in the main to open a program that then got pinned to the task bar.
Guess they never had to put their computers to sleep, open the file browser, change any settings, or search for any files.
You know, actually use the computer.
Bottom line is people expect touch on PCs now.
Not a single person expects touch on PCs. What kind of statement is that? Windows 8 doesn't work when it does have touch and it's designed for having it (and being unusable) when it doesn't.
People all over the world are touching non touch screen screens expecting to be able to scroll or open something.
1. No, this isn't happening.
2. A few idiots do this; that's not "people" in your definition.
3. When you design an OS for touchscreens but put it exclusively on devices that don't have touchscreens, you'll get that. And that doesn't mean people want touchscreens. It means you suck at design.
Microsoft probably went a bit to far hiding things like the start button…
Backpedaling already, I see.
…but ultimately 1 os for all devices is the future and it wont be that long before Apple do it to.
Nope. And nope.
…they also said music on phones was a bad idea.
No one said that.
2. Why would OEMs buy more licenses if they wernt selling the ones they bought
Because.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Bottom line is people expect touch on PCs now.
Not a single person expects touch on PCs.
People may not "expect" touch capability, but I can imagine there might be a fair number of people who are surprised that it isn't more common. Between phones, tablets, a touch-friendly version of Windows and a handful of touchscreen laptops, it wouldn't be a stretch for people to wonder why their PC doesn't support it.
I know you think it's a stupid idea and I don't want to get into another debate about gorilla arms, I'm just saying that, while I think timgriff84 is probably exaggerating the present situation, I think we will see an increasing number of people wondering why their PC doesn't support touch, and possibly an increase in the number of machines that do just because people seem to want it. That doesn't mean they'll make extensive use of it or that it's a good idea, just that they'll think they want it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
…but ultimately 1 os for all devices is the future and it wont be that long before Apple do it to.
Nope. And nope.
I hope you're right and he's wrong, but for reasons I can't articulate I get the gut feeling that Apple is interested in at least exploring the concept of migrating towards a common OS. I don't know why I think that or what the benefits would be, but the explosive success of iOS devices compared to relatively "meh" Mac sales makes me fear they'll try to make Macs more like iPads.
Originally Posted by v5v
…I think we will see an increasing number of people wondering why their PC doesn't support touch, and possibly an increase in the number of machines that do just because people seem to want it. That doesn't mean they'll make extensive use of it or that it's a good idea, just that they'll think they want it.
Oh, so do I! I think exactly that. Look at OS X. There are times that I wish I could reach out and touch it, and times that I'm very glad for the Magic Trackpad and its gestures to get around. But more often than not, I'm still glad that I have the mouse to fall back on. There will be multitouch desktop computers. There will be mouseless multitouch desktop computers. I'm of the belief that Apple will be the first in that regard. But it won't have a vertical screen. At least, Apple's won't.
People don't know what they want until you show it to them. They truly don't. It's not just RDF; it holds true outside Moscone West.
They think they want a touchscreen desktop with Windows 8. They don't. They don't because no one is making the RIGHT touchscreen desktop. No one made the right touchscreen desktop when Vista came out (remember those hideous Dell monstrosities?). And I don't believe anyone will make the right kind of touchscreen desktop until Apple shows them how. Which is fine, of course. Apple showed the world how to make a personal computer in 1977, they showed the world how to make it better in 1984, and they'll show the world how to knock up the future in… well, sometime this decade.
I hope you're right and he's wrong, but for reasons I can't articulate I get the gut feeling that Apple is interested in at least exploring the concept of migrating towards a common OS.
I think they're headed for commonality rather than a unified OS. There are things that can't (and shouldn't) ever be done on an iPad that require a larger screen and things that can (but shouldn't) be done on a large screen computer that would be much better served on the iPad.
The future needs both, even if both are touchscreen-based. The world can't run on iPads, but the future can't run on a mouse.
Nope, there are a number of free and paid for solutions that means you virtually never have to use the metro interface
Originally Posted by fanning
…virtually…
Well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Except you're forced to.
Guess they never had to put their computers to sleep, open the file browser, change any settings, or search for any files.
You know, actually use the computer.
How many people really put there computers to sleep or turn them off? At work people just lock there machine, at home you just leave it to go to sleep on its own.
Opening the file browser is the 1 thing that actually starts off pinned to the task bar by default. The file browser also has a search box to find files.
I'd also question how many people search for files. Pro users maybe (perhaps the small percentage that actually click start), doesn't everyone else just open them from the program or use the file browser? Really basic users just have everything on the desktop.
As for settings, again how many people actually change settings. The wallpaper is also easiest to change by right clicking on the desktop.
There is seriously no need to click start, the same as on OS X there is no need to click launchpad. So apart from clicking the desktop button when your machine turns on, you can completely ignore metro.
Also on the touchscreen argument. Using a crappy trackpad to scroll on a laptop when the screen is literally 8 inches from the trackpad is nuts. People like touch screens, they won't replace mice and keyboards but they do want them.