Windows 8 clearly moves the 'personal computing' operating system in a new and exciting direction, whereas most competitors are still patching 10 year+ old desktop environments long over-due for replacement.
Sure mobile OS-based devices have their place in the market, but it's rather misguided to belive that ANY current tablet (aka XL media consumption device) is capable of replacing desktop OS-based computers for those using them for more productive purposes.
Hard to evaluate that claim when there's no agreed definition of "productive purposes" ... other than the one in your head, of course. Is "productive purposes" create MS Office files? Or maybe it's email, web browsing, Twitter, and Facebook. Jobs was right. Some people will need a truck, but most people don't need a truck. It's like defining the success criteria for a non-Windows device being whether it runs Windows software. Of course, now there will be Windows devices that don't even meet that success criteria.
As for the desktop environments due for a replacement, the longevity of OS X's core speaks volumes to how well designed it is. Kind of like the automobile. It has evolved, but no one has come up with a better core design in 100 years. And today's version is infinitely better.
And why would that be? Because XP is a well-known quantity. IT professionals know it inside and out. A whole generation of IT professionals has been trained, for their entire professional career, to deal with systems running XP. And Vista, 7, and 8 simply don't offer any compelling new features. Not worth the time, expense, re-training, re-coding, and lost productivity during the transition away from XP.
CNET should be ashamed of that question and you distorted it even further. It seems the media assumes that all companies run out and upgrade every PC every time the latest OS comes out. I am an IT professional we only transition from XP to Windows 7 when we buy a new computer, and it is usually a smooth transition. We NEVER upgrade the OS. It's just too much trouble, but it has nothing to do with the version of Windows. As long as a PC works and the user is not complaining, we leave it alone. We don't order new computers or apply upgrades just for the heck of it. All this survey really shows is that IT press is completely disconnected from the world of IT professionals. We don't operate the way CNET and others think we do. Keeping XP around isn't a necessity or sign of frustration with Windows 7, it just means a lack of Microsoft support is not a good enough reason to throw out a perfectly functional computer. Budgets are tight and there's no reason to waste money if something isn't broke.
i'm not sure about that because the survey was "carried out by Dimension Consulting on behalf of Dell's Kace systems management appliance business" http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20021324-92.html
CNET should be ashamed of that question and you distorted it even further. It seems the media assumes that all companies run out and upgrade every PC every time the latest OS comes out. I am an IT professional we only transition from XP to Windows 7 when we buy a new computer, and it is usually a smooth transition. We NEVER upgrade the OS. It's just too much trouble, but it has nothing to do with the version of Windows. As long as a PC works and the user is not complaining, we leave it alone. We don't order new computers or apply upgrades just for the heck of it. All this survey really shows is that IT press is completely disconnected from the world of IT professionals. We don't operate the way CNET and others think we do. Keeping XP around isn't a necessity or sign of frustration with Windows 7, it just means a lack of Microsoft support is not a good enough reason to throw out a perfectly functional computer. Budgets are tight and there's no reason to waste money if something isn't broke.
QFT. Keep until broke. Replace not upgrade when it is.
Windows 8 clearly moves the 'personal computing' operating system in a new and exciting direction, whereas most competitors are still patching 10 year+ old desktop environments long over-due for replacement.
Sure mobile OS-based devices have their place in the market, but it's rather misguided to belive that ANY current tablet (aka XL media consumption device) is capable of replacing desktop OS-based computers for those using them for more productive purposes.
Define productive.
When on the road using my iPad I can send and receive emails from my customers. I can use my company's online tools and book jobs, send quotes, do scheduling, etc. Very productive and more convienant than hauling out the laptop and tethering it to my phone.
Looking at the capabilitys of the art app that Auto desk released, I think very soon they will have a Autocad app for the iPad. Wouldn't that be productive?
I will admit that I wouldn't to try and work on some humongous Spreadsheet from accounting, but, I have seen Erp software that has been ported to iPad and seemed to work really well. A little bit Differently perhaps, but it was fully functional. Wouldn't that be productive?
I do think that there are functions not well suited for the iPad, but with all the software released and in development, thinking that the iPad isn't productive is a bit naive. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine, but don't assume it's the same for everyone.
Consumers will upgrade to Windows 8 only because it's pre-installed on the pee cee they buy when their old one freezes up from malware or totally dies. They have no choice, unless they're among the tiny minority who 1. still have their XP install disc, and 2. have the time and technical knowledge to do the downgrade to XP, and 3. either care enough to downgrade or are forced to downgrade because their older apps break in "XP Mode."
Corporate IT departments will upgrade to Windows 8, but only when they buy new pee cees, and they might never even boot them in Windows 8. They'll re-image their systems with XP. Because, unlike consumers, Corporate IT does have a choice. That choice is Window XP, and they'll downgrade. XP has been "good enough" for nearly 11 years, and it's going to be "good enough" for the next 11 years.
All of which will maintain XP's install base among Window users. Long after Microsoft's official support for XP is terminated in 2014. From a 2011 CNET article on Windows XP:
And why would that be? Because XP is a well-known quantity. IT professionals know it inside and out. A whole generation of IT professionals has been trained, for their entire professional career, to deal with systems running XP. And Vista, 7, and 8 simply don't offer any compelling new features. Not worth the time, expense, re-training, re-coding, and lost productivity during the transition away from XP.
Win8? no... most orgs still need to upgrade to Win7, and they will only do that when they upgrade their WinServer 2008r2 and are required to by compatibility issues for SW ("I need 2008 to run IIS or SQLServer to run an App that requires that version of middleware").
Win8 will not get into the corporate office (those that manage their own configs) until 2014, when there is software that requires Win8.
That's the reason why XP is the still deployed at a majority of sites... desktop SW works, so why upgrade?
Since Stability is a higher requirement than security, new features, and definitely new hardware, XP is still critical path for corporations.
You will see Win8 move in Gov't and those regulated industries that require 'secure OSes' (critical here is ASLR) and browsers (you know that IE10 will be Win8 only).
I really like Windows 7 but I am NOT excited for windows 8. It looks like crap, and I think it will be difficult to play games, download content and just pretty much do anything. I will not be upgrading
i'm not sure about that because the survey was "carried out by Dimension Consulting on behalf of Dell's Kace systems management appliance business" http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20021324-92.html
What do the answers to the survey actually tell us? Not what CNET implies. The implication is that IT professionals don't like Windows 7, but all it says is the majority of IT professionals don't really care if Microsoft will support XP or not...they'll keep using it. I don't believe it is fair to ask a question about Windows XP and draw a conclusion about Windows 7 (or 8). It's stupid and bad journalism.
Older computers running XP cannot be upgraded to Windows 7. So the options are to replace a working computer or keep XP. All this survey says for sure it that given those two options, most IT professionals will keep using the XP instead of replacing a computer that isn't broke.
There are plenty of Macbooks running outdated versions of OSX because Apple no longer supports upgrading those models, but the Mac still works and there's no pressing reason to upgrade. Most people get that. If a Windows user does the same thing, the media spins it as disdain for Windows 7. The fact is that most people don't upgrade their Mac or their PC unless they have to. A new OS isn't a good enough reason.
I really like Windows 7 but I am NOT excited for windows 8. It looks like crap, and I think it will be difficult to play games, download content and just pretty much do anything. I will not be upgrading
I think there is going to be a backlash. Apple has worked iOS features into OSX in a way that isn't intrusive. Microsoft seems to intentionally being intrusive. They did it with Office 2007 and it worked out because enough people saw the ribbon as an actual improvement, and those that did not learned to live with it. I cannot see how making a PC with a mouse and keyboard look like a tablet is going to create a better user experience or impress anyone.
I either see an update that allows you to bring back the start menu, or this will ultimately go down as Vista 2.0. Microsoft should have enough sense to know if they are having to spend so much time in the beta convincing users and partners that the new Metro UI is an improvement, that they're going to have a nightmare on their hands when it is released to the public. It's stupid. Make Metro the default, but make it a no brainer to switch back to the old start menu when no touch devices are detected. If an actual touch screen is present, make it more difficult for them to switch back, throw warnings, do what you can to stop them. But making everyone use a touch interface so the tiny little fragment of users that actually buy a Windows 8 tablet have a better experience is the dumbest strategy I can think of.
Windows 8 Excitement? What Windows 8 excitement? The UI looks like it was created by a color blind Mondrian plagiarist!
ROYGBIV, baby!
You prefer Apple's hideous skeumorphism? You like the stitching, fake leather, torn paper, comic sans typefaces, and reel to reel tape decks? Oh and the linen, let's not forget about the linen. Apple used to be renowned for their UI design, no more, now they're a joke.
Metro is beautiful graphic design, and the live tiles are a great advance.
Despite the superb graphic design work, I can't personally see Win 8 being a success on the desktop, but on tablets and phones it makes perfect sense.
So? More people drive pickup trucks then sports cars. Junk outsells quality day in and day out. Besides, you can count on OSX users selecting to use OSX, while a shit-ton of Vista users had no choice of OS.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Windows 8 clearly moves the 'personal computing' operating system in a new and exciting direction,
Where? Adding a confusing UI layer on top of Windows 7? Is making it look like clown vomit a "new and exciting direction"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Windows 8 clearly moves the 'personal computing' operating system in a new and exciting direction, whereas most competitors are still patching 10 year+ old desktop environments long over-due for replacement.
Sure mobile OS-based devices have their place in the market, but it's rather misguided to belive that ANY current tablet (aka XL media consumption device) is capable of replacing desktop OS-based computers for those using them for more productive purposes.
Hard to evaluate that claim when there's no agreed definition of "productive purposes" ... other than the one in your head, of course. Is "productive purposes" create MS Office files? Or maybe it's email, web browsing, Twitter, and Facebook. Jobs was right. Some people will need a truck, but most people don't need a truck. It's like defining the success criteria for a non-Windows device being whether it runs Windows software. Of course, now there will be Windows devices that don't even meet that success criteria.
As for the desktop environments due for a replacement, the longevity of OS X's core speaks volumes to how well designed it is. Kind of like the automobile. It has evolved, but no one has come up with a better core design in 100 years. And today's version is infinitely better.
Windows 8 Excitement? What Windows 8 excitement? The UI looks like it was created by a color blind Mondrian plagiarist!
ROYGBIV, baby!
Quote:
And why would that be? Because XP is a well-known quantity. IT professionals know it inside and out. A whole generation of IT professionals has been trained, for their entire professional career, to deal with systems running XP. And Vista, 7, and 8 simply don't offer any compelling new features. Not worth the time, expense, re-training, re-coding, and lost productivity during the transition away from XP.
CNET should be ashamed of that question and you distorted it even further. It seems the media assumes that all companies run out and upgrade every PC every time the latest OS comes out. I am an IT professional we only transition from XP to Windows 7 when we buy a new computer, and it is usually a smooth transition. We NEVER upgrade the OS. It's just too much trouble, but it has nothing to do with the version of Windows. As long as a PC works and the user is not complaining, we leave it alone. We don't order new computers or apply upgrades just for the heck of it. All this survey really shows is that IT press is completely disconnected from the world of IT professionals. We don't operate the way CNET and others think we do. Keeping XP around isn't a necessity or sign of frustration with Windows 7, it just means a lack of Microsoft support is not a good enough reason to throw out a perfectly functional computer. Budgets are tight and there's no reason to waste money if something isn't broke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Windows 8 Excitement? What Windows 8 excitement? The UI looks like it was created by a color blind Mondrian plagiarist!
ROYGBIV, baby!
"Excrement." Someone's autocorrect acted up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Windows 8 Excitement? What Windows 8 excitement? The UI looks like it was created by a color blind Mondrian plagiarist!
ROYGBIV, baby!
The UI is the same on desktop mode. I for one do hate the Metro Windows 8 UI.
You can see the speed difference in Win 8 vs Win 7
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406668,00.asp
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
CNET should be ashamed of that question ...
i'm not sure about that because the survey was "carried out by Dimension Consulting on behalf of Dell's Kace systems management appliance business" http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20021324-92.html
an expanded edit of the article is over at http://www.zdnet.com/half-of-it-pros-plan-to-use-xp-after-support-ends-4010020916/
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Lots of people have expressed their views of Windows 8:
http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/yawning.html
I thought these people were looking at Win8 conversion costs and then running off their roof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
CNET should be ashamed of that question and you distorted it even further. It seems the media assumes that all companies run out and upgrade every PC every time the latest OS comes out. I am an IT professional we only transition from XP to Windows 7 when we buy a new computer, and it is usually a smooth transition. We NEVER upgrade the OS. It's just too much trouble, but it has nothing to do with the version of Windows. As long as a PC works and the user is not complaining, we leave it alone. We don't order new computers or apply upgrades just for the heck of it. All this survey really shows is that IT press is completely disconnected from the world of IT professionals. We don't operate the way CNET and others think we do. Keeping XP around isn't a necessity or sign of frustration with Windows 7, it just means a lack of Microsoft support is not a good enough reason to throw out a perfectly functional computer. Budgets are tight and there's no reason to waste money if something isn't broke.
QFT. Keep until broke. Replace not upgrade when it is.
Define productive.
When on the road using my iPad I can send and receive emails from my customers. I can use my company's online tools and book jobs, send quotes, do scheduling, etc. Very productive and more convienant than hauling out the laptop and tethering it to my phone.
Looking at the capabilitys of the art app that Auto desk released, I think very soon they will have a Autocad app for the iPad. Wouldn't that be productive?
I will admit that I wouldn't to try and work on some humongous Spreadsheet from accounting, but, I have seen Erp software that has been ported to iPad and seemed to work really well. A little bit Differently perhaps, but it was fully functional. Wouldn't that be productive?
I do think that there are functions not well suited for the iPad, but with all the software released and in development, thinking that the iPad isn't productive is a bit naive. If it doesn't work for you, that's fine, but don't assume it's the same for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Consumers will upgrade to Windows 8 only because it's pre-installed on the pee cee they buy when their old one freezes up from malware or totally dies. They have no choice, unless they're among the tiny minority who 1. still have their XP install disc, and 2. have the time and technical knowledge to do the downgrade to XP, and 3. either care enough to downgrade or are forced to downgrade because their older apps break in "XP Mode."
Corporate IT departments will upgrade to Windows 8, but only when they buy new pee cees, and they might never even boot them in Windows 8. They'll re-image their systems with XP. Because, unlike consumers, Corporate IT does have a choice. That choice is Window XP, and they'll downgrade. XP has been "good enough" for nearly 11 years, and it's going to be "good enough" for the next 11 years.
All of which will maintain XP's install base among Window users. Long after Microsoft's official support for XP is terminated in 2014. From a 2011 CNET article on Windows XP:
And why would that be? Because XP is a well-known quantity. IT professionals know it inside and out. A whole generation of IT professionals has been trained, for their entire professional career, to deal with systems running XP. And Vista, 7, and 8 simply don't offer any compelling new features. Not worth the time, expense, re-training, re-coding, and lost productivity during the transition away from XP.
Win8? no... most orgs still need to upgrade to Win7, and they will only do that when they upgrade their WinServer 2008r2 and are required to by compatibility issues for SW ("I need 2008 to run IIS or SQLServer to run an App that requires that version of middleware").
Win8 will not get into the corporate office (those that manage their own configs) until 2014, when there is software that requires Win8.
That's the reason why XP is the still deployed at a majority of sites... desktop SW works, so why upgrade?
Since Stability is a higher requirement than security, new features, and definitely new hardware, XP is still critical path for corporations.
You will see Win8 move in Gov't and those regulated industries that require 'secure OSes' (critical here is ASLR) and browsers (you know that IE10 will be Win8 only).
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
i'm not sure about that because the survey was "carried out by Dimension Consulting on behalf of Dell's Kace systems management appliance business" http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-20021324-92.html
an expanded edit of the article is over at http://www.zdnet.com/half-of-it-pros-plan-to-use-xp-after-support-ends-4010020916/
What do the answers to the survey actually tell us? Not what CNET implies. The implication is that IT professionals don't like Windows 7, but all it says is the majority of IT professionals don't really care if Microsoft will support XP or not...they'll keep using it. I don't believe it is fair to ask a question about Windows XP and draw a conclusion about Windows 7 (or 8). It's stupid and bad journalism.
Older computers running XP cannot be upgraded to Windows 7. So the options are to replace a working computer or keep XP. All this survey says for sure it that given those two options, most IT professionals will keep using the XP instead of replacing a computer that isn't broke.
There are plenty of Macbooks running outdated versions of OSX because Apple no longer supports upgrading those models, but the Mac still works and there's no pressing reason to upgrade. Most people get that. If a Windows user does the same thing, the media spins it as disdain for Windows 7. The fact is that most people don't upgrade their Mac or their PC unless they have to. A new OS isn't a good enough reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbit
I really like Windows 7 but I am NOT excited for windows 8. It looks like crap, and I think it will be difficult to play games, download content and just pretty much do anything. I will not be upgrading
I think there is going to be a backlash. Apple has worked iOS features into OSX in a way that isn't intrusive. Microsoft seems to intentionally being intrusive. They did it with Office 2007 and it worked out because enough people saw the ribbon as an actual improvement, and those that did not learned to live with it. I cannot see how making a PC with a mouse and keyboard look like a tablet is going to create a better user experience or impress anyone.
I either see an update that allows you to bring back the start menu, or this will ultimately go down as Vista 2.0. Microsoft should have enough sense to know if they are having to spend so much time in the beta convincing users and partners that the new Metro UI is an improvement, that they're going to have a nightmare on their hands when it is released to the public. It's stupid. Make Metro the default, but make it a no brainer to switch back to the old start menu when no touch devices are detected. If an actual touch screen is present, make it more difficult for them to switch back, throw warnings, do what you can to stop them. But making everyone use a touch interface so the tiny little fragment of users that actually buy a Windows 8 tablet have a better experience is the dumbest strategy I can think of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web
Windows 8 Excitement? What Windows 8 excitement? The UI looks like it was created by a color blind Mondrian plagiarist!
ROYGBIV, baby!
You prefer Apple's hideous skeumorphism? You like the stitching, fake leather, torn paper, comic sans typefaces, and reel to reel tape decks? Oh and the linen, let's not forget about the linen. Apple used to be renowned for their UI design, no more, now they're a joke.
Metro is beautiful graphic design, and the live tiles are a great advance.
Despite the superb graphic design work, I can't personally see Win 8 being a success on the desktop, but on tablets and phones it makes perfect sense.
A sizeable chunk certainly of the xp share are illegal installs especially in Asia.
Originally Posted by stniuk
A sizeable chunk certainly of the xp share are illegal installs especially in Asia.
And what was it, there were only… two dozen legal copies of Windows 7 sold at launch in China? Something like that.
Windoze excitement? More excitement watching paint dry, corn grow, or chrome rust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me
At least vista has more users than OSx
So? More people drive pickup trucks then sports cars. Junk outsells quality day in and day out. Besides, you can count on OSX users selecting to use OSX, while a shit-ton of Vista users had no choice of OS.