I went right out and bought a couple copies of Win 7 OEM just to have around for any new office PCs we might need in the future. I certainly don't want to be stuck having to deal with Win 8 from the looks of it.
I bet you have a refrigerator full of Hostess Twinkies too.
Microsoft is merely trying to follow along in Apple's footsteps.
Like a drunken sloth...!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
How many windows users still use some old, outdated version of Explorer to browse with still? These are not exactly cutting edge people that we're talking about here. There's also the issue that Windows 8 is pretty ugly looking, with those puke worthy color schemes. I also thought that the commercial for the Surface was pretty dumb.
Well, only Monkey Boy would sign off on a commercial full of people dancing like... umm... apes.
Well, MS has about 1 Billion licenses of the variants of Windows (XP, Vista, 7, and now 8). Obviously, Apple can't have 1 Billion computers made within 12 months, but Apple could easiy see 10% of the current Windows users migrating to OS X. OS X is practically bug free, and it only take a couple of minor bug fixes to address those problems. if Apple sees 10% of Windows users switch to OS X laptops/desktops, that could more than double the current number of OS X users. It doesn't implausible for that to happen over the next 12 months. Apple just refreshed the line up, so we'll see what happens. there was a recent survey done by a market research firm and 10% thought that OS X was better, 58% don't plan on migrating to windows 8. That's a lot of potential windows users planning on leaving the platform and there aren't other options other than OS X.
Survey Says: 7% (not 10%) will migrate to OSX or iOS
But your premise otherwise works... that's a shit-ton of users. The projection is about 70 million new Apple iDevices & iComputers in the next 6 weeks.
Instead, the thinking in Redmond, Wash., is said to be that PC makers have offered "lackluster" designs, along with limited availability.
The irony is so thick you could stick a spoon in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
MS is done.
You're living in la-la land.
MS has far greater market penetration than Apple does, and in the most important ways:
• Xbox 360. It isn't just a game console and has found its way into more homes than iOS devices. More iOS devices have been sold in total, but a lot of those have been thrown away and people buy more than one. They also aren't connected to TVs.
• Microsoft doesn't treat pro customers like sh*t. Microsoft supports enterprise, government, and professionals. Apple has become focused on consumer products to the point of complete abandonment of all others. It's been making money for them in the short term, but consumers are the most fickle and will drop iOS in a heartbeat when something cheaper comes along that's almost as good. That could easily happen.
People give MS a lot of crap as I often do for their crap products and lack of vision, but MS is very good at providing solutions and extracting revenue. Apple's position, in my opinion, is far more tenuous. My division here is where they make money:
Windows and Windows Live
Revenue: $19,024,000,000
Operating Income: $12,281,000,000
Business (Office, Exchange, SharePoint)
Revenue: $22,186,000,000
Operating income: $14,124,000,000
Server and Tools (Windows Server, Microsoft SQL, Visual Studio)
Revenue: $17,096,000,000
Operating Income: $6,608,000,000
Entertainment and Devices (XBox 360/LIVE, Windows Phone)
As for Windows, Microsoft already won the desktop wars decades ago. Win95 came, Apple queefed.
Apple seems to have thrown in the towel in terms of enterprise, and they haven't released a desktop in how long? The war being fought for now is the changing media/entertainment business model. Apple is no doubt working on their next AppleTV failure while Microsoft is looking forward to trouncing the market with Xbox 720.
The move to Windows 7 may be the last major change among enterprise customers for some time. Michael Silver, an analyst at tech research firm Gartner, told Reuters that he expects 90 percent of large organization to not “deploy Windows 8 broadly.” Even worse, he expects only 20 percent of PCs in large corporations to be equipped with Windows 8.
Quote:
So, it all comes down to one question – should you upgrade to Windows 8? At the moment, it’s not really worth it. The operating system doesn’t have enough going for it to make the upgrade worth it for consumers or enterprise. The app store is relatively barren and lacks a number of important apps – Facebook and Twitter – that are important to consumers. The amount of work required to retrain an entire workforce to use the new start menu and a desktop without a start button would take too long and cost too much.
The fact was though, there were even then, people who not only *could* do everything with the mouse and the GUI, they actually preferred it, and they could get things done just as fast. those people eventually grew to be more numerous than the CLI guys
[....]
This is because the number of people who truly "get" the new form factor is still low (most are probably still kids right now) but as before, there are people who don't need or ever want an external keyboard or mouse and can get things done just as fast using only touch.
Your analogy has one faulty piece of reasoning. The mouse pointer is extremely accurate down to the exact pixel. A finger as a pointer is thousands of times less accurate. Touch users can get things done as long as it does not require precision pointing such as bezier curve paths or photoshop like pixel level editing. Even selecting text and copy/paste is problematic at times. Don't kid yourself, touch users will NEVER get the precision or proficiency of a mouse. You can actually draw bezier curves better with a text editor than you can with touch. SVG can be completely controlled with text. Of course you can't save it anywhere on an iDevice but that is different problem.
what do they expect? The Zune was a complete failure. What do they do? They take the horrid, unusable UI from the Zune and jam it on their cell phone OS, Windows Phone. Now Windows Phone is a complete and total failure due to a fugly,unsuable OS which no one likes except all the paid shills. So what do they do? They cram the twice failed horridly unsuable UI on their Window OS to force it onto their illegally obtained desktop monopoly. Now it is failing. What is the common denominator here?
what do they expect? The Zune was a complete failure. What do they do? They take the horrid, unusable UI from the Zune and jam it on their cell phone OS, Windows Phone. Now Windows Phone is a complete and total failure due to a fugly,unsuable OS which no one likes except all the paid shills. So what do they do? They cram the twice failed horridly unsuable UI on their Window OS to force it onto their illegally obtained desktop monopoly. Now it is failing. What is the common denominator here?
I quite like the Zune 2.0 UI. I think WinPh7 UI was great. I love that were able to make the WinNT kernel work on x86, x86_64 and ARM, even at the core of WinPh8. These are not reasons to pooh-pooh MS. I think MS has failed because they tried to make Windows 8 do everything at once resulting in a Swiss Army knife which technically has many tools yet none of them are very good. I blame Ballmer for giving Sinofsky the foolish and impossible task of trying to make Windows be everything to everyone in both the UI, UX and nomenclature (unless of course that was his idea, then I blame Sinofsky).
It's a BIG transition for PC owners. I remember when Apple went to OS X from OS 9 in the early 2000s.
A LOT of people HATED OS X - because it meant buying ALL new software
Except that you still could either run existing Mac apps in Classic mode, or reboot into OS 9 if a specific application didn't play nicely.
I clearly remember testing 10.0 and able to do some work in 10.1 while using OS 9 for most of it, and being mostly switched away from OS 9 by 10.2. (We were a Mac sea in a very large Unix shop.)
In retrospect, it was a fairly painless transition, since it wasn't an either/or situation; we could switch between the environment that worked best for us, and OS X played better with the Unix world around us than OS 9 did.
In retrospect, it was a fairly painless transition, since it wasn't an either/or situation; we could switch between the environment that worked best for us, and OS X played better with the Unix world around us than OS 9 did.
At that time we were doing a lot of Quark which was not OS X compatible. It became very tedious switching back and forth from Classic to OS X. By the time Quark got around to updating their software many people had moved to inDesign even though in many ways it was inferior but at least it worked in OS X. Adobe gave us free copies as an upgrade to Pagemaker which we hadn't used at all for several years. Adobe was pretty quick to adopt the new OS so it took the lead in what was a Quark dominated industry. Quark made the mistake of putting all their eggs in the Windows basket and they paid the price for ignoring their Mac base. Now they are irrelevant.
As for Windows, Microsoft already won the desktop wars decades ago. Win95 came, Apple queefed.
Apple's penalty for losing the PC war in the 1990s is that they're now the most profitable PC maker in the world. Mac sales growth has outpaced the industry for well around 30 consecutive quarters, and counting. Apple owns the $1000+ category. "We don't ship junk" indeed.
Closed licensing of OS X was the right decision - no question, both for ensuring a superior user experience and for keeping OS X out of the hands of cheap box-assemblers. Both are related, of course.
End-to-end control of the experience. At the core of this is an OS that isn't licensed out. The OS is the single most important part of the computing experience. There’s no other PC maker that controls the most important aspect of its computers. This is why Macs are so coveted. This is why they sell like crazy even in a recession. And this is why Macs (and consequently, OS X) have dominated consumer satisfaction for years. Macs running OS X set the gold standard for the industry.
With Metro (or whatever confused label MS is using for it now), and this whole jumbled, confused and misguided Windows 8 paradigm, MS has shown very clearly and beyond any doubt, that the future of personal computing belongs to their leaner, meaner, and definitely faster competitors, like Apple. MS has handed it to them on a silver platter.
It's not because they don't have any talent. It isn't because they don't have resources. It isn't because they don't have any contact with the outside world.
It's because a CLOWN has been running the circus there for over 10 years.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
MSFT is full of it.... Asus makes a Zenbook that is beautiful. MSFT has no one but itself to blame for the low upgrade rate of Windows users.
Sorry.. the Air is beautiful, the zenbook is nothing more than a "me too" copy wannabe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
MS knows how to generate cachet and "cool" like I know how to speak Aramaic.
???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??????
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I went right out and bought a couple copies of Win 7 OEM just to have around for any new office PCs we might need in the future. I certainly don't want to be stuck having to deal with Win 8 from the looks of it.
I bet you have a refrigerator full of Hostess Twinkies too.
Here's the list:
1. Sinofsky, Steven J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Microsoft is merely trying to follow along in Apple's footsteps.
Like a drunken sloth...!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
How many windows users still use some old, outdated version of Explorer to browse with still? These are not exactly cutting edge people that we're talking about here. There's also the issue that Windows 8 is pretty ugly looking, with those puke worthy color schemes. I also thought that the commercial for the Surface was pretty dumb.
Well, only Monkey Boy would sign off on a commercial full of people dancing like... umm... apes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Well, MS has about 1 Billion licenses of the variants of Windows (XP, Vista, 7, and now 8). Obviously, Apple can't have 1 Billion computers made within 12 months, but Apple could easiy see 10% of the current Windows users migrating to OS X. OS X is practically bug free, and it only take a couple of minor bug fixes to address those problems. if Apple sees 10% of Windows users switch to OS X laptops/desktops, that could more than double the current number of OS X users. It doesn't implausible for that to happen over the next 12 months. Apple just refreshed the line up, so we'll see what happens. there was a recent survey done by a market research firm and 10% thought that OS X was better, 58% don't plan on migrating to windows 8. That's a lot of potential windows users planning on leaving the platform and there aren't other options other than OS X.
Survey Says: 7% (not 10%) will migrate to OSX or iOS
But your premise otherwise works... that's a shit-ton of users. The projection is about 70 million new Apple iDevices & iComputers in the next 6 weeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Instead, the thinking in Redmond, Wash., is said to be that PC makers have offered "lackluster" designs, along with limited availability.
The irony is so thick you could stick a spoon in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
MS is done.
You're living in la-la land.
MS has far greater market penetration than Apple does, and in the most important ways:
• Xbox 360. It isn't just a game console and has found its way into more homes than iOS devices. More iOS devices have been sold in total, but a lot of those have been thrown away and people buy more than one. They also aren't connected to TVs.
• Microsoft doesn't treat pro customers like sh*t. Microsoft supports enterprise, government, and professionals. Apple has become focused on consumer products to the point of complete abandonment of all others. It's been making money for them in the short term, but consumers are the most fickle and will drop iOS in a heartbeat when something cheaper comes along that's almost as good. That could easily happen.
People give MS a lot of crap as I often do for their crap products and lack of vision, but MS is very good at providing solutions and extracting revenue. Apple's position, in my opinion, is far more tenuous. My division here is where they make money:
Windows and Windows Live
Revenue: $19,024,000,000
Operating Income: $12,281,000,000
Business (Office, Exchange, SharePoint)
Revenue: $22,186,000,000
Operating income: $14,124,000,000
Server and Tools (Windows Server, Microsoft SQL, Visual Studio)
Revenue: $17,096,000,000
Operating Income: $6,608,000,000
Entertainment and Devices (XBox 360/LIVE, Windows Phone)
Revenue: $8,913,000,000
Operating income: $1,324,000,000
Online Services (Bing, MSN, Hotmail)
Revenue: $2,528,000,000
Operating income: $-2,557,000,000
As for Windows, Microsoft already won the desktop wars decades ago. Win95 came, Apple queefed.
Apple seems to have thrown in the towel in terms of enterprise, and they haven't released a desktop in how long? The war being fought for now is the changing media/entertainment business model. Apple is no doubt working on their next AppleTV failure while Microsoft is looking forward to trouncing the market with Xbox 720.
http://www.webpronews.com/windows-8-is-it-worth-the-upgrade-2012-10
Quote:
The move to Windows 7 may be the last major change among enterprise customers for some time. Michael Silver, an analyst at tech research firm Gartner, told Reuters that he expects 90 percent of large organization to not “deploy Windows 8 broadly.” Even worse, he expects only 20 percent of PCs in large corporations to be equipped with Windows 8.
Quote:
So, it all comes down to one question – should you upgrade to Windows 8? At the moment, it’s not really worth it. The operating system doesn’t have enough going for it to make the upgrade worth it for consumers or enterprise. The app store is relatively barren and lacks a number of important apps – Facebook and Twitter – that are important to consumers. The amount of work required to retrain an entire workforce to use the new start menu and a desktop without a start button would take too long and cost too much.
Has it even been two weeks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The fact was though, there were even then, people who not only *could* do everything with the mouse and the GUI, they actually preferred it, and they could get things done just as fast. those people eventually grew to be more numerous than the CLI guys
[....]
This is because the number of people who truly "get" the new form factor is still low (most are probably still kids right now) but as before, there are people who don't need or ever want an external keyboard or mouse and can get things done just as fast using only touch.
Your analogy has one faulty piece of reasoning. The mouse pointer is extremely accurate down to the exact pixel. A finger as a pointer is thousands of times less accurate. Touch users can get things done as long as it does not require precision pointing such as bezier curve paths or photoshop like pixel level editing. Even selecting text and copy/paste is problematic at times. Don't kid yourself, touch users will NEVER get the precision or proficiency of a mouse. You can actually draw bezier curves better with a text editor than you can with touch. SVG can be completely controlled with text. Of course you can't save it anywhere on an iDevice but that is different problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
I bet you have a refrigerator full of Hostess Twinkies too.
Twinkies have better shelf life.
what do they expect? The Zune was a complete failure. What do they do? They take the horrid, unusable UI from the Zune and jam it on their cell phone OS, Windows Phone. Now Windows Phone is a complete and total failure due to a fugly,unsuable OS which no one likes except all the paid shills. So what do they do? They cram the twice failed horridly unsuable UI on their Window OS to force it onto their illegally obtained desktop monopoly. Now it is failing. What is the common denominator here?
What's wrong with his comment? It can be much harder to find older versions of SW at a B&M store.
I quite like the Zune 2.0 UI. I think WinPh7 UI was great. I love that were able to make the WinNT kernel work on x86, x86_64 and ARM, even at the core of WinPh8. These are not reasons to pooh-pooh MS. I think MS has failed because they tried to make Windows 8 do everything at once resulting in a Swiss Army knife which technically has many tools yet none of them are very good. I blame Ballmer for giving Sinofsky the foolish and impossible task of trying to make Windows be everything to everyone in both the UI, UX and nomenclature (unless of course that was his idea, then I blame Sinofsky).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3
It's a BIG transition for PC owners. I remember when Apple went to OS X from OS 9 in the early 2000s.
A LOT of people HATED OS X - because it meant buying ALL new software
Except that you still could either run existing Mac apps in Classic mode, or reboot into OS 9 if a specific application didn't play nicely.
I clearly remember testing 10.0 and able to do some work in 10.1 while using OS 9 for most of it, and being mostly switched away from OS 9 by 10.2. (We were a Mac sea in a very large Unix shop.)
In retrospect, it was a fairly painless transition, since it wasn't an either/or situation; we could switch between the environment that worked best for us, and OS X played better with the Unix world around us than OS 9 did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH
In retrospect, it was a fairly painless transition, since it wasn't an either/or situation; we could switch between the environment that worked best for us, and OS X played better with the Unix world around us than OS 9 did.
At that time we were doing a lot of Quark which was not OS X compatible. It became very tedious switching back and forth from Classic to OS X. By the time Quark got around to updating their software many people had moved to inDesign even though in many ways it was inferior but at least it worked in OS X. Adobe gave us free copies as an upgrade to Pagemaker which we hadn't used at all for several years. Adobe was pretty quick to adopt the new OS so it took the lead in what was a Quark dominated industry. Quark made the mistake of putting all their eggs in the Windows basket and they paid the price for ignoring their Mac base. Now they are irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe
As for Windows, Microsoft already won the desktop wars decades ago. Win95 came, Apple queefed.
Apple's penalty for losing the PC war in the 1990s is that they're now the most profitable PC maker in the world. Mac sales growth has outpaced the industry for well around 30 consecutive quarters, and counting. Apple owns the $1000+ category. "We don't ship junk" indeed.
Closed licensing of OS X was the right decision - no question, both for ensuring a superior user experience and for keeping OS X out of the hands of cheap box-assemblers. Both are related, of course.
End-to-end control of the experience. At the core of this is an OS that isn't licensed out. The OS is the single most important part of the computing experience. There’s no other PC maker that controls the most important aspect of its computers. This is why Macs are so coveted. This is why they sell like crazy even in a recession. And this is why Macs (and consequently, OS X) have dominated consumer satisfaction for years. Macs running OS X set the gold standard for the industry.
And we're not even talking iOS devices here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strobe
You're living in la-la land. ...... My division here is where they make money.....
Sad. Very sad.
Good luck. Seriously.
With Metro (or whatever confused label MS is using for it now), and this whole jumbled, confused and misguided Windows 8 paradigm, MS has shown very clearly and beyond any doubt, that the future of personal computing belongs to their leaner, meaner, and definitely faster competitors, like Apple. MS has handed it to them on a silver platter.
It's not because they don't have any talent. It isn't because they don't have resources. It isn't because they don't have any contact with the outside world.
It's because a CLOWN has been running the circus there for over 10 years.