Windows 8 sales fall short of Microsoft's internal projections

1468910

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 187


    As an Apple fan, it pains me to say that I think Windows 7 is actually a really nice OS. That being said, anyone who is happy with Win7 is not likely to upgrade to Win8 because it's a complete shift in "how things work." MS can't possibly believe that average consumers will give up everything (and by that I mean very little) they know about how to use the OS, and Enterprise will invite new headaches and support requests for an upgrade that does virtually nothing new other than invite support requests, simply to have the latest version. Can they?


     


    I think it's great that MS is willing to try something new. But they really need to go either go ALL-OUT with it (much like Apple did with the MacOS to OS X transition), or leave well-enough alone and just add features and bug fixes to the existing OS until they're ready to make a big leap.


     


    They really need to get beyond the "support everything we can possibly support" mentality with their OS compatibility. You can't truly move forward until you're willing to let go of the past.

  • Reply 102 of 187
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member


    Here's an interesting article I found that confirms my suspicions about Windows 8 's failed UI design.


     


    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233884/Windows_8_UI_strategic_mistake_argues_design_guru

  • Reply 103 of 187


    Absolutely. I'd love to meet who the idiot is who thought putting formerly known as Metro interface on a server OS! I have spent a few hours in Server 2012 and still can barely get around. Those tiles are anything but easy to find what I'm looking for. This is a server, I'm there for very specific work to be done, and instead I spend most of my time trying to work through the scavenger hunt MS left me with to find what I need. I can only see the desktop playing out this way as well.


     


    The only UI where Metro makes a hint of sense is on the touch devices, where again the desktop UI is a horrible place, as the market has proven for more the more than 10 years MS has been pushing it.

  • Reply 104 of 187
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    A quick funny story of computing horsepower, a non-profit anti-child porn group needed a super computer to break passwords on websites, the computer they needed was $8000, they instead linked up 4 PS3s and got the horsepower they needed for much cheaper.


     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    But they needed brainpower to do the linking. For turnips, spending the $8K is the only solution (and, btw, $8K for a "super computer" is very very cheap).


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     

  • Reply 105 of 187
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    meh


     


    If they like their shiny toys then they might get a mac.  If they want computing horsepower then you get a lot more bang for your buck with a Win machine.


    Don't get me wrong, I like Apples products  but with the exception of the Air, I wouldn't buy nor recommend their computers.  I think 90% of the market agrees with me.  Of course I do have to put up with Windows.



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    The computing horsepower argument is quickly becoming obsolete: there is enormous power in the cloud, and there is no real reason to have it (literally) in your lap.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     

  • Reply 106 of 187
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by igriv View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    meh


     


    If they like their shiny toys then they might get a mac.  If they want computing horsepower then you get a lot more bang for your buck with a Win machine.


    Don't get me wrong, I like Apples products  but with the exception of the Air, I wouldn't buy nor recommend their computers.  I think 90% of the market agrees with me.  Of course I do have to put up with Windows.



     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    The computing horsepower argument is quickly becoming obsolete: there is enormous power in the cloud, and there is no real reason to have it (literally) in your lap.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



    The cloud is primarily storage and not very fast storage at that, even at 100 mbs. Horsepower is what you need to open a 200 MB Photoshop file with a dozen layers, apply some filters and instantly see the results. Fortunately a relatively average iMac can do it.

  • Reply 107 of 187
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The cloud is primarily storage and not very fast storage at that, even at 100 mbs. Horsepower is what you need to open a 200 MB Photoshop file with a dozen layers, apply some filters and instantly see the results. Fortunately a relatively average iMac can do it.



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    That's not what I describe as horsepower (it's pretty lightweight compared to scientific computing type things I do), though you are right that for that you need local cycles. The cloud is NOT primarily storage, check out Amazon EC2.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     

  • Reply 108 of 187
    igrivigriv Posts: 1,177member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ITFinanceGuy View Post


    Absolutely. I'd love to meet who the idiot is who thought putting formerly known as Metro interface on a server OS! I have spent a few hours in Server 2012 and still can barely get around. Those tiles are anything but easy to find what I'm looking for. This is a server, I'm there for very specific work to be done, and instead I spend most of my time trying to work through the scavenger hunt MS left me with to find what I need. I can only see the desktop playing out this way as well.


     


    The only UI where Metro makes a hint of sense is on the touch devices, where again the desktop UI is a horrible place, as the market has proven for more the more than 10 years MS has been pushing it.



     

    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

    Which is why, troglodyte that I am, I could never understand using windows (vs Unix-based platform) as servers.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     

  • Reply 109 of 187
    tjwaltjwal Posts: 404member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    The cloud is primarily storage and not very fast storage at that, even at 100 mbs. Horsepower is what you need to open a 200 MB Photoshop file with a dozen layers, apply some filters and instantly see the results. Fortunately a relatively average iMac can do it.



    Try video files,even a high end imac will choke.  An equivalent or better windows box can be had for about 50% the price.  But the intent of my original post is that there is still a significant market (perhaps even bigger than Apple's market share) for horsepower and that not everyone with a $1000 to spend is going to buy a mac.

  • Reply 110 of 187
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post




    Try video files,even a high end imac will choke.  



    No it won't choke. It works very well without even pre-render it plays in almost real time. I can export a 10 minute HD 1080 clip in less than 30 seconds

  • Reply 111 of 187
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by igriv View Post




    The cloud is NOT primarily storage, check out Amazon EC2.


    #next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

     



    I don't see how a server in the cloud accessed at even gigabit speeds ($1000/month) is going to compete with local SSD, PCI bus speeds. If you are running an application that requires "horsepower" as in my example Photoshop, the latency would be a killer even if you could run it from a server. I've tried it at 100 mbs and it is almost unusable. I don't know what sort of CPU power Amazon gives you but I doubt it measures up to a dedicated i7 with 8GB ram. I have not looked into the details. Also haven't they been known for going down several hours at a time recently?

  • Reply 112 of 187
    I have Windows 8 on an Asus Vivobook S200e and its actually a nice OS on specifically designed hardware. However, the only reason its actually nice to use is because the laptop has a touch screen and its a small 11" screen.

    Without the touchscreen it just becomes cumbersome - I have it on a second partition on my MacPro and good lord I hate using it on there. No touch screen and the giant 27" monitor makes throwing the mouse pointer into the corners feel clunky; as does the alternative (the extra onslaught of keyboard shortcuts) - there are also countless other usability issues that even confuse me from time to time (and I'm a man who programs in Assembler for fun!)

    For less technical people (the majority of the market) it's just scary and confusing for them. For business/enterprise users its just a joke that stopped being funny.
  • Reply 113 of 187
    strobe wrote: »
    The irony is so thick you could stick a spoon in it. 
     
    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:


    <p style="margin-bottom:1.5em;font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(224,228,232);">Windows and Windows Live

    Revenue: $19,024,000,000

    Operating Income: $12,281,000,000</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:1.5em;font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(224,228,232);">Business (Office, Exchange, SharePoint)

    Revenue: $22,186,000,000

    Operating income: $14,124,000,000</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:1.5em;font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(224,228,232);">Server and Tools (Windows Server, Microsoft SQL, Visual Studio)

    Revenue: $17,096,000,000

    Operating Income: $6,608,000,000</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:1.5em;font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(224,228,232);">Entertainment and Devices (XBox 360/LIVE, Windows Phone)

    Revenue: $8,913,000,000

    Operating income: $1,324,000,000</p>

    <p style="margin-bottom:1.5em;font-family:Verdana, Helvetica, Arial;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;background-color:rgb(224,228,232);">Online Services (Bing, MSN, Hotmail)

    Revenue: $2,528,000,000

    Operating income: $-2,557,000,000</p>
    Apple has AirPlay mirroring, cords and more for people who want a TV for games, yet it doesn't require a TV, and does a lot more than video games on a long time ago dropped disk slot from apple. So how does Xbox defeat IOS. Admetiably Apple want defeat Microsoft soon,(both company's have lost there most important worker) yet Apple will probably kill there phoned and tablets. Probably eventually half the pc market with no chance.
  • Reply 114 of 187

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    Try video files,even a high end imac will choke.  An equivalent or better windows box can be had for about 50% the price.  But the intent of my original post is that there is still a significant market (perhaps even bigger than Apple's market share) for horsepower and that not everyone with a $1000 to spend is going to buy a mac.



    I hate it when people go "Windows Computers are incredible% less than the equivalent iMac". Stop looking at the Gigahertz and look at the computer as a complete package.


     


    An equivalent monitor to the 21" iMac costs around $300~$400. The equivalent of the 27" iMac's monitor is around $800+! Don't forget the USB Bluetooth, the PCI Express Wireless Card, the Infrared Remote Control Sensor, the 20watt speakers with Sub Woofer, bluetooth keyboard, multi-touch bluetooth mouse, HD WebCam, firewire, thunderbolt, noise canceling microphone, USB2/3 combination ports and studio quality low latency audio with 7.1 digital/2.0 analogue hybrid output. Don't forget that many of the business features of Windows can't be accessed until you pay extra for the Professional or Ultimate edition.


     


    The Windows towers you can get from Dell, Acer, HP et al don't have many or any of the features listed above and have to be bought separately.

  • Reply 115 of 187
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post




    I hate it when people go "Windows Computers are incredible% less than the equivalent iMac". 



    Wait don't answer. Now how much would you say Windows is worth? Ask Steve Ballmer.


     


    image

  • Reply 116 of 187
    tjwaltjwal Posts: 404member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post


    I hate it when people go "Windows Computers are incredible% less than the equivalent iMac". Stop looking at the Gigahertz and look at the computer as a complete package.


     


    An equivalent monitor to the 21" iMac costs around $300~$400. The equivalent of the 27" iMac's monitor is around $800+! Don't forget the USB Bluetooth, the PCI Express Wireless Card, the Infrared Remote Control Sensor, the 20watt speakers with Sub Woofer, bluetooth keyboard, multi-touch bluetooth mouse, HD WebCam, firewire, thunderbolt, noise canceling microphone, USB2/3 combination ports and studio quality low latency audio with 7.1 digital/2.0 analogue hybrid output. Don't forget that many of the business features of Windows can't be accessed until you pay extra for the Professional or Ultimate edition.


     


    The Windows towers you can get from Dell, Acer, HP et al don't have many or any of the features listed above and have to be bought separately.



    If you say so, but virtually EVERYTHING you listed isn't of any use in compressing a video file, running math simulations or many other uses that need raw horsepower.

  • Reply 117 of 187
    tjwaltjwal Posts: 404member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    No it won't choke. It works very well without even pre-render it plays in almost real time. I can export a 10 minute HD 1080 clip in less than 30 seconds



    Try compressing a video file.  My son's I7 computer took 15 minutes while his schools Mac Pro took more than 7 hours.  I think the MacPro processor may have been slightly faster but it was cripped by the Mac's video card.  Trying to do this on a iMac would have been torture.

  • Reply 118 of 187

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    Try compressing a video file.  My son's I7 computer took 15 minutes while his schools Mac Pro took more than 7 hours.  I think the MacPro processor may have been slightly faster but it was cripped by the Mac's video card.  Trying to do this on a iMac would have been torture.



     


    With such a big gap in your buggus benchmark only lead to misuse or software issue theory, It's easy to blame the computer when you don't understand how it work. Using handbrake I compress video pretty much at the same speed in Windows and MacOS on my i7 MBP.

  • Reply 119 of 187
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    Try compressing a video file.  My son's I7 computer took 15 minutes while his schools Mac Pro took more than 7 hours.  I think the MacPro processor may have been slightly faster but it was cripped by the Mac's video card.  Trying to do this on a iMac would have been torture.



     


    With such a big gap in your buggus benchmark only lead to misuse or software issue theory, It's easy to blame the computer when you don't understand how it work. Using handbrake I compress video pretty much at the same speed in Windows and MacOS on my i7 MBP.



    Yeah that is what I meant when I said I exported a 10 minute HD 1080 clip in 30 seconds using Adobe Premier CS6 on an i7 quad core. I changed it from Pro Res to H.264 for Youtube.

  • Reply 120 of 187

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I don't see how a server in the cloud accessed at even gigabit speeds ($1000/month) is going to compete with local SSD, PCI bus speeds. If you are running an application that requires "horsepower" as in my example Photoshop, the latency would be a killer even if you could run it from a server. I've tried it at 100 mbs and it is almost unusable. I don't know what sort of CPU power Amazon gives you but I doubt it measures up to a dedicated i7 with 8GB ram. I have not looked into the details. Also haven't they been known for going down several hours at a time recently?



    You obviously don't know how cloud apps work.  You don't need to transfer all the data back and forth, most of it stays on the server, only the visuals and input/output information is sent to you (and then you download the final product when you need it).  Cloud apps are generally also set up on large clusters with virtualized OSes and apps.  This means that you are accessing a cluster with thousands of cores and terabytes of RAM and storage, and processing power is shifted to where it's needed on demand.


     


    Cloud services have always been good for me (not talking 'cloud' storage BTW), most providers are incredibly reliable.  

Sign In or Register to comment.