Originally posted by lizardbones Windows 8.1 has a start button. It is 6% of that 12% of Windows 8's market share. Still not capturing as much of the market as Windows XP. Windows 8.1 barely captures more of the market than Windows Vista. You know what i mean: A real start button.Although personally when i was using windows 8 "vanilla" I never had a problem with their start menu interface, I always typed what i'm looking for so i don't have to search through every-single-folder to find the software i wanted. However, even though this functionality has been in since Vista, People still want to work their way through start menu folders... Speaking of the core improvements, from Windows 7 to Windows 8/8.1 they are marginal for gaming (of interest here), and invisible for everything else. It's great that the core has improved (marginally), but that core is wrapped is a giant burrito of poop that just isn't appealing as a product.
The windows kernel has been trimmed and at the same time expanded making the OS faster, and more stable. The only reason it would be "Wrapped in poo" is because like i said people don't like the iteration of the start button / menu.As for tablet features introduced in 8: Personally I'm actually going to do a touchscreen conversion on my monitor(s) which would increase my productivity even more having both a keyboard and a direct interface with what i'm seeing on the screen. One can only hope that people have a more open mind in the future to take advantages like this. Also quickly, One of the biggest things that windows 8 offered was the Windows RunTime which Potentially enabled indy devs to create games that would run on PC's, Tablets and phones all sold under the unified marketplace which is the windows store. This is unlikely to take off now since the market has issues with 8 which a pitty. Conclusion? Windows 8/8.1 had/has alot going for it if people can get over that button.
I actually like the new "Start" functionality too. It's not that different from the old stuff and all the icons are really big, so that's good. I would go on record as saying that is an improvement and I hope it sticks around. It gives me less reason to clutter my desktop up with program icons. Ditto for the icons on the app bar across the bottom of the screen. I like the way it works.
For all those under the hood changes, people are still faced with half their OS running as they expect and half their OS running in a manner they don't expect. It's not just "that button". The charms menu, every "Metro" app for managing your system stays running forever in the background unless you manually kill it, half your control panel apps work like standard desktop control panels and half of them work like Metro apps, and only some of those apps interact with each other. There are many issues with Windows 8/8.1 and they are all related to usability. Except the part where Windows 8 will start maintenance, and then never stop, even though it's not doing or going to do anything. This particular hiccup prevents your machine from going to sleep, and the solution (get this) is to restore your system. That's not a solution, that's a work around. How about the hiccup where there are updates waiting for your system so it never goes to sleep, but it also never tells you there are updates waiting to install? I guess those could be considered under "Usability" as issues too I guess.
Really though, the proof is in the pudding. If Windows 8/8.1 was "good" relative to Windows 7 or even Windows XP, it would have many more installed instances. It doesn't. The best thing Microsoft can do is crank out another Windows version that doesn't suck, and get people away from Windows 8/8.1 as fast as they can. Giving the people who bought Windows 8/8.1 a copy of Windows 10 would be a cool move. I don't believe it will happen, but it would be cool.
I would agree some windows components are schizophrenic in nature like the control panel you mentioned. An ideal solution would be for the os to detect the platform its installing into and create a feature list accordingly Which seems to be the way they are going.
As for the future of windows, 10 and beyond heres a short story... Some 10 years ago i was having a conversation with a MS consultant at work one day about some of the longhorn (vista alpha) features which were a big shift in design at the time and he basically said this about windows future:
"We don't look at things in, 5, or 10 year intervals we have plans for the next 20 years. Imagine a windows where nothing is stored locally and you would pay say $3 to use Microsoft office or you favorite software on demand, That's where we are going"
Weather you believe my story of not, it seems to be where were at currently. And from what ive heard about windows 9/10 its going to be heavily cloud based which lines up with what he said all those years ago. So i don't think we will see a shift BACK to early designs but iterations to perfect the current design going forward.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
I would agree some windows components are schizophrenic in nature like the control panel you mentioned. An ideal solution would be for the os to detect the platform its installing into and create a feature list accordingly Which seems to be the way they are going.
As for the future of windows, 10 and beyond heres a short story... Some 10 years ago i was having a conversation with a MS consultant at work one day about some of the longhorn (vista alpha) features which were a big shift in design at the time and he basically said this about windows future:
"We don't look at things in, 5, or 10 year intervals we have plans for the next 20 years. Imagine a windows where nothing is stored locally and you would pay say $3 to use Microsoft office or you favorite software on demand, That's where we are going"
Weather you believe my story of not, it seems to be where were at currently. And from what ive heard about windows 9/10 its going to be heavily cloud based which lines up with what he said all those years ago. So i don't think we will see a shift BACK to early designs but iterations to perfect the current design going forward.
And that's when Linux will actually start to make headway into full scale acceptability from businesses and consumers.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Originally posted by fivoroth Some people still use XP? That thing is ancient and it looks as it came out of a 1980s movie.
Why are they going for 10 instead of 9? Any particular reasoning they are skipping 9?!
Well it seems that windows 8 user get windows 9 free, so they are skipping 9 and making us all pay for 10 at double price to make up for loss profit from 9 and all the silly buggers who didn't up grade from xp, 7 and 8, also anyone who is still using 3.1, 95 and 98+, shortly after the release of windows 10 of course, they will release windows 13, but since that number is bad luck they will skipped that to and go straight for windows 2020.
Originally posted by lizardbones Windows 8.1 has a start button. It is 6% of that 12% of Windows 8's market share. Still not capturing as much of the market as Windows XP. Windows 8.1 barely captures more of the market than Windows Vista. You know what i mean: A real start button.Although personally when i was using windows 8 "vanilla" I never had a problem with their start menu interface, I always typed what i'm looking for so i don't have to search through every-single-folder to find the software i wanted. However, even though this functionality has been in since Vista, People still want to work their way through start menu folders... Speaking of the core improvements, from Windows 7 to Windows 8/8.1 they are marginal for gaming (of interest here), and invisible for everything else. It's great that the core has improved (marginally), but that core is wrapped is a giant burrito of poop that just isn't appealing as a product.
The windows kernel has been trimmed and at the same time expanded making the OS faster, and more stable. The only reason it would be "Wrapped in poo" is because like i said people don't like the iteration of the start button / menu.As for tablet features introduced in 8: Personally I'm actually going to do a touchscreen conversion on my monitor(s) which would increase my productivity even more having both a keyboard and a direct interface with what i'm seeing on the screen. One can only hope that people have a more open mind in the future to take advantages like this. Also quickly, One of the biggest things that windows 8 offered was the Windows RunTime which Potentially enabled indy devs to create games that would run on PC's, Tablets and phones all sold under the unified marketplace which is the windows store. This is unlikely to take off now since the market has issues with 8 which a pitty. Conclusion? Windows 8/8.1 had/has alot going for it if people can get over that button.
I actually like the new "Start" functionality too. It's not that different from the old stuff and all the icons are really big, so that's good. I would go on record as saying that is an improvement and I hope it sticks around. It gives me less reason to clutter my desktop up with program icons. Ditto for the icons on the app bar across the bottom of the screen. I like the way it works.
For all those under the hood changes, people are still faced with half their OS running as they expect and half their OS running in a manner they don't expect. It's not just "that button". The charms menu, every "Metro" app for managing your system stays running forever in the background unless you manually kill it, half your control panel apps work like standard desktop control panels and half of them work like Metro apps, and only some of those apps interact with each other. There are many issues with Windows 8/8.1 and they are all related to usability. Except the part where Windows 8 will start maintenance, and then never stop, even though it's not doing or going to do anything. This particular hiccup prevents your machine from going to sleep, and the solution (get this) is to restore your system. That's not a solution, that's a work around. How about the hiccup where there are updates waiting for your system so it never goes to sleep, but it also never tells you there are updates waiting to install? I guess those could be considered under "Usability" as issues too I guess.
Really though, the proof is in the pudding. If Windows 8/8.1 was "good" relative to Windows 7 or even Windows XP, it would have many more installed instances. It doesn't. The best thing Microsoft can do is crank out another Windows version that doesn't suck, and get people away from Windows 8/8.1 as fast as they can. Giving the people who bought Windows 8/8.1 a copy of Windows 10 would be a cool move. I don't believe it will happen, but it would be cool.
I would agree some windows components are schizophrenic in nature like the control panel you mentioned. An ideal solution would be for the os to detect the platform its installing into and create a feature list accordingly Which seems to be the way they are going.
As for the future of windows, 10 and beyond heres a short story... Some 10 years ago i was having a conversation with a MS consultant at work one day about some of the longhorn (vista alpha) features which were a big shift in design at the time and he basically said this about windows future:
"We don't look at things in, 5, or 10 year intervals we have plans for the next 20 years. Imagine a windows where nothing is stored locally and you would pay say $3 to use Microsoft office or you favorite software on demand, That's where we are going"
Weather you believe my story of not, it seems to be where were at currently. And from what ive heard about windows 9/10 its going to be heavily cloud based which lines up with what he said all those years ago. So i don't think we will see a shift BACK to early designs but iterations to perfect the current design going forward.
I feel certain that Microsoft would much rather sell a new version of Windows to more than 50% of their customers as they did with Windows 7 rather than 12% of their customers as they did with Windows 8/8.1, even if they are looking 20 years into the future.
That said, yes, it makes a lot more sense for them to move forward than back. From what I've read, the OS will operate differently depending on what it is installed on. So on a desktop it will have a desktop interface and on a tablet it will have a tablet interface. Laptops could go either way, depending on their touchscreen capabilities. It will all be the same OS under the hood, but the interface will be tailored to the audience. It should even run on embedded devices, and since it will all have the same OS, it should be possible to develop applications for all those different platforms using the same tools and same knowledge. As someone who writes business applications, that sounds good to me.
As far as the cloud goes, I can see that. I mean, everyone else wants to be in the 'cloud' whether it makes sense or not, so why not Microsoft? Google proved that you could do it with more than just email. It sounds weird, but Microsoft might be in a position to create a cloud that they have no control over, where the customers actually control the encryption. Microsoft would be getting paid for the use of their product, so they wouldn't have to sell the information to make money, unlike Google who has to sell the information to get advertising revenue. I don't see this working for gamers, but then there is enough money in gaming that if Microsoft abandons an OS that runs games locally, somebody else, like Valve will have something to run games on. But then even smart phones run games locally, so there's probably not much to worry about there.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by NitthI would agree some windows components are schizophrenic in nature like the control panel you mentioned. An ideal solution would be for the os to detect the platform its installing into and create a feature list accordingly Which seems to be the way they are going. As for the future of windows, 10 and beyond heres a short story... Some 10 years ago i was having a conversation with a MS consultant at work one day about some of the longhorn (vista alpha) features which were a big shift in design at the time and he basically said this about windows future: "We don't look at things in, 5, or 10 year intervals we have plans for the next 20 years. Imagine a windows where nothing is stored locally and you would pay say $3 to use Microsoft office or you favorite software on demand, That's where we are going"Weather you believe my story of not, it seems to be where were at currently. And from what ive heard about windows 9/10 its going to be heavily cloud based which lines up with what he said all those years ago. So i don't think we will see a shift BACK to early designs but iterations to perfect the current design going forward.
And that's when Linux will actually start to make headway into full scale acceptability from businesses and consumers.
I don't know, Sounds pretty good from a company perspective if your vendor manages, updates and stores your software remotely for a subscription fee.
As for consumers i suppose if they start introducing them to these concepts now then in 10 years time (when the networking tech is there) it would be easy to digest as the norm.
-----
As for Linux, No i don't think that will ever happen. As long as there is no "unified approach" to software/OS development then there is no hope imo.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
The real question is whether it will officially be Windows NT 6.3 or 7.0 or whatever.
For what it's worth, Windows Vista is NT 6.0, Windows 7 is NT 6.1, and Windows 8 is NT 6.2. I'm not sure if they incremented the name for Windows 8.1. You can verify this yourself in DxDiag.
Originally posted by NitthI would agree some windows components are schizophrenic in nature like the control panel you mentioned. An ideal solution would be for the os to detect the platform its installing into and create a feature list accordingly Which seems to be the way they are going. As for the future of windows, 10 and beyond heres a short story... Some 10 years ago i was having a conversation with a MS consultant at work one day about some of the longhorn (vista alpha) features which were a big shift in design at the time and he basically said this about windows future: "We don't look at things in, 5, or 10 year intervals we have plans for the next 20 years. Imagine a windows where nothing is stored locally and you would pay say $3 to use Microsoft office or you favorite software on demand, That's where we are going"Weather you believe my story of not, it seems to be where were at currently. And from what ive heard about windows 9/10 its going to be heavily cloud based which lines up with what he said all those years ago. So i don't think we will see a shift BACK to early designs but iterations to perfect the current design going forward.
And that's when Linux will actually start to make headway into full scale acceptability from businesses and consumers.
I don't know, Sounds pretty good from a company perspective if your vendor manages, updates and stores your software remotely for a subscription fee.
As for consumers i suppose if they start introducing them to these concepts now then in 10 years time (when the networking tech is there) it would be easy to digest as the norm.
-----
As for Linux, No i don't think that will ever happen. As long as there is no "unified approach" to software/OS development then there is no hope imo.
It may sound nice but reality is Microsoft intentionally or unintentionally breaks Windows on a regular basis. Those institutions that hold your financial and medical records still rely on XP because of this. That cash register where you bought your morning coffee, that ATM you used yesterday, that X-ray machine used on you last year are all either controlled by or run on systems using XP.
The reason? XP is reliable. Those proprietary applications designed to run on XP are reliable on XP. Those institutions don't want to pay for creating another version of those appications that may or may not be reliable on today's or tomorrow's or ten years from now OSes. Especially when the OS developer is determined to control on a daily basis an operating systems capability.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Windows 8 isn't as horrible as people make it sound. All you need is a third-party start menu and it feels exactly the same as Windows 7 for the majority of tasks you could possibly perform. My favorite is Classic Shell. I used it on my work computer for a year and didn't have any problems with using the computer.
There is no real reason to upgrade to Windows 8 if you already have 7. I imagine Windows 10 won't contain enough new features to make it worth upgrading a gaming PC. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their licensing model, though. I could see them doing the same thing they did with Office. You'll have to pay a monthly fee or your computer will stop being able to update and may start locking down features.
If Windows 8 wasn't as horrible as people make it sound, then it would have more of a market share than Windows XP. It would at least have a comparable market share to Windows 7. Instead, Windows 8 & Windows 8.1 has what, 12% of the available market, Win 7 has 52% of the available market and XP has 23% of the market.
Windows 8 is at least as horrible as people make it sound.
Windows 8 doesn't have a good market share for a lot of reasons. Being better or worse than Windows XP has little to do with it. The underlying reasons for the market share are more important than the market share values. Dive a little deeper before using a market share number to try to say an OS is good or bad.
That article is old, but it brings up some good points. The main reason Windows 8 adoption rate seems to be low is that the market isn't moving much. The motion it is taking trends towards Windows 7 when the consumer has a choice. It isn't that people are installing XP faster than they install Windows 8. It is that relatively few people are buying computers due to the slowing of technological demands by applications over the past ten years.
If you only used your computer for web browsing and checking emails, a ten-year-old PC would work just fine. How many people do exactly that? How many businesses just need to handle document processing? Why would those people or businesses go out and buy a new computer to perform the same tasks when the new computer won't be doing those tasks noticeably faster?
I cannot see any use for buying anymore Windows,developers are not even up to par as it is barely moving past the Windows XP development phase.I also read several months ago that Microsoft said they would not be upgrading/advancing Dynamic Libraries anymore.So as a game user only benefit i could see is loading newest drivers but not like you need Windows to do that.
I am sure there will be security additions but they already have that and are forced to update Windows anyhow because businesses rely on the security.SO i cannot see a single reason for Microsoft to justify a new Windows but i am sure they will think of something to use as a marketing tool.
What most people dont know, even people in the industry, is that Windows 8 is actually the BEST version of windows to date. Why? Because it has the most highly optimized kernel of all the builds and versions of windows. WIndows 8 only failed in their UI. If you can get past that there is no other version of windows with such a highly optimized kernel. Personally, I wish they would take the windows 8 kernel, and replace windows 7 kernel with it then windows 7 would be the best.
I cannot see any use for buying anymore Windows,developers are not even up to par as it is barely moving past the Windows XP development phase.I also read several months ago that Microsoft said they would not be upgrading/advancing Dynamic Libraries anymore.So as a game user only benefit i could see is loading newest drivers but not like you need Windows to do that.
I am sure there will be security additions but they already have that and are forced to update Windows anyhow because businesses rely on the security.SO i cannot see a single reason for Microsoft to justify a new Windows but i am sure they will think of something to use as a marketing tool.
What most people dont know, even people in the industry, is that Windows 8 is actually the BEST version of windows to date. Why? Because it has the most highly optimized kernel of all the builds and versions of windows. WIndows 8 only failed in their UI. If you can get past that there is no other version of windows with such a highly optimized kernel. Personally, I wish they would take the windows 8 kernel, and replace windows 7 kernel with it then windows 7 would be the best.
That...is not a bad idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Windows 8 isn't as horrible as people make it sound. All you need is a third-party start menu and it feels exactly the same as Windows 7 for the majority of tasks you could possibly perform. My favorite is Classic Shell. I used it on my work computer for a year and didn't have any problems with using the computer.
There is no real reason to upgrade to Windows 8 if you already have 7. I imagine Windows 10 won't contain enough new features to make it worth upgrading a gaming PC. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their licensing model, though. I could see them doing the same thing they did with Office. You'll have to pay a monthly fee or your computer will stop being able to update and may start locking down features.
If Windows 8 wasn't as horrible as people make it sound, then it would have more of a market share than Windows XP. It would at least have a comparable market share to Windows 7. Instead, Windows 8 & Windows 8.1 has what, 12% of the available market, Win 7 has 52% of the available market and XP has 23% of the market.
Windows 8 is at least as horrible as people make it sound.
Windows 8 doesn't have a good market share for a lot of reasons. Being better or worse than Windows XP has little to do with it. The underlying reasons for the market share are more important than the market share values. Dive a little deeper before using a market share number to try to say an OS is good or bad.
That article is old, but it brings up some good points. The main reason Windows 8 adoption rate seems to be low is that the market isn't moving much. The motion it is taking trends towards Windows 7 when the consumer has a choice. It isn't that people are installing XP faster than they install Windows 8. It is that relatively few people are buying computers due to the slowing of technological demands by applications over the past ten years.
If you only used your computer for web browsing and checking emails, a ten-year-old PC would work just fine. How many people do exactly that? How many businesses just need to handle document processing? Why would those people or businesses go out and buy a new computer to perform the same tasks when the new computer won't be doing those tasks noticeably faster?
So what you're saying is that given a choice, people are upgrading to Windows 7, not Windows 8. Even if the market were moving slow, if Windows 8 were better than Windows 7, people would be moving towards Windows 8, not Windows 7. Windows 8 is a worse product than Windows 7.
Windows 8/8.1's market share is actually dropping since last month. A Netmarketshare Trends chart shows Windows 7 continuing to increase in market share over time. There is a corresponding drop in the number of XP users. People are migrating from XP to Windows 7, not Windows 8, even though Microsoft has all but taken Windows 7 off the market. There may be technical, under the hood, unseen by users reasons that Windows 8/8.1 is "better", but it is an inferior product compared to Windows 7.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by shiner421Originally posted by WizardryI cannot see any use for buying anymore Windows,developers are not even up to par as it is barely moving past the Windows XP development phase.I also read several months ago that Microsoft said they would not be upgrading/advancing Dynamic Libraries anymore.So as a game user only benefit i could see is loading newest drivers but not like you need Windows to do that.I am sure there will be security additions but they already have that and are forced to update Windows anyhow because businesses rely on the security.SO i cannot see a single reason for Microsoft to justify a new Windows but i am sure they will think of something to use as a marketing tool.
What most people dont know, even people in the industry, is that Windows 8 is actually the BEST version of windows to date. Why? Because it has the most highly optimized kernel of all the builds and versions of windows. WIndows 8 only failed in their UI. If you can get past that there is no other version of windows with such a highly optimized kernel. Personally, I wish they would take the windows 8 kernel, and replace windows 7 kernel with it then windows 7 would be the best.
That...is not a bad idea.
Isn't that what ClassicShell and the other UI replacements do? That's how I've been running Windows 8 since it came out, and I keep wondering why people complain so much. It's a Start Menu and some crappy contextual menus and "Metro" apps you can totally ignore and not miss.
Sure, it's a 3rd party solution, but the kernel and everything else in Win8 has been pretty good, even compared to Win7.
I won't defend MS's design choices, but they are easily worked around with as 1-time install and then your right back to Win7/Vista/XP/whatever interface you would like it to be, but with the better Win8 kernel.
Originally posted by WizardryI cannot see any use for buying anymore Windows,developers are not even up to par as it is barely moving past the Windows XP development phase.I also read several months ago that Microsoft said they would not be upgrading/advancing Dynamic Libraries anymore.So as a game user only benefit i could see is loading newest drivers but not like you need Windows to do that.I am sure there will be security additions but they already have that and are forced to update Windows anyhow because businesses rely on the security.SO i cannot see a single reason for Microsoft to justify a new Windows but i am sure they will think of something to use as a marketing tool.
What most people dont know, even people in the industry, is that Windows 8 is actually the BEST version of windows to date. Why? Because it has the most highly optimized kernel of all the builds and versions of windows. WIndows 8 only failed in their UI. If you can get past that there is no other version of windows with such a highly optimized kernel. Personally, I wish they would take the windows 8 kernel, and replace windows 7 kernel with it then windows 7 would be the best.
That...is not a bad idea.
Isn't that what ClassicShell and the other UI replacements do? That's how I've been running Windows 8 since it came out, and I keep wondering why people complain so much. It's a Start Menu and some crappy contextual menus and "Metro" apps you can totally ignore and not miss.
Sure, it's a 3rd party solution, but the kernel and everything else in Win8 has been pretty good, even compared to Win7.
I won't defend MS's design choices, but they are easily worked around with as 1-time install and then your right back to Win7/Vista/XP/whatever interface you would like it to be, but with the better Win8 kernel.
It's always made me scratch my head.
Maybe it's the fact that they have to pay money on top of the money they've already spent on their OS just to use it or the fact that they have to install anything at all just to use the most basic portion of their computer. That would be like selling someone a car, but then they have to go to the mechanic just so the steering wheel works the way they expect it to, or buying a television but then having to buy a separate remote control just to watch television.
Wait, we have to buy remotes that don't suck now as it is. Let's not give anyone any ideas.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Returning to the original title of this thread, what I fully expect Microsoft to do is to say that if you buy Windows 8.1 after such and such date, you get a free upgrade to WIndows 10. Eventually it won't matter whether you get an OEM version or your own system builder version. Recall that Microsoft did the same thing with Vista, offering a free upgrade to 7 if you bought it a few months before 7 launched.
The idea is that rather than people holding off on buying a computer until the OS they want is available, they can buy a computer now and get a free upgrade to the OS they actually wanted once it's available. But even if you buy it the day before Windows 10 launches, there won't be a free upgrade from Windows 7 to WIndows 10.
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by RidelynnOriginally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by shiner421Originally posted by WizardryI cannot see any use for buying anymore Windows,developers are not even up to par as it is barely moving past the Windows XP development phase.I also read several months ago that Microsoft said they would not be upgrading/advancing Dynamic Libraries anymore.So as a game user only benefit i could see is loading newest drivers but not like you need Windows to do that.I am sure there will be security additions but they already have that and are forced to update Windows anyhow because businesses rely on the security.SO i cannot see a single reason for Microsoft to justify a new Windows but i am sure they will think of something to use as a marketing tool.
What most people dont know, even people in the industry, is that Windows 8 is actually the BEST version of windows to date. Why? Because it has the most highly optimized kernel of all the builds and versions of windows. WIndows 8 only failed in their UI. If you can get past that there is no other version of windows with such a highly optimized kernel. Personally, I wish they would take the windows 8 kernel, and replace windows 7 kernel with it then windows 7 would be the best.That...is not a bad idea.Isn't that what ClassicShell and the other UI replacements do? That's how I've been running Windows 8 since it came out, and I keep wondering why people complain so much. It's a Start Menu and some crappy contextual menus and "Metro" apps you can totally ignore and not miss.Sure, it's a 3rd party solution, but the kernel and everything else in Win8 has been pretty good, even compared to Win7.I won't defend MS's design choices, but they are easily worked around with as 1-time install and then your right back to Win7/Vista/XP/whatever interface you would like it to be, but with the better Win8 kernel.It's always made me scratch my head.
Maybe it's the fact that they have to pay money on top of the money they've already spent on their OS just to use it or the fact that they have to install anything at all just to use the most basic portion of their computer. That would be like selling someone a car, but then they have to go to the mechanic just so the steering wheel works the way they expect it to, or buying a television but then having to buy a separate remote control just to watch television.
Wait, we have to buy remotes that don't suck now as it is. Let's not give anyone any ideas.
Originally posted by Quizzical Returning to the original title of this thread, what I fully expect Microsoft to do is to say that if you buy Windows 8.1 after such and such date, you get a free upgrade to WIndows 10. Eventually it won't matter whether you get an OEM version or your own system builder version. Recall that Microsoft did the same thing with Vista, offering a free upgrade to 7 if you bought it a few months before 7 launched.The idea is that rather than people holding off on buying a computer until the OS they want is available, they can buy a computer now and get a free upgrade to the OS they actually wanted once it's available. But even if you buy it the day before Windows 10 launches, there won't be a free upgrade from Windows 7 to WIndows 10.
There was a big promotional sale for WIndows 8 when it first came out: Free upgrades from WIndows 7 if it was recent, like you discussed, and a reduced limited-time Upgrade from Windows 7 for like $40. That was only available for like 4 months or so after the initial release though.
I have no doubt Win 8 is better than Win 7 under the hood however the problem from my perspective is purely the interface. Live tiles make sense on a phone or a tablet with no other input method however on my desktop it makes no sense at all. Firstly, I don't sit close enough to my monitor(s) and would have to lean in to touch the screen which would make the whole experience awkward i.e. leaning in/out typing etc. so if I had to resort to the mouse there's no point. Secondly, I can perform tasks much faster with a mouse or commands than reaching in and touching the screen.
I built this machine two years ago and with Win 7 I have never had a single BSOD - if I was to upgrade my desktop OS then it would need to offer a productivity or usability upgrade not just a pretty interface. I get it, they are trying to unify to reduce development complexity / time / money however they probably should of looked at a more universal cross platform input system.
I still don't know why they are so resistant to a desktop live tiles system with a full screen mode - start menu live tiles seems like they have the shits and are reluctantly saying FU.
Originally posted by Nephelai I built this machine two years ago and with Win 7 I have never had a single BSOD - if I was to upgrade my desktop OS then it would need to offer a productivity or usability upgrade not just a pretty interface. I get it, they are trying to unify to reduce development complexity / time / money however they probably should of looked at a more universal cross platform input system.
I totally agree with you here, and that's been my advice:
If you have Windows 7 already, just hang on to it.
If you are upgrading from XP/Vista, or getting a new computer - take whichever is cheaper of Windows 7 or Windows 8 -- and often that's Windows 8. And if they are the same price, go with Windows 8, because it will have a few more years of support behind it and has a more forgiving EULA.
But a lot of people get hung up on Charms and Live Tiles and the Start Menu... yeah they suck, but they can be worked around, for free. And aside from that, Windows 8 is pretty good, so once you are past the UI issues, why wouldn't you get it - especially if it's less expensive, nas a better EULA, and has a longer support period?
It's not worth upgrading from WIndows 7 for, but if you have to buy something with a new computer, or moving away from something that's no longer supported, a lot of people treat it like it's cancerous.
Originally posted by WizardryI cannot see any use for buying anymore Windows,developers are not even up to par as it is barely moving past the Windows XP development phase.I also read several months ago that Microsoft said they would not be upgrading/advancing Dynamic Libraries anymore.So as a game user only benefit i could see is loading newest drivers but not like you need Windows to do that.I am sure there will be security additions but they already have that and are forced to update Windows anyhow because businesses rely on the security.SO i cannot see a single reason for Microsoft to justify a new Windows but i am sure they will think of something to use as a marketing tool.
What most people dont know, even people in the industry, is that Windows 8 is actually the BEST version of windows to date. Why? Because it has the most highly optimized kernel of all the builds and versions of windows. WIndows 8 only failed in their UI. If you can get past that there is no other version of windows with such a highly optimized kernel. Personally, I wish they would take the windows 8 kernel, and replace windows 7 kernel with it then windows 7 would be the best.
That...is not a bad idea.
Isn't that what ClassicShell and the other UI replacements do? That's how I've been running Windows 8 since it came out, and I keep wondering why people complain so much. It's a Start Menu and some crappy contextual menus and "Metro" apps you can totally ignore and not miss.Sure, it's a 3rd party solution, but the kernel and everything else in Win8 has been pretty good, even compared to Win7.I won't defend MS's design choices, but they are easily worked around with as 1-time install and then your right back to Win7/Vista/XP/whatever interface you would like it to be, but with the better Win8 kernel.It's always made me scratch my head.
Maybe it's the fact that they have to pay money on top of the money they've already spent on their OS just to use it or the fact that they have to install anything at all just to use the most basic portion of their computer. That would be like selling someone a car, but then they have to go to the mechanic just so the steering wheel works the way they expect it to, or buying a television but then having to buy a separate remote control just to watch television.
Wait, we have to buy remotes that don't suck now as it is. Let's not give anyone any ideas.
Except Classic Shell is free...
Then it would just be the fact that people have to get something other than Windows to use Windows. Why do that when Windows 7 works out of the box and the improvements from Windows 7 to Windows 8 are marginal (6 frames per second or so in games)?
I have Windows 7 on a laptop and Windows 8 on a desktop and Windows 7 just works better. Windows 8 has issues beyond just the UI. For instance, going into Maintenance, and then just never stopping. It's not doing anything, it's just preventing the system from going to sleep. There is no solution. The work around is to restore Windows to a previous save point or turn Maintenance off completely. Microsoft isn't going to fix this. They are going to release Windows 10 and hope that I upgrade. Ideally I'll get a free upgrade, but I'm not holding my breath.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I hope you guys are happy. Windows Seven Eight Nine. Now we are going to be bombarded with WinX marketing for months prior to the release of this next Windows iteration.
Also in other bad news. It seems if you install this on a desktop, you will have to reset it back to tablet mode to use the modern UI we have all grown to love in Windows 8.
I like the LiveTiles and Charms bar. It makes it really easy to do some things like multi-tasking when you are doing something that relies on timing.
Originally posted by Kyleran They'll pry Windows 7 off of my laptop over my cold dead hands.....
Same here... My Win7 Ultimate is working perfectly stable and I'm not gonna exchange it for some new version. You know the saying - if it ain't broke...
Windows 8 isn't as horrible as people make it sound. All you need is a third-party start menu and it feels exactly the same as Windows 7 for the majority of tasks you could possibly perform. My favorite is Classic Shell. I used it on my work computer for a year and didn't have any problems with using the computer.
There is no real reason to upgrade to Windows 8 if you already have 7. I imagine Windows 10 won't contain enough new features to make it worth upgrading a gaming PC. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their licensing model, though. I could see them doing the same thing they did with Office. You'll have to pay a monthly fee or your computer will stop being able to update and may start locking down features.
If Windows 8 wasn't as horrible as people make it sound, then it would have more of a market share than Windows XP. It would at least have a comparable market share to Windows 7. Instead, Windows 8 & Windows 8.1 has what, 12% of the available market, Win 7 has 52% of the available market and XP has 23% of the market.
Windows 8 is at least as horrible as people make it sound.
Windows 8 doesn't have a good market share for a lot of reasons. Being better or worse than Windows XP has little to do with it. The underlying reasons for the market share are more important than the market share values. Dive a little deeper before using a market share number to try to say an OS is good or bad.
That article is old, but it brings up some good points. The main reason Windows 8 adoption rate seems to be low is that the market isn't moving much. The motion it is taking trends towards Windows 7 when the consumer has a choice. It isn't that people are installing XP faster than they install Windows 8. It is that relatively few people are buying computers due to the slowing of technological demands by applications over the past ten years.
If you only used your computer for web browsing and checking emails, a ten-year-old PC would work just fine. How many people do exactly that? How many businesses just need to handle document processing? Why would those people or businesses go out and buy a new computer to perform the same tasks when the new computer won't be doing those tasks noticeably faster?
So what you're saying is that given a choice, people are upgrading to Windows 7, not Windows 8. Even if the market were moving slow, if Windows 8 were better than Windows 7, people would be moving towards Windows 8, not Windows 7. Windows 8 is a worse product than Windows 7.
Windows 8/8.1's market share is actually dropping since last month. A Netmarketshare Trends chart shows Windows 7 continuing to increase in market share over time. There is a corresponding drop in the number of XP users. People are migrating from XP to Windows 7, not Windows 8, even though Microsoft has all but taken Windows 7 off the market. There may be technical, under the hood, unseen by users reasons that Windows 8/8.1 is "better", but it is an inferior product compared to Windows 7.
Read that article I linked again. Windows 8 is usually not liked for its interface. It is technically better but aesthetically worse than Windows 7. Given the number one reason people don't want Windows 8 is the Start Menu, and knowing it is easily replaced by free programs, Windows 8 has nothing else to be hated for by consumers and businesses seeking to upgrade.
Considering that, Windows 8 is NOT as bad as people make it sound. That has been my entire point. I've never said it is better than any other OS. It just isn't the horrible OS that people make it out to be.
Seriously Farmville? Yeah I think it's great. In a World where half our population is dying of hunger the more fortunate half is spending their time harvesting food that doesn't exist.
Someone I know wants me to help them learn to use a new laptop they got and yes it has windows 8 on it. First thing going in is classic shell. Can you imagine trying to teach old people (around 70 yrs old) to use that OS. They barely work the Windows XP one they had.
I cannot understand how Microsoft could have been this clueless about their user base ? How could they make this arrogant decision .They deserve the failure of this OS.
My grannies first computer was windows XP, (she was early 70's) she didnt use it much.
We got her a new one that had windows 8 installed (she is now 85) and she has been all over that one, shes doing lots of stuff she never even thought she could before, with very minimal input from any of us.
Its harder for people who are stuck in their must click start menu to find anything mindset.
Windows 8 isn't as horrible as people make it sound. All you need is a third-party start menu and it feels exactly the same as Windows 7 for the majority of tasks you could possibly perform. My favorite is Classic Shell. I used it on my work computer for a year and didn't have any problems with using the computer.
There is no real reason to upgrade to Windows 8 if you already have 7. I imagine Windows 10 won't contain enough new features to make it worth upgrading a gaming PC. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their licensing model, though. I could see them doing the same thing they did with Office. You'll have to pay a monthly fee or your computer will stop being able to update and may start locking down features.
If Windows 8 wasn't as horrible as people make it sound, then it would have more of a market share than Windows XP. It would at least have a comparable market share to Windows 7. Instead, Windows 8 & Windows 8.1 has what, 12% of the available market, Win 7 has 52% of the available market and XP has 23% of the market.
Windows 8 is at least as horrible as people make it sound.
Windows 8 doesn't have a good market share for a lot of reasons. Being better or worse than Windows XP has little to do with it. The underlying reasons for the market share are more important than the market share values. Dive a little deeper before using a market share number to try to say an OS is good or bad.
That article is old, but it brings up some good points. The main reason Windows 8 adoption rate seems to be low is that the market isn't moving much. The motion it is taking trends towards Windows 7 when the consumer has a choice. It isn't that people are installing XP faster than they install Windows 8. It is that relatively few people are buying computers due to the slowing of technological demands by applications over the past ten years.
If you only used your computer for web browsing and checking emails, a ten-year-old PC would work just fine. How many people do exactly that? How many businesses just need to handle document processing? Why would those people or businesses go out and buy a new computer to perform the same tasks when the new computer won't be doing those tasks noticeably faster?
So what you're saying is that given a choice, people are upgrading to Windows 7, not Windows 8. Even if the market were moving slow, if Windows 8 were better than Windows 7, people would be moving towards Windows 8, not Windows 7. Windows 8 is a worse product than Windows 7.
Windows 8/8.1's market share is actually dropping since last month. A Netmarketshare Trends chart shows Windows 7 continuing to increase in market share over time. There is a corresponding drop in the number of XP users. People are migrating from XP to Windows 7, not Windows 8, even though Microsoft has all but taken Windows 7 off the market. There may be technical, under the hood, unseen by users reasons that Windows 8/8.1 is "better", but it is an inferior product compared to Windows 7.
Read that article I linked again. Windows 8 is usually not liked for its interface. It is technically better but aesthetically worse than Windows 7. Given the number one reason people don't want Windows 8 is the Start Menu, and knowing it is easily replaced by free programs, Windows 8 has nothing else to be hated for by consumers and businesses seeking to upgrade.
Considering that, Windows 8 is NOT as bad as people make it sound. That has been my entire point. I've never said it is better than any other OS. It just isn't the horrible OS that people make it out to be.
Windows 8 is a worse product than Windows 7. If Windows 8 were a better product than Windows 7, people would migrate from Windows XP to Windows 8, not Windows 7. Microsoft has taken Windows 7 off the market. People are going out of their way to buy Windows 7 over Windows 8.
The whole point of an operating system is to function as an interface to the machine and as a gateway to the applications running on that machine. Windows 8 borked the most basic functionality it was supposed to have.
If people have to install software just to use it, if people are going out of their way to find Windows 7 and if, in my own personal experience, the OS doesn't stop trying to use SkyDrive even though I've told it not to, causing the system to never go to sleep and to never leave maintenance mode, then yes, Windows 8 is as bad as people are making it sound.
But ignore all that stuff I typed up there. Windows 8 is a bad product. Microsoft's customers do not like it. It doesn't even matter why. The fact that the majority of their customers (87%) do not like it enough to buy it makes it a bad product.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
I would agree some windows components are schizophrenic in nature like the control panel you mentioned. An ideal solution would be for the os to detect the platform its installing into and create a feature list accordingly Which seems to be the way they are going.
As for the future of windows, 10 and beyond heres a short story...
Some 10 years ago i was having a conversation with a MS consultant at work one day about some of the longhorn (vista alpha) features which were a big shift in design at the time and he basically said this about windows future:
"We don't look at things in, 5, or 10 year intervals we have plans for the next 20 years. Imagine a windows where nothing is stored locally and you would pay say $3 to use Microsoft office or you favorite software on demand, That's where we are going"
Weather you believe my story of not, it seems to be where were at currently. And from what ive heard about windows 9/10 its going to be heavily cloud based which lines up with what he said all those years ago. So i don't think we will see a shift BACK to early designs but iterations to perfect the current design going forward.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
And that's when Linux will actually start to make headway into full scale acceptability from businesses and consumers.
Well it seems that windows 8 user get windows 9 free, so they are skipping 9 and making us all pay for 10 at double price to make up for loss profit from 9 and all the silly buggers who didn't up grade from xp, 7 and 8, also anyone who is still using 3.1, 95 and 98+, shortly after the release of windows 10 of course, they will release windows 13, but since that number is bad luck they will skipped that to and go straight for windows 2020.
( ....Joking )
I feel certain that Microsoft would much rather sell a new version of Windows to more than 50% of their customers as they did with Windows 7 rather than 12% of their customers as they did with Windows 8/8.1, even if they are looking 20 years into the future.
That said, yes, it makes a lot more sense for them to move forward than back. From what I've read, the OS will operate differently depending on what it is installed on. So on a desktop it will have a desktop interface and on a tablet it will have a tablet interface. Laptops could go either way, depending on their touchscreen capabilities. It will all be the same OS under the hood, but the interface will be tailored to the audience. It should even run on embedded devices, and since it will all have the same OS, it should be possible to develop applications for all those different platforms using the same tools and same knowledge. As someone who writes business applications, that sounds good to me.
As far as the cloud goes, I can see that. I mean, everyone else wants to be in the 'cloud' whether it makes sense or not, so why not Microsoft? Google proved that you could do it with more than just email. It sounds weird, but Microsoft might be in a position to create a cloud that they have no control over, where the customers actually control the encryption. Microsoft would be getting paid for the use of their product, so they wouldn't have to sell the information to make money, unlike Google who has to sell the information to get advertising revenue. I don't see this working for gamers, but then there is enough money in gaming that if Microsoft abandons an OS that runs games locally, somebody else, like Valve will have something to run games on. But then even smart phones run games locally, so there's probably not much to worry about there.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't know, Sounds pretty good from a company perspective if your vendor manages, updates and stores your software remotely for a subscription fee.
As for consumers i suppose if they start introducing them to these concepts now then in 10 years time (when the networking tech is there) it would be easy to digest as the norm.
-----
As for Linux, No i don't think that will ever happen.
As long as there is no "unified approach" to software/OS development then there is no hope imo.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Skipped nothing. They're just counting in nonary.
The real question is whether it will officially be Windows NT 6.3 or 7.0 or whatever.
For what it's worth, Windows Vista is NT 6.0, Windows 7 is NT 6.1, and Windows 8 is NT 6.2. I'm not sure if they incremented the name for Windows 8.1. You can verify this yourself in DxDiag.
It may sound nice but reality is Microsoft intentionally or unintentionally breaks Windows on a regular basis. Those institutions that hold your financial and medical records still rely on XP because of this. That cash register where you bought your morning coffee, that ATM you used yesterday, that X-ray machine used on you last year are all either controlled by or run on systems using XP.
The reason? XP is reliable. Those proprietary applications designed to run on XP are reliable on XP. Those institutions don't want to pay for creating another version of those appications that may or may not be reliable on today's or tomorrow's or ten years from now OSes. Especially when the OS developer is determined to control on a daily basis an operating systems capability.
Windows 8 doesn't have a good market share for a lot of reasons. Being better or worse than Windows XP has little to do with it. The underlying reasons for the market share are more important than the market share values. Dive a little deeper before using a market share number to try to say an OS is good or bad.
http://www.zdnet.com/five-reasons-why-windows-8-has-failed-7000012104/
That article is old, but it brings up some good points. The main reason Windows 8 adoption rate seems to be low is that the market isn't moving much. The motion it is taking trends towards Windows 7 when the consumer has a choice. It isn't that people are installing XP faster than they install Windows 8. It is that relatively few people are buying computers due to the slowing of technological demands by applications over the past ten years.
If you only used your computer for web browsing and checking emails, a ten-year-old PC would work just fine. How many people do exactly that? How many businesses just need to handle document processing? Why would those people or businesses go out and buy a new computer to perform the same tasks when the new computer won't be doing those tasks noticeably faster?
What most people dont know, even people in the industry, is that Windows 8 is actually the BEST version of windows to date. Why? Because it has the most highly optimized kernel of all the builds and versions of windows. WIndows 8 only failed in their UI. If you can get past that there is no other version of windows with such a highly optimized kernel. Personally, I wish they would take the windows 8 kernel, and replace windows 7 kernel with it then windows 7 would be the best.
That...is not a bad idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
So what you're saying is that given a choice, people are upgrading to Windows 7, not Windows 8. Even if the market were moving slow, if Windows 8 were better than Windows 7, people would be moving towards Windows 8, not Windows 7. Windows 8 is a worse product than Windows 7.
Windows 8/8.1's market share is actually dropping since last month. A Netmarketshare Trends chart shows Windows 7 continuing to increase in market share over time. There is a corresponding drop in the number of XP users. People are migrating from XP to Windows 7, not Windows 8, even though Microsoft has all but taken Windows 7 off the market. There may be technical, under the hood, unseen by users reasons that Windows 8/8.1 is "better", but it is an inferior product compared to Windows 7.I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That...is not a bad idea.
Isn't that what ClassicShell and the other UI replacements do? That's how I've been running Windows 8 since it came out, and I keep wondering why people complain so much. It's a Start Menu and some crappy contextual menus and "Metro" apps you can totally ignore and not miss.
Sure, it's a 3rd party solution, but the kernel and everything else in Win8 has been pretty good, even compared to Win7.
I won't defend MS's design choices, but they are easily worked around with as 1-time install and then your right back to Win7/Vista/XP/whatever interface you would like it to be, but with the better Win8 kernel.
It's always made me scratch my head.
Maybe it's the fact that they have to pay money on top of the money they've already spent on their OS just to use it or the fact that they have to install anything at all just to use the most basic portion of their computer. That would be like selling someone a car, but then they have to go to the mechanic just so the steering wheel works the way they expect it to, or buying a television but then having to buy a separate remote control just to watch television.
Wait, we have to buy remotes that don't suck now as it is. Let's not give anyone any ideas.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Returning to the original title of this thread, what I fully expect Microsoft to do is to say that if you buy Windows 8.1 after such and such date, you get a free upgrade to WIndows 10. Eventually it won't matter whether you get an OEM version or your own system builder version. Recall that Microsoft did the same thing with Vista, offering a free upgrade to 7 if you bought it a few months before 7 launched.
The idea is that rather than people holding off on buying a computer until the OS they want is available, they can buy a computer now and get a free upgrade to the OS they actually wanted once it's available. But even if you buy it the day before Windows 10 launches, there won't be a free upgrade from Windows 7 to WIndows 10.
That...is not a bad idea.
Isn't that what ClassicShell and the other UI replacements do? That's how I've been running Windows 8 since it came out, and I keep wondering why people complain so much. It's a Start Menu and some crappy contextual menus and "Metro" apps you can totally ignore and not miss. Sure, it's a 3rd party solution, but the kernel and everything else in Win8 has been pretty good, even compared to Win7. I won't defend MS's design choices, but they are easily worked around with as 1-time install and then your right back to Win7/Vista/XP/whatever interface you would like it to be, but with the better Win8 kernel. It's always made me scratch my head.
Maybe it's the fact that they have to pay money on top of the money they've already spent on their OS just to use it or the fact that they have to install anything at all just to use the most basic portion of their computer. That would be like selling someone a car, but then they have to go to the mechanic just so the steering wheel works the way they expect it to, or buying a television but then having to buy a separate remote control just to watch television.
Wait, we have to buy remotes that don't suck now as it is. Let's not give anyone any ideas.
Except Classic Shell is free...
There was a big promotional sale for WIndows 8 when it first came out:
Free upgrades from WIndows 7 if it was recent, like you discussed, and a reduced limited-time Upgrade from Windows 7 for like $40. That was only available for like 4 months or so after the initial release though.
I have no doubt Win 8 is better than Win 7 under the hood however the problem from my perspective is purely the interface. Live tiles make sense on a phone or a tablet with no other input method however on my desktop it makes no sense at all. Firstly, I don't sit close enough to my monitor(s) and would have to lean in to touch the screen which would make the whole experience awkward i.e. leaning in/out typing etc. so if I had to resort to the mouse there's no point. Secondly, I can perform tasks much faster with a mouse or commands than reaching in and touching the screen.
I built this machine two years ago and with Win 7 I have never had a single BSOD - if I was to upgrade my desktop OS then it would need to offer a productivity or usability upgrade not just a pretty interface. I get it, they are trying to unify to reduce development complexity / time / money however they probably should of looked at a more universal cross platform input system.
I still don't know why they are so resistant to a desktop live tiles system with a full screen mode - start menu live tiles seems like they have the shits and are reluctantly saying FU.
I totally agree with you here, and that's been my advice:
If you have Windows 7 already, just hang on to it.
If you are upgrading from XP/Vista, or getting a new computer - take whichever is cheaper of Windows 7 or Windows 8 -- and often that's Windows 8. And if they are the same price, go with Windows 8, because it will have a few more years of support behind it and has a more forgiving EULA.
But a lot of people get hung up on Charms and Live Tiles and the Start Menu... yeah they suck, but they can be worked around, for free. And aside from that, Windows 8 is pretty good, so once you are past the UI issues, why wouldn't you get it - especially if it's less expensive, nas a better EULA, and has a longer support period?
It's not worth upgrading from WIndows 7 for, but if you have to buy something with a new computer, or moving away from something that's no longer supported, a lot of people treat it like it's cancerous.
Then it would just be the fact that people have to get something other than Windows to use Windows. Why do that when Windows 7 works out of the box and the improvements from Windows 7 to Windows 8 are marginal (6 frames per second or so in games)?
I have Windows 7 on a laptop and Windows 8 on a desktop and Windows 7 just works better. Windows 8 has issues beyond just the UI. For instance, going into Maintenance, and then just never stopping. It's not doing anything, it's just preventing the system from going to sleep. There is no solution. The work around is to restore Windows to a previous save point or turn Maintenance off completely. Microsoft isn't going to fix this. They are going to release Windows 10 and hope that I upgrade. Ideally I'll get a free upgrade, but I'm not holding my breath.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I hope you guys are happy. Windows Seven Eight Nine. Now we are going to be bombarded with WinX marketing for months prior to the release of this next Windows iteration.
Also in other bad news. It seems if you install this on a desktop, you will have to reset it back to tablet mode to use the modern UI we have all grown to love in Windows 8.
I like the LiveTiles and Charms bar. It makes it really easy to do some things like multi-tasking when you are doing something that relies on timing.
Same here... My Win7 Ultimate is working perfectly stable and I'm not gonna exchange it for some new version. You know the saying - if it ain't broke...
Read that article I linked again. Windows 8 is usually not liked for its interface. It is technically better but aesthetically worse than Windows 7. Given the number one reason people don't want Windows 8 is the Start Menu, and knowing it is easily replaced by free programs, Windows 8 has nothing else to be hated for by consumers and businesses seeking to upgrade.
Considering that, Windows 8 is NOT as bad as people make it sound. That has been my entire point. I've never said it is better than any other OS. It just isn't the horrible OS that people make it out to be.
You solved the mystery!!!
My grannies first computer was windows XP, (she was early 70's) she didnt use it much.
We got her a new one that had windows 8 installed (she is now 85) and she has been all over that one, shes doing lots of stuff she never even thought she could before, with very minimal input from any of us.
Its harder for people who are stuck in their must click start menu to find anything mindset.
Windows 8 is a worse product than Windows 7. If Windows 8 were a better product than Windows 7, people would migrate from Windows XP to Windows 8, not Windows 7. Microsoft has taken Windows 7 off the market. People are going out of their way to buy Windows 7 over Windows 8.
The whole point of an operating system is to function as an interface to the machine and as a gateway to the applications running on that machine. Windows 8 borked the most basic functionality it was supposed to have.
If people have to install software just to use it, if people are going out of their way to find Windows 7 and if, in my own personal experience, the OS doesn't stop trying to use SkyDrive even though I've told it not to, causing the system to never go to sleep and to never leave maintenance mode, then yes, Windows 8 is as bad as people are making it sound.
But ignore all that stuff I typed up there. Windows 8 is a bad product. Microsoft's customers do not like it. It doesn't even matter why. The fact that the majority of their customers (87%) do not like it enough to buy it makes it a bad product.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.