Windows 8 Adoption Gaining Steam

[heatlesssun]

The goal of Windows 8 was to leverage the installation base of PC users...to prep them for Windows Tablets. Considering the write offs they missed their target by quite a bit. What is strange is it would have only taken a little bit of tweaking to have made it a smashing success.

Yes, the goal of Windows 8 was to leverage Windows to gain entry into tablets and touch but the point wasn't to really prep users but to create a large enough platform to be enticing to developers. Any Windows 8 system can run modern apps, most work well on a desktop with keyboards and mice. So now there's a market of 100+ million users that developers can move tablet apps to potentially.

Windows 7 could have easily pushed tablet sales. Simply make a new Metro a UI replacement/app store. Give it away for free. Work in improving the backend to win consumers over. When you buy a Blu-ray with digital download you can use it to get a movie etc. Ideally should also allow phone apps to me run on a PC. (via emulation of different binaries) Work on making coding tools to make coding such apps easier. They were a little short sighted hear as they were just trying to encourage windows 8 upgrades.

The Windows RT API isn't something that can just run on top of Windows 7. There were a LOT of changes in 8 to support the new API and new hardware like the new Atom processors, Windows 7 doesn't even run on them and it's more then just drivers, there are a lot of power efficiency changes.

 

[Ponder]

The Windows RT API isn't something that can just run on top of Windows 7. There were a LOT of changes in 8 to support the new API and new hardware like the new Atom processors, Windows 7 doesn't even run on them and it's more then just drivers, there are a lot of power efficiency changes.

Emulation of RT could run on whatever they code it to run on. They could also have different compiled binaries. So you buy an App, on the PC you run the x86 version on the phone you run the ARM version etc... It is not an impossible task.

Are you sure you mean ATOM not ARM? Not sure what you issue with Windows 7 is about. In the end Metro could run on windows 7 fine if they wanted it too. You can run windows 7 on ATOM chips with very little effort.

 

[Ponder]

Are you sure you mean ATOM not ARM? Not sure what you issue with Windows 7 is about. In the end Metro could run on windows 7 fine if they wanted it too. You can run windows 7 on ATOM chips with very little effort.

You should just call them Clover Trail. Actually you can run it, if they wanted to develop for it. It is not actually very difficult. It simply would require coding. The problem is no one wants to do it as it costs time and money for very little gains.

In the end you are missing the point. Windows 7 could easily leverage desktop users towards tablets. They did not have to force desktop users to run metro UI to do so. Allow Windows 7 users to download and use Windows Phone, Window RT apps and run them. Problem solved. Now Everyone can see for themselves what they are missing and maybe when they shop for a new phone they will think windows phone was darn nice. Versus ...

Have Windows 8 default to standard desktop environment on PC's without touch. Problem solved.

No where do they have to force users to use Metro against their will. It was a bad a move and totally wasted tons of good will.

 

[Ididar]

CEO let go still not good enough? Low number of actual upgrades still not good enough? Large write offs?

It is assumption to say that he's leaving because of Windows 8. It is not a data point. Most Windows licenses are purchased so upgrades are hardly a good indication of popularity. The write-offs are related to overpricing a hardware/software combination, not Windows 8 itself. Many said when the Surface was released that it was priced too high. It took MS a long time to realize this. Again, nothing a solid indication of a "failure" of Windows 8.

 

[heatlesssun]

In the end you are missing the point. Windows 7 could easily leverage desktop users towards tablets. They did not have to force desktop users to run metro UI to do so. Allow Windows 7 users to download and use Windows Phone, Window RT apps and run them. Problem solved. Now Everyone can see for themselves what they are missing and maybe when they shop for a new phone they will think windows phone was darn nice. Versus ...

I've used Windows 7 and Vista and XP on tablets. Yes, it can work but it's not particularly ideal compared to modern OSes that have touch as a primary concern. Versions of Windows simply don't have the design to support touch well. And emulation would be horrendously slow on all but the best hardware.

Have Windows 8 default to standard desktop environment on PC's without touch. Problem solved.

Yes and no. Yes, if would make those that just want the same old desktop more comfortable but it would also hold back the development of the modern ecosystem on both the hardware and software side. OEMs would just keep pumping out the same old tired cheap plastic garbage without trying to come up with new and cost effective designs.

No where do they have to force users to use Metro against their will. It was a bad a move and totally wasted tons of good will.

It's not that simple. If desktops were a healthy and growing market then sure, keep on pumping out the same old stuff. But it's not a growing and healthy market. I think the notion that if only Microsoft had just made Windows 8 look like 7 with the architectural improvements people would just go out and upgrade to 8 not to long after they just went to 7 doesn't make a lot of sense. The main distribution channel of Windows is on new hardware. Why would people that just bought Windows 7 devices now all of sudden go by a new device just for a bit more performance and exactly the same experience on the desktop?

The key to Windows 8 and its successors is NEW AND AFFORDABLE HARDWARE. Stuff like the Toshiba Encore, that looks like it could be a winner with the new Bay Trail T SoC. Sure the new UI needs to improve, become more comfortable to desktop users but ultimately people get a new version of Windows with new hardware.

 

[heatlesssun]

It is assumption to say that he's leaving because of Windows 8. It is not a data point. Most Windows licenses are purchased so upgrades are hardly a good indication of popularity. The write-offs are related to overpricing a hardware/software combination, not Windows 8 itself. Many said when the Surface was released that it was priced too high. It took MS a long time to realize this. Again, nothing a solid indication of a "failure" of Windows 8.

One thing to consider about Ballmer's departure was that the Nokia deal had already been done. This really is a good time for him to step down and Microsoft is now a fundamentally different company now, and MUCH larger as well. And if Elop isn't the next CEO I think it would be a surprise. On paper there's probably no one better because he knows Nokia and Microsoft very well and a new CEO could have all the vision in the world but considering the vast size and scope of Microsoft you'd better have someone in there that actually knows that the heck is going on, at least for a while.

 

[LOCO LAPTOP]

Windows 8 is only "gathering steam" in the sense that those who buy new computers with it pre-installed, who don't have the means to remove it even if they wanted to, are using it because they have no choice.

I don't know about that. I have already downgraded 15-20 Windows 8 computers to Windows 7. Some brand new out of the box.

 

[Ponder]

It is assumption to say that he's leaving because of Windows 8. It is not a data point. Most Windows licenses are purchased so upgrades are hardly a good indication of popularity. The write-offs are related to overpricing a hardware/software combination, not Windows 8 itself. Many said when the Surface was released that it was priced too high. It took MS a long time to realize this. Again, nothing a solid indication of a "failure" of Windows 8.

Microsoft has said time and time again Windows 8 is falling shot of expectations. Tablets were just extra revenue potential. Phone same thing. The problem is that for everything to who you need a well integrated plan, and windows 8 is the linchpin. You can dance around it all you like but the data we have clearly shows windows 8 is a disappointment.

 

[Ponder]

IIt's not that simple. If desktops were a healthy and growing market then sure, keep on pumping out the same old stuff. But it's not a growing and healthy market. I think the notion that if only Microsoft had just made Windows 8 look like 7 with the architectural improvements people would just go out and upgrade to 8 not to long after they just went to 7 doesn't make a lot of sense. The main distribution channel of Windows is on new hardware. Why would people that just bought Windows 7 devices now all of sudden go by a new device just for a bit more performance and exactly the same experience on the desktop?

You are once again missing the point. By having Windows 8 thought of fondly. Because who would not like an OS which is faster, leaner and has increased stability. You now have consumers putting off buying waiting for the next version if they plan to buy at all. If Windows 8 has normal desktop as default option, the debate would simply be is the improved performance worth XX dollars. You see you need high-end consumers to like windows 8 to give the masses ok to buy it. Otherwise they will just skip this generation and wait for the next one their friend recommends. SO if the highend users like your product they recommend it. If they dislike it they tell you to hold off. This with the increased price during an economic downturn is asking for trouble.(touch ability costs money, new form factors tend to be costly).

To think all they had to do was leave the desktop alone, and make metro optional. People would play with it in their free time to play the free games. Learn to like it and maybe in version 9-10 it could be the new standard. When hopefully more computers will actually have touch and the UI will make sense. Yet some of you want to argue they made the right choice.

 

[heatlesssun]

You can dance around it all you like but the data we have clearly shows windows 8 is a disappointment.

Sure Microsoft and OEMs would have liked a better initial response to Windows 8, but a lot of people including myself expected an initial slow adoption rate and a big part of that was nice affordable hardware. That seems to be slowly changing and it does look like OEMs are doing a better job on the hardware side, particularly with Haswell and Bay Trail to utilize along with 8.1 enhancements. It's uncommon normal for new versions of Windows, even ones that end up being popular like XP, to start off slowly. I looks like Windows 8 is actually following pretty closely the start of XP which was also something of a disappointment in its first year.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

I think the Metro interface is definitely here to stay, whether or not we like it. I was just watching a training video in Microsoft Academy on HTML 5. And one of the presenters made a comment to the effect of using the touchscreen because it's "2012, not 2002." Microsoft is definitely trying to sell the vision that touchscreens are where it's at. Hell - just look at the image of the "computer" that's on the Windows 8.1 preview page. It looks like a surface tablet with a wireless mouse and keyboard attached.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/preview

Also, and I know this sounds far-fetched and far reaching... But I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 8 is Microsoft's first step toward becoming a new "Apple." That is, you can only find newer Windows OS's on Microsoft machines. Their recent purchase of Nokia points to that. Of course, if that should ever happen, I would expect it to be years down the road. Sounds crazy, but you just never know.

 

[Ponder]

One thing to consider about Ballmer's departure was that the Nokia deal had already been done. This really is a good time for him to step down and Microsoft is now a fundamentally different company now, and MUCH larger as well. And if Elop isn't the next CEO I think it would be a surprise. On paper there's probably no one better because he knows Nokia and Microsoft very well and a new CEO could have all the vision in the world but considering the vast size and scope of Microsoft you'd better have someone in there that actually knows that the heck is going on, at least for a while.

A good leader can handle having knowledgeable VP under them. Still I would not really want Elop running Microsoft as I don't think he has the talent nor vision to handle the OS backend side.

Time will tell.

 

[Ponder]

Also, and I know this sounds far-fetched and far reaching... But I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 8 is Microsoft's first step toward becoming a new "Apple." That is, you can only find newer Windows OS's on Microsoft machines. Their recent purchase of Nokia points to that. Of course, if that should ever happen, I would expect it to be years down the road. Sounds crazy, but you just never know.

That is the goal, but that is not the debate. The debate is was Windows 8 a mistake, if so to what degree and how could it have been prevented. Nothing wrong with metro, the problem is forcing the default UI to Metro for non touch based computers. They put the cart before the horse with windows 8, they skipped a couple steps.

Now they are paying for it.

 

[heatlesssun]

You are once again missing the point. By having Windows 8 thought of fondly. Because who would not like an OS which is faster, leaner and has increased stability.

Sure those are nice things but are they enough for people to go out and by new hardware that doesn't do anything their old stuff already does? And it's certainly not enough for businesses in the middle of large migrations to 7 to change course.

You now have consumers putting off buying waiting for the next version if they plan to buy at all. If Windows 8 has normal desktop as default option, the debate would simply be is the improved performance worth XX dollars. You see you need high-end consumers to like windows 8 to give the masses ok to buy it.

8.1 does address many of the desktop issues and even faster than 8 it looks to me. And high-end users, at least gamers, don't seem to mind 8. If they want they just install a Start Menu replacement.

Otherwise they will just skip this generation and wait for the next one their friend recommends. SO if the highend users like your product they recommend it. If they dislike it they tell you to hold off. This with the increased price during an economic downturn is asking for trouble.(touch ability costs money, new form factors tend to be costly).

To think all they had to do was leave the desktop alone, and make metro optional. People would play with it in their free time to play the free games. Learn to like it and maybe in version 9-10 it could be the new standard. When hopefully more computers will actually have touch and the UI will make sense. Yet some of you want to argue they made the right choice.

I agree, but you walk into a Best Buy and you see this sweet little 8" Windows tablet that does everything you need, or a hybrid and the price is right. At that point what is that friend going to say? Don't by that device that does what you want at the price you like because it has 8 on it?

 

[jbltecnicspro]

That is the goal, but that is not the debate. The debate is was Windows 8 a mistake, if so to what degree and how could it have been prevented. Nothing wrong with metro, the problem is forcing the default UI to Metro for non touch based computers. They put the cart before the horse with windows 8, they skipped a couple steps.

Now they are paying for it.

Well, I'll add to the debate and carry on. The mistake is not giving desktop users the option of switching off Metro. Not all of us have nifty touchscreens that can take advantage of the darn thing, and while I particularly don't find Windows 8's UI to be aggravating, I do find it annoying that to get the intended use out of it, I have to buy more hardware. I either have to: buy a tablet (no) or buy a touch screen (hell no). It's functional on the desktop, don't get me wrong. But it's just awkward. Since no one's pointing a gun to my head, I just ditched the OS and resumed using Windows 7... Yes - I've tried it. And yes - I'm going to try 8.1 when it hits (and I'll probably stick with it).

Ideally, there would be a "metro off" switch for desktop users. And ideally - Metro would be enabled by default on tablet devices, and disabled on desktops. That would have solved this whole, entire mess. Let me reiterate - Metro doesn't suck. It's obvious though, that traditional desktops won't see all of its benefits.

 

[Ponder]

I agree, but you walk into a Best Buy and you see this sweet little 8" Windows tablet that does everything you need, or a hybrid and the price is right. At that point what is that friend going to say? Don't by that device that does what you want at the price you like because it has 8 on it?

According to the write downs that seems to be what happened. People have limited fund they can't afford to invest down a potential dead end in todays economy. Hardware sales are down, but they are also hindered by windows 8. You save money as an average consumer by waiting for the go ahead.

If you have to have a new computer today because your old one died. Sure then go ahead, but if you are looking for a time of when to upgrade you will likely hold off for 8.1 or later versions even. It is all typical down economy trends. People tend to become more cautious with there money,

You have to understand when someone has to hire someone to install version upgrades for them, it becomes costly to have to upgrade. So they hold off hardware purchases unless they are NEEDED.

Anyways the debate is not about 8.1, but if forcing metro as default UI was a mistake. (answer it was)

 

[heatlesssun]

Also, and I know this sounds far-fetched and far reaching... But I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 8 is Microsoft's first step toward becoming a new "Apple." That is, you can only find newer Windows OS's on Microsoft machines. Their recent purchase of Nokia points to that. Of course, if that should ever happen, I would expect it to be years down the road. Sounds crazy, but you just never know.

Not just Apple but Google. Microsoft still wants partners, but they are going to have trouble making the margins on licensing that they currently do. So the plan is to make that up through hardware and services and perhaps offer Windows for a token fee. Probably won't be totally free to cover Microsoft's licensing costs for Windows. And then those devices can make up for the revenue with apps and services.

 

[Ponder]

Let me reiterate - Metro doesn't suck. It's obvious though, that traditional desktops won't see all of its benefits.

Exceptionally well said.

 

[heatlesssun]

According to the write downs that seems to be what happened. People have limited fund they can't afford to invest down a potential dead end in todays economy. Hardware sales are down, but they are also hindered by windows 8. You save money as an average consumer by waiting for the go ahead.

The write down was for Surface RT. Windows 8 is a quite different matter and indeed even competed against RT devices and that is a big problem for RT devices especially at their price levels. The Toshiba Encore, at $330 when it lunches in November is a full Windows 8 device that smaller, lighter and faster then the current Surface RT and $20 cheaper to boot.

Anyways the debate is not about 8.1, but if forcing metro as default UI was a mistake. (answer it was)

And like I said, there were pluses and minuses to this approach. I just don't think that the future of Windows can rely on a 20 UI paradigm.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well, I'll add to the debate and carry on. The mistake is not giving desktop users the option of switching off Metro. Not all of us have nifty touchscreens that can take advantage of the darn thing, and while I particularly don't find Windows 8's UI to be aggravating, I do find it annoying that to get the intended use out of it, I have to buy more hardware. I either have to: buy a tablet (no) or buy a touch screen (hell no). It's functional on the desktop, don't get me wrong. But it's just awkward. Since no one's pointing a gun to my head, I just ditched the OS and resumed using Windows 7... Yes - I've tried it. And yes - I'm going to try 8.1 when it hits (and I'll probably stick with it).

Ideally, there would be a "metro off" switch for desktop users. And ideally - Metro would be enabled by default on tablet devices, and disabled on desktops. That would have solved this whole, entire mess. Let me reiterate - Metro doesn't suck. It's obvious though, that traditional desktops won't see all of its benefits.

The new UI did need to be improved for desktop use, I've used Windows 8 everyday with keyboards and mice and saw many of the issues. I think some were a little overstated like booting to the desktop and the powering controls but those were resolved in Windows 8.1. The main issues that still stand are lack of Start Menu and full screen apps. The Start Screen is still full screen but modern apps are now much more friendly with resizing. Indeed I think there are some nice things about how this works that can be of benefit to desktop users. Moving and arranging apps in their panes is simpler and cleaner in a number of ways than dealing with free floating windows. With the modern version of Office on the way, I could see a lot of people, especially newcomers liking the way this works and being productive entirely within the new UI, and yes with keyboards and mice and no touch screen.

Yes, this is different, but I really think the needing a touchscreen to get the advantages isn't all true. There's more to do but there's a lot here now for desktop users and much more on the way as apps come out for it.

 

[Ponder]

Sure Microsoft and OEMs would have liked a better initial response to Windows 8, but a lot of people including myself expected an initial slow adoption rate and a big part of that was nice affordable hardware. That seems to be slowly changing and it does look like OEMs are doing a better job on the hardware side, particularly with Haswell and Bay Trail to utilize along with 8.1 enhancements. It's uncommon normal for new versions of Windows, even ones that end up being popular like XP, to start off slowly. I looks like Windows 8 is actually following pretty closely the start of XP which was also something of a disappointment in its first year.

Not sure that is a fair statement considering the variables and how important this transition was... they made a mistake and it is obvious. All data points to windows 8 under-performing. Sure eventually they will do something right but that does not makes Windows ME and BoB hits In the end forcing Metro to default UI was a huge mistake.

It was simply to soon. The question I always find fun is how they disliked metro on the original tablet, then forced it to the desktop

 

[heatlesssun]

It was simply to soon. The question I always find fun is how they disliked metro on the original tablet, then forced it to the desktop

With the rapidly shirking desktop market I don't think there was a lot of time to wait. Yes Windows 8 is primarily about tablets and touch but it does add some nice elements to desktops if one isn't totally focused on 20 year old UI elements. No it's not perfect and I'm not saying have the option for the old UI was a bad idea but there would have been trade offs. I think the idea that just put in an off switch for the new stuff and Windows 8 would be hit is over simplified. The issues facing Windows 8 are not on the desktop, not in the sense that any competitor even with the new UI stands chance against Windows on the desktop. The desktop war ended long ago, Microsoft won and the battle in now on new fronts. It's adoption rate may have been slowed because of the new UI but keeping the old UI wouldn't have reversed the shrinking desktop market trend.

 

[Ponder]

With the rapidly shirking desktop market I don't think there was a lot of time to wait. Yes Windows 8 is primarily about tablets and touch but it does add some nice elements to desktops if one isn't totally focused on 20 year old UI elements. No it's not perfect and I'm not saying have the option for the old UI was a bad idea but there would have been trade offs. I think the idea that just put in an off switch for the new stuff and Windows 8 would be hit is over simplified. The issues facing Windows 8 are not on the desktop, not in the sense that any competitor even with the new UI stands chance against Windows on the desktop. The desktop war ended long ago, Microsoft won and the battle in now on new fronts. It's adoption rate may have been slowed because of the new UI but keeping the old UI wouldn't have reversed the shrinking desktop market trend.

This is where you and I disagree. I think a solid fast stable OS, as a reasonable price point on nice hardware would well well. Look an Lenovo. Would it stop the contraction in my opinion? No but the forcing of a new UI on non touch machines did increase it.

 

[heatlesssun]

This is where you and I disagree. I think a solid fast stable OS, as a reasonable price point on nice hardware would well well. Look an Lenovo. Would it stop the contraction in my opinion? No but the forcing of a new UI on non touch machines did increase it.

I don't disagree that "forcing" the new UI cost some sales now but I don't think that's a permanent thing and I think that did help accelerate new touch and tablet hardware and that's been pretty slow already but seems to be picking up.

 

[Ponder]

I don't disagree that "forcing" the new UI cost some sales now but I don't think that's a permanent thing and I think that did help accelerate new touch and tablet hardware and that's been pretty slow already but seems to be picking up.

When it comes to Microsoft very little is a Permanent thing. They are like the Borg, they will keep at it until they eventually get it right or ... anyways in the end it is a small difference. I think they would be much better off if they had not, as it would have cost them nothing to do so.

Just for many of us it is frustrating to see them increase the time of the transition because they where not willing to listen. Having worked with people from the big three, Microsoft is always the most difficult of them to work with...they have a history of not listening. You can take someone who is very flexible before they work at MS and after a year they are one of the collective

 

[DPI]

It is assumption to say that he's leaving because of Windows 8. It is not a data point. Most Windows licenses are purchased so upgrades are hardly a good indication of popularity. The write-offs are related to overpricing a hardware/software combination, not Windows 8 itself. Many said when the Surface was released that it was priced too high. It took MS a long time to realize this. Again, nothing a solid indication of a "failure" of Windows 8.

SMH another person that doesn't understand the big picture and how all these products asre in fact interrelated in terms of public perception and adoption.

 

[Azhar]

It's funny that 2.46% is other. What's other? It's obviously Linux.

BeOS and Microsoft Bob, obviously.

 

[wonderfield]

Well, BeOS is kind of neat.

 

[rantanamo]

if one can't successfully navigate Windows 8 with the same ease as 7 without the traditional start menu(Its not even necessary), I'm surprised one would even be on a board like this.

 

[heatlesssun]

When it comes to Microsoft very little is a Permanent thing. They are like the Borg, they will keep at it until they eventually get it right or ... anyways in the end it is a small difference. I think they would be much better off if they had not, as it would have cost them nothing to do so.

I think it would have cost them time in getting the ecosystem built up because there'd be a lot of questions about how serious they were about the Modern UI if came with an off switch in the box.

Just for many of us it is frustrating to see them increase the time of the transition because they where not willing to listen. Having worked with people from the big three, Microsoft is always the most difficult of them to work with...they have a history of not listening. You can take someone who is very flexible before they work at MS and after a year they are one of the collective

It's pretty obvious they listened with 8.1, though of course they could have responded more quickly with the changes in 8.1 and put them. But of course they didn't do everything that many wanted on the desktop side. Not really sure how adding the old UI would have decreased transition. Maybe to 8 but at some point unless they were planning to continue to support the old UI indefinitely there was going to be time needed to transition to it. They are now almost a year into this, and while a lot has gone wrong there's a year of this controversy past them and with Windows 9 it's one less thing to complain about. At least as much assuming the Start Menu isn't coming back.

 

[heatlesssun]

if one can't successfully navigate Windows 8 with the same ease as 7 without the traditional start menu(Its not even necessary), I'm surprised one would even be on a board like this.

I don't think it's a matter of ease but of familiarity. For instance I find my self now and then pointing my mouse on my Windows 7 machines in the corners now when I want to search.

 

[etegv]

win8 > 7, no reason to downgrade 8.1 will fix the people who don't like metro screen @ boot, and honestly metro screen is same as the start button

win7:
windows key - opens start menu
+ type what you want to open ie win+ word = microsoft word
win8
windows key - opens metro screen
+ type what you want to open ie win+ word = microsoft word

Seems to me that the function is the same, except if you have touchscreen or want to setup custom metro screen to make other things easier.

ill take the faster boot times of 8, upgrade from 7 was 15 bucks. the 45 seconds it took to get used to a different start screen soooo skery.....

so faster boot times... thats it?

I have a PC with windows 8 and its stupid. They bundled 7 with it b/c they knew eveyone would hate windows 8

 

[Ponder]

Not really sure how adding the old UI would have decreased transition. Maybe to 8 but at some point unless they were planning to continue to support the old UI indefinitely there was going to be time needed to transition to it. They are now almost a year into this, and while a lot has gone wrong there's a year of this controversy past them and with Windows 9 it's one less thing to complain about. At least as much assuming the Start Menu isn't coming back.

It is all theory, but lets assume they took the other road. Metro was optional. Adoption of 8 would then be at a faster pace and more users would want to play with Metro as they would be interested in the free games and apps. Reviews would be either positive or at least pondering if it was enough of a speed increase/features that users should upgrade. We would be one year further along. Microsoft's revenue would be up from secondary revenue streams caused by the switch and developer desire to make apps for the potential new platform.(also media sales of movies, music, books and magazines) SO they would be making more money of newer development packages.(ones to make develop apps for the converging platforms easier) They might possible work on tools to help the media markets.

Maybe more consumers might have picked up tablets as Windows 8(metro) convinced them they were worthwhile. Applications could be purchased once run anywhere. Your Windows phone, your tablet, an Xbox1 or ones PC. They might even have a simpler smart tv device. To me that is the direction they should be focusing on. Buy once run anywhere. Easy purchasing of media... focusing on simply making computers more useful for everyday life.

Instead we are a year later debating to what degrees was Windows 8 a mistake and how costly it was...I do agree no mater which path they took it would be a rough road/ Manly because they ignored the market for so long and did not seem to take to metro quickly enough. In the end for the most part everyone here wants the same thing. A way to make device more useful for the tasks we do everyday. The question is which road is the best one to get there.

 

[heatlesssun]

It is all theory, but lets assume they took the other road. Metro was optional. Adoption of 8 would then be at a faster pace and more users would want to play with Metro as they would be interested in the free games and apps.

These two things seem to be diametrically opposed. Adoption of 8 would be higher because there's an way to avoid the new UI but more people would be using the new UI?

Maybe more consumers might have picked up tablets as Windows 8(metro) convinced them they were worthwhile.

Again, this is really more of a hardware and pricing issue. Looking at the stuff that's being announced for the Fall and Holiday season, I think there will be a considerable uptick in Windows 8 tablets. $329 for an 8" Windows 8 tablet that's 3 times faster than last years Clover Trails and even faster than that compared to the Surface RT. With a better OS that's faster and many more apps than last year.

Applications could be purchased once run anywhere. Your Windows phone, your tablet, an Xbox1 or ones PC. They might even have a simpler smart tv device. To me that is the direction they should be focusing on. Buy once run anywhere. Easy purchasing of media... focusing on simply making computers more useful for everyday life.

I think that's where we are headed. No one has it all integrated yet. iOS and Android share many apps between phones and tablets but there are still tablet specific and phone specific apps. At least a tablet app purchased for a Windows 8 tablet can run on a Windows 8 desktop.

Instead we are a year later debating to what degrees was Windows 8 a mistake and how costly it was...I do agree no mater which path they took it would be a rough road/ Manly because they ignored the market for so long and did not seem to take to metro quickly enough. In the end for the most part everyone here wants the same thing. A way to make device more useful for the tasks we do everyday. The question is which road is the best one to get there.

Agreed. I don't claim that the approach they took was totally correct and there were certainly many mistakes made but Windows 8 is a pretty complex thing that's trying to do a lot. Perhaps too much.

 

[DPI]

It is all theory, but lets assume they took the other road. Metro was optional. Adoption of 8 would then be at a faster pace and more users would want to play with Metro as they would be interested in the free games and apps. Reviews would be either positive or at least pondering if it was enough of a speed increase/features that users should upgrade. We would be one year further along. Microsoft's revenue would be up from secondary revenue streams caused by the switch and developer desire to make apps for the potential new platform.(also media sales of movies, music, books and magazines) SO they would be making more money of newer development packages.(ones to make develop apps for the converging platforms easier) They might possible work on tools to help the media markets.

Precisely. Bottom line, they spent all their time dragging the horse to water when they should have focused on making it thirsty. They should've incentivized Metro. They didn't bother - instead they half-baked a bunch of shitty web widgets with limited functionality to their desktop counterparts.

You get more people to do what you want if you can make them believe it was their idea.

 

[boden11]

And your take on the massive decline in PC shipments over the last 2 quarters? W8 being shite won't necessarily drive someone to a complete new system -- they will just wait it out. Everyone knows MS can only make a decent os EVERY OTHER release (I'm looking at you 98, ME, Vista and now W8)

As I said previously in this thread, if Windows 8 was really pissing off that many people there would be a massive swell of people purchasing MacBook Air's and other Apple products. Since that isn't really happening, with Apple at a peak of its popularity, then obviously it seems to me that people aren't THAT pissed off with Windows 8. With alternatives available they're still buying the Windows machine and continuing to use Windows. Most of them don't need it for anything more than web browsing and typing up a few documents so any operating system will do. They're not "captive" in the consumer market. They have choices. They're not jumping ship in mass quantities. All PC based sales have slowed ... long before Windows 8 ... because of mobile operating systems. Even when people saw Windows 8 coming they didn't rush out to buy machines with Windows 7 or we'd have seen a spike in sales.

There are lots of claims about how consumers feel about Windows 8 but few data points to support them.

 

[Void]

And your take on the massive decline in PC shipments over the last 2 quarters?

Mobile. Most everyone I know uses their mobile devices now, they don't even use a PC anymore, even my 2 sisters and brother use nothing but mobile. They are everywhere now and many people prefer it that way. I think for the most part that is what we are seeing plus PC's last much longer now before needing anything faster.

 

[boden11]

Mobile is definitely one large factor, however W8 sucking is still another. It's not just me -- a friend at work's laptop died and she was being told by many friends and even sales people to hold off due to W8 and the Metro / lack of start menu. Additional supporting evidence -- just in the past few months the head of Windows is gone at MS (Sinofsky) and then Ballmer's retirement is PUSHED. Ballmer was pushed out by Bill Gates for running his company like shit and W8 was the final straw (this is truth not crazy ass rumor). We also have MS quickly announcing a W8.1 with a lite start menu. There are often multiple things happening at the same time, and the combo of people with fast enuff computers, more mobile platforms, and W8 sucking has led to the large PC decline.

Mobile. Most everyone I know uses their mobile devices now, they don't even use a PC anymore, even my 2 sisters and brother use nothing but mobile. They are everywhere now and many people prefer it that way. I think for the most part that is what we are seeing plus PC's last much longer now before needing anything faster.

 

[Dan]

i bought windows 8 and love it, i dont want to go back to w7 at all.

 

[Sky15]

i bought windows 8 and love it, i dont want to go back to w7 at all.

Yea, I got it on my new Alienware 14 laptop, and just downloaded classic shell and it feels like WIN 7. I also think the metro UI is actually pretty cool/