Windows 8.x Market Share Down

nutzo said:
Hoping for an enterprise version that doesn't try any force you to connect it to a email account. Don't like that you have to setup a Microsoft email account just so you can connect to the store to update some of the pre-installed apps.
Click to expand...

There is a big push on enterprise adoption this round. I'm sure that might be a possibility.

Although, they are really pushing the ADFS (Federation Services) to join AD with Microsoft account/O365 stuff... :/
 
bigdogchris said:
Taking bets on when Windows Technical Preview exceeds Windows 8 market share :D
Click to expand...

I was kind of wondering about this subject myself. So far the response to the TP seems very positive from the desktop perspective. The build is certainly not for tablets as this time. While I know the aesthetics aren't clean and there are the usual "Bring back Aero Glass" and "Metro is ugly" comments, functionally 10's UI out of the box is ahead of 7.

Virtual desktops, task view (yes OS X and Linux had this stuff for years, I'm comparing to 7 out of the box), better window snapping, mouse resizable Start Menu and multiple monitor task bar support. Which means that now the beloved Start Menu of many can be open on any monitor. There are plenty of glitches and bugs of course and there needs to be a few more desktop features added into the mix to make it a compelling desktop upgrade for 7 users. But outside of bugs and aesthetics for something that's not complete, I think plenty of Windows 7 users would find this pretty nice. And if they ever ventured into using some store apps, they might even find a few things there they like on the desktop.
 
Been using windows 8 since it was launched.

Surprisingly I like it. Still not a fan of the metro start menu. But truth be told I rarely ever even open the start menu unless I have to launch a program that I don't use often. Most of the most used programs are stickied to the start bar.
 
tec805 said:
Chatting with a Verizon tech a few months back, he was running XP on his Toughbook. When I asked he said it was standard, all techs used the same. How many techs do you think Verizon has?
Click to expand...

As a former Verizon tech, yes, all the laptops are Toughbooks running XP. Not only that, they are stupidly unsecure. Symantec End Point and a VPN. That's all I remember on them.
 
I look at how shockingly little market penetration Windows 8 has in a captive market, and then I look at the billions in losses they're racking up from their Surface tablet and I have to wonder how much longer they can still in business. I get they're a big company and that gives them a lot of inertia, but there's only so much they can take......
 
heatlesssun said:
Windows 8.x is too unfamiliar to many keyboard and mouse Windows desktop users and isn't polished enough to work well enough as a hybrid. Many people that are so called defenders have said this for a long time and I've personally made specific criticisms of usability issues for a long time. Full screen elements and certain mouse interactions like hot corners just don't play well for lots of folks.

That said, the defenders have pointed out that a lot of what's been said about Windows 8.x often not true. All of the claims of tons more mouse clicks to do things is often wrong. When issues like this arise its often because people were not familiar with what's there. And even now things that were fixed in 8.1 are still being reported as issues.

But it is obvious to me and most rational folks that 8 is a lost cause at this point and it's time to move on. But not everything in 8 is disaster. If you looked at the Windows 10 launch event, the modern UI isn't going anyway nor the hybrid design. Those things weren't the problem, it was the overall execution. Being able to run modern apps in windows, while that's obvious it's also a huge improvement from the desktop perspective. And these apps will still run just fine on tablets and with touch.
Click to expand...

Why...why do you do this to yourself.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
I really don't see what's so great about it. The fast boot up is just a form of hibernation, the performance differences are negligible, Hyper-V is inferior to free alternatives for non-Windows VMs, and they started charging extra for media center and requiring 8 Pro for it while simultaniously dropping their TV tuner certification program. I really don't like being nickle-and-dimed for features that were bundled with Vista/7 Home Premium, especially when the OS doesn't have anything new to make up for it. The whole Modern/Metro thing is a waste of resources and the flat GUI is ugly (though admittedly that's subjective).

As far as I can tell Windows 8 is just 7 repackaged to support touch and squeeze more money out of users. From nickle-and-diming for core Vista/7 features, to Bing/cloud integration, to pushing a UI nobody wants to sell apps (with in-app ads in the bundled apps, no less)... you can tell that a marketing douchebag was running the company when this turd dropped.

Sad thing is that if they had quickly responded to criticism about the UI from users (or their own damn internal testers) they could have avoided a lot of negative press and had a more successful product. Why not have rolled out Modern UI as a cool optional feature for touch users? Greed. They wanted that app store revenue. They've only managed to tick off a lot of users.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I moved from VMWare to Hyper-V and have been very happy, and I only have one windows VM running in my environment, and tons of CentOS/BSD/Ubuntu VMs for various services and applications... Hyper-V is really pretty great and the price is great too (free)

and the free version of VMWare does not allow you to do live backups, hyper-v does, hyper-v can also dump the linux boxes memory to disk and suspend them when I do a host reboot, which is great, don't have to worry about starting services/apps on the linux box because to them, nothing happened

honestly windows 8 sold me when I saw what happens when you right click on the start menu, like it was designed for sys-admins, everything I want to get to in one menu!

metro is terrible though, but I have never seen it after installing classic shell
 
illumined said:
I look at how shockingly little market penetration Windows 8 has in a captive market, and then I look at the billions in losses they're racking up from their Surface tablet and I have to wonder how much longer they can still in business. I get they're a big company and that gives them a lot of inertia, but there's only so much they can take......
Click to expand...

They still make huge profits (billions in earnings/profit per quarter), so I don't see that happening any time soon. Microsoft still makes tons of money whether you buy Windows 7 or Windows 8.
 
ICOM said:
Why...why do you do this to yourself.
Click to expand...

Because Windows is Windows. Many are too young to remember that Windows has always been through highs and lows. Windows was a failed product for nearly the first four years of existence and then it become one of the iconic tech products of all time even to this day.

Microsoft makes many mistakes. It's failure to date is mobile is an enormous problem. Coupling the fate of desktop Windows, the most commercially successful for sale software product of all time with its mobile and touch fate which to date is a failure is fascinating if one truly understands Microsoft's strengths and weaknesses and what it does very well and what it does very badly.

There's a lot of nuances to Microsoft. The idea of seeing multiple positions, where things are bad good and bad simultaneously I think is a lost art. I don't know why in the world of humans, where almost nothing is clearly defined, there is the drive for zero sum thinking in the area of human technology.
 
heatlesssun said:
Because Windows is Windows. Many are too young to remember that Windows has always been through highs and lows. Windows was a failed product for nearly the first four years of existence and then it become one of the iconic tech products of all time even to this day.

Microsoft makes many mistakes. It's failure to date is mobile is an enormous problem. Coupling the fate of desktop Windows, the most commercially successful for sale software product of all time with its mobile and touch fate which to date is a failure is fascinating if one truly understands Microsoft's strengths and weaknesses and what it does very well and what it does very badly.

There's a lot of nuances to Microsoft. The idea of seeing multiple positions, where things are bad good and bad simultaneously I think is a lost art. I don't know why in the world of humans, where almost nothing is clearly defined, there is the drive for zero sum thinking in the area of human technology.
Click to expand...

QFT! I think one of the reasons I do so well in the technical field nowadays is because I do not take such polarizing attitudes that I see around here today. Computers are computers and are meant to be enjoyed, not whined about as so many love to do around here.

My best suggestion is, if someone wants to succeed long term in this field, drop the whining, customers do not want to hear it. Also, customers pay your paycheck, without them, you all have nothing.
 
ManofGod said:
My best suggestion is, if someone wants to succeed long term in this field, drop the whining, customers do not want to hear it. Also, customers pay your paycheck, without them, you all have nothing.
Click to expand...

Also OFT! If you're a working stiff like me, my paycheck comes from the value in the service that I deliver to my customers. I work in the back office of a mega bank and I don't have front facing customers. But I do have a lot of back office that want things done in some ways more quickly.
 
travbrad said:
They still make huge profits (billions in earnings/profit per quarter), so I don't see that happening any time soon. Microsoft still makes tons of money whether you buy Windows 7 or Windows 8.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, it's easy to forget they're still making money despite their massively expensive debacles. But even their profit makers are coming under fire, if this guy's analysis is accurate.
 
Ur_Mom said:
There is a big push on enterprise adoption this round. I'm sure that might be a possibility.

Although, they are really pushing the ADFS (Federation Services) to join AD with Microsoft account/O365 stuff... :/
Click to expand...

ADFS - Just another source of pain for smaller networks. Real small network don't need it, and larger networks have dozens of servers, and multiple admins who can specialize on different parts.

I'm just a one man department in a company that's very computer/network heavy. Being a windows software developer, we have access to a lot of Microsoft software. The increases in hardware requirement with every release, and the requirements to separate many of the servers is making it difficult to use some of their products, even if I get them for free.
 
Windows 8 will eventually go join windows ME and Vista in the special place where bad operating systems go. This place is ruled by Microsoft Bob, the ruler of bad operating systems. :D
 
I'd like to thank Microsoft's Windows 8 for getting me to use Linux on a day to day basis...
And find Linux easier to use then 8!
(at least, what I was using it for)
 
heatlesssun said:
Because Windows is Windows. Many are too young to remember that Windows has always been through highs and lows. Windows was a failed product for nearly the first four years of existence and then it become one of the iconic tech products of all time even to this day.

Microsoft makes many mistakes. It's failure to date is mobile is an enormous problem. Coupling the fate of desktop Windows, the most commercially successful for sale software product of all time with its mobile and touch fate which to date is a failure is fascinating if one truly understands Microsoft's strengths and weaknesses and what it does very well and what it does very badly.

There's a lot of nuances to Microsoft. The idea of seeing multiple positions, where things are bad good and bad simultaneously I think is a lost art. I don't know why in the world of humans, where almost nothing is clearly defined, there is the drive for zero sum thinking in the area of human technology.
Click to expand...

I remember wanting Windows 2.0 so bad. Eventually got it, too. Then 3.0 and 3.11. Then 95 and every edition since. Windows was always the "awesome" new product to have. Windows Mobile still has a decent market. Maybe not in Pocket PC's or Phones, but in Windows CE or Windows Mobile in UPC scanners it's still pretty big,

Windows, not matter what version, is still the major player in the market. Even Windows 8 takes the lion share of OS share over the alternatives. It's the juggernaut of the industry. Yes, there are always some down sides. That's true for every product out there. Some are more prominent than others. It's always a work in progress towards an impossible "perfect". New features, new hardware to support, new technology... It's a never ending goal.

Microsoft has always had it's haters, and always will. It's the mainstream product that people love to hate. Micro$oft, Microshaft, whatever. You see similar hate towards Apple. Sheep, idiots, etc.. Start screen? Fine, it's gone. Now, it's the tiniest hint of tiles. Not that it affects them that much, it's just something to complain about. It'll never be perfect, and people will complain. Does it make it a bad product? No. But, it's not perfect. Even the "fabulous, excellent Windows 7" has it's issues. Some people just see the downsides to things and can't see the good stuff.

If you support Windows 8, you love it and you can fix any issue with it. You don't like it, suck it up. Your job is to know it and love it and fix it when it breaks. I don't care much for iOS or Mac OS. But, when someone on the job has an issue with it - it's my best friend, I know it inside and out, and I'll get it fixed. :)

BTW - besides the Modern UI - what are the downsides to Windows 8? Microsoft account? Not really needed.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I remember wanting Windows 2.0 so bad. Eventually got it, too. Then 3.0 and 3.11. Then 95 and every edition since. Windows was always the "awesome" new product to have. Windows Mobile still has a decent market. Maybe not in Pocket PC's or Phones, but in Windows CE or Windows Mobile in UPC scanners it's still pretty big,

Windows, not matter what version, is still the major player in the market. Even Windows 8 takes the lion share of OS share over the alternatives. It's the juggernaut of the industry. Yes, there are always some down sides. That's true for every product out there. Some are more prominent than others. It's always a work in progress towards an impossible "perfect". New features, new hardware to support, new technology... It's a never ending goal.

Microsoft has always had it's haters, and always will. It's the mainstream product that people love to hate. Micro$oft, Microshaft, whatever. You see similar hate towards Apple. Sheep, idiots, etc.. Start screen? Fine, it's gone. Now, it's the tiniest hint of tiles. Not that it affects them that much, it's just something to complain about. It'll never be perfect, and people will complain. Does it make it a bad product? No. But, it's not perfect. Even the "fabulous, excellent Windows 7" has it's issues. Some people just see the downsides to things and can't see the good stuff.

If you support Windows 8, you love it and you can fix any issue with it. You don't like it, suck it up. Your job is to know it and love it and fix it when it breaks. I don't care much for iOS or Mac OS. But, when someone on the job has an issue with it - it's my best friend, I know it inside and out, and I'll get it fixed. :)

BTW - besides the Modern UI - what are the downsides to Windows 8? Microsoft account? Not really needed.
Click to expand...

the only reason it has a market share as MS have made sure new computers can't come with windows 7 pre installed and loads now have windows 8 with classic shell installed (unless its a business computer then its norm pre installed with 7 and has the option for 8 later on)

most are not aware that the "do not want to make an account" button is on the New account page

windows 8 is not suitable for users who are coming from older versions of windows

google needs to pull there finger out and vet the adverts as they are allowing so many fake download sites in search results (google itunes, avg or norton and so on with your the "unspoken word" off and you see the results liking to unwanted software sites)
 
guessing much of this comes from WinXP to Win7 refreshes
some corp and personal will run them into the ground before moving on
few going from XP want Win8... to much pain
 
Red Squirrel said:
Windows 8 will eventually go join windows ME and Vista in the special place where bad operating systems go. This place is ruled by Microsoft Bob, the ruler of bad operating systems. :D
Click to expand...

Vista was the best OS Microsoft has ever made.

Vastly improved security with full backwards compatibility, great 64-bit support (Microsoft required that hardware vendors provide 64-bit drivers to claim they support Windows), and it could take advantage of modern GPUs and lots of RAM. Aero glass and the new start menu with start search was a huge improvement over XP's GUI, too.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Vista was the best OS Microsoft has ever made.

Vastly improved security with full backwards compatibility, great 64-bit support (Microsoft required that hardware vendors provide 64-bit drivers to claim they support Windows), and it could take advantage of modern GPUs and lots of RAM. Aero glass and the new start menu with start search was a huge improvement over XP's GUI, too.
Click to expand...

I can't say Vista was the best, but it sure as hell wasn't the worst.
It Truly was the turning point for 64 bit, and if it wasn't for the insane long shutdown times due to caching the ram to the hdds and that freaking pop up that asked your permission anytime anything happened it really would have been embraced a lot better then it did.
I ran it on 2 laptops, all in all not too bad.
 
Vista with service packs trails Windows 7 IMO. I can't really think of anything Windows 7 does worse than Vista.
 
SGA76 said:
I can't say Vista was the best, but it sure as hell wasn't the worst.
It Truly was the turning point for 64 bit, and if it wasn't for the insane long shutdown times due to caching the ram to the hdds and that freaking pop up that asked your permission anytime anything happened it really would have been embraced a lot better then it did.
I ran it on 2 laptops, all in all not too bad.
Click to expand...

It really bothers me that there's a 32 bit version of the Windows 10 technical preview.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Vista was the best OS Microsoft has ever made.

Vastly improved security with full backwards compatibility, great 64-bit support (Microsoft required that hardware vendors provide 64-bit drivers to claim they support Windows), and it could take advantage of modern GPUs and lots of RAM. Aero glass and the new start menu with start search was a huge improvement over XP's GUI, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah true it did have quite a few good technical advancements and 64 bit was a very welcome change. Really I think the issue with Vista is that it was just WAY too bloated for the hardware available at the time, XP actually had the same issue. A proper XP system should at least have 512MB-1gig of ram and 2 cores but OEMs would ship it on PCs with like 64MB of ram and like a P4 single core. No wonder it was bad at the start. The machine was bloody slow right out of the box. They did the same with Vista but it was even worse. You want at least 4-8GB of ram for Vista to run properly and OEMs were shipping it on PCs with like 512MB. Sure, it runs, and it meats the minimum requirements, but add an A/V to the mix and lot of other junk that OEMs like to throw in then try to do anything productive and it will just choke.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Yeah true it did have quite a few good technical advancements and 64 bit was a very welcome change. Really I think the issue with Vista is that it was just WAY too bloated for the hardware available at the time, XP actually had the same issue. A proper XP system should at least have 512MB-1gig of ram and 2 cores but OEMs would ship it on PCs with like 64MB of ram and like a P4 single core. No wonder it was bad at the start. The machine was bloody slow right out of the box. They did the same with Vista but it was even worse. You want at least 4-8GB of ram for Vista to run properly and OEMs were shipping it on PCs with like 512MB. Sure, it runs, and it meats the minimum requirements, but add an A/V to the mix and lot of other junk that OEMs like to throw in then try to do anything productive and it will just choke.
Click to expand...


XP was pretty much Windows 2000 with a facelift and a few extra bells and whistles. I once had an OEM laptop with a single core Pentium 4 and 256 MB RAM (or 384, I don't remember) and it ran XP with no problems at all. The only machines I've ever seen really choke on XP were Pentium MMX's and early Pentium 2's (Klamath core) with 128 MB of RAM, those were donations to my high school. A P3 with 256 MB or better of RAM would have been enough to run it well.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Yeah true it did have quite a few good technical advancements and 64 bit was a very welcome change. Really I think the issue with Vista is that it was just WAY too bloated for the hardware available at the time, XP actually had the same issue. A proper XP system should at least have 512MB-1gig of ram and 2 cores but OEMs would ship it on PCs with like 64MB of ram and like a P4 single core. No wonder it was bad at the start. The machine was bloody slow right out of the box. They did the same with Vista but it was even worse. You want at least 4-8GB of ram for Vista to run properly and OEMs were shipping it on PCs with like 512MB. Sure, it runs, and it meats the minimum requirements, but add an A/V to the mix and lot of other junk that OEMs like to throw in then try to do anything productive and it will just choke.
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! And you're wrong, by the way. Vista runs okay on 1GB and very well on 2GB. Between 2 and 4, there's almost no noticable difference. I know because I've got like a laptop with Vista still installed and I tried installing it on a netbook with only 512MB which was then upgraded to 1GB (because 512MB really is sooo slow with Vista) and finally 2GB just a couple months ago before I put Linux Mint on it. :) The 8GB you're citing would have made no difference at all as most copies of Vista that were shipped were 32-bit where 3.5GB was the most the OS would even recognize. This was 2007-2009 after all.

Here's some supporting evidence and stuff from Anandtech's benchmarking of Vista with various amounts of RAM and they did while testing out ReadyBoost:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2163/6

Also, yeah, your XP memory requirements are like way off as well.
 
illumined said:
XP was pretty much Windows 2000 with a facelift and a few extra bells and whistles. I once had an OEM laptop with a single core Pentium 4 and 256 MB RAM (or 384, I don't remember) and it ran XP with no problems at all. The only machines I've ever seen really choke on XP were Pentium MMX's and early Pentium 2's (Klamath core) with 128 MB of RAM, those were donations to my high school. A P3 with 256 MB or better of RAM would have been enough to run it well.
Click to expand...

I recall building a 200 MMX and being like WOW this is awesome, then in a couple months it seemed I was pissed at intel because they made a huge upgrade the next go around :eek: and that was NOT a cheap CPU when they came out.
 
ToddW2 said:
I recall building a 200 MMX and being like WOW this is awesome, then in a couple months it seemed I was pissed at intel because they made a huge upgrade the next go around :eek: and that was NOT a cheap CPU when they came out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my home went from a 486 DX2 to one of those, a big improvement. But I always salivated over the Pentium 2's for years, even after the Pentium 3 came out. Unfortunately being a kid without money I couldn't act on that impulse. Eventually I did catch up to the technology curve with my P4 laptop, but by then time had left the much desired P2 in the dust.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! And you're wrong, by the way. Vista runs okay on 1GB and very well on 2GB. Between 2 and 4, there's almost no noticable difference. I know because I've got like a laptop with Vista still installed and I tried installing it on a netbook with only 512MB which was then upgraded to 1GB (because 512MB really is sooo slow with Vista) and finally 2GB just a couple months ago before I put Linux Mint on it. :) The 8GB you're citing would have made no difference at all as most copies of Vista that were shipped were 32-bit where 3.5GB was the most the OS would even recognize. This was 2007-2009 after all.

Here's some supporting evidence and stuff from Anandtech's benchmarking of Vista with various amounts of RAM and they did while testing out ReadyBoost:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2163/6

Also, yeah, your XP memory requirements are like way off as well.
Click to expand...

lol running well on it's own means nothing. A computer OS is made to actually run programs. Try running Photoshop, Firefox, have an Antivirus and antyspyware program running, a backup job running, a couple excel spreadsheets and multitude of other programs opened. Now try using that computer.

What Microsoft puts as the minimum requirements is simply what it will even let the OS run at. Anything lower and it wont even run because it will be hard coded to say that it can't. You can't go by minimum requirements to say whether or not something will "run fine".

I ran win7 with 4GB of ram once because I was troubleshooting and pulled out all the other sticks. Was it usable? Not really. As soon as I'd try to open too many things I'd start getting low memory warnings.

But if all you do is surf Facebook all day, then by all means XP or Visa will run on a piece of crap machine.
 
Red Squirrel said:
lol running well on it's own means nothing. A computer OS is made to actually run programs. Try running Photoshop, Firefox, have an Antivirus and antyspyware program running, a backup job running, a couple excel spreadsheets and multitude of other programs opened. Now try using that computer.

What Microsoft puts as the minimum requirements is simply what it will even let the OS run at. Anything lower and it wont even run because it will be hard coded to say that it can't. You can't go by minimum requirements to say whether or not something will "run fine".

I ran win7 with 4GB of ram once because I was troubleshooting and pulled out all the other sticks. Was it usable? Not really. As soon as I'd try to open too many things I'd start getting low memory warnings.

But if all you do is surf Facebook all day, then by all means XP or Visa will run on a piece of crap machine.
Click to expand...


I did run Firefox and some other stuff on my XP laptop, and it ran pretty smooth. I don't buy computers to be desk ornaments, I buy them to do stuff with, sometimes more than one thing at once. The minimum requirement for XP was only 128 MB, and from what I've seen that certainly isn't enough. But 384 MB or even 256 MB are plenty. Windows systems often run well with double the minimum memory requirement.

As for why 4GB isn't enough on Windows 7, I'd say there's something else going on there. If you try and run several programs that independently need 1+ GB of memory each at the same time you're going to run into this problem regardless of what your OS is.
 
Red Squirrel said:
lol running well on it's own means nothing. A computer OS is made to actually run programs. Try running Photoshop, Firefox, have an Antivirus and antyspyware program running, a backup job running, a couple excel spreadsheets and multitude of other programs opened. Now try using that computer.

What Microsoft puts as the minimum requirements is simply what it will even let the OS run at. Anything lower and it wont even run because it will be hard coded to say that it can't. You can't go by minimum requirements to say whether or not something will "run fine".

I ran win7 with 4GB of ram once because I was troubleshooting and pulled out all the other sticks. Was it usable? Not really. As soon as I'd try to open too many things I'd start getting low memory warnings.

But if all you do is surf Facebook all day, then by all means XP or Visa will run on a piece of crap machine.
Click to expand...

Meh, I agree that MS was pretty unrealistic with Vista and XP's minimum requirements and that they did set limits in software to prevet an OS from installing if there's not enough memory to meet those requirements, but 7 and 8.x are workable with 1GB and that is the modern minimum. It's not great, but it's okay for day to day junk and 2GB is more than enough for lotsa non-gaming workloads. I've personally never really felt like I needed more than 4GB and while I've got a laptop with 4GB, I'm pretty happy with the netbook I'm using right now that has 2GB running Linux Mint and don't really turn on the big comptuer very often unless I have some kinda reason to need a Windows OS or MS Office suite.

I do really think that if you're running into out of memory messages with 7 and 4GB, that something is wrong with the software you're using. Also, Photoshop works okay on 2GB with anti-malware and other junk running. Admittedly, there's a little more memory demand in the typical company or business setting since enterprise software packages include junk like HBSS and really dumb McAfee/Symantec AV suites along with lots of other background chores. In that kinda setting, I'd think 4GB would be more useful. I've also seen horribad huge Excel spreadsheets that needed crazy-cakes amounts of RAM,but they only existed because people were too dumb to put stuff into a database which would have supported their needs lots better.
 
illumined said:
I look at how shockingly little market penetration Windows 8 has in a captive market, and then I look at the billions in losses they're racking up from their Surface tablet and I have to wonder how much longer they can still in business. I get they're a big company and that gives them a lot of inertia, but there's only so much they can take......
Click to expand...
Yes the Surface and Windows 8 sure are going to put the nail in the coffin of MS, who are still making the majority of their revenue from Office and Windows Server/SQL Server.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top