Taking bets on when Windows Technical Preview exceeds Windows 8 market share
LOL...that would be epic!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Taking bets on when Windows Technical Preview exceeds Windows 8 market share
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.
Taking bets on when Windows Technical Preview exceeds Windows 8 market share
Taking bets on when Windows Technical Preview exceeds Windows 8 market share
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?
Taking bets on when Windows Technical Preview exceeds Windows 8 market share
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.
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.
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......
Why...why do you do this to yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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... :/
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.
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.
Why...why do you do this to yourself.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 and that was NOT a cheap CPU when they came out.
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.
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.
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.
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.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......