Five Reasons why Windows 8 will be dead on arrival


Recommended Posts

Summary: Microsoft?s Windows 8 and Vista will have several things in common: Both are unwanted operating system updates that will flop in the marketplace.

metro.png

Windows 8's Metro: The face of a DOA operating system.

Some of my die-hard Windows friends are very excited by Windows 8 arrival later this year. Others fear that Windows 8 will be a repeat of Microsoft?s Vista disaster. Me? I know Windows 8 will be a Vista-sized fiasco.

Before jumping into why I think far more PC users will still be running Windows 7 in 2016 than Windows 8, let me explain that while I prefer Linux as my desktop operating system, I don?t see Windows 8 charge into a brick wall as being a pro-Linux or anti-Microsoft issue.

In fact, as desktop operating systems go, I rather like Windows 7. Yes, really. Besides, it?s not like Windows 8?s forthcoming failure will help desktop Linux. Looking back, when Vista flopped, in the long run it actually hurt desktop Linux. That?s because Vista?s failure, combined with the threat of netbooks, caused Microsoft to revive Windows XP. If Windows 8 goes down the same path, I?m sure Microsoft will extend Windows 7?s lifespan.

So, why is Windows 8 destined to be a non-starter? Simple:

1. No one needs Windows 8 on the desktop.

Quick: Name one thing about Windows 8 that they don?t already get from Windows 7-or a great desktop Linux like Mint or Mac OS X Lion? I can?t.

Indeed, I can?t think of a single significant new improvement in Windows 8. The ability to refresh the operating system? Faster booting? A Windows Store? Live boot from a USB drive? Come on! All these features have been around in other operating systems for years, and while sure, they?re nice, put them all together and at most they?re worth a Windows 7 Service Patch?not a whole new operating system.

2. Metro: An ugly, useless interface.

As everyone knows, Windows 8 has a totally new default interface: Metro. When I look at Metro, however, I see gaudy colors, boxy designs, applications that can either run as a small tile or as full screen with no way to resize or move windows. Where have I seen this before? Wait, I know! Windows 1.0!

More to the point, almost everyone knows the current Windows interface. It?s changed over the years, but you could take someone who last touched Windows back in the Windows 95 days and drop that in front of them of Windows 7 and they?d be able to get work done. Metro? It?s entirely different. Heck, Microsoft has even dropped the Start button in the latest version!

In short, even if Metro was the best thing since sliced bread, which it isn?t, it will still require users to learn a new way of doing the same old thing. That?s a failure of an idea right here. Sure, you can use the ?Classic? desktop experience instead, but hey, I have an idea! Why not just use the Windows XP or 7 ?classic? interface instead?

3. Where are the Windows 8 Applications?

The Windows 8 Consumer Preview (read Windows 8 public beta) will be here real soon now and we still don?t know next to anything about Windows 8?s applications. As Mary Jo Foley recently pointed out we still don?t even know whether Office 15 will be Metro, non-Metro, or partially Metro.

Seriously? Windows 8 will probably be out by this fall and we still don?t know jack about its apps? Not even Microsoft?s own flagship office application? Come on! How can you take this operating system seriously?

4. Vexed Windows developers.

If you?re unhappy about the state of Metro applications, think about the poor Windows programmers. You?ve spent years learning .NET, Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) and Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), and now they have to learn WinRT and Jupiter/XAML.

Even developers who like WinRT give it ?complements? like ?It?s a great time to get involved with WinRT, as the platform is still in its infancy, and will need a lot of developer support to build even more robust tools.? Really? That comment was made in January 2012, and the development tools are still in diapers!?

Last, but not least, Windows developers will need rewrite their Metro apps for the more traditional Windows-style desktop. Oh, and they?ll also need to build them for both x86 and ARM platforms. That?s a heck of a lot of work to do without a lot of time to do it in. Put it all together and I see little chance about Windows 8 having many mature, ready-to-run applications come launch day.

Heck, Brandon Watson, head of developer experiences for Windows Phone, just left Microsoft for Amazon?s Android-based Kindle team Think he might know something?

This reminds me, what do you call an operating system without developers or applications? The answer? Dead.

5. Too little, too late for the smartphone/tablet market

Metro?s real point, of course, isn?t for desktop users. It?s Microsoft?s last gasp attempt to be a player on tomorrow?s computers: smartphones and tablets. If Microsoft was bringing something truly revolutionary to mobile devices, or they were still able to strong-arm original equipment manufacturers (OEM)s into loading Windows on their devices, I think they?d have a shot at the mobile space. Neither is true.

Smartphones are a dog fight between Android and iOS. Tablets did belong to Apple, but now Samsung, Amazon and Barnes & Noble are giving the iPad a fight for the tablet marketplace. Android and iOS are mature, have enormous developer communities and are wildly popular. Heck, if you count smartphones, thanks to the iPhone Apple is now the number one ?PC? vendor in the world.

On top of that, the U.S. phone carriers have no interest in a Windows Phone. Too old, too slow Microsoft is arriving much too late to the 2010s style of mobile computing to be a significant player and that means Windows 8 Metro won?t find an audience either. I see no room left for a major third-party platform. A minor player, like KDE or Ubuntu? Sure. A Microsoft? No.

Add it up. The majority of Windows users have only just switched over from XP to Windows 7 in, at best, November 2011. Microsoft is now asking for its users to switch to a platform with no significant improvements, a radically different interface, and which is very likely to have few applications. The result? Window 8 will be dead on arrival.

Source

Did you all not read the article. He clearly states a Windows 8 failure, could actually hurt linux.

Yes, really. Besides, it?s not like Windows 8?s forthcoming failure will help desktop Linux. Looking back, when Vista flopped, in the long run it actually hurt desktop Linux. That?s because Vista?s failure, combined with the threat of netbooks, caused Microsoft to revive Windows XP. If Windows 8 goes down the same path, I?m sure Microsoft will extend Windows 7?s lifespan.

He has very valid points, I agree with them. Metro ISN'T here to stay, it's a bold move for something that in 10 years will be non-existant. I don't see Windows 8 even coming close to the Windows 7 success. I see Windows 8 being like Windows Vista, not very popular, easily out shined, and nothing more than a gimmick

  • Like 2

He has very valid points, I agree with them. Metro ISN'T here to stay, it's a bold move for something that in 10 years will be non-existant. I don't see Windows 8 even coming close to the Windows 7 success. I see Windows 8 being like Windows Vista, not very popular, easily out shined, and nothing more than a gimmick

Would love to see you eat the dirt if it's nothing like you claim it'll be. :)

  • Like 2

To be fair I shouldn't really bother refuting this as it seems like a troll article, but a few little points.

1) Service Packs are for servicing, not adding new features. All those things he mention are new features, and features cost time and money! There's also little things like, oh, say, built in Anti-Virus, super quick booting, rewritten networking stacks, a reduction in base memory usage by about 100MB +, etc. There's plenty of desktop improvements going on here. That's like saying, what's the point in 7 over Vista? All it did was a nice coat of paint and a little memory reduction :p

3) Being developed, duh. Also, every single Windows 7 application out there.

4) WinRT & XAML is extremely close to Silverlight, which is turn shares a lot with WPF. C++ & DirectX are still C++ & DirectX, and WinRT basically encompasses large parts of .NET And all those skills they have? They can use them to still develop traditional desktop applications. This is one of the MOST annoying assumptions about Windows 8 - that every application for now on has to be made in Metro. They don't @___@

To be fair I shouldn't really bother refuting this as it seems like a troll article, but a few little points.

1) Service Packs are for servicing, not adding new features. All those thins he mention are new features, features cost time and money eh :p

3) Being developed, duh. Also, every single Windows 7 application out there :p

4) WinRT & XAML is extremely close to Silverlight, which is turn shares a lot with WPF. C++ & DirectX are still C++ & DirectX, and WinRT basically encompasses large parts of .NET. :p. And all those skills they have? They can use them to still develop traditional desktop applications.

This is one of the MOST annoying assumptions about Windows 8 - that every application for now on has to be made in Metro. They don't @___@

What would you expect from someone running OSS blog? Candy? :rolleyes:

I disagree - I say Metro UI is the new Ultimate Extras.

Ultimate Extras was a half baked idea they never finished nor concentrated on, designed for only for 1 of editions of Windows.

Metro is a fundamental concept in this upgrade that's part of every single edition of Windows, and already has had significant development resources put into, and something that Microsoft are actively pushing and encouraging developers to look at, and eventually they'll be doing the same for end users. It's quite unlike Ultimate Extras.

  • Like 3

Oh look, this a new record for Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. This is the worst he has written.

A lot of points he make doesn't even make sense. Saying there is no improvement...other OS have had it for years...Interface is not for PC...we know nothing about Office's interface.

I find no relation, and he cant make sense even if his life depended on it.

He has been bashing Microsoft for years, and exaggerating and making lies about them. He doesn't get them, and think he's cool for hating on Microsoft.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      505
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      195
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!