292 replies to this topic 3 votes

[AJerman]

smooth3006, on 19 November 2012 - 16:00, said:

the bottom line is every other version of windows sucks. if w8 is another failure for microsoft that's strike 3. zune=failed, wp7=failed, w8=jury still out but not looking good. i honestly couldn't recommend anyone buy w8 if their content with w7.

How does every other version of Windows suck when Windows 7 is fairly unanimously considered to be their best OS ever, and pretty well received among fans of every different OS. Most OS X and Linux users I know would tell you that Windows 7 isn't bad, they just don't like Windows.

And what made you pick those random products to bunch them together and call them 3 strikes? An MP3 player, a phone, and a desktop OS?

[LogicalApex]

threetonesun, on 19 November 2012 - 16:02, said:

Did you read what I wrote? That was for 10.1, this trend didn't continue for future upgrades.

To clarify, Lion (released in 2011) was the first to offer a $29.99 universal upgrade.

Understood better now, thanks.

But my point still remains the same. Why would MS price Windows close to OS X now when they failed to do so in the past?

[fixxxer2013]

AJerman, on 19 November 2012 - 16:04, said:

How does every other version of Windows suck when Windows 7 is fairly unanimously considered to be their best OS ever, and pretty well received among fans of every different OS. Most OS X and Linux users I know would tell you that Windows 7 isn't bad, they just don't like Windows.

And what made you pick those random products to bunch them together and call them 3 strikes? An MP3 player, a phone, and a desktop OS?

me sucked, xp great. vista sucked, w7 great... see the pattern. and zune, wp and w8 all have one thing in common, metro/modern.

[threetonesun]

LogicalApex, on 19 November 2012 - 16:24, said:

Understood better now, thanks.

But my point still remains the same. Why would MS price Windows close to OS X now when they failed to do so in the past?

Because it's what people expect. The number of people out there who will pay $100+ for a OS upgrade without getting new hardware is dwindling. When your phone, game console, and toaster get free updates as long as they're supported, what's the real argument for charging $xxx to upgrade your PC?

This is especially true (for OSX and Windows) if there's no particularly good reason to upgrade, as is the case for most people running Windows 7, or was the case for a lot of people running Snow Leopard.

[AJerman]

smooth3006, on 19 November 2012 - 16:28, said:

me sucked, xp great. vista sucked, w7 great... see the pattern. and zune, wp and w8 all have one thing in common, metro/modern.

Oh wow, two misunderstandings in one small post. Words just don't explain things well sometimes. I see how you meant that now. You meant 1 good 1 bad, I read it as all other versions of Windows sucked, haha. Yeah, they seem to have done a great job of doing that pattern, and W8 looks to follow right along. And I see you were grouping Metro products. I don't like W8, but to be fair, Zune was up against VERY tough competition against the incredibly popular iPod, and WP7 was the first iteration of the overhaul of the MS mobile platform that was long since dead. WP8 seems quite nice to me, and I'm definitely an Android guy. I wouldn't pick it over an Android myself, but I would suggest it over an iPhone to friends that like that kind of simplicity in a smartphone. Though you could be on to something still. Metro feels like it COULD be good... but it's just not. They take an interesting concept, then manage to make it's usability so terrible and make it look so.... aged I suppose you could say. I'd definitely agree that MS needs to give up on Metro, or at least strongly consider redesigning the idea. At least I will give them that it's unique.

[LogicalApex]

threetonesun, on 19 November 2012 - 16:31, said:

Because it's what people expect. The number of people out there who will pay $100+ for a OS upgrade without getting new hardware is dwindling. When your phone, game console, and toaster get free updates as long as they're supported, what's the real argument for charging $xxx to upgrade your PC?

This is especially true (for OSX and Windows) if there's no particularly good reason to upgrade, as is the case for most people running Windows 7, or was the case for a lot of people running Snow Leopard.

Microsoft makes no money from hardware sales in the same manner that Apple does. As a result, they don't have the same ability to subsidize the cost of their OS. The new Windows Store may help give them this leverage, but it is too early to know for certain.

[+Elliott]

spudtrooper, on 19 November 2012 - 14:23, said:

BTW, Windows 8 was designed so you wouldn't have to manage apps. In the developer preview there wasn't a way to close them outside of task manager. Now you can alt-f4 or you can drag them down. Windows 8 was designed so you don't have to do "chrome management" anymore and tasks would be managed/tombstoned/closed by the system.

Maybe you should have just bothered to learn something before you judge something? The forums/world/interwebs have been abuzz with how to approach windows 8 and the basic gestures/functionality that make it easier to use.

By exit, I mean get to the start screen. Not process management.

Your second paragraph perfectly illustrates the problem with Windows 8. Except for Notification Center and the recent apps list (both examples of bad UI), iOS is obvious. Things aren't obscured behind arbitrary gestures or button taps. By and large, Windows Phone is the same way. Windows 8 isn't. That there's a necessity for gesture/pointer guides shows the inherent problem with Windows 8's UX.

[threetonesun]

LogicalApex, on 19 November 2012 - 16:42, said:

Microsoft makes no money from hardware sales in the same manner that Apple does. As a result, they don't have the same ability to subsidize the cost of their OS. The new Windows Store may help give them this leverage, but it is too early to know for certain.

Conversely, Microsoft is making money selling Windows to OEMs for new PCs, while Apple buries that cost in it's hardware. I don't know what Microsoft's financials are, but my guess is Windows upgrades to the home consumer is not a huge market for them.

[Mando]

Shane Nokes, on 17 November 2012 - 03:34, said:

See what I mean Growled. They are not exactly the people you to hold up as a paradigm of knowledge. They often don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

In fact back in the day they wouldn't hire me after I corrected a Geek Squad manager who was talking about a PC that was in there. He said it had to be some sort of custom one-off custom built PC that they wouldn't know how to fix.

It simply had a BTX motherboard in it...which while rare isn't any different to work on than an ATX board for the most part. I pointed that out and he was ****ed that I knew something he didn't. That interview ended quickly.

LOL we have the same issue in the UK with PC Worlds "Geek squad" my mate applied for a job with them, hed just finished an HND in computing support, he didnt even get an interview because....they claimed he was overqualified LMFAO.

they used to claim to be Intel certified..........hehehe that always cracked me up in their adverts! Im dyson certified
I wouldnt let PCWorld staff tinker with a V-tech my first laptop never mind an actual PC!

[Mando]

threetonesun, on 19 November 2012 - 17:15, said:

Conversely, Microsoft is making money selling Windows to OEMs for new PCs, while Apple buries that cost in it's hardware. I don't know what Microsoft's financials are, but my guess is Windows upgrades to the home consumer is not a huge market for them.

A drop in the ocean compared to their real market, corporate is where MS make their dough.

[threetonesun]

Mando, on 19 November 2012 - 17:24, said:

A drop in the ocean compared to their real market, corporate is where MS make their dough.

Right, where they're still trying to push Windows 7.

[MorganX]

PGHammer, on 19 November 2012 - 14:40, said:

Generalized search (outside of application searches) is no different really than it was in Windows 7 - the issue is hooking applications into it If an application (regardless of what API it uses) is going to hook into Search, it needs a *how*. (I've so far not seen how applications would - or even could - hook into Search in Windows 7, let alone previous versions of Windows. Hooking into Search in Windows 8, on the other hand, is better defined, though actual USE of the methodology by apps and applications is slapdash. That does indeed need fixing.)

Better applications/apps for RT are indeed needed - I'm not disputing that. (If anything, I stipulated it.) However, what is the incentive for the *developer* to abandon Win32 for WinRT (in terms of API)? If anything, there's a disincentive, due to the WinRT API not being supported by Windows 7 or earlier. The results so far (from Win32 developers) are half-baked RT apps (Kindle for RT) or no RT apps at all. The few RT apps that are worth anything aren't coming from developers with Win32 histories.

It's the presentation of unified results that is far superior in Windows 7 IMO.

[scaramonga]

LogicalApex, on 19 November 2012 - 02:57, said:

How can this be? There is something you don't like about Windows 8? I didn't think that was possible...

Just when I was beginning to think you were a Microsoft controlled drone...

lol! he better watch or he'll be leaving the same exit as Mr Sinofsky.

[Joni_78]

Well the good news is that Windows 9 will hit the stores much sooner than usual if Windows 8 is a failure.

[Lord Method Man]

Joni_78, on 19 November 2012 - 21:11, said:

Well the good news is that Windows 9 will hit the stores much sooner than usual if Windows 8 is a fail.

Failure, not fail. Fail is a verb. You can't "be" a verb.