88 posts in this topic

Posted

The recent revelation that Start Menu replacements have been downloaded over 8 million times, and the majority of those a paid $5 app is an incredibly high number. If a new desktop OS sold 8 million copies it would be considered a success in a market completely dominated by Microsoft and Windows.

Windows 8 clearly has flaws in the Modern UI, significant (non-TAPplet applications are non-existent) and it will be almost a year before Microsoft begins to fix flaws and answer critics demands for improvement.

Yet despite no buzz, lackluster sales, no major applications or games, pitiful Windows RT sales, users have no option other than to wait for Blue or stay with Windows 7.

Yet do Start Menu replacements show that desktop users ARE willing to purchase an alternative UI. Is the problem therefore then, despite years of opportunity to develop their OSes and applications, the fact that millions still wait for Windows 8 to be fixed or remain with Windows 7 an indictment of OS X and Linux? Open Office, GIMP, lack of gaming support, etc. In the case of OS X what many view as a less productive windowing/multitasking (yes its arguable but we're talking about users who have already chosen Windows) and a closed hardware (read, no clones) environment.

Given the competitions refusal to address the needs of hundreds of millions, perhaps Microsoft deserves a second chance to fix the things that ail Windows 8, and perhaps developers deserve just a little more time to produce meaningful Modern UI apps when the OS makes that more reasonable to do (Blue).

Let's face it, Apple has a golden opportunity to widen it's lead and leave WP8 and Microsoft's pitiful opening tablet initiative in the dust. Yet iOS remains stagnant. The introduction of cheaper iPhones is a perfect time to refresh the UI and add even more capabilities. Yet, nothing. Android is going to more or less stay the same, wide open, and will probably always be ~40% of the market without doing anything particularly great. Though technically the OS just supports a lot of cool stuff.

So, what's your take on this perspective? If Windows 8 isn't all that great, how bad does that make everyone else who cannot capitalize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yet despite no buzz, lackluster sales, no major applications or games, pitiful Windows RT sales, users have no option other than to wait for Blue or stay with Windows 7.

that's a complete fabrication. sales of windows 8 are not even close to lackluster(100 million in 6 months), and there are a bunch of major apps last time I checked.

threads with deliberate misinformation should be closed.

13 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yet do Start Menu replacements show that desktop users ARE willing to purchase an alternative UI. Is the problem therefore then, despite years of opportunity to develop their OSes and applications, the fact that millions still wait for Windows 8 to be fixed or remain with Windows 7 an indictment of OS X and Linux?

Consider this:

If the supporters of Windows 8 are right in saying the critics of Metro just don't like change, then they surely wouldn't like to change to OS X or Linux, either. In which case it wouldn't be an indictment of those operating systems anymore than its an indictment of Windows 8.

OK, I'm not saying I agree with that.

There are people on this forum who use both Linux and Windows. Those people are obviously not afraid of change. But what about the average Joe user, who was convinced by some techie in their family to install Start8? Why is there only one type of user we're talking about and one type of answer?

I should state that I'm skeptical about what the download numbers mean. The Stardock CEO says there have been four million downloads (not purchases, but downloads), but the "Try it free!" link on Stardock's site goes to CNET and that only shows 450,000 downloads. So are we to assume that most average users bought right away rather than try it free first? It makes no sense to me. And why didn't the CEO cite purchases, not downloads? Who knows.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yet despite no buzz, lackluster sales, no major applications or games, pitiful Windows RT sales, users have no option other than to wait for Blue or stay with Windows 7.

Sure they do, assuming for the sake of argument that a previous build of Windows or another OS isn't an option, which obviously isn't true. If the start screen bothers them that badly there's a number of replacements they can put on instead, some free, some paid. You can even get the actual Windows 7 shell in seconds right off the Windows 7 ISO if you so desired. "Problem" solved. Yea, change can suck sometimes, but it's not like you're stuck with it, and they can't possibly cater to everybody. It's just an out of the box default... it's not like you're forced to use it and they'll cut you off if you don't want to. (Nothing new.. you could change this since the last century...) Some people ranted on about Vista and 7's start menu, should have stuck with XP's menu. There's even a few that lamented the loss of the 9x/2K style. Honestly wouldn't surprise me to see somebody wanting Program Manager back. So should Microsoft be crucified for not giving all these options out of the box?

So, what's your take on this perspective? If Windows 8 isn't all that great, how bad does that make everyone else who cannot capitalize?

Just my own opinion of course, but if you're the type who's offended by the start screen, replace it, and then the desktop experience is pretty much identical to 7, along with a few spiffy new features. You never ever have to see a metro application if you so desire. Ok, yea, the default skin is a tad on the fugly/boring side, I won't argue that one, but you can replace that too.

As far as Linux, OSX and other alternatives go... if I wanted to use them, I would be. For me, no. I've got a Hackintosh that I toy with from time to time, and I've been using *Nix long before Linus decided to make a Minix "knockoff". Haven't had any real motivation to switch yet, neither suit my need, and I doubt you'll see much (if any) change in how many people use them. Not bad mouthing them, just lacking in what I need them to do. If I was that afraid of change, I certainly wouldn't switch to a completely "alien" operating system which would be an even bigger change, never mind losing access to the crapton of software that I have to begin with, and that doesn't include games. (Which for me isn't a big issue either way.) If it makes some person feel better "sticking it to the man" by throwing it all away, by all means go for it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yet do Start Menu replacements show that desktop users ARE willing to purchase an alternative UI

No, quite the opposite. This is evidence that users simply do not like/want/need (whichever) change. Their is resistance is so great that they will purchase additional software to make the UI work the way they are used to. They don't want an alternative UI, they want the UI they are accustomed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No interest in using Linux as my primary OS since it's more of a hobbyist thing for me, and I just switched back to Windows from Mac after discovering how much more productive I was in Windows 7 over Mac OS... still waiting for some more refinement to Windows 8 before upgrading (although I do own a copy or Windows 8 Pro)

So based on my experience, I'd say Windows 7 is still the best option out for those who don't want to move to Windows 8 yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Consider this:

I should state that I'm skeptical about what the download numbers mean. The Stardock CEO says there have been four million downloads (not purchases, but downloads), but the "Try it free!" link on Stardock's site goes to CNET and that only shows 450,000 downloads. So are we to assume that most average users bought right away rather than try it free first? It makes no sense to me. And why didn't the CEO cite purchases, not downloads? Who knows.

THIS is the elephant in the room, the free downloads are 400K WHICH includes redownloads and whatever, then once we weed out the people that never bought it (70%) and the people that just uninstalled it once they failed to see any use of it I think we are getting down to an absolute maximum of 50K, probably more realistically around 10K which is normal for any version of windows!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The recent revelation that Start Menu replacements have been downloaded over 8 million times, and the majority of those a paid $5 app is an incredibly high number.

Nobody has sold 8 million copies of anything. Not even close. Like, nowhere near that.

3 of the 8 million were a free app. And most of the 5 million downloads of Start8 were free downloads before they started charging money. This number includes re-downloads, which is particularly important because there have been several versions released. This cumulative total includes all beta versions and updates when you re-downloaded.

Given this, and the fact that Windows 8 has been out for 20 months now (since Win8 Developer Preview)... I'm surprised the number isn't higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

that's a complete fabrication. sales of windows 8 are not even close to lackluster(100 million in 6 months), and there are a bunch of major apps last time I checked.

threads with deliberate misinformation should be closed.

give me a break vcfan. You're a blatant zealot with a complete unwillingness to hear or discuss civilly anything other than anything Microsoft/Windows is nirvana. Anything remotely negative or unflattering about Windows or Microsoft is misinformation or a grand conspiracy theme.

You claim all these major Modern UI apps but list NONE. When those do, they list OneNote MX, and Twitter or IRC tapplets. Those are not Major applications. Office, Photoshop, Visio, Major full blown games, etc. are major applications not tapplets.

100 million licenses is de facto based on the fact that it is the current shipping version of Windows. The number of OEM statements lamenting the lackluster impact Windows 8 has had is more than enough to justify the comment.

Contribute something to the perspective, or do me a favor and just go the **** away and microbate in and all over your own thread.

Nobody has sold 8 million copies of anything. Not even close. Like, nowhere near that.

Understood: The recent revelation that Start Menu replacements have been downloaded over 8 million times.

I'm not sure whether or not they are sold are free is "that" relevant to the desire for them. Though the #1 product, Start8, is a $5 product.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Understood: The recent revelation that Start Menu replacements have been downloaded over 8 million times.

I'm not sure whether or not they are sold are free is "that" relevant to the desire for them. Though the #1 product, Start8, is a $5 product.

I can agree with that - free isn't that relevant. My main point is re-downloads, especially when they have released several beta and non-beta versions over the past year. People are going to upgrade. That's going to seriously inflate the numbers. If you're looking for unique users, this is going to be very misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I can agree with that - free isn't that relevant. My main point is re-downloads, especially when they have released several beta and non-beta versions over the past year. People are going to upgrade. That's going to seriously inflate the numbers. If you're looking for unique users, this is going to be very misleading.

Given that one could argue the majority of Windows 8 sales are de facto as it is the current bundled Windows OS I call it a wash. It's not irrelevant in that eventually Windows 8 will have 200 million in sales, even though it may not be that popular, and if ti's not popular, who knows how many developers will move to WinRT and when?

8 million is a LOT. I bought Start8 early on and paid for it, so it's hasn't been free very long. The sales of start menu replacements is far less relevant than de facto sales of Windows 8. The point is, with that many people willing to stay put, go back to the future, or whatever you want to call it, have no alternative. 8 million people aren't going to OS X or Linux. Haven't they in fact failed more than Windows 8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like the start screen, if you use it for several months, you will notice its clearly a upgrade from the start menu!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

with that many people willing to stay put, go back to the future, or whatever you want to call it, have no alternative. 8 million people aren't going to OS X or Linux. Haven't they in fact failed more than Windows 8?

Depends on what you mean by "fail" and whether or not you see marketshare as the ultimate measure of success for an operating system. Because if you do, then that question is pretty straightforward to answer...yes, they've "failed more". Of course, as far as Macs are concerned it gets a little more complicated since before you get to use it you're forced to buy into the Mac hardware ecosystem as well, where the only products offered are in the upper price categories

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like the start screen, if you use it for several months, you will notice its clearly a upgrade from the start menu!

I agree about the Start Page. After working with it, it's good. To make the legacy Start Menu functional well, or even Start8, it requires configuration as well. I do think the option to put the Start "button" back would be good.

post-59115-0-01733100-1368060214.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think the OP is a little confused as to the meaning of indictment.

The alleged lack of buzz, lackluster sales, paucity of major applications or games, pitiful Windows RT sales, sheer number of users waiting for Blue or staying with Windows 7 would be an indictment of direction Microsoft have taken with Windows 8.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Depends on what you mean by "fail" and whether or not you see marketshare as the ultimate measure of success for an operating system. Because if you do, then that question is pretty straightforward to answer...yes, they've "failed more". Of course, as far as Macs are concerned it gets a little more complicated since before you get to use it you're forced to buy into the Mac hardware ecosystem as well, where the only products offered are in the upper price categories

Good point about having to buy into the Mac hardware ecosystem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The problem, as I've said before, with Linux ever having any chance at being a real competitor for non-nerds on the desktop PC, is a failure in marketing. Most general users don't even know something other than Windows exists, and have only ever heard of Apple as a tool used by rich college students to make movies with. Windows has their foot in the door and has deals with PC manufacturers. On top of that they have television commercials that advertise their product. Why doesn't Canonical try the same thing with Ubuntu on the desktop? Or Redhat with their Linux distribution in a corporate environment (Redhat is a multi-million dollar corporation)? Some Linux distributions are very polished, stable, and have a wide variety of cross-platform software available that enable them to do pretty much anything a Windows computer can do (and in many cases more) besides play certain video games, so it's not like there aren't good products out there, they just fail at actually bringing those products to the consumer market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No offense to anyone but hasn't this topic been discussed to death? I'm not sure there is a one size fits all answer. If there were I feel sure we would have found it by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Windows 8, honestly is designed for a completely CLOUD computing world on touchscreens. that being said, not all systems are or will be necessarily touchscreen systems. Microsoft seems to see the future as touchscreen, on cloud based SAS. I suggest we keep our OEM laptops if we have them.

I just don't think everyone has bought into windows 8. however.. 8.1 could change that depending on what they are bringing to the table

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think the OP is a little confused as to the meaning of indictment.

The alleged lack of buzz, lackluster sales, paucity of major applications or games, pitiful Windows RT sales, sheer number of users waiting for Blue or staying with Windows 7 would be an indictment of direction Microsoft have taken with Windows 8.

hahahaha, touche. But the perspective I've chosen to take on the indictment, or flipping of the script, is that given the above, the fact that those who used to present themselves as a meaningful alternatives to Microsoft/Windows are unable to take advantage of this period of clear confusion and lack of polish by Microsoft.

When the 800lb Gorilla gets back on it's feet, no one can complain about getting steamrolled. Because when they had the Gorilla down, they did nothing.

PS: I'm not so sure Microsoft hasn't taken the right direction with Windows 8. They just released it before it was ready IMO, the core apps still aren't ready for RTM (lol). They will have time to right the ship, because alternatives, have failed to present themselves. That is the indictment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Windows 8, honestly is designed for a completely CLOUD computing world on touchscreens. that being said, not all systems are or will be necessarily touchscreen systems. Microsoft seems to see the future as touchscreen, on cloud based SAS. I suggest we keep our OEM laptops if we have them.

I just don't think everyone has bought into windows 8. however.. 8.1 could change that depending on what they are bringing to the table

"Three screens and a cloud".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No offense to anyone but hasn't this topic been discussed to death? I'm not sure there is a one size fits all answer. If there were I feel sure we would have found it by now.

Actually, Windows 8 aside, being able to fit 90% of the market is one of the great accomplishments of Windows over the years. Perhaps, despite this clear stumble, Microsoft is deserving of patience given that those who should be presenting alternatives, have presenting nothing.

The problem, as I've said before, with Linux ever having any chance at being a real competitor for non-nerds on the desktop PC, is a failure in marketing. Most general users don't even know something other than Windows exists, and have only ever heard of Apple as a tool used by rich college students to make movies with. Windows has their foot in the door and has deals with PC manufacturers. On top of that they have television commercials that advertise their product. Why doesn't Canonical try the same thing with Ubuntu on the desktop? Or Redhat with their Linux distribution in a corporate environment (Redhat is a multi-million dollar corporation)? Some Linux distributions are very polished, stable, and have a wide variety of cross-platform software available that enable them to do pretty much anything a Windows computer can do (and in many cases more) besides play certain video games, so it's not like there aren't good products out there, they just fail at actually bringing those products to the consumer market.

If you took 10 normal users, any level of computer literacy, and put them in front of 2 desktops, one running OpenOffice, the other running Office 2013 or 2010.

How many do you think would choose to use the desktop running OpenOffice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually, Windows 8 aside, being able to fit 90% of the market is one of the great accomplishments of Windows over the years. Perhaps, despite this clear stumble, Microsoft is deserving of patience given that those who should be presenting alternatives, have presenting nothing.

Being able to fit most of the market it's not a Window's accomplishment. Many of you dont seem to remember that Microsoft was truly anticompetitive back in the 90's and the very early 2000's. Of course now it fits most of the industry, most companies never wanted to give other platforms a chance in order to not anger MS, a massive exodus would be unthinkable. MS never had anything to fear since they knew that, for better or worse, Windows always had to be considered as the major player. But make no mistake, that never happened because or merits.

Now, Im not saying Windows is a bad platform. I specially like Windows 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If you took 10 normal users, any level of computer literacy, and put them in front of 2 desktops, one running OpenOffice, the other running Office 2013 or 2010.

How many do you think would choose to use the desktop running OpenOffice?

Next to none, considering Microsoft Office is standard in not only business but education. All 10 would point and laugh at OO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Being able to fit most of the market it's not a Window's accomplishment. Many of you dont seem to remember that Microsoft was truly anticompetitive back in the 90's and the very early 2000's. Of course now it fits most of the industry, most companies never wanted to give other platforms a chance in order to not anger MS, a massive exodus would be unthinkable. MS never had anything to fear since they knew that, for better or worse, Windows always had to be considered as the major player. But make no mistake, that never happened because or merits.

Now, Im not saying Windows is a bad platform. I specially like Windows 7.

This is all true, and I have not forgotten. I do think though, that the OS did evolve based on Merit. DOS competitors and Office competitors got destroyed in an anti-competitive manner. I'm not sure there was ever any real GUI competition, not that I remember anyway.

>> MS never had anything to fear since they knew that, for better or worse, Windows always had to be considered as the major player. But make no mistake, that never happened because or merits.<<

With regards to Windows, I think that's where we are today. And why MS will weather this period and bounce back. But not because alternatives have been steamrolled via anti-competitiveness. Apple, the Linux movement, Chrome/Google OSes, they just aren't bringing anything to the table, er, desktop.

And where they are strong, tablets and phones, they are doing anything to put the nail in MS' coffin during this period of weakness.

Next to none, considering Microsoft Office is standard in not only business but education. All 10 would point and laugh at OO.

We finally agree. Though for different reasons. I actually think Office is just a more polished, easier to use product. I believe it is best in class.

When we tested it with users, they just didn't like it and felt like we downgraded them. It is simply not an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.