Windows 8 RTM one year ago today; we take a look back

This new Start screen infuriated some most users.

It’s been exactly one year since Windows 8 was released to manufacturing by Microsoft. The new OS was supposed to be Microsoft’s bid for relevancy in a “post PC” world, combining the Desktop with the Modern mobile world of tablets.

Windows 8 was an operating system with a lot to prove. It was following in the footsteps of Windows 7, the best selling OS in history, and the OS that most of Microsoft’s customers had fallen in love with. Not only that, but Windows 8 was also bringing massive changes to the desktop, this move also reflected the changes that were happening inside Microsoft itself. So now that we’re one year further, let’s see how Windows 8 has fared.

Despite heavy criticisms from the start, and a slew of analysts, market watchers and even tech journalists yelling that the new OS was doomed to fail, and that Microsoft was falling into irrelevancy, Windows 8 started gaining ground from the moment it was launched.

The radical UI changes, the new app distribution model, the dichotomy and infuriating double personality of Windows 8 all seemed to fade away as users started adopting Microsoft’s latest creation. Adoption rate has been steadily increasing with Windows 8 overtaking Vista a couple of months ago and now accounting for 5.4% of the desktop market. Of course compared to Windows 7 this isn't impressive at all - yet, but for an OS that was supposedly doomed, it’s pretty good.

Windows 8 also heralded the age of the hybrid devices. Microsoft had tried, and partly succeeded in driving its OEM partners to innovate and create new form-factors, designed to take advantage of the dual nature of Windows 8.

Some OEMs have seen success with their new line of devices, while others have faltered, but one thing’s for sure: convertible devices with touch screens are here to stay and that’s mainly because of Windows 8. While this first wave was seen as disappointing by many, advances in both hardware and software are sure to lead to higher quality, better selling devices in the near future.

Microsoft’s newest OS also envisioned a new way for developers to create and distribute apps by launching the Windows Store. This is a whole new way for devs to ensure compatibility and control over all the devices that the apps get installed on, not to mention an easier way to monetize. Even though the Windows Store has recently passed the 100.000 apps mark, the lack of quality and desirable apps is showing that Microsoft still has a lot of work to do before this becomes a success.

So one year later, Windows 8 has changed many things in the desktop market and has ruffled a lot of feathers. It has brought Microsoft’s vision for the future to its users but its dual nature and lack of polish has left many people confused. The new UI was never properly explained and some users have stayed away due to fear of new things. While adoption rates are slowly moving up, the OS has failed to meet Microsoft’s expectations and the first wave of convertible devices have left most people unimpressed.

Windows 8.1 comes with a lot of tweaks, including different tile sizes and gestures.

The good news is that Microsoft is keenly aware of all these issues and is working on fixing them. Windows 8.1, dubbed Blue, is just around the corner being expected to RTM very soon. The update to the OS brings some much needed polish, improved UI, better controls on the Modern side of the OS and it also brings some features that Microsoft’s customers have been asking for such as boot to desktop.

Will Windows 8.1 reinvigorate the PC market and bring it back to its glory days? Of course not, and whoever expected that doesn't understand how the market works or what people want. However 8.1 will bring polish and improvements and it will finally let the OS shine the way it was meant to from the start.

Images via Net Applications and Lenovo

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Intel to release three Ivy Bridge-E range of CPUs in September

Next Story

Google delaying Exchange ActiveSync for Windows Phone cut off

152 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I really don't see the problem here. With so many third party apps around that can modify w8 to interact any way you want it is easy to enjoy the benefits of W8 with a UI tailored to suit ones own needs. W8 does seem to have more flexibility and operational features than W7 and it is easy to have the best of both worlds.

Windows 8 is just Microsoft's way of getting us to pay for Service Pack. That's is all Windows 8 is...Windows 7 with Service Pack 2 and a radical change. Just my opinion.

I upgraded us at home to Windows 8 just because the offer was so cheap, but we have disabled ALL touch, Metro and Apps, and we've installed Start8.

The more I hear about the way Microsoft is going though, the more I am tempted to go back to Windows 7. We have no use for touchscreen, Apps or The Cloud so Apart from a few bug fixes and tweaks Windows 8.0 is pretty much the same as Windows 7 (just duller looking). But by the sounds of Windows 8.1 things are getting worse rather than better (no we don't use the StartScreen either).

Windows is dumbing down to appeal to the masses, especially the middle managment and geek types.

thehootyowl said,
I upgraded us at home to Windows 8 just because the offer was so cheap, but we have disabled ALL touch, Metro and Apps, and we've installed Start8.

Exists a command (in Powershell) for not only disable all metro apps but to uninstall completely from disk, it saves a lot of space.

Excluding "Metro", the lack of Aero and the funky-ness of Wifi, Windows 8 is a pretty fine OS.

I cannot get over how much people cannot stand the Metro tile screen. Sure, it's a definite learning curve and perhaps MS could've rolled it out a little more slowly for the less adaptable folks out there - but let's face it, if they gave it an on/off switch -- no one would use it, OEMs wouldn't bother or feel forced to accommodate and whatever innovation was intended will disappear --- which will only lead back to the very SAME group of people complaining that MS isn't doing enough to stay relevant. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Reading all of the news here makes me realize two things:

1. I'm one of the very few that is very happy with Windows 8

2. I might be the only person very happy with my Wii U

There's also the possibility that I am very adaptable.

lexp said,
Maybe it's not about adaptability. Maybe it's because a lot of people can tolerate heaps of s__t out there.

Patience and an overall lack of anal retentiveness can go a long way.

And one year later Windows 8 is still failing to take off. Obviously Microsoft doesn't have a damn clue of what people actually want.

yowanvista said,
And one year later Windows 8 is still failing to take off. Obviously Microsoft doesn't have a damn clue of what people actually want.

Mobile computing? Yup, people don't want that. Who are we kidding.

Dot Matrix said,
Mobile computing? Yup, people don't want that. Who are we kidding.
MS aimed at mobile computing and failed at both mobile and desktop. Double footbullet.

Dot Matrix said,
Happy birthday, Windows 8! Here's looking forward to Windows 8.1! Glad Microsoft isn't letting user's fears of change keep them from trying something new. It was much needed if Microsoft was to keep moving forward.
It's all those whiny customers fault. MS is god and we should buy whatever they release even if it's functionally inferior to previous versions in an attempt to integrate touch and desktop UIs, despite the fact that MS's desktop competitors like Apple weren't dumb enough to do the same thing with OS X's UI.

Mobius Enigma said,

Not sure if you are being serious or making a satirical comment.

Anyway, something to note:
After 13 years, OS X finally reached 7% in 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..._share_of_operating_systems

(Windows 8's market share should surpass OS X by September.)

Seriously you dont see this like a FAIL from Microsoft? Im sure that Windows 8 without all metro CRAP would have at least twice marketshare.

Do you really think that Metro CRAP is productive for a company?

ofc im talking only about Microsoft not Apple.

wasd- said,

Seriously you dont see this like a FAIL from Microsoft? Im sure that Windows 8 without all metro CRAP would have at least twice marketshare.

Do you really think that Metro CRAP is productive for a company?

ofc im talking only about Microsoft not Apple.

You tell me. Is iOS productive for business? How about Android?

(BTW, you Caps Lock Key seems to be getting stuck in some parts of your comment, you might want to check it to make sure it's not broken.)

Dot Matrix said,

You tell me. Is iOS productive for business? How about Android?

(BTW, you Caps Lock Key seems to be getting stuck in some parts of your comment, you might want to check it to make sure it's not broken.)

If you want to check your email and news yes, for anything else no.

wasd- said,

Seriously you dont see this like a FAIL from Microsoft? Im sure that Windows 8 without all metro CRAP would have at least twice marketshare.

Do you really think that Metro CRAP is productive for a company?

ofc im talking only about Microsoft not Apple.

So are you arguing that MS should withhold the next set of technologies just to improve initial sales?

Whether anyone likes Windows 8 or not, it was a necessary step for the new frameworks and ways to interact with a computer.

This step was necessary as a release to see where it fails to meet needs to refine the new technologies. (The device driver changes for WinRT for example)

I hate to scare people, but there are a lot of even more 'radial' UI and framework technologies at MS Research that will eventually become a part of future versions of Windows. They will anger and scare users and they will ask for previous version of Windows UI only.

Microsoft didn't even 'take away' the desktop UI, they only 'added' another UI, which is why the backlash this time around is a bit crazier than it was in the Win3.x to Win95 transition timeframe.

MS shouldn't break functionality for desktop users if they want to keep sales. They did anyway and they're paying for it with plummeting PC sales.

They could have introduced the start screen with the functionality suggestions I've made and had far less issues. Even 8.1 would have been a step up. There's no excuse for what they did.

Of course you have to start talking about it in terms of "scared and angry" consumers, as if they're helpless and stupid, rather than "factually recognized reduced functionality and closed wallets".

That's extremely arrogant to assume people will just keep buying Windows no matter what MS does - in fact, Win 8 sales prove they won't, and MS is already capitulating somewhat with Win 8.1. Of course you insult the customer and obstinately refuse to admit it had any issues, or apologize for MS.

Neowin, the business sense Twilight Zone, where people encourage MS to keep doing things that will put it out of business.

startscreennope said,
MS shouldn't break functionality for desktop users if they want to keep sales. They did anyway and they're paying for it with plummeting PC sales.

They could have introduced the start screen with the functionality suggestions I've made and had far less issues. Even 8.1 would have been a step up. There's no excuse for what they did.

Of course you have to start talking about it in terms of "scared and angry" consumers, as if they're helpless and stupid, rather than "factually recognized reduced functionality and closed wallets".

That's extremely arrogant to assume people will just keep buying Windows no matter what MS does - in fact, Win 8 sales prove they won't, and MS is already capitulating somewhat with Win 8.1. Of course you insult the customer and obstinately refuse to admit it had any issues, or apologize for MS.

Neowin, the business sense Twilight Zone, where people encourage MS to keep doing things that will put it out of business.

Again, you don't speak for everybody. Your opinions are not fact.

I've been using Windows 8 in various forms for over a year, and none of my usage habits were changed from Windows 7.

Dot Matrix said,

Again, you don't speak for everybody. Your opinions are not fact.

I've been using Windows 8 in various forms for over a year, and none of my usage habits were changed from Windows 7.

It is a fact that the start screen removed functionality that was in the start menu. Many users were affected by these changes. It's also a fact that Win 8 sold poorly as a result. Sorry if you can't come to terms with the facts.

startscreennope said,
It is a fact that the start screen removed functionality that was in the start menu. Many users were affected by these changes. It's also a fact that Win 8 sold poorly as a result. Sorry if you can't come to terms with the facts.

What functionality? There's still an all apps screen, and you can still pin apps - all the functionality the Start Menu had - and more!

Dot Matrix said,

What functionality? There's still an all apps screen, and you can still pin apps - all the functionality the Start Menu had - and more!

In the thread you love to hate.

Dot Matrix said,

Again, you don't speak for everybody. Your opinions are not fact.

I've been using Windows 8 in various forms for over a year, and none of my usage habits were changed from Windows 7.

The marketshare is a fact. Windows 8 was and its a FAIL like Vista was.

Windows 8 was the first version to be sold at 39$ and even with that price any other OS has sold more

People DONT want crappy apps with ads on the desktop. They said that start menu was deleted because has no functionality and because they made an study that says that we dont use it!

No functionality? I can do THE SAME that the Metro UI without leave my desktop.

For the love of god, why they dont make a new study and check how many people actually use apps?

startscreennope said,
MS is totally innocent in all this, it's those damn consumers fault for not buying MS products.

Irony mode ON right?

wasd- said,

The marketshare is a fact. Windows 8 was and its a FAIL like Vista was.

Windows 8 was the first version to be sold at 39$ and even with that price any other OS has sold more

People DONT want crappy apps with ads on the desktop. They said that start menu was deleted because has no functionality and because they made an study that says that we dont use it!

No functionality? I can do THE SAME that the Metro UI without leave my desktop.

For the love of god, why they dont make a new study and check how many people actually use apps?

Was Vista a failure? Sure it didn't gain much share, but the technologies it brought, we still use and enjoy today. I can't make much sense from your comment since it's mostly rambling.

Dot Matrix said,

Was Vista a failure? Sure it didn't gain much share, but the technologies it brought, we still use and enjoy today. I can't make much sense from your comment since it's mostly rambling.

hahaha You are comparing the jump from XP(2001) to Vista(2006) with Windows 7(2009) and Windows 8(2012)?

From 2001 to 2006 changed a lot of hardware, cpus went dual, new formats, hard drives size x10 etc.. what notable changes have been since 2009 hardware related?

Tell me what you do in Windows 8(technologies you said) that i cant in Windows 7

wasd- said,

hahaha You are comparing the jump from XP(2001) to Vista(2006) with Windows 7(2009) and Windows 8(2012)?

From 2001 to 2006 changed a lot of hardware, cpus went dual, new formats, hard drives size x10 etc.. what notable changes have been since 2009 hardware related?

Tell me what you do in Windows 8(technologies you said) that i cant in Windows 7

Work with new methods of input (touch, Leap Motion), ARM computing on Windows, mobile computing.

Dot Matrix said,

Work with new methods of input (touch, Leap Motion), ARM computing on Windows, mobile computing.

Oh yes. Lets change and remove the start menu from all Windows 8 versions from now only for the tablets.

Good move

People have been saying that functionality was broken by the Start menu's excision - give me details. What functionality got broken?

Have you NOT heard me state - repeatedly - that I took ALL my desktop applications with me from Windows 7 to Windows 8 (and now 8.1) except hose mooted by OS-included features? Not one new application I have installed in either Windows 8 OR 8.1 had a thing to do with a feature that 7 had that 8 lacked. Two applications got "fired" - Diskeeper and VirtualCloneDrive - however, both were mooted by OS_included features that had nothing to do with the Start menu or StartScreen. (Further, both were third-party applications; Diskeeper and I go back over a decade, and I specifically warned Condusiv (originally Executive Software, and later Diskeeper Corporation) that Disk Optimizer was a threat. Of course, they knew that - they WROTE Disk Optimizer for Microsoft. Still, I warned them anyway.) The issues you are complaining about are very much USER-SPECIFIC issues; I have not heard so much as a single user go into any detail about how the Start menu being gone is anything more than it being different. Desktop (as in Win32) applications don't care whether the Start menu is there or not! I have not had so much as ONE application from Windows 7 fail to install on either Windows 8 OR Windows 8.1 because the Start menu was gone. Therefore, it's a user issue - NOT an application issue. Win16 application installers was a bigger issue (in terms of the migration from x32 to x64) - that was barely a pothole. Guess what - every workaround for THAT issue still works - even in Windows 8.1 Pro x64. Amount of dependency on the Start menu - none.

Please - you realize you could boot the Start menu from versions of Windows PRIOR to 8, don't you? Not just some versions of Windows between 9x and 8, but every version of Windows - including 9x. Windows NT 3.x included the same UI as Windows 3.x (same UX as well) - Program Manager was the default shell with NT 3.x. The adoption of the Start menu was initially, in fact, resisted in some quarters, and not just with 9x, but even with NT 4.0 - both kicked Program Manager to the curb as the default shell. You could, however, bring it back. That is yet another reason why it is user resistance - not any application-related issue.

PGHammer said,
Please - you realize you could boot the Start menu from versions of Windows PRIOR to 8, don't you? Not just some versions of Windows between 9x and 8, but every version of Windows - including 9x. Windows NT 3.x included the same UI as Windows 3.x (same UX as well) - Program Manager was the default shell with NT 3.x. The adoption of the Start menu was initially, in fact, resisted in some quarters, and not just with 9x, but even with NT 4.0 - both kicked Program Manager to the curb as the default shell. You could, however, bring it back. That is yet another reason why it is user resistance - not any application-related issue.

The start menu when was added in Windows brought us new options, new accessibilities and things that we could not.

What brought us the new menu? Applications that 95% are **** with ads and nothing more.

And is largely true of ModernUI's competition - namely Android and IOS. Further, the criticism of ModernUI (and the StartScreen) is that it replaced the Start menu - pretty much period. Android and iOS do have more apps; however, a greater number of them - in terms of percentage and absolute numbers - are not only crap, but also ad-festooned. (Part of that "monetization of mobile" that has been bruited about everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to REUTERS - that was, in fact, why Facebook's IPO originally tanked; concern over mobile. Notice how it has rebounded over increased ad revenues - mostly from mobile.) I think that some of you enjoy predicting gloom and doom about Microsoft a bit too much - you are letting your desire warp your remaining objectivity.

wasd- said,

What brought us the new menu? Applications that 95% are **** with ads and nothing more.

Live tiles? Better organization? Better adaptability? Better customization? Better readability? Better viability? The list goes on...

Dot Matrix said,

Live tiles? Better organization? Better adaptability? Better customization? Better readability? Better viability? The list goes on...

I agree only with live tiles.

Win8 was not created to replace 7, if it was it would not have been seen until after the 3 year cycle they are set on currently for OS turn around. It is a step in a different direction is all. Go back and read all the stuff leading up to the betas of it right after 7 launched and why they were creating it.. It was created to usher in their new tablets and had nothing to do with the "new OS" cycle they are on. WIn 8 for pc is nothing more than a way to interconnect desktops with all of your mobile gadgets that run 8.

It is also the reason they priced it at $40 for desktop when it went gold.. Because was not created as Win7's replacement but is an interim build..

I still think Windows 8 had its good things. .... Went back to windows 7 a few weeks back.. Never again.


Windows 8 is better in my opinion.

Geranium_Z__NL said,
I still think Windows 8 had its good things. .... Went back to windows 7 a few weeks back.. Never again.

Windows 8 is better in my opinion.

I tried Windows 8.1 preview and it was a really good improvement over the predecessor, I enjoyed the cloud integration (something missing in Windows 7), the more organized configuration, the toolbars, even sometimes it felt more snappy than W7.

But the reason that I went back to Windows 7, wasn't the horrible Metro interface or the Start menu, which started to like in some way. It was some kind of bug.

After some unknown time Windows 8.1 preview became so slow and unresponsive that I literally yelled at the freaking laptop. Then after a lot of frustration looking for a virus or unresponsive program/service; I install Windows 8 and the same problem. Finally (and since I already been erased the Harddisk) I decided to went back to Windows 7, here I'm 2 weeks later without any problem.

But since I'm stubborn enough I think I will try W8.1 again when it come out , just to go back to W7 again LOL.

Doesn't... everyone just yell at their laptop from time to time? ;p

anyway the only bugs I have is not being able to run extremely old games. not even in compability mode. (Red Alert 2~ etc)

Lord Method Man said,
Still not usable in a desktop environment without third party tools. Sorry, not "updating" to this yet.

In what way is it not usable? Serious question.

MikeChipshop said,

Those are improvements that can be made, none of them make it unusable on the desktop.
Every PC and laptop in my company have been upgraded to 8 after i extensively tested it for work throughput and efficiency, and i can honestly say we've had no issues.

Talk functionality and specific features that were removed in the start screen, not "I don't have any problems therefore there are no problems!"

startscreennope said,
Talk functionality and specific features that were removed in the start screen, not "I don't have any problems therefore there are no problems!"

Blah blah blah, you're really on a crusade aren't you?

I said the list you posted were improvements that could be made, i mean ffs that's the title of the thread! At no point did i say if it's ok for me it's ok for everyone but keep making stuff up to satisfy your little agenda.

I've been using Windows 8 since the early beta days. Purchased the licence key once it launched, and used it ever since. I then did the same thing with windows 8.1. These last few months I've spent coding many bug fixes for 8.1 on various tablets, and written a few technet guides for those in enterprise wanting to get toolkits working (hey I like my MS points lol). This lets tablet owners really experience 8.1 as to me, it's a huge upgrade over 8

Now I am running Windows 8.1 on my home PC, home hybrid system, tablet and works PC.

Personally I hate it, but I work in IT so I will use the latest operating system no matter what I personally think. Working in IT, you don't really get a choice. If you don't learn new products you get left behind.

It's frustrates me that the Lync app doesn't work!!! How come the app works fine on iOS and Android yet on Windows 8 it doesn't? Beats me. Seems a common problem looking on technet.

What would have been fantastic is if Microsoft had developed a seperate tablet operating system right from the start. Now they have mobile 8, windows 8 and windows RT. Despite what we all think, it's not selling. When you use a windows tablet, you know it's really a laptop in a tablet case. is that a good or bad thing? I think it's both at the same time.

How many customers do you see in the shops buying windows tablets?

I think to sum up.....a mobile device be it a phone or tablet should be a consumer product like a dvd player, or TV. You power on, use it, and power off. The windows machines are computers, a lot more powerful, way better for productivity, but they are like I say, computers with everything that means within.

I'm not really sure what the answer is

Edited by glen8, Aug 1 2013, 1:14pm :

glen8 said,
I've been using Windows 8 since the early beta days. Purchased the licence key once it launched, and used it ever since. I then did the same thing with windows 8.1. These last few months I've spent coding many bug fixes for 8.1 on various tablets, and written a few technet guides for those in enterprise wanting to get toolkits working (hey I like my MS points lol). This lets tablet owners really experience 8.1 as to me, it's a huge upgrade over 8

Now I am running Windows 8.1 on my home PC, home hybrid system, tablet and works PC.

Personally I hate it, but I work in IT so I will use the latest operating system no matter what I personally think. Working in IT, you don't really get a choice. If you don't learn new products you get left behind.

It's frustrates me that the Lync app doesn't work!!! How come the app works fine on iOS and Android yet on Windows 8 it doesn't? Beats me. Seems a common problem looking on technet.

What would have been fantastic is if Microsoft had developed a seperate tablet operating system right from the start. Now they have mobile 8, windows 8 and windows RT. Despite what we all think, it's not selling. When you use a windows tablet, you know it's really a laptop in a tablet case. is that a good or bad thing? I think it's both at the same time.

How many customers do you see in the shops buying windows tablets?

I think to sum up.....a mobile device be it a phone or tablet should be a consumer product like a dvd player, or TV. You power on, use it, and power off. The windows machines are computers, a lot more powerful, way better for productivity, but they are like I say, computers with everything that means within.

I'm not really sure what the answer is

While I agree that a portable device cannot always substitute a desktop with multiscreens I also disagree with the notion that a mobile device is just and only a consumer product. I have used a laptop for business, again together with a desktop, and when I bought my first Convertible Tablet PC in 2002 I did it to replace my laptop. Basically the new device gave everything my old laptop was capable to do plus, for example, the ability to use my machine the same way I previously used a paper notepad. More than ten years after I have not changed my opinion: still buying Convertible Tablet running W8 Pro.

glen8 said,
Personally I hate it, but I work in IT so I will use the latest operating system no matter what I personally think. Working in IT, you don't really get a choice. If you don't learn new products you get left behind.
At this rate the products you should be learning are Android and iOS.

Well despite all the complaints, I've had a pretty good experience on my desktop and tablets with Windows 8 (and now 8.1). Not perfect, but I think there are some definite improvements over Windows 7, and having tried numerous other options, the experience on a tablet is superior to any other tablet device for my purposes.

Keep the improvements coming!

Has anyone tried to use Windows 7 on a touch device? The experience is ****, Windows 8 greatly improves that, and is still greatly functional with a keyboard and mouse. The only thing that changed was the startmenu, and not much changed their other than how much screen space it takes up.

I think of these time as the awkward teenager phase of computing.

WinMunkee said,
Has anyone tried to use Windows 7 on a touch device? The experience is ****, Windows 8 greatly improves that, and is still greatly functional with a keyboard and mouse. The only thing that changed was the startmenu, and not much changed their other than how much screen space it takes up.

I think of these time as the awkward teenager phase of computing.

For a tablet touch is great but for the desktop it's an ergonomic nightmare I hope you don't have your arm extended to touch the monitor all the time.

The Desktop changed from being the Working Environment to being an App, that's a big change to me.

That would be silly, I use mouse and keyboard for my desktop experience. Windows 8 works flawlessly for that. 8.1 improves on it. Anyone claiming that M+KB doesn't work as well on Windows 8 has their head up their ass.

The market is also very childish. There are people that still don't know how to use Windows XP let alone Windows 8, adapt or get left behind. Let's also not forget, Microsoft is not apple, they innovate and evolve.

Superboy said,

For a tablet touch is great but for the desktop it's an ergonomic nightmare I hope you don't have your arm extended to touch the monitor all the time.

The Desktop changed from being the Working Environment to being an App, that's a big change to me.

Just a note... You do realize you can position your monitor at an angle or on your desk instead of leaving it in a classical Vertical position?

Professionals have been using touch/stylus 'desktop' configurations for a long time:

http://www.graphicstablet.org/...s/2011/03/wacon-cintiq.jpeg

http://www.bongofish.co.uk/wacom/wacom_gfx/19_finis.jpg

I agree holding your arm out in a traditional desktop setup would be silly, which is why it is maybe time people reconsider their 'desktop' workspace to take advantage of newer technologies and work more like engineers and designers do.

startscreennope said,
"is still greatly functional with a keyboard and mouse" No, it's not, and the market has soundly rejected it.

What's not functional about it?

Hopefully the "speedy" release/update cycles they are gearing up for will help. One year on and the product hasn't changed a bit. 8.1 fixes a lot of issues but it should not have taken this long.

This is feeling like Vista when all the OEMs dragged their asses on driver support, fast forward to Win8 and now is app support.

Cyborg_X said,
This is feeling like Vista when all the OEMs dragged their asses on driver support, fast forward to Win8 and now is app support.
Maybe people would write more apps if the marketshare wasn't miserably small.

Happy birthday, Windows 8! Here's looking forward to Windows 8.1! Glad Microsoft isn't letting user's fears of change keep them from trying something new. It was much needed if Microsoft was to keep moving forward.

Vlad Dudau said,
some users have stayed away due to fear of new things

Dot Matrix said,
Glad Microsoft isn't letting user's fears of change keep them from trying something new

Who needs those users anyway?

CSharp. said,

Who needs those users anyway?

No one. Really, I'm serious, no one. If any one company catered to those users, "good enough" would become their modus operandi, and they'd never get anywhere.

"The CLI works, why do we need a GUI to run our machines?", "Windows 95 works, why do we need Windows 98?", "Windows XP works, why do we need Windows Vista or 7?"

See what I'm saying?

Dot Matrix said,

No one. Really, I'm serious, no one. If any one company catered to those users, "good enough" would become their modus operandi, and they'd never get anywhere.

"The CLI works, why do we need a GUI to run our machines?", "Windows 95 works, why do we need Windows 98?", "Windows XP works, why do we need Windows Vista or 7?"

See what I'm saying?

This post exactly. If MS based all decisions on what users said then they'd have not have a business at all.

Dot Matrix said,

No one. Really, I'm serious, no one. If any one company catered to those users, "good enough" would become their modus operandi, and they'd never get anywhere.

"The CLI works, why do we need a GUI to run our machines?", "Windows 95 works, why do we need Windows 98?", "Windows XP works, why do we need Windows Vista or 7?"

See what I'm saying?


No, what you imply is that "changes" are inherently a good, positive thing and this is not true. A change can be for the better or for the worse, what is part of this "change" determines it. Note that I am not stating that W8 was a disaster, just arguing that about the way the mantra of "Change" is used.

Dot Matrix said,
Happy birthday, Windows 8! Here's looking forward to Windows 8.1! Glad Microsoft isn't letting user's fears of change keep them from trying something new. It was much needed if Microsoft was to keep moving forward.
Change = good fallacy - check.
Insult customers business suicide fallacy - check.
False equivalence fallacy comparing complaints about previous Windows to 8 with no technical points - check.

Looks like you hit the fallacious, insulting trifecta. Why do you want MS to fail so badly? You keep reinforcing its business footbullets.

Dot Matrix said,
Happy birthday, Windows 8! Here's looking forward to Windows 8.1! Glad Microsoft isn't letting user's fears of change keep them from trying something new. It was much needed if Microsoft was to keep moving forward.

Let's break this down shall we:
Dot Matrix said,
Glad Microsoft isn't letting user's fears of change

"fear of change" should be read as "personal dislike of or distaste (an "opinion", imagine that) regarding the new paradigm"

Dot Matrix said,
from trying something new

"new" does not necessarily mean "better"

Dot Matrix said,
It was much needed...

Yeah, by MS for their bottom line, NOT the users

Dot Matrix said,
...to keep moving forward

that is one person's opinion of what "forward" really means. Seems the sales and word-of-mouth as it pertains to Windows 8 might be better indicator of how to characterize Windows 8's "progress" thus far.

mzta cody said,

Let's break this down shall we:

"fear of change" should be read as "personal dislike of or distaste (an "opinion", imagine that) regarding the new paradigm"


"new" does not necessarily mean "better"


Yeah, by MS for their bottom line, NOT the users


that is one person's opinion of what "forward" really means. Seems the sales and word-of-mouth as it pertains to Windows 8 might be better indicator of how to characterize Windows 8's "progress" thus far.

What you just said here was once said by some about Windows 95... Jus' saying.

Dot Matrix said,
What you just said here was once said by some about Windows 95... Jus' saying.
False equivalence fallacy comparing complaints about previous Windows to 8 with no technical points - check.

Fritzly said,

No, what you imply is that "changes" are inherently a good, positive thing and this is not true. A change can be for the better or for the worse, what is part of this "change" determines it. Note that I am not stating that W8 was a disaster, just arguing that about the way the mantra of "Change" is used.

If used constructively, most technological 'change' is good, as even failed 'change' can be used to create progress in a different direction.

The OP you are responding to is specifically talking about a progression of technology, not a regression. By generalizing 'change' to include both, it can often be an excuse for not accepting the advancement of technology.

As much as people might dislike the 'next' evolution in OS architecture or UI design theory, it is a necessary step forward. Sometimes the steps forward can be too 'radical', but that still doesn't mean the 'change/progression' was for the worse.

Going back through Microsoft's history, they have been at the forefront of some of the most radical changes, but also have been the reason new technologies do get accepted and become accessible to users.

Things that were radical 20-30 years ago that Microsoft has done are now accepted as the old and normal stuff, even by the anti-Microsoft crowd of users.

With Windows 8.1, you can see where Microsoft sees that some of the changes were too radical and has pulled back for now, by putting back a start button, etc. So they aren't blind to pitfalls of stumbling by trying to take too big of a step.


The changes Microsoft contributed over the years that seem normal now go back as far as Microsoft Basic to Microsoft Word shipping with a Mouse in 1983, a year before Apple's Lisa and two years before the Mac also helped to standardized a Mouse as a part of daily computing.

A mouse seems rather normal now; however, back in 1983, Microsoft and Microsoft Word took a beating in the 'tech' industry and the 'tech' press over the use of a Mouse in Microsoft Word and even for creating a standard PC Mouse interface as purists did not believe it was Microsoft's role as a software company to create a hardware standard. (Notice a similarity here with Windows 8 or Vista, which also were radical architectural, UI/framework changes?)

Although MS Word had some success, the Mouse was such an affront to users (it was seen as a toy) that it pushed more users to WordStar and even helped WordPerfect gain market share traction that was the basis of their dominance in the late 80s.

The self proclaimed 'technical experts' of the time would not use a silly pointing device. (Notice another similarity here with the acceptance of 'touch'?)

However, in retrospect, if it wasn't for the Microsoft Mouse and Microsoft's commitment to Word and Excel on Apple's Macintosh giving it credibility in the business world; computing would look a lot different than it does today because of a push forward in progress, which was positive change.

If end users and the 'hardware' industry didn't have a company like Microsoft driving them forward, a lot of the 'ease' and fundamental technologies we enjoy on a daily basis would simply not exist.

Microsoft is a grown up company, they can take the backlash of progress. However, it would be nice if people didn't get out their pitchforks and cry out in fear like they were being invaded by flying saucers every time Microsoft did push them out of their comfort zone.

Thank you, sir - I was wondering if ANYONE would get that part of the anti-8 angst.
Cyborg_X - A year is too long? How long was it between XP's launch and its first Service Pack? Same question - how long between Vista's launch and the first Service Pack? Between 7 and its first Service Pack? To me it sounds like you are arguing, if anything, no matter how much Microsoft speeds up development, it's still not fast enough. Never mind that development even in terms of Windows on the desktop is faster than Android core development (they still have not really finished the code merge between 2.x and 3.x, since device-specific targeting is still taking place), or even iOS core development (which says a great deal, since iOS is closed-source and targeting known hardware) - oh no, the pace of Windows development is too slow. Please - you would like nothing better than for the pace of Windows development to stop.

Dot Matrix said,

What you just said here was once said by some about Windows 95... Jus' saying.


You keep making analogies with zwindows 95.... but "forget" to mention that its launch generated lines of people in front of stores like CompUSA eager to buy the OS...at midnight.

Fritzly said,

You keep making analogies with zwindows 95.... but "forget" to mention that its launch generated lines of people in front of stores like CompUSA eager to buy the OS...at midnight.

We lived in completely different time now. You just can't compare the two situations.

"Remember, just keep making fallacious false equivalence comparisons between Windows 8 and previous tech complaints, and keep blaming and insulting the customer/user. Don't talk about reduced functionality or removed features or productivity or any specifically removed feature." - Neowin Defense Force Handbook

Neowin, the only tech website where you can get away with calling large groups of people cry babies, stupid, whiners, "angry and afraid cowards who don't like change", etc. - and these are the people who are supposed to be buying the product you're defending!

startscreennope said,
"Remember, just keep making fallacious false equivalence comparisons between Windows 8 and previous tech complaints, and keep blaming and insulting the customer/user. Don't talk about reduced functionality or removed features or productivity or any specifically removed feature." - Neowin Defense Force Handbook

Neowin, the only tech website where you can get away with calling large groups of people cry babies, stupid, whiners, "angry and afraid cowards who don't like change", etc. - and these are the people who are supposed to be buying the product you're defending!

You need help.

Windows 8 gave me the courage to try Linux. These days, I'm happily running Debian and will never go back.

Thanks Microsoft!

COKid said,
Windows 8 gave me the courage to try Linux. These days, I'm happily running Debian and will never go back.

Thanks Microsoft!

I wonder: why? Did Windows 7 stop working?

Windows needed to evolve and Microsoft jumped in with both feet.

They rushed and made a lot of mistakes but in the long run that choice will fade and everything should work out to some degree. A rough ride but they needed to drastically change course. Now they need to sort out the mess and 8.1 is one step of many.

In the next 5 years, people will come around and realise it was all for the better even if right now, things aren't great.

Most desktop users will wait until MS gets its stuff together, and 8.1 isn't nearly there yet.

MS should be less worried about people "coming around and realizing it was for the better" and more worried about "people not buying their OS, phones, tablets, and possibly game consoles".

WooHoo!!! said,
Windows needed to evolve and Microsoft jumped in with both feet.

They rushed and made a lot of mistakes but in the long run that choice will fade and everything should work out to some degree. A rough ride but they needed to drastically change course. Now they need to sort out the mess and 8.1 is one step of many.

In the next 5 years, people will come around and realise it was all for the better even if right now, things aren't great.

it's not that people will realize it was for the better is just that you will not be able to buy a windows 7 machine or license anymore so if no other good competitor rises above windows people will just have to buy windows 8 if they want a new machine. and the sad part is that Microsoft has enough money to wait it out.

Windows 8, no start button. Windows 8.1, start button. I get the impression, what was wanted was a start menu like 7's. Is that the case? If not, fail.

C#Rocks said,
The start menu was like a labyrinth anyway. 1 million clicks to get to the application you want.

and now you get 1 million scrolls so what's your point?

C#Rocks said,
The start menu was like a labyrinth anyway. 1 million clicks to get to the application you want.
It's far easier to find what you need in an unorganized start menu. Start screen "all apps" list can't even be organized from within the start menu, and everything is listed in un-nested, uneven columns.

Windows 8 has more to do with the company's strategy and new internal structure than to be the next operating system. Not only to change their business model but to be into the phones and tablets Market with a single user experience (UI).
That actually makes ALL the sense but it's a risky (and needed) operation.
Needed because if they never change, in a few years Microsoft would totally be inexpressive in the market.
Risky because Windows plays an important role in Microsoft revenue and identity, if users don't like it, they will have a big problem with the Windows (product) and with boosting their tablet/phone products (which many believe that this is the situation right now).
I personally like Windows 8 and I am enjoying 8.1 right now. Plus, again, PERSONALLY, Windows needed a change in the UI, it's been there for years with no major changes, some tweaks here and there but a substantial change is appreciated some times (or a huge impact for most of users). It might not be the ideal for now, but that's what we have.

Win 8 being a UI disaster was entirely unnecessary, phone/tablet integration or not.

Yes they took a risk by alienating their desktop customers and degrading Windows UI functionality in order to push phone/tablet sales, and ended up failing spectacularly.

"Change for change's sake" is fallacious.

But that's unpredictable. If all companies knew what to do when they needed, nobody would go out of business. I mean, I definitely get your point and that's what I mentioned above, risky because if they fail, they've got a big problem to deal with, but I still think it was a necessary move (see that I am talking about the move and not necessarily about the UI to be developed that way).

BinaryDevotee said,
But that's unpredictable. If all companies knew what to do when they needed, nobody would go out of business. I mean, I definitely get your point and that's what I mentioned above, risky because if they fail, they've got a big problem to deal with, but I still think it was a necessary move (see that I am talking about the move and not necessarily about the UI to be developed that way).

All they had to do was something like Media Center where Metro would be an app not the other way around and to make it simple to the user just launch it automatically if undocked, something like car mode in a cellphone.

Microsoft wanted to push their colorful rectangles down own throat. We refused. They've screwed up. Because they're worth it.

I dont expect Windows to be any good for desktop users until Windows 9. Basically Windows has always been release a good version, then a crap version, a good version, a crap version.
2000 = good
millenium = crap
XP = good
Vista = crap
7 = good
8 = crap

following that cycle, 9 *should* be good again

XP was very crappy at the begining. It just went fine because of its long support time, three servicepacks and many many updates else.

Anarkii said,
I dont expect Windows to be any good for desktop users until Windows 9. Basically Windows has always been release a good version, then a crap version, a good version, a crap version.
2000 = good
millenium = crap
XP = good
Vista = crap
7 = good
8 = crap

following that cycle, 9 *should* be good again

What exactly is wrong with 8's desktop environment?

Anarkii said,
I dont expect Windows to be any good for desktop users until Windows 9. Basically Windows has always been release a good version, then a crap version, a good version, a crap version.
2000 = good
millenium = crap
XP = good
Vista = crap
7 = good
8 = crap

following that cycle, 9 *should* be good again

XP being "good" is subjective. It's many security holes, buffer overflows, poor memory management, driver stability issues, and slew of other problems has me labeling the OS as "rotten to the core".

Vista was slow but not crap. It was much better than XP but many people expected to run it on 512Mb RAM with an old Pentium processor. Driver support was crap. If seven is good than Vista is good too since there's not much difference between the 2 anyway. 8 is not crap. The desktop experience is MUCH better than 7. The metro part needs a lot of improvement. 8.1 addresses some these but I don't think it's enough. I still can't get used to the idea of a Charms bar for example.

Mikeffer said,

What exactly is wrong with 8's desktop environment?

There is no desktop envirnment. All apps run fullscreen. To close an app you have to click and drag instead of clicking a small little x. I could go on, but as ive always said, for desktop users, Windows 8 and 8.1 is garbage.
I agree with alot of people here that the UI needed a change, but that change needs to work with a keyboard and mouse too, not just touch devices.

Anarkii said,

There is no desktop envirnment. All apps run fullscreen. To close an app you have to click and drag instead of clicking a small little x. I could go on, but as ive always said, for desktop users, Windows 8 and 8.1 is garbage.
I agree with alot of people here that the UI needed a change, but that change needs to work with a keyboard and mouse too, not just touch devices.

My query was an honest one but i really don't understand your answer. The desktop is there as it always has been

C#Rocks said,
Vista was slow but not crap. It was much better than XP but many people expected to run it on 512Mb RAM with an old Pentium processor. Driver support was crap. If seven is good than Vista is good too since there's not much difference between the 2 anyway. 8 is not crap. The desktop experience is MUCH better than 7. The metro part needs a lot of improvement. 8.1 addresses some these but I don't think it's enough. I still can't get used to the idea of a Charms bar for example.

Unfortunately it was not that people expected the OS to run on 512MB of RAM, it was MS that, wrongly, set the minimum requirements too low. Not to mention the mess of Vista ready and Capable.

MS has broken the good back cycle after 8. Now it will be only bad. I don't see any change in windows 9 except stripping whatever features we have left on desktop and shoehorning Metro crap everywhere. MS future does not look very bright.

Fritzly said,

Unfortunately it was not that people expected the OS to run on 512MB of RAM, it was MS that, wrongly, set the minimum requirements too low. Not to mention the mess of Vista ready and Capable.

The vista capble disaster is as much the fault of the oems (more so actually) then Microsoft. Of course if you think one minute, you'll realise who had the most to gain by putting a sticker on a pc that didn't deserve it in the first place.

By the way Microsoft has set the minimum requirements for all versions of Windows vista to 1GB of memory, the only exception is vista home basic.

Anarkii said,
I dont expect Windows to be any good for desktop users until Windows 9. Basically Windows has always been release a good version, then a crap version, a good version, a crap version.
2000 = good
millenium = crap
XP = good
Vista = crap
7 = good
8 = crap

following that cycle, 9 *should* be good again

Note...

Windows ME is not the 'next' version after Windows 2000. This would be like calling Mac System 9.2 a revision of OS X 10.0. (WinME and Win2K don't even share code)

As for the timeline of good bad, notice that each 'bad' you point out is the 'big' jump in technology, with the subsequent version being a refined version that people and vendors also had time to get used to because of the prior version.

This is the nature of 'jumps' in technology in an ongoing product.

sjaak327 said,

The vista capble disaster is as much the fault of the oems (more so actually) then Microsoft. Of course if you think one minute, you'll realise who had the most to gain by putting a sticker on a pc that didn't deserve it in the first place.

By the way Microsoft has set the minimum requirements for all versions of Windows vista to 1GB of memory, the only exception is vista home basic.

The sticker that OEMs placed on their machines were based on MS stated to be the OS requirements, they did not set them.
Furthermore the 1 GB minimum requirements were for Vista Ready PCs, Vista Capable ones were 512 MB.
http://www.mydigitallife.info/...apable-or-premium-ready-pc/.
Granted I never considered MS minimum requirements, for any OS, sufficient...but this is just me.

The "trouble" with using the start screen is that it's lacking important functionality the start menu had. No amount of insulting people and apologizing will change that.

Win 8 runs maybe 0.2% "faster" even in the best metrics, it's a meaningless benchmark bullet point.

The start screen/metro is supposed to replace the start menu, that's why they replaced it in the first place. Claiming the start screen, which replaces parts of the desktop, is immune from criticism because "it's not the desktop" is completely ridiculous.

Raa said,
Except it isn't released yet.
With its current 0.2% market share, there are 5.200.000 Windows 8.1 devices connected with the internet.

Windows 8 can't be compared to Vista. Windows 8 is a great OS, people just moan about the Start Menu. I personally have no issues with it however 8.1 is touching on some great tweaks.

startscreennope said,
And we have our first "insult the customer" post of the thread. Congratulations. Many more to come I'm sure.

Vista was a great OS too... people just complained because they saw other people doing it.

startscreennope said,
And we have our first "insult the customer" post of the thread. Congratulations. Many more to come I'm sure.

Err what?
At least my username isn't built around an opinion of said product!

The misconception is that these are'customers'.

The people that are actual 'customers' of Windows 8, are not the ones complaining. This was true of Vista as well.

There is a lot of negative buzz, and anecdotal arguments against Windows 8, "My friend said it was bad." Just like there was with Vista.

So is this really a failure of the OS to meet 'customer' needs, or a failure in marketing?

I would argue Microsoft is notorious for marketing failures and not directly taking the arguments back to the 'tech' community that creates the negative buzz. At best they remain silent about the negative impressions, instead of explaining them or debunking them.

New technologies create growing pains, and people will complain no matter if the changes are big or small. Sadly, the people that quietly like the changes have less reason to speak up, so all you see is a sea of FUD.

Edited by Marshall, Aug 1 2013, 7:57pm :

Everyone 'hated' Windows 95/98...
Everyone 'hated' Windows 2K/XP...

Are you going to argue that these were not successful?

I specifically picked a changed in architecture and then the subsequent revised version.

You may have not been around, but when Windows 95 with the 'new UI' was released, it was canned and considered a disaster. Every 'tech' place you looked online or magazine you read screamed about how horrible Windows 95 was, and even offered guides and tips on how to set the Windows 3.x Program or File Manager as the OS Shell. Some even demonstrated how to set a command.com prompt as the default shell.

Windows 95 was a 'hard' UI change for users, but that didn't make it 'functionally inferior' in any way.

There is no 'technical' argument that Windows 8 is 'functionally inferior' as well.

Even if you completely hate the new Modern UI or the removal of the Glass/Blur effect, Windows is just as 'modible' as it always has been.

You can set the 'Shell' to something different, or change the registry or buy 3rd party software to help you modify Windows 8 to make it look and just like Windows 7, down to even removing the ribbons in Explorer. You can 'regress' it,, just like Windows 3.x fans did with Windows 95.

There is NO LOSS in functionality. The is the 'addition' of new technologies like the Modern UI Apps and new Search features and a faster new WDDM model and new threading optimization and new ways the CPU can take load off the GPU if you have a fast CPU and a slow GPU and a lot of other clever and important advances in computing if you wanted to see past what you don't like.

It also is NOT MS pushing back against users, it is OS theorists and OS engineers like myself that are saying the changes are good and in the right direction.

If MS was pushing back more with better 'reactive' marketing, then Windows 8 would probably be doing better and not have people like you having a knee jerk response.

MS is far more capable of laying out the technical changes and why they improve a user's experience and speed up gaming and make things easier. MS could do a far better job of explaining 'WHY' they made the changes they did.

As for the market 'rejecting' Windows 8, based on what metric? What you read in a place like this?

In actual sales, Windows 8 is doing fine. In fact, it will surpass OS X in August in global market share.

Do you think the market has 'soundly' rejected OS X for failing to reach a 10% market share in over 13 years, when even Vista was able to reach 10% in less than two years?

Nobody is blaming the 'target' market. However, if someone has the delusions that they are too much of a 'techie/professional' to ever use a 'toy' OS like Windows 8, then they are failing into the same trap 'techies' did by hating Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 and Windows XP, etc... (All three of these OSes were repeatedly called a 'toy' OS.)

I didn't intend on sparking an angered response, and I hope you will at least give some consideration to the contradictions in reasoning that are being used and notice how they mirror reactions with past versions of Windows when released.

Edited by Marshall, Aug 1 2013, 7:40pm :

Windows 3.1 to 95 is a false equivalance fallacy. Do not hide behind 7 to 8 with 3.1 to 95. It is an unarguable fact that the start screen lacks functionality that the start menu had. Argue functionality, not fallacious false equivalance comparisons.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/to...-improve-on-with-windows-81

I note that you and everyone who's disagreed with me has avoided any of the main points of that main post, instead retreating into 3.1 to 95 fallacies, change = good fallacies, blame the customer fallacies, or going on unrelated tangents about how Win 8 boots faster or has apps and kernel improvements.

Yes there is a factual, well documented loss in functionality going from start menu to start screen. Some of that functionality is very important for desktop multitasking productivity and managing shortcuts.

Win 8 is 0.3-0.5% faster at best in benchmarks, it's an ignorable bullet point. People's concerns are with the UI, not kernel changes.

Crippling desktop functionality on a desktop OS is a "good change"? I disagree, customers disagree. Win 8 is a market failure.

kayzee said,
Vista was a great OS too... people just complained because they saw other people doing it.
Vista's UI was ok, it was the drivers and hardware requirements that were the problem. With Win 8 the UI is almost entirely the issue.

I think Windows 8 is as bad as Vista. I think the comparison is valid and fair. I think that sales of Windows 8 support my comparison.

There are plenty of start menu replacements out there if you are so hell bent on needing one.. Which you don't really need at all once you get to know 8. Start8 works great and actually adds a bit more functionality and styling than any of the previous MS start menus.

As for benchmarking, which I doubt you did any, It is allot more than you claim. Or should I say from the snippets you have read.. On average, After testing with gpu, cpu and over all bench programs, it's more like 7% better on average and that does not account for all the things benching does not cover like boot times and other aspects.

it's pretty obvious you just don't like MS..

With programs like Modernmix you can even use all of the metro aps on the desktop like any other desktop program, including Windows settings. Stardock really stepped up to the plate to offer some great additions to 8 that really complete it and there are more out there just like Stardocks stuff.
The point being, if you want, 8 can be made to look and feel just like 7 in about 2 minutes.. Not once have I seen anyone of the complainers actually touch on any of the under the hood stuff. It's always about the look of Windows for some reason..

I wonder people who criticize Windows 8 had better designs with them, did they ever show cased them. If not, I guess, you can suggest MS to improve instead of Commenting as "FAILED."

Microsoft does not accept suggestions from users, since Vista.
in Vista they accepted a lot, but starting with 7 all suggestions were ignored. That was Sinofsky policy. Will see if that change.

There is a big difference between customer feedback/complaints and whining.
But considering you think microsoft has no customers anymore, you probably can't see that line.

nitins60 said,
I wonder people who criticize Windows 8 had better designs with them, did they ever show cased them. If not, I guess, you can suggest MS to improve instead of Commenting as "FAILED."

A lot of people had Windows 8 "concepts", and a lot of them were functionality nightmares (InfoWaste's Windows RED), or ignored Microsoft's new change in direction and reverted back to a Windows 7 like design.

Windows 8, Surface and Surface RT was rushed out the door in response to Android and Apple tablets. Windows 8 should be a lesson in what happens when you knee jerk and rush forward while not listening to your customers.

derekaw said,
Windows 8, Surface and Surface RT was rushed out the door in response to Android and Apple tablets. Windows 8 should be a lesson in what happens when you knee jerk and rush forward while not listening to your customers.

The products of a company in complete panic after its CEO claimed the iPad would never become a success and he turned out to be wrong once again.

Seriously, are you being sarcastic or suggesting that MS was innovating? If MS was innovating they did it in a way that users did not like. Ultimately that is not innovation, its a mistake.

derekaw said,
Seriously, are you being sarcastic or suggesting that MS was innovating? If MS was innovating they did it in a way that users did not like. Ultimately that is not innovation, its a mistake.

Ultimately, that is your opinion.

derekaw said,
Seriously, are you being sarcastic or suggesting that MS was innovating? If MS was innovating they did it in a way that users did not like. Ultimately that is not innovation, its a mistake.
They found new and innovative ways to throw their existing desktop customers under the bus while failing to gain significant traction in the phone/tablet market.

And how were existing desktop users thrown under the bus - by not including a Start menu? My desktop applications from Windows 7 work just fine - absolutely all of them. How was the Start menu a better design? Because it was what users were used to since 9x? If that is indeed your argument, you are basically arguing for no change at all - not merely a small change. If Microsoft had done that, Windows 8 would have been dismissed as Windows 7 Service Pack 2 - that question WAS asked, here on Neowin and elsewhere (especially MDL, where it was a major topic during the Previews). The argument now is between those accepting of the changes, and those that preferred no change at all.

Richio said,
I DO think this however has been a learning curve. They tried something new and radical but rushed it out too fast.

I have to respectfully disagree. Microsoft was warned not to make the mistakes they did with Windows 8 from the moment the first insiders saw the internal versions, LONG before the tech community (followed by the general public) ever saw the first alphas and betas.

They refused to listen.

This included people who had 20+ years of flawless industry predictions behind them.

But, for the first time in decades, they refused to listen.

And because of that, MS released the New Coke of operating systems and cost OEMs and the entire computing industry billions in lost sales, starting with last year's critical (now disastrous) holiday sales period.

While 8.1 will finally address some of the most critical issues MS refused to listen to the first time around, the damage is done as far as the press and the general public is concerned.

It will now take a PROPER Windows 9 release to get the industry back on track.

Maybe they will listen this time around.