Five Reasons why Windows 8 will be dead on arrival

[KevinN206]

And Windows XP still has a larger market share than Windows 7(Last time I checked anyway), because people hate all the radical changes and shininess being forced into newer releases. Metro will only reinforce that unwillingness to change.

I think it's pretty obvious why XP is still larger than 7 isn't it? XP has been in the market for almost 11 years vs 3 years for 7. Also, the marketshare in the US for Windows 7 has surpassed that of XP in just 3 years. A lot of people (roughly 300 employees) at my workplace really, really like Windows 7 since we migrated from XP. The global market share for XP is about 47% and 7 is about 36% - in just 3 years.

XP was introduced in 2001

7 was introduced in 2009

http://www.neowin.ne...in-january-2012

http://gs.statcounte...y-200807-201202

[Vice]

Not happening. Lol. Did it backtrack at all with Windows 7 when Vista ran aground? Nope.

The reason people didn't like Windows Vista was that their computers were either too low specced to run it adequately with sufficient performance or their hardware and software they had amassed from Windows XP did not work with Windows Vista. Those were the two complaints.

Nothing Microsoft could have done would have changed those two issues. People would always need newer hardware to run the newer operating systems adequately and 3rd party developers would always need to provide drivers and software updates for newer editions of Microsofts operating systems. This is a constant that Microsoft could not change.

So your point that Microsoft didn't backtrack on Vista is completely flawed because there was nothing for them to backtrack on. Regardless of what OS they released the same two complaints I just put forth would happen even if the user interface of Vista looked identical to Windows XP the underlining code changes (which were for the better) would have still made public opinion turn against Vista.

Fast forward several years and people had begun buying good machines and drivers had caught up with the newer Vista driver policy which made the transition to Windows 7 much smoother and without complaint.

[Dot Matrix]

The reason people didn't like Windows Vista was that their computers were either too low specced to run it adequately with sufficient performance or their hardware and software they had amassed from Windows XP did not work with Windows Vista. Those were the two complaints.

Nothing Microsoft could have done would have changed those two issues. People would always need newer hardware to run the newer operating systems adequately and 3rd party developers would always need to provide drivers and software updates for newer editions of Microsofts operating systems. This is a constant that Microsoft could not change.

So your point that Microsoft didn't backtrack on Vista is completely flawed because there was nothing for them to backtrack on. Regardless of what OS they released the same two complaints I just put forth would happen even if the user interface of Vista looked identical to Windows XP the underlining code changes (which were for the better) would have still made public opinion turn against Vista.

Fast forward several years and people had begun buying good machines and drivers had caught up with the newer Vista driver policy which made the transition to Windows 7 much smoother and without complaint.

People also b**ched and b**ched again over UAC. Lazy admins and programmers everywhere screamed in moaned in horror for months after UAC was revealed in hopes that Microsoft would remove it. But it's still there. ;)

[Gerowen]

I think it's pretty obvious why XP is still larger than 7 isn't it? XP has been in the market for almost 11 years vs 3 years for 7. Also, the marketshare in the US for Windows 7 has surpassed that of XP in just 3 years. A lot of people (roughly 300 employees) at my workplace really, really like Windows 7 since we migrated from XP. The global market share for XP is about 47% and 7 is about 36% - in just 3 years.

XP was introduced in 2001

7 was introduced in 2009

http://www.neowin.ne...in-january-2012

http://gs.statcounte...y-200807-201202

Because Microsoft tells people to upgrade, and without the source code to examine and determine a realistic threat level to continuing to use Windows XP, customers are forced to take them at their word when they say that XP is insecure. That, and you really don't have a choice when your organization is vendor locked, and Microsoft has stated it will stop supporting XP in the next couple years. Additionally, all (or 95% if you take netbooks into consideration) new non-Apple PCs that you buy out of the store, ship with Windows 7 pre-installed, therefore its market share will grow inevitably, not necessarily because people choose 7 over XP, but because that's what came on their PC and they aren't worried about it enough to get rid of it.

I'm not saying 7 is necessarily bad, I'm just tired of seeing Microsoft touching up the interface for their operating system and releasing it as a whole new version for an extra couple hundred bucks per computer. Market share for 7 will grow because Microsoft refuses to sell XP on new PCs any more, so the option to keep XP around is not totally in the hands of the users, it's in the hands of the guys trying to make a dollar off those users.

[Vice]

People also b**ched and b**ched again over UAC. Lazy admins and programmers everywhere screamed in moaned in horror for months after UAC was revealed in hopes that Microsoft would remove it. But it's still there. ;)

Yes it is still there. However Microsoft also added more options to UAC in Windows 7 to make it less annoying. Would you consider that backtracking? Because I would. They sacrificed some security for granular controls which were only added to appease users that were annoyed with UAC. You can check the UAC options yourself it even warns you that stepping the slider down (decreasing the severity of events that will cause a notification) will reduce your computer security. This was completely absent in Vista it was either On or Off.

You really couldn't have picked a better example of Microsoft bowing to public opinion with Vista -> 7. I guarantee you that if they don't include a Metro off switch in Windows 8 there will be one added in a service pack or in the next version of Windows. I still hold out hope they will include one in the final release however.

[Mazhar]

Windows 8 is a huge leap towards technology. We do not need to use the old school Start Menu these days and neither the blank useless Desktop. I mean really, tell me what is the need of Windows Desktop screen other than a wallpaper?!

Windows 8 makes computing what it is. Start your computer and what you will see is your apps and files in a simplest, effective and yet beautiful manner possible, i.e. Metro.

It takes time to adjust in a new home and Windows 8 is our new home.

[ArialBlue]

Start Menu is not used much by me anymore - why? I can pin everything to the taskbar!

[Nashy]

Who cares where the article comes from, or if it's bias. It makes valid points, all of which I agree with. Expecially Metro. Metro is the worst looking thing I've seen. Ever.

I won't be buying Windows 8 based purely on that. Unless they have a button that lets me choose the following:

- I want pretty colours to use huge amounts of desktop real estate, only for me to have to look through cartoon icons to find what I want, not be able to resize the apps, and confuse me everytime I attempt to launch one of the two version of Internet Explorer.

- I want Windows because I'm using this on a computer, not a tablet.

I'm really cracking the ****s with MS. If I am forced to use Metro, they can go to hell. I know they don't care if one person doesn't buy it, but I do not want Metro. It looks **** on the Xbox, it looks **** on WP7, it looks **** on their websites and it looks absolutely disastrous in Windows 8.

[efjay]

Its pretty ironic to see people proclaiming apple the winner in computing yet fail to realise their success is due to the very thing they are railing against Microsoft for implementing in Windows 8, an intuitive touch operating system. Makes it pretty obvious what the avarage consumer wants, an easy to use but powerful system that is touch based. The numbers tell the story, the age of touch has arrived and expecting Microsoft to ignore the evidence and continue with a decades old interface is unreasonable.

[coth]

metro is ugly, but linux mint isn't? that's a joke...

[Vice]

Its pretty ironic to see people proclaiming apple the winner in computing yet fail to realise their success is due to the very thing they are railing against Microsoft for implementing in Windows 8, an intuitive touch operating system. Makes it pretty obvious what the avarage consumer wants, an easy to use but powerful system that is touch based. The numbers tell the story, the age of touch has arrived and expecting Microsoft to ignore the evidence and continue with a decades old interface is unreasonable.

I agree with you completely that Apple has won with iOS on the iPad and iPhone. But do you see Apple putting a touch screen in their notebooks and desktops? Do you see them putting iOS on their desktop machines? or Mac OS X Lion on iPads? No you do not.

Microsoft got it all wrong. They should have taken Windows Phone 7, blown the interface up and started churning out ARM tablets based on it. Instead they have taken Windows and slapped Metro on it. So now instead of having two targeted derivatives of windows we have a jack of all trades which is master of nothing. Once again Apple gets it. Microsoft doesn't.

Even Google weren't stupid enough to put Android on their Chrome Books. They too understand different form factors need different interfaces tailored to its hardware. Not a one size fits all.

[Dot Matrix]

Do you see them putting iOS on their desktop machines? No you do not.

*ahem* Actually, yes, they did.

[inactive]

He's just using the versions aimed at the average consumer (WinNT isn't there either).

But then the whole thing falls apart when you realize Win3.1 and Win95 aren't there...

sure, your right. but then again... that (Win3.1/Win95) was really before PC's took off as i would say it was pretty much around 1998+ before PC's really started to get more in the mainstream with many people using computers in general.

so counting only the OS's from when computers in general started getting used by the wide public then i am pretty much still right.

[Vice]

*ahem* Actually, yes, they did.

Actually no they didn't. That is an independent app which is included with Lion which allows you to launch applications. It is an app that if dragged out of the dock does nothing. And you'll note it does NOT launch iOS applications. It only launches Mac OS X Lion applications. Unlike Metro which is designed to launch both Windows desktop apps and Metro apps (The same kind of apps you'll find on Windows Phone). And again where do you see Mac OS X Lion on an iPad? You don't.

[Dot Matrix]

Actually no they didn't. That is an independent app which is included with Lion which allows you to launch applications. It is an app that if dragged out of the dock does nothing. And you'll note it does NOT launch iOS applications. It only launches Mac OS X Lion applications. Unlike Metro which is designed to launch both Windows desktop apps and Metro apps (The same kind of apps you'll find on Windows Phone). And again where do you see Mac OS X Lion on an iPad? You don't.

It's not iOS per se, but like Microsoft, Apple is slowly combining the two. You'll see iOS on the desktop in full soon enough.

[BajiRav]

I agree with you completely that Apple has won with iOS on the iPad and iPhone. But do you see Apple putting a touch screen in their notebooks and desktops? Do you see them putting iOS on their desktop machines? or Mac OS X Lion on iPads? No you do not.

Microsoft got it all wrong. They should have taken Windows Phone 7, blown the interface up and started churning out ARM tablets based on it. Instead they have taken Windows and slapped Metro on it. So now instead of having two targeted derivatives of windows we have a jack of all trades which is master of nothing. Once again Apple gets it. Microsoft doesn't.

Even Google weren't stupid enough to put Android on their Chrome Books. They too understand different form factors need different interfaces tailored to its hardware. Not a one size fits all.

It remains to be seen if Microsoft is wrong with their approach but Apple already took first steps for unifying interfaces and they did it in a worse manner than Microsoft with Launchpad(Dot Matrix's post above). I am sure next version of OS X will go down the same path.

As for Google is considered, they are shoehorning Browser as an OS approach which is the stupidest of these three.

[Vice]

It's not iOS per se, but like Microsoft, Apple is slowly combining the two. You'll see iOS on the desktop in full soon enough.

Perhaps. But I don't think so. Apple is very much against a touch display on a desktop and notebook. The late Steve Jobs spoke many times about this in interviews he did that holding your arm out on a screen became uncomfortable. I bring this up because iOS is designed only for fingers and it doesn't work good with a Mouse and Keyboard.

The launcher they included in Lion was the only part of iOS that is really suited to use on a desktop because as you'll note it's just a grid of icons and labels. In short it looks identical to the way users launched applications previously by accessing the Applications folder on their mac which contained a grid of application icons with labels. The only difference being that Apple has included it as a dedicated icon on the dock to access your Application folder and blurred the background behind the apps. Apart from that it's business as usual.

Also keep in mind that iOS only really has three screens. The home screen the lock screen and the notification screen. Everything else is inside an Application. So unless Apple intends to allow iPhone/iPad apps to run on a Mac there is nothing else left to port.

[zhangm Supervisor]

I think Microsoft is expanding into a very promising change in UIs.

Consider icons and how they are used on the desktop. They're informative, in a sense: there is a caption to tell you what it is or what it does, and an image of what it is, or what it does. The Recycle Bin icon is perhaps the most dynamic and informative thing on the traditional Windows desktop, since it changes based on some parameter of the file system. Nonetheless, the whole desktop is mostly empty space - what do you get from looking at it, or hovering over bits of your wallpaper?

Enter tiles. They give a larger target for both clicking and touching. The larger surface is appropriate for higher resolution screens that exist today. They're dynamic and can show information above and beyond a simple name. I'd like to see where this is taken.

[BajiRav]

Perhaps. But I don't think so. Apple is very much against a touch display on a desktop and notebook. The late Steve Jobs spoke many times about this in interviews he did that holding your arm out on a screen became uncomfortable. I bring this up because iOS is designed only for fingers and it doesn't work good with a Mouse and Keyboard.

The launcher they included in Lion was the only part of iOS that is really suited to use on a desktop because as you'll note it's just a grid of icons and labels. In short it looks identical to the way users launched applications previously by accessing the Applications folder on their mac which contained a grid of application icons with labels. The only difference being that Apple has included it as a dedicated icon on the dock to access your Application folder and blurred the background behind the apps. Apart from that it's business as usual.

Also keep in mind that iOS only really has three screens. The home screen the lock screen and the notification screen. Everything else is inside an Application. So unless Apple intends to allow iPhone/iPad apps to run on a Mac there is nothing else left to port.

His Steveness also famously claimed that people will never watch video or read books on their iPods. ;) Apple denies things until they make it. Nothing new or different here.

[Dot Matrix]

Perhaps. But I don't think so. Apple is very much against a touch display on a desktop and notebook. The late Steve Jobs spoke many times about this in interviews he did that holding your arm out on a screen became uncomfortable.

But yet, somehow all these goons turning their iPads into laptops are doing just that. Not to mention whem most users use an iPad, they are doing just that as well.

[Xerino]

History of Windows and Linux

Win 98 - Oh boy a new MS windows, but Linux is looking strong (Windows wins)

Win ME (Oh gawd!!! this sucks, lets try Linux again) Windows Wins

Win 2000 Hey, this is better, but linux is getting better too... (Windows Wins)

Win XP ohhhh, I like this, screw Linux (Windows Wins)

Win Vista UGH! this sucks, lets try Linux... (Windows Loses)

Win 7 Hey there is much better, lets dump Linux (Windows Wins)

Win 8 hey this is an OS made for tablets, lets stick with Windows 7 (Windows 7 wins)

[Vice]

But yet, somehow all these goons turning their iPads into laptops are doing just that. Not to mention whem most users use an iPad, they are doing just that as well.

You have stats for how many keyboards were bought? I've never used a Keyboard with my iPad. It has an on-screen one, I don't see the point.

[BajiRav]

History of Windows and Linux

Win 98 - Oh boy a new MS windows, but Linux is looking strong (Windows wins)

Win ME (Oh gawd!!! this sucks, lets try Linux again) Windows Wins

Win 2000 Hey, this is better, but linux is getting better too... (Windows Wins)

Win XP ohhhh, I like this, screw Linux (Windows Wins)

Win Vista UGH! this sucks, lets try Linux... (Windows Loses)

Win 7 Hey there is much better, lets dump Linux (Windows Wins)

Win 8 hey this is an OS made for tablets, lets stick with Windows 7 (Windows 7 wins)

More like, I don't like the new Windows and I will stay with what I know in prev. version. (new Windows wins and whiners are left on the side)

[Dot Matrix]

But yet, somehow all these goons turning their iPads into laptops are doing just that. Not to mention whem most users use an iPad, they are doing just that as well.

This happens to be a buddy's iPad too:

It appears Jobs has been proven wrong. People *do* exactly what he didn't like to. So what's all this non sense of having desktop based touch screens?

Also, when you guys complain about touch screens, you're forgetting that Microsoft runs on a good deal of terminals which are touch screen. Imagine what Metro can do for those.

[mudslag]

This happens to be a buddy's iPad too:

It appears Jobs has been proven wrong. People *do* exactly what he didn't like to. So what's all this non sense of having desktop based touch screens?

Also, when you guys complain about touch screens, you're forgetting that Microsoft runs on a good deal of terminals which are touch screen. Imagine what Metro can do for those.

That number is peanuts compared to reg non touch desktops. No one is arguing there isnt a market for this, it's just not for the consumer desktop market.