Five Reasons why Windows 8 will be dead on arrival


Recommended Posts

Astra.Xtreme

This looks to be an interesting experiment as to whether the normal PC user (not the geeky know-it-alls like us) is open to a UI overhaul.

Obviously Win 8 is going to get a decent market share since it will be pre-loaded on all new PCs. And I don't think it's going to get ridiculed for stability or driver issues like Vista did.

I honestly think it's going to get a bad image because people are going to be frustrated as all hell for being forced to relearn how Windows works. Most people have steadily used Windows since the 95 era and even so have just enough knowledge to be able to check email, print a Word document, and type at a 10 WAM pace. Most importantly, these people will likely be using Windows XP or maybe 7 at work, and then will come home to Win 8 which requires a completely different plan of attack. I don't think people will appreciate the contrast.

I'm thinking this will result in a decreasing trend of new PC sales, an increase of new PC returns, or a big increase of people paying for the OS downgrade option back to 7.

There seems to be too many people here that think that their mind-set applies to everybody, and that's a problem. We should be looking at this in the shoes of our parents and people we constantly give PC help to, since they make up the big majority of PC users. Would they be completely willing to give up 15+ years of classic Windows knowledge to make way for Metro? Would they? I really doubt it.

Only time will tell, but I think it will create more unhappy and frustrated users than satisfied customers. Worst of all, since Windows 7 was such a huge success and is arguably the best Windows OS to-date, Windows 8 is being pushed out too soon for it to be anything but a disappointment compared to 7. If this was the timescale of XP -> Vista, it might stand more of a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MFH

They say a huge push in getting C++ 11 done was to get ARM processor support in the compiler.

Honestly: it would have been so much better if they focused on implementing all features C++11 has to offer. It's quite embarrassing that a multi-billion company can't compete with Open Source developers in terms of implementing features? Microsoft are such hypocrites, they always talk about the "C++ Renaissance", yet they don't really put any effort in implementing C++?

If you don't like it, just pin all shortcuts to taskbar or add the startmenu folder to taskbar and you will (almost) never see the metro screen on your "high resolution bazillion inches big desktop!

If I pin all my regularly used programs to the superbar, I'd have to buy me another two Dell U2711?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ILikeTobacco

Sure like they did with Vista which has same market share as MacOS or like Windows 7 which still can't beat Windows XP. A lot of people will actually remove Windows 8 and install Windows 7 from computers they buy. I am talking about Desktops. Windows 8 will take over Windows 7 as far as Tablets goes and i think Microsoft aim are Tablets and Phones not so much Desktops and everyone knows that. I call Windows 8, Windows 7 Tablet Edition.

The thread says Windows 8 will be dead on arrival. Windows Vista wasn't even dead on arrival so your point is way out of context of this threat or are you suggesting that MacOS is dead and unprofitable which is the only thing that would truly qualify an OS as dead on arrival? Vista even made profits for Microsoft. Please stay in context of the discuss and stop making arguments out of nothing. Windows 8 won't be dead on arrival unless there are zero contracts sold. Considering Windows Vista had 400 million users online, the number of actual users was higher than that. That is far from dead on arrival and Windows 8 will have the same contracts that led to Vista being sold on that scale. "Dead on arrival" is an absolute term. The only thing absolute about Windows 8 is that it will sell millions of copies, thus, it will not be dead on arrival.

Link to post
Share on other sites
remixedcat

The board could ask him to step down.

good becuase he's annoying and he needs some of this:

Vgb9u.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
BajiRav

Honestly: it would have been so much better if they focused on implementing all features C++11 has to offer. It's quite embarrassing that a multi-billion company can't compete with Open Source developers in terms of implementing features? Microsoft are such hypocrites, they always talk about the "C++ Renaissance", yet they don't really put any effort in implementing C++?

If I pin all my regularly used programs to the superbar, I'd have to buy me another two Dell U2711?

did you miss this part of my post?

or add the startmenu folder to taskbar

I personally need more space than taskbar too but we are in a minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lachlan

The only way windows 8 will fail if it is released after December 21st 2012.. cause no one will survive the end of the mayan calendar and will not be able to buy it.. other then that they will sell hundreds of millions of copys.. just like ever other version

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
MFH

did you miss this part of my post?

I personally need more space than taskbar too but we are in a minority.

That's like giving up all the features of the superbar just to compensate Microsofts failure? No thanks, I don't want folders in my superbar?

Link to post
Share on other sites
smoledman

Whatever the naysayers have to say I don't care. Metro is the 2nd UI revolution after Xerox PARC GUI was introduced in the late 1970s. Everything from the original Mac UI to Windows 3.0/95/Aero/7 has been a matter of perfecting the PARC GUI. Metro throws it all away and says "come with me into the future". It's bold, it's revolutionary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Orange Battery

I think MS has made some great progress with Explorer and the new restore system however I am put off by the interface change. XP and 7 got it right, no big changes from the standard set up, just enhancements for productivity. 8 has the enhancements but also a big interface rethink which never works. Its a shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
smoledman

The single biggest problem I have with Windows 8 is losing context when you?re in the ?desktop mode?. Sure, if you launch from the taskbar everything?s going to work like Windows 7, but as soon as you want to find something through the start menu, it switches you out of ?Desktop? into Metro Search or Start Screen and you completely lose your context. Admittedly I don?t use the Start menu often, and it?s not the greatest design in the world BUT at least I am not 100% switched out of the UI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
smoledman

The DP sucked for desktop users but the windows team wanted to give emphasis to tablet and touch modes since they want developers to create apps prior to the OS been released. microsoft wants to hear what you hate or not which is also the point of the DP and CP.

If the CP continues the paradigm of the DP then Windows 8 is unusable to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xtrabit racing

i agree that w8 may suck, but nobody hurts linux. there are "no" desktop linux imo. i use kde, gnome, unity or anything else, not linux. lack of application support and non-standard GUI hurt linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
simplezz

Linux is rock solid and awesome for web servers and stuff like that, but it still lacks in the desktop marketspace. It's ok for some stuff but still needs more work and a lot of the community keeps arguing instead of innovating.

I can't say I find anything lacking in it. I use Arch Linux along with XP and Windows 7. Each one works great on my hardware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
simplezz

I honestly think it's going to get a bad image because people are going to be frustrated as all hell for being forced to relearn how Windows works.

I think you have a point there. There's going to be a massive spike in support calls, and possibly even returns once OEM's start deploying Windows 8, assuming the metro UI is the default interface on PC's of course.

Will it turn out like Vista where OEM's start offering downgrades to Wndows 7 in order to sate consumers' distaste for change? I don't know, but it's going to be interesting to see if history repeats itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ently

I don't think Metro is that terrible of an idea, I mean look at it like this.

Tech savvy/business customers will use the classic view if they really want to and still obtain all the benefits that are under the hood and be happy with their ui.

Average consumers either won't know any different or it will be easier. Remember we are in an age now where everyone uses a computer pretty much so some people just want a simple look on the screen, see all my information, click a button to go where I want interface which is what metro is.

Personally I haven't tried it but I have seen plenty of videos and to me it seems like it will make life easier. Every release people say the os will be a failure because they are afraid of change.

TLDR; XP users... Your time has come to upgrade! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quixby

Dear god Lo Tec, you come off sounding like a complete moron here, Im sorry you may be a intelligent person, but wow this post...

I will be brief here as I could write a ton for just how wrong you are on almost every point.

1. Windows 8 is a evolution of Windows 7 on the desktop side, same as Vista to 7, there are massive improvements in usability, speed, and, a user's learning curve (ribbon being one example) and there isnt a reason to NOT upgrade from the looks of how they will deploy this the desktop side of things will be taken care of as far as making users comfortable..

2. Your opinion is your own opinion, but lets just ignore the massive audience Metro has persuaded to think its an amazing design, yea lets also ignore all of the designers (who universally hate most of Microsoft's previous work) who love Metro. Your right they are all wrong. Oh, you might also want to ignore that Metro is universally recognized as a Microsoft design, so when someone see's any platform of theirs, Xbox, WP7, or Windows they will instantly know who its from without questions. That's invaluable, whether you hate it or love it, you have to recognize that it was a good decision.

3. Windows 8 applications will benefit from the same enhancements available on the Tile side of things, Microsoft knows the market however, and everything from Windows 7 application wise is going to hit the desktop, its a hard game to convince pre-made apps to switch design's or frameworks, as such Microsoft is aware that developers who want to make an awesome WinRT desktop app will, but marketing to them is a waste of resources, thats why they focus on the Tile end of things, the new market.

4. WOW, just WOW. Please go read on WinRT and ask anyone who develops on .NET, Sliverlight, WPF.... These are the same damn technologies at play in WinRT... Which brings us to your argument for writing for ARM and X86, you realize if you develop to the WinRT spec the only difference is compiling for the arch you want to support. Heck even current Windows 7 apps could be re-compiled with minimal effort is most cases to work on ARM. You know.. I dont even need to talk about the Amazon situation, obvious propaganda is obvious, he defintiely saw how bad Windows 8 would be and applied to Amazon.... thats it!!

5. Again this is utterly wrong, AT&T is a huge supporter of Windows Phone, Nokia is in the Top 3 spot on various carriers with their Windows Phone devices, and your too old comment is so out of place with he market recognition of Window Phone being the smoothest, fastest, most modern OS on the market. Tablets will be a uphill battle but a much easier one than Windows Phone, they can leverage to many things on the Business Level, Education Level, and consumer level that this is a non-issue, the next tablet anyone buys they will instantly consider Windows 8, and lets be honest ICS still has a ways to go to be a consumer ready OS, but we will see what Google brings out this summer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sasa_RI

"Win 8 Fisher-Price" OS with very big tiles so you can touch them with your arm or leg :laugh:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ci7

the article is brain dead on arrival!

Link to post
Share on other sites
smoledman

The problem is that Metro start screen is a tablet UI and simply doesn't work on desktop controlled via KB + M.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

I will say Metro in Windows 8 is not mature enough.

This I agree with. Personally, I wish the Metro background was the user's set desktop wallpaper, this way when the user clicks Start, the transition isn't so jumpy, the screen could simply fade, and the tiles slide onto the screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stoffel

The problem is that Metro start screen is a tablet UI and simply doesn't work on desktop controlled via KB + M.

Have you actually used Win8 DP?

I've been using it for about 5 months now and i have no issue using it with KB and Mouse

And from what we have seen so far in the CP they made a lot of improvements for use with KB and Mouse

This I agree with. Personally, I wish the Metro background was the user's set desktop wallpaper, this way when the user clicks Start, the transition isn't so jumpy, the screen could simply fade, and the tiles slide onto the screen.

I read somewhere that the reason you can't put your own background is that the start screen allows you to scroll and to zoom in and out

If you have your standard desktop picture with these features it's going to look really bad when you start zooming or scrolling

Link to post
Share on other sites
smoledman

If Windows 7 is already super-efficient in terms of app launching why take a step backwards with Metro? Explain to me how I will be more efficient in Windows 8 compared to Windows 7. I know Microsoft needs desperately to get into tablets, but forcing this tablet UI on desktops seems to be utterly alienating and ill-conceived. What I want is the Windows 7 UI on top of the under-the-hood improvements.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix

I read somewhere that the reason you can't put your own background is that the start screen allows you to scroll and to zoom in and out

If you have your standard desktop picture with these features it's going to look really bad when you start zooming or scrolling

Not really. The desktop picture would remain static, while the tiles zoom and scroll.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zain Adeel

Dot Matrix. Let me explain how the background of startscreen works.

Its not a static image. There are layers of images. And they work and scroll at different speeds to give the parallax effect.

A custom photo will ruin it. RUIN IT .. i cannot emphasis more how bad it would look.

So kudos to MS for not listening to anyone about this.

But. What would be cool is if they desktop Looks more like Metro. So it feels like its the same material just molded differently.

But right now thats not the case. And the reason must be that 3rd party developers are not so comfortable imagining Metro Design language ported to desktop. When developers will be ready to make apps look simple and neat like Metro, Aero UI will go away. And this will happen within 3 years. Thats just a guess.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
simplezz

"Win 8 Fisher-Price" OS with very big tiles so you can touch them with your arm or leg :laugh:

LOL

  • Like 1
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.