Five Reasons why Windows 8 will be dead on arrival

[justmike]

People do more than browse the web and look at/edit documents you know...

Yeah, but the cloud is the web.

thing is golden corral has bad reviews and they are still in business and apperantly doing well (even though they're really gross)

Just get the steak if you like that, skip everything else.. :D (Y)

[deadonthefloor]

I dont need a dedicated screen for notifications, period.

Fixed it for ya.

Some people do. Financial people would prefer this to the windows of today for timely stock information. Downloding these stock apps by their trusted financial institutions from the Windows Store knowing full well that their information is sandboxed from the OS and any potential spyware installed on the system would be a welcome change.

Network operators would prefer this for the deep linking ability in the Windows Runtime which will allow for the pinning of certain trending points in monitoring apps to the start page.

There are numerous scenarios where this makes sense.

Just because [stoop to your level with snide comment] doesn't mean it will be a flop for everyone.

[Dusco25]

Yeah, but the cloud is the web.

No the cloud is ran by the FBI CIA NSA DHS etc.. So keep floating in your cloud

[PGHammer]

Congratulations, you get an award for most brilliant comment. Ah, but it means nothing now doesn't it?

So Windows Phone gets an award but the sales are pathetic. Please educate me how an award is much better than sales?

And why are the sales of Windows Phone (and before that, Windows Mobile) woeful?

Consider how many Android devices there have been (and remember, unlike either Windows Phone and Windows Mobile, Android costs *how* much for handset makers to license?) When it comes to mass-commodity devices (and considering their pricing, smartphones have become exactly that), margins are shaved where possible.

Second, Windows Phone was late - it lagged Android by many months in coming to market; by then, pretty much all the major handset makers were mostly irrevocably tied to Android (by their in-house developers; most of which did have Linux roots, as does Android itself).

Result: Windows Phone lags behind Android in terms of sales, and behind iOS in terms of both margins and buzz.

However, the PC market is *not* the phone market (it isn't even the sub-$500 tablet market, where various Android-based tablets are fighting it out; iPad 2 is priced at the upper range on that, and is basically its own niche - no Android tablet costs that much). Those of you that are thinking that Metro (the UI) is tablet-only apparently are either relatively new to Windows, or have forgotten your Windows (especially NT) history - What was the UI like in five OSes (three 9x and two NT - all of which were for various desktops) - Windows 95/98 (both original and SE)/ME/NT4/2000? Believe it or not, other than the missing Start button, it's basically Metro's great grandfather. The post-XP (mostly from Vista) additions to the desktop menu are gone. The menu has been *rebooted*, basically - it's back to the 9x/NT core it used to have - albeit with a different design language. How many of those additions to the menu in Windows 7 do you actually use? All of them? Most of them? Some of them (or even none of them, because they all exist elsewhere)? If it's either of the latter (some or none), why do you want them? Something on a menu I don't use is clutter - and I loathe clutter. Metro is Windows de-cluttered menuwise. That's not just whyit works for tablets - it's also (in my rather humble opinion) why it works for traditional PCs as well - a distinct lack of clutter and bloat. You don't want *bloatware* on your PC (nearly a third of the posts in the main Windows subforum here address getting rid of *bloatware*) - so how the heck can you justify overly-excessive *menu bloat*?

[remixedcat]

No the cloud is ran by the FBI CIA NSA DHS etc.. So keep floating in your cloud

I run the cloud....

[PGHammer]

what I keep wanting to know is for those that don't like Windows 8, explain what you would have done differently from Windows 7.

Windows 7 is about as feature complete as you can get for a modern day desktop OS. There isn't much else that Microsoft can do with that side of Windows except evolve it for the future.

The future of computing is heading towards touch regardless of what some might say on here. And of course if Microsoft were just to release the immersive metro side of Windows as a separate Windows for tablets people would still fuss at Microsoft fragmenting the market

Actually the issue is not just touch.

The Start menu has gotten bloated, and seriously needed a good culling.

Worse, every single addition to the Start menu duplicates an existing item elsewhere in Windows (heck, the Search add-on duplicates the designed in search functionality that has been in the Run box since the addition of Index Server with Windows 2000). The addons needed to justify themselves - and over half couldn't. (Several blogs - notably from the Windows 7 Taskforce within Microsoft's Windows Group - point out the massive duplication of menu item after shortcut. What woke ME up was starting a Windows 2000 Professional VM and looking at that Start menu - and compared it to that of Windows 7; bloat alert!)

The lack of menu bloat is why I like Metro (and yes - even, if not especially, on traditional non-touch hardware - like desktop PCs).

[mudslag]

Touch is the future to a degree, it wont be the "only" future for many more years to come, if at all. Remember desktops are still king and they wont be becoming reliable touch anytime soon, again if at all. MS made win 8 with tablets in mind, prob more then they should have at this point. Touch isnt as big of a factor at this point right now so its really moot. Other then tablets, desktops and touch just arent a proper mix at this point in time.

We might all love the idea of minority report/avatar style of computing but again thats still ages off from a reality and when that reality does finally hit, win 8 will be pretty old by then. Touch is no were near that level even though thats what people want.

[mudslag]

Fixed it for ya.

Some people do. Financial people would prefer this to the windows of today for timely stock information. Downloding these stock apps by their trusted financial institutions from the Windows Store knowing full well that their information is sandboxed from the OS and any potential spyware installed on the system would be a welcome change.

Network operators would prefer this for the deep linking ability in the Windows Runtime which will allow for the pinning of certain trending points in monitoring apps to the start page.

There are numerous scenarios where this makes sense.

Just because [stoop to your level with snide comment] doesn't mean it will be a flop for everyone.

You can play fix it all you want, it doesnt change that a page for notifications are meaningless. As for financial people, I happen to be one of those people. I work 16 hrs a day trading and I can promise you metro is useless to people like me. We dont and wont use icons for stock updates and other info. Anything info coming into metro will be delayed compared to other methods that we financial people will use. My company uses one gadget for financial news, a twitter app. Our app was also created and tweaked by our programer to pull in the info as fast as our connection allows it.

As for network operators, Im pretty sure they have their share of desktop apps that are more informative and reliable. Im sure people will make use of metro but that in no way means its a necessity. Again there is no need for a alternative screen to provide info that can just as easily be provided to desktop apps.

It's a bit washed out but as you can see I dont have the a lot of need for large icons to tell me delayed info that I can get from charting programs. Those icons wont be able to offer real time info the same way most people's charting programs can offer.

[Gerowen]

Metro is here to stay. Period.

You guys can argue all you want.

But its here to stay

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.

[justmike]

what I keep wanting to know is for those that don't like Windows 8, explain what you would have done differently from Windows 7.

Windows 7 is about as feature complete as you can get for a modern day desktop OS. There isn't much else that Microsoft can do with that side of Windows except evolve it for the future.

The future of computing is heading towards touch regardless of what some might say on here. And of course if Microsoft were just to release the immersive metro side of Windows as a separate Windows for tablets people would still fuss at Microsoft fragmenting the market

Well, I would have voted for a separate Windows if it were faster, smaller, and better on batteries. Honestly, I do not know how the tablet types will stack up in the end, but I'd bet on a much larger than normal load of new problems given the history of MS OS changes and the overall scope of these changes.

[deadonthefloor]

...

I don't know what's worthy of discussion, that rig, or the fact you have that and can't envision that there's a better way.

[mjedi7]

For reference, here's an article by the same author detailing the "Seven reasons to skip Windows 7."

He's a notorious troll.

He fail once and will be once again! xD

So munch fun!

[Dot Matrix]

For reference, here's an article by the same author detailing the "Seven reasons to skip Windows 7."

He's a notorious troll.

I guess his bull**** articles on Windows 8 UEFI implementation blocking Linux didn't work to kill Windows 8, so he had to stoop to a new low.

[PGHammer]

You can play fix it all you want, it doesnt change that a page for notifications are meaningless. As for financial people, I happen to be one of those people. I work 16 hrs a day trading and I can promise you metro is useless to people like me. We dont and wont use icons for stock updates and other info. Anything info coming into metro will be delayed compared to other methods that we financial people will use. My company uses one gadget for financial news, a twitter app. Our app was also created and tweaked by our programer to pull in the info as fast as our connection allows it.

As for network operators, Im pretty sure they have their share of desktop apps that are more informative and reliable. Im sure people will make use of metro but that in no way means its a necessity. Again there is no need for a alternative screen to provide info that can just as easily be provided to desktop apps.

It's a bit washed out but as you can see I dont have the a lot of need for large icons to tell me delayed info that I can get from charting programs. Those icons wont be able to offer real time info the same way most people's charting programs can offer.

And you, sir, are a *decided outlier*

No wonder you hate the very idea of a minimallist UI - it totally trainwrecks your braggadacio.

[mudslag]

I don't know what's worthy of discussion, that rig, or the fact you have that and can't envision that there's a better way.

What's wrong with my rig? And I dont have a problem with a better way, I just have yet to see a reason why metro is that better way. Better doesnt always mean fancier and that's all metro is trying to do.

Looking at the following pic (taken from the screen shot thread), the top left and bottom right are the standard windows look. The top right and bottom left offer nothing new that you cant already get today. Honestly no one needs a whole screen dedicated to tell you the weather. We have apps, gadgets/widgets and web sites more then capable of providing that info all on your desktop without taking up the whole desktop. Same for the metro screen. Nothing on that screen offers something completely new. You dont need whole screen of 2" icon blocks to launch your apps, the task bar handles that perfectly. As for notifications, that too can be provided by current technology without the need to take up your whole screen to provide for that. You'll spend more time switching back and forth between metro and your desktop just looking for that FB update then you would with a standard app or even a email notification.

[mudslag]

And you, sir, are a *decided outlier*

No wonder you hate the very idea of a minimallist UI - it totally trainwrecks your braggadacio.

When Im not working, Im like everyone else, gaming and surfing and every other basic computing user.

[PGHammer]

What's wrong with my rig? And I dont have a problem with a better way, I just have yet to see a reason why metro is that better way. Better doesnt always mean fancier and that's all metro is trying to do.

Looking at the following pic (taken from the screen shot thread), the top left and bottom right are the standard windows look. The top right and bottom left offer nothing new that you cant already get today. Honestly no one needs a whole screen dedicated to tell you the weather. We have apps, gadgets/widgets and web sites more then capable of providing that info all on your desktop without taking up the whole desktop. Same for the metro screen. Nothing on that screen offers something completely new. You dont need whole screen of 2" icon blocks to launch your apps, the task bar handles that perfectly. As for notifications, that too can be provided by current technology without the need to take up your whole screen to provide for that. You'll spend more time switching back and forth between metro and your desktop just looking for that FB update then you would with a standard app or even a email notification.

I didn't say *anything* was wrong with it - I said that you're an outlier. (The three screens is a dead giveaway.)

Most PC users (even desktop users) don't have three screens - even gamers tend to - more often than not - make do with just one.

Day-traders (the majority of users of online-trading platforms) usually have at least two screens - they would ALSO qualify as *outliers* in that sense.

The needs of outliers are far different than those of the majority of PC users - defining the average PC user by tthe outlier would be as wrong as defining all members of the GOP by the *birthers*.

Outliers are, to put it plainly, niche-occupiers. Niche-users' needs are far different than hte ordinary PC user.

Therein lies the issue.

[Colin McGregor]

Didnt people say aero will fail, and the wii is a 1 yr fad console, and the 360 wont last, and linux will take over all desktops, etc... etc... etc....

How about we wait till its out before we let obvious 12 yr old trolls write articles. (not op, im referring to zdnet article).

edit: noticed its in the Linux / OpenSource section. failed troll is fail.

[Vice]

The mere fact there is so much controversy about the changes shows that there is a great deal of doubt about its success. Personally I feel that Windows 8 will be a dud and Microsoft will be quick to backtrack with its successor.

[mudslag]

I didn't say *anything* was wrong with it - I said that you're an outlier. (The three screens is a dead giveaway.)

Most PC users (even desktop users) don't have three screens - even gamers tend to - more often than not - make do with just one.

Day-traders (the majority of users of online-trading platforms) usually have at least two screens - they would ALSO qualify as *outliers* in that sense.

The needs of outliers are far different than those of the majority of PC users - defining the average PC user by tthe outlier would be as wrong as defining all members of the GOP by the *birthers*.

Outliers are, to put it plainly, niche-occupiers. Niche-users' needs are far different than hte ordinary PC user.

Therein lies the issue.

Again 2 of those screens are used for work majority of the time. I have one screen (computer) dedicated for charting, another (30") dedicated for trading and the middle screen is used for browsing, gaming and what ever else 90% of the time. Once in a blue moon Ill use that screen for extra trading info. So I may be a "outlier" in terms of hardware but when it comes to avg computing, Im really no different then anyone else. So my screens may be a bit larger then the avg user, that doesnt change the standard usage any less.

[V23]

Personally I feel that Windows 8 will be a dud and Microsoft will be quick to backtrack with its successor.

I highly doubt it, they'll lose even more market share to Apple if they do.

[Vice]

I highly doubt it, they'll lose even more market share to Apple if they do.

They will lose market share regardless to Apple. Apple has reached its 2nd wind and nothing will stop them from rising to the top again. Microsoft may make a come back after Apples been the leader for 2-3 years but they wont be able to stop Apples rise to the top.

To be clear I am stating that Apple will once again become the market leader. Nothing Microsoft can do can stop that. But eventually Apple whilst at the top will become complacent and someone will knock them off the top spot. Microsoft floundered for almost a decade and have allowed Apple entry in to too many of their markets. What happens now is inevitable.

[subcld]

i sense the fear in his post lol

to make this article short

" please don't buy windows 8 use linux "

The Future will prove you wrong cause there is nothing called too late

and tell copycat google whom trying to copy metro on all its online services including android

just look at his profile most active in " Linux / Unix Discussion & Support" lol

[Kyang]

Which is kind of pointless that you need a page up dedicated to either launch or viewing notifications. I think I read that the avg user spend 80-90% of their time on the computer browsing. So basically you keep the page up waiting for notifications, talk about retarded. If people want notifications, there are other simpler means to that.

I agree that there are simpler ways, which is why I mentioned the Notification area too. It has done that job perfectly well on the Desktop for years now. The user doesn't have to open a page, or interact with a program in any way to receive the latest updates.

I didn't mention the notifications on the Start screen to justify the screen's existence. I mentioned it in response to your comment that a full screen app launcher is pointless. I agree with that too, therefore I mentioned another capability the Start screen has.

And after thinking about it for a little bit, I remember that the search function is carried over to the new Start screen as well. I think that a full screen search offers a better way to organize search results than the current method, which is to squeeze everything into a small, unnavigable list in the corner of the screen.

With that in mind, we see a full screen screen that launches apps, but doesn't show many of them. And it's area to serve updates of information, but doesn't serve them in a timely manner. So what's the point of this screen? It's obviously not exclusively for either of those tasks. I think that it's for the average user that you mentioned, the one who spends 80 - 90% of their time browsing. Their workflow lives in the browser, or whatever other task, and in the other 10% of their time when they actually want an update, they'll whip open the Start screen to check for new information. Otherwise, they don't care, and they don't want to configure any notifications, no matter how few clicks it takes.

For everyone else, myself included, I'll be using the desktop for while yet. That is to say, I'll still be launching applications from the taskbar, not the big start screen, receiving updates as they arrive, and the like. Like you, I've thought about the changes, how they relate to my current work flow, etc. And aside from the search organization, which itself could be done on the regular desktop by simply maximizing the search window, I think the regular desktop is still sufficient, and in some cases, still superior.

[Dot Matrix]

Personally I feel that Windows 8 will be a dud and Microsoft will be quick to backtrack with its successor.

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