Windows 8 sales dissapointing

[Growled Member]

I still don't understand why so many people have an issue with the new start screen. I just don't get it.

It's a little different but you launch apps still the same way.

I definitely don't get it's a deal breaker to not upgrade, when you have all those start menu options

I don't like all that switching back and forth between the start screen and the desktop, especially since I use mostly desktop apps. I don't care for Metro apps.

And yes, I have my favorites pinned on the taskbar. But still, it's annoying when you do have to switch.

[Stoffel]

I don't like all that switching back and forth between the start screen and the desktop, especially since I use mostly desktop apps. I don't care for Metro apps.

And yes, I have my favorites pinned on the taskbar. But still, it's annoying when you do have to switch.

I understand that, all I'm saying is that for me it's really not a big deal, I don't mind the switching.

I only use the start screen when I would have used the start menu in Win 7 which was barely ever.

At that point I don't mind it being full screen, I organized my start screen nicely so everything is pretty much only 2 clicks away ever.

I can see that some people find it a bit annoying to switch the whole time, but to despise it as some do over such a small thing just seems kinda silly

[Shane Nokes]

I don't like all that switching back and forth between the start screen and the desktop, especially since I use mostly desktop apps. I don't care for Metro apps.

And yes, I have my favorites pinned on the taskbar. But still, it's annoying when you do have to switch.

You still had to open the start menu to launch things...so you had to switch away from the current task to launch the new one.

The old start menu used a folder hieracrchy that required digging through levels of folders sometimes to get to the actual program. The new start screen gives a 'flat' approach to the hierarchy which means less digging.

I think what has people upset is purely the fact that it's a change. Instead of a small menu on the bottom left it's a full-screen menu. Functionally it's not really different...aesthetically it is.

[Growled Member]

I can see that some people find it a bit annoying to switch the whole time, but to despise it as some do over such a small thing just seems kinda silly

I agree with you on that. I use 8 and like it very much. I use a start menu replacement and am very happy with the entire experience.

[MorganX]

Yet while sticking with vanilla is safe, if MICROSOFT sticks with *vanilla*, it gets whacked for it.

That is the real issue with Microsoft - while it can't play it safe, its customers and users can.

Actually MS has no choice in this. The Explorer UI will not work on a tablet. That is how they got in this hole I the first place. They had really good concepts back in the day, but they just never saw the light of day.

At this point, it just wasn't easy. They couldn't "really" only implement Metro when a tablet was detected. Well actually they could have. To be honest, I'm not sure MS really ahd time to think this through. Full screen non-windowed apps on a desktop? Not gonna be successful, so either they thing the desktop really will fade away or Windows 9 will be another major UI/UX change. Now allowing windows Metro apps would fix, I don't see the point as for Windowing the Explorer UI is superior to an MDI Metro.

Someone like me doesn't mind the hybrid, and with great apps, it can be exciting. I have an issue with the lack of quality of the finished products at this point. Also, Metro Search and UI just has usability weaknesses on a desktop. File management, context menus ...

Others just don't like it.

I don't think Windows 7 is vanilla in the sense you are implying, and Windows 8 isn't tutti fruiti. It's a quite simple touch oriented UI. What's funny, the most complete and stable part of it right now? Yep, the good old vanilla Windows 8 Desktop environment :).

Microsoft has failed to execute in a timely manner (their own schedule) due to urgency and their internal culture didn't help. If their internal divisions can't communicate and work together, is it any surprise different parts of the OS and apps seem to be speaking different languages?

As two people who actually kinda like Windows 8, and really like the Surface (minus the missing media management that you can get on the desktop using Windows Media Player, is their any excuse for:

The kludge that is Windows 8 Search and the limited ability to do much with the results from the results list, the lack of unified search, the search input doesn't even clear itself with a new search or at the least, highlight the existing search keyword(s) so you can just start typing the new search.

Windows 8 OS and Windows Phone 8 released to retail with no meaningful Media Management resulting in the only solution being the "vanilla" (gotcha) classic Windows Media Player.

With Windows RT and Windows 8 OS being released to retail, no meaningful way to sync files between the Windows 8 RT Surface and Windows 8 Desktop?

The Music App and it's syncing/matching service is simply not really working. Synced playlists don't even look for the files locally 90% of the time.

That's not even counting the bugs. That's just the unfinished stuff Microsoft released. I couldn't be a Windows 8 evangelist if I wanted to. I wouldn't disrespect myself that much. There are too many things just not up to shareware quality. Microsoft needs a kick in the rear and all the criticism. And they need to be working to fix this mess with a sense of urgency. If there aren't major updates by Christmas, I predict a disaster when all the new Windows 8 hardware gets unwrapped and within a week falls apart for people who just want stuff to work. Things they've become accustomed to like music and videos, and iPad/iPhone apps working and not randomly quitting, etc. etc.

Yes, if all these things are fixed, anyone wanting to pass on Windows 8 because of the "Start" menu or resistance to change should then be carefully examined. Right now, you can't blame anyone for not wanting to move to Windows 8, or even Windows Phone 8 (if not for Windows Media Player, it would be the equivalent of having an Android only with more, arguably better apps).

BTW, Search will never be fixed. It was made for tablets, and works like it. Same goes for Devices and Sharing on the Charms bar. Have even you had occasion to use either on the desktop?

The worst part for customers? Microsoft can't openly admit how screwed up things are, or reassure us they are working day an night to fix things, if they did either of those they will insure Windows 8's failure. So silence ... and we wait.

PS: I don't actually mind if one day the desktop goes completely away. But based on what I've seen so far in Windows 8, that's a ridiculous thought.

[MorganX]

You still had to open the start menu to launch things...so you had to switch away from the current task to launch the new one.

The old start menu used a folder hieracrchy that required digging through levels of folders sometimes to get to the actual program. The new start screen gives a 'flat' approach to the hierarchy which means less digging.

I think what has people upset is purely the fact that it's a change. Instead of a small menu on the bottom left it's a full-screen menu. Functionally it's not really different...aesthetically it is.

No, with the old Start Menu you never lost sight of the entire desktop and whatever was going on it. Everything stayed in front of you. Like the current Start Page, you just type the name of the app and click on it, again, never losing sight of the desktop or having to scroll or survey more than the well defined area of the Start menu to find the result and click on it. Definitely didn't have to click Apps/Files/or Settings.

I'm not saying Metro isn't workable, but the notion that the Windows 7 Start Menu was inefficient or that the Start Page is more efficient is a stretch IMO. So many things are "more" work, whether click, draggin' selectin' or eyeball movin'. Metro works on the desktop but wasn't made for the desktop and we all know that.

[Dot Matrix]

There was nothing efficient about the old menu. Familiar, but not efficient. Take a peek through it, and what do you see? Tiny 16x16 icons, subfolders of subfolders, and archaic naming conventions. Dig far enough, and you run out of space. There literally is nothing "efficient" about that at all. Put it on a screen large enough, and the menu appears as this tiny, tiny thing that is just unusable. You're literally targeting such a tiny area on your screen, it's almost claustrophobic.

[Kosh Naranek]

Funny, because the Win7 desktop is still there...

No it's not. It's a weird hybrid. When using the explorer why do I need to see 'pink' colors when I highlight a certain type of file ?

Why can't I change the background picture without the UI changing into some hideous colors ?

Why does it go into full screen when I want to play some MP3's ?

When I'm on the start screen why does it switch to desktop when I press WIN+E ?

Why does the built in email client go into full screen ?

etc etc etc ....

It's a weird weird hybrid.

There was nothing efficient about the old menu. Familiar, but not efficient. Take a peek through it, and what do you see? Tiny 16x16 icons, subfolders of subfolders, and archaic naming conventions. Dig far enough, and you run out of space. There literally is nothing "efficient" about that at all. Put it on a screen large enough, and the menu appears as this tiny, tiny thing that is just unusable. You're literally targeting such a tiny area on your screen, it's almost claustrophobic.

It's not about the menu. I use RocketDock, simply because I like it that way. But with the new UI you have 2 homescreens ... windows switching between them depending on what you do is ...weird.

[Dot Matrix]

No it's not. It's a weird hybrid. When using the explorer why do I need to see 'pink' colors when I highlight a certain type of file ?

Why can't I change the background picture without the UI changing into some hideous colors ?

Why does it go into full screen when I want to play some MP3's ?

When I'm on the start screen why does it switch to desktop when I press WIN+E ?

Why does the built in email client go into full screen ?

etc etc etc ....

It's a weird weird hybrid.

What the frak are you doing? What pink colors? What hideous colors? I see NONE on the desktop. Where are you right clicking to change the desktop wallpaper? 'Personalize' is still in the same spot.

If you want a different MP3 app, use Program Defaults, and change it.

Win+E opens 'Computer'.

Metro apps are full screen. Boo Hoo.

[MorganX]

There was nothing efficient about the old menu. Familiar, but not efficient. Take a peek through it, and what do you see? Tiny 16x16 icons, subfolders of subfolders, and archaic naming conventions. Dig far enough, and you run out of space. There literally is nothing "efficient" about that at all. Put it on a screen large enough, and the menu appears as this tiny, tiny thing that is just unusable. You're literally targeting such a tiny area on your screen, it's almost claustrophobic.

We'll have to disagree. When using classic start menu, you don't look for icons. Say to browsed a hard drive you hover over computer and then browse the disk from the flyout from there. Nested folders? I create them if I need them. If browsing your "documents" from the start menu is inefficient, then "you" are inefficient. I can only assume you are talking about Programs on the start menu and I don't think anyone physically goes through the program menu, you simply type the program as you do in Windows 8.

I've never had Windows 7 on a screen or at a resolution that made it a tiny unusable thing and I'm not aware of this being a major complaint. I'm not arguing for or against the Start Page, but to, in the heat of Windows 8 evangelism, attempt to say the Start Menu was inefficient is ridiculous in my opinion and experience.

It would absolutely not work on touch devices, I buy that, but inefficient, please.

No it's not. It's a weird hybrid. When using the explorer why do I need to see 'pink' colors when I highlight a certain type of file ?

Why can't I change the background picture without the UI changing into some hideous colors ?

Why does it go into full screen when I want to play some MP3's ?

When I'm on the start screen why does it switch to desktop when I press WIN+E ?

Why does the built in email client go into full screen ?

etc etc etc ....

It's a weird weird hybrid.

It's not about the menu. I use RocketDock, simply because I like it that way. But with the new UI you have 2 homescreens ... windows switching between them depending on what you do is ...weird.

I don't know if you were trying to be funny but I do find this post funny.

I do recommend you make Windows Media Player classic your default for MP3s to end launching the full screen music app (you don't want to mess with that anyway :).

And yeah, choose your wallpaper carefully regarding the UI color changing.

[.Neo]

too confusing my ass.

people no a days are just too lazy to even bother TRYING to figure out the new system, they'd much rather be spoon fed everything

it's rather despicable how stubborn and stuck in their ways humankind has become

Tens of millions of people buying a Mac, iPhone, iPad and/or Android-based product show they are in fact willing to try and get used to something new. Could it be consumers simply don't like what Microsoft has come up with? Hmmm...

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Tens of millions of people buying a Mac, iPhone, iPad and/or Android-based product show they are in fact willing to try and get used to something new. Could it be consumers simply don't like what Microsoft has come up with? Hmmm...

i'd say that's still slightly different. there's a bit of difference between a completely new and different and a familiar environment that has changed quite a bit.

as far as consumers are concerned they seem to be getting used to it just fine from what i can tell, it's just nerds and such like us that have a problem it seems

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Tens of millions of people buying a Mac, iPhone, iPad and/or Android-based product show they are in fact willing to try and get used to something new. Could it be consumers simply don't like what Microsoft has come up with? Hmmm...

Exactly, Microsoft knows this very well. Consumers aren't "stuck in their ways" or "old fashioned" otherwise Apple's biggest problem wouldn't be where to store their endless bundles of cash. Consumers are willing to try and embrace new when it brings tangible benefits to the table for them.

The risks are so high with Windows 8 for them that I feel they just overshot and if this thing goes the way all of their latest shots have went they have a major problem on their hands. They are stoking the coals with developers that mobile is very important, but run the risk of those developers jumping for the existing successful platforms instead. This is why I feel they severely screwed up with Windows 8 in some major and fundamental ways. They are only bringing one real carrot to the table here. They are bringing millions of Windows desktop users to the table for a strong incentive for the developers, but they failed to bring something for the consumers.

Microsoft really needs to break the ecosystem pull of Apple and Google for users. Since Microsoft was willing to radically rethink the PC their primary focus should have been building a strong ecosystem. As it stands now, they have two separate "Stores" with one for Windows 8 Desktop & Tablet and another for Windows Phone. They have a phone which can't sync music with the PC properly. They have a PC littered with "charms" and they failed to deliver any solid vision for developers to be inspired by on how to use it.

It will be hard to pull users from iOS when they have spent thousands on apps, docks, speaker sets, etc... The same is true for Android, at least for apps.

To be honest, the **** poor release by Microsoft shows either arrogance or desperation and I'm not sure which is worse for them at this stage.

It may have been a smarter choice for them to release Windows 8 in a year or two from now when they could have ironed this out, but we're here now.

[Thunderbuck]

1) I wouldn't dismiss Paul Thurott; he's among the best writers out there who cover Microsoft. He has no reason to whine about limited access because he's got tons of good connections there. He also has books out on Win8; he has no good reason to bad-mouth Microsoft.

2) My own evidence is anecdotal, but I've tried to convince a number of people to upgrade to Win8. That $40 upgrade deal is fantastic. Almost all of them have replied with some variation on "I can't STAND those #@?!$ tiles!". If this reaction becomes the general public opinion of Win8, I could see this affecting even Windows Phone sales.

3) This reaction shouldn't be taken as any reflection on the technical merits of Win8. The trouble is, many users couldn't care less about "technical merits" if they feel the UI will demand too many changes to the way they've gotten used to working.

I would compare this to the polarized reaction that came with the ribbon UI in Office 2007. I personally liked it, and understood Microsoft reasoning (the ribbon was conceived when the Office team found that 3/4ths of new feature requests were for things that were already there, but buried so deep that users couldn't find them). There's a solid usability case for Win8, too, but when users make up their minds before they even try, what can you do?

[Joni_78]

If that was the case then Julie Larson-Green (the person who was responsible for the User Experience in Windows 8) wouldn't have been put in charge.

True, but the decision to go ahead with Julie's plans was Sinofskys.

[Kosh Naranek]

What the frak are you doing? What pink colors? What hideous colors? I see NONE on the desktop. Where are you right clicking to change the desktop wallpaper? 'Personalize' is still in the same spot.

If you want a different MP3 app, use Program Defaults, and change it.

Win+E opens 'Computer'.

Metro apps are full screen. Boo Hoo.

I know metro apps are full screen. :rofl:

This is what I'm talking about

Now compare that to win 7

[+LogicalApex MVC]

True, but the decision to go ahead with Julie's plans was Sinofskys.

And then interestingly she wasn't given Sinofsky's job directly. I read the position was split over two people and structured differently.

I don't think this is an admission of metro failure though it is interesting.

[Shane Nokes]

No, with the old Start Menu you never lost sight of the entire desktop and whatever was going on it. Everything stayed in front of you. Like the current Start Page, you just type the name of the app and click on it, again, never losing sight of the desktop or having to scroll or survey more than the well defined area of the Start menu to find the result and click on it. Definitely didn't have to click Apps/Files/or Settings.

I'm not saying Metro isn't workable, but the notion that the Windows 7 Start Menu was inefficient or that the Start Page is more efficient is a stretch IMO. So many things are "more" work, whether click, draggin' selectin' or eyeball movin'. Metro works on the desktop but wasn't made for the desktop and we all know that.

I didn't say lost sight. I said lost focus. As in the start menu was now the active item...which means it had focus. It's a term that refers to the active work item.

So in order to use the start menu, you have to actively disengage from working on something else. You also have to do that with the start screen.

The difference again is in aesthetics...the visual presentation.

Also it's not a stretch. What is better...clicking through a hierarchical folder structure down multiple levels...or having it presented to you directly without having to dig?

Efficiency wise? The way they present things now as flat is better.

True, but the decision to go ahead with Julie's plans was Sinofskys.

I understand your point, but things don't quite work that way in the corporate world. If you hate something you don't fire the guy who said 'ok' and put the person who designed it in charge of everything for the next version...since you are likely to get more of the same.

Think about it from a logical standpoint...not from a top-down standpoint.

Grr...getting so ticked off that I can't mention practical examples since it will bring down the 'he thinks he is superior to us with his hidden knowledge' brigade.

[Rippleman]

Grr...getting so ticked off that I can't mention practical examples since it will bring down the 'he thinks he is superior to us with his hidden knowledge' brigade.

Not your fault you think everyone else is wrong and you are always right. Its just your personality. People tend to not like people like that.

[Shane Nokes]

Not your fault you think everyone else is wrong and you are always right. Its just your personality. People tend to not like people like that.

I don't even feel that way. :p

If I know something I prefer being able to share what I know. I also like being able to provide a perspective that comes from direct experience.

People here don't like that it seems. So now I'm stuck having to read my posts multiple times to make sure I don't upset anyone due to an example or mention of a project or group.

Heck the only reason I spend time here is that I like providing info. It is also why I'm highly selective about what teams I choose to work with. I like jobs with high customer impact, even if it means never being a stock option billionaire everyone knows. :p

I'd rather have the job with impact and geek 'cred' over the high visibility gig any day of the week. :)

[game_over]

I still can't believe they didn't give us a new icon set.

[Shane Nokes]

I still can't believe they didn't give us a new icon set.

Well they did...for things inside the new UI. I didn't expect new Icons in the Desktop space since it is being viewed as a legacy area.

[PGHammer]

Exactly, Microsoft knows this very well. Consumers aren't "stuck in their ways" or "old fashioned" otherwise Apple's biggest problem wouldn't be where to store their endless bundles of cash. Consumers are willing to try and embrace new when it brings tangible benefits to the table for them.

The risks are so high with Windows 8 for them that I feel they just overshot and if this thing goes the way all of their latest shots have went they have a major problem on their hands. They are stoking the coals with developers that mobile is very important, but run the risk of those developers jumping for the existing successful platforms instead. This is why I feel they severely screwed up with Windows 8 in some major and fundamental ways. They are only bringing one real carrot to the table here. They are bringing millions of Windows desktop users to the table for a strong incentive for the developers, but they failed to bring something for the consumers.

Microsoft really needs to break the ecosystem pull of Apple and Google for users. Since Microsoft was willing to radically rethink the PC their primary focus should have been building a strong ecosystem. As it stands now, they have two separate "Stores" with one for Windows 8 Desktop & Tablet and another for Windows Phone. They have a phone which can't sync music with the PC properly. They have a PC littered with "charms" and they failed to deliver any solid vision for developers to be inspired by on how to use it.

It will be hard to pull users from iOS when they have spent thousands on apps, docks, speaker sets, etc... The same is true for Android, at least for apps.

To be honest, the **** poor release by Microsoft shows either arrogance or desperation and I'm not sure which is worse for them at this stage.

It may have been a smarter choice for them to release Windows 8 in a year or two from now when they could have ironed this out, but we're here now.

The problem is that waiting was not an option for the very reason you pointed out.

There is an impatience being shown - egged on by the punditocracy that loves anything not Microsoft.

Microsoft - plain and simply - did not have the extra time.

Google got away with it because they had NO legacy infrastructure. Apple, compared to Microsoft, is a niche.

As I've been posting for the past several months, the rise of devices caught Microsoft flat-footed.

If Microsoft waited, they risked not being able to counter that rise at all (the user base would be too ingrained in Android and iOS for Microsoft to make ANY inroads).

We as tech users and developers know it; we aren't stupid.

However, that means that if we want to do something about it, we have to accept a change in what Windows itself is and what it is about.

THAT is where we're balking.

Windows has been where it is for almost two decades - a desktop and workstation-focussed OS - its own niche. (It's a rather LARGE niche; however, it's still a niche.)

We, as users, have balked at any and every attempt to expand Windows out of that box we've caged it in. (The only thing that has succeeded is Azure.)

Look at any and every attempt Microsoft has made to expand Windows out of the "computing" niche - other than Azure (which succeeded by being obscure), we as users have done our darndest to force Windows back into the box.

Even though we're quite aware that unless Windows breaks OUT of that box, devices will encroach and start eating its lunch, we're still trying to keep Windows (and thus Microsoft) in that cage.

Are we, as users, THAT nihilistic?

[spudtrooper]

Microsoft has sold 40 million copies of Windows 8 to date. All you naysayers can shut up now k thxbai :)

http://www.winsyde.com/microsoft-has-sold-more-than-40-million-copies-of-windows-8/

[+mram Subscriber²]

Microsoft has sold 40 million copies of Windows 8 to date. All you naysayers can shut up now k thxbai :)

http://www.winsyde.c...s-of-windows-8/

Yay! 4% of the entire install base of Windows has upgraded! Break out the champagne folks.

I would venture to guess a large chunk of that are developers, corporate evaluators, and reporters.

Note it also does not count people who downgrade, nor does it separate OEM preinstallations.