Windows 8 Sales are actually Amazing - 40 million sold


Recommended Posts

Additionally, countless Windows programs depend on this functionality as this allows them to ensure they open the default browser instead of figuring out what browsers users have installed (the app sends the url to the API as if it were a file to execute). So it isn't that arcane or odd.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not... But if you are... I'd recommend you read some of the fundamentals of the craft such as Hunt's The Pragmatic Programmer and understand why the DRY Principal he mentions is considered a fundamental part of software engineering.

You can also Google it... But actually learning the concepts is far more important.

The point is that the search dialog uses entirely different code and calls form the run dialog, but it can still do the same thing. Sure they could use the old run dialog code to do stuff the search dialog can already do. OR they could more effectively just let the search dialog do all the stuff itself, more efficiently and without calling other code.

OR is your idea of effective coding to first check if the code is a call for a local executable (btw at this point, it can already execute it), then if it finds out it is, then it passes on the call to the run dialog...

seriously, THINK about it.

and if hands are already on the keyboard it's slower just to take your hands off the keyboard and put it on the mouse.

win+e then type. allt+tab then type, win+# then type.

normally the site I'm looking for is already open in one of my 30+ tabs though.

The point is that the search dialog uses entirely different code and calls form the run dialog, but it can still do the same thing. Sure they could use the old run dialog code to do stuff the search dialog can already do. OR they could more effectively just let the search dialog do all the stuff itself, more efficiently and without calling other code.

OR is your idea of effective coding to first check if the code is a call for a local executable (btw at this point, it can already execute it), then if it finds out it is, then it passes on the call to the run dialog...

seriously, THINK about it.

win+e then type. allt+tab then type, win+# then type.

normally the site I'm looking for is already open in one of my 30+ tabs though.

No, my point is the RUN dialog and the Search function "run" capabilities share the same underpinnings. Otherwise, MS would be violating the DRY principal by having two separate pieces of code doing the same thing in two places. The RUN dialog and the "run" functionality in search are merely two separate windows into the same room.

It's far from even being a Windows-only (or even OS/distribution-only) dilemma - look at the earlier-in-this-thread comparison between Adobe Creativity Suite (CS) products and Microsoft Office products; even on OS X - which has far greater UI cohesiveness than even Windows pre-8; look at how the Adobe CS products behave within that UI compared to Microsoft Office products. Different approaches to the same problem. Heck - just look at the differences between Pagemaker and Word (again, on OS X, not Windows).

Don't necessarily disagree with your point or conclusion but comparing Adobe Graphic Design software to Office Products, and PageMaker (InDesign for some time now :) to Word, is like comparing apple's to oranges.

and if hands are already on the keyboard it's slower just to take your hands off the keyboard and put it on the mouse.

I don't know about that one. We're so well trained, even novice users can slide that right hand over and grab that mouse pretty darn quick.

No, my point is the RUN dialog and the Search function "run" capabilities share the same underpinnings. Otherwise, MS would be violating the DRY principal by having two separate pieces of code doing the same thing in two places. The RUN dialog and the "run" functionality in search are merely two separate windows into the same room.

Except they don't, the search dialog by it's function has to do thing other ways than the run at an earlier stage, and at that stage it can already launch the app. so they don't share the same principles, not in any meaningful way that would make it any way sensible for them to share the same code.

it's not just the start screen. it's metro apps in general. The messaging map give you absolutely no option to turn it off. it's on perpetually and everytime someone sends me a message it give me no way to stop the annoying pop-up box on the desktop informing me I have a message. Trying to uninstall that particular app uninstalls 3 or 4 others including the calendar and mail, and people apps. This is a product that Microsoft should truly be sorry for. This is the 'batman and robin' of OS's. I get why they tried to do and I think that's cool. It was executed so horribly

I agree with you, Metro apps, particularly Microsoft's, are unfinished and IMO, and an embarrassment. The decision to bundle the core messaging apps was a choice.

I wouldn't write of Windows 8 though. Aside from the apps, and that is big, I only truly miss unified search and the ability to perform context actions on the result with the click of a mouse. You can still do that if you search with Explorer in the desktop environment. The Modern UI simply will not be able to duplicate that productivity.

Someone here used fast an efficient in the same sentence with Modern UI Search. I need some of whatever they're smoking.

Except they don't, the search dialog by it's function has to do thing other ways than the run at an earlier stage, and at that stage it can already launch the app. so they don't share the same principles, not in any meaningful way that would make it any way sensible for them to share the same code.

I think you're completely missing what I'm saying here... The RUN dialog has to pass its "run" command to the OS to tell it to execute the application. The Start Screen "run functionality" has to do the exact same thing. Sure, it has to do searches and a variety of other tasks, but once it has decided it needs to do "run functionality" then it has to pass that off to the OS somehow. Unless you're implying that the Start Screen is executing that code itself independent of the OS it is running on?

The RUN dialog really isn't doing anything but calling whatever API endpoint MS has exposed for starting processes. I'm sure this is the same endpoint used by Explorer itself and all over the OS.

The dialog itself was not what I was referring to.

I think you're completely missing what I'm saying here... The RUN dialog has to pass its "run" command to the OS to tell it to execute the application. The Start Screen "run functionality" has to do the exact same thing. Sure, it has to do searches and a variety of other tasks, but once it has decided it needs to do "run functionality" then it has to pass that off to the OS somehow. Unless you're implying that the Start Screen is executing that code itself independent of the OS it is running on?

The RUN dialog really isn't doing anything but calling whatever API endpoint MS has exposed for starting processes. I'm sure this is the same endpoint used by Explorer itself and all over the OS.

The dialog itself was not what I was referring to.

That's completely irrelevant of your original argument though, as that's the execution call, which is used not just by run, Search, but also shortcuts, other programs, start screen, ANYTHING that launches ANYTHING on the OS. and is not even part of the run dialog as such. just something it uses on the same line as search.

This was not your argument, you said the run dialog had to be kept and that search used the run dialog code. that is something completely different form using the execute call. The run dialog is far more than just the execute, call, which again isn't part of it, but rather part of the core OS.

That's completely irrelevant of your original argument though, as that's the execution call, which is used not just by run, Search, but also shortcuts, other programs, start screen, ANYTHING that launches ANYTHING on the OS. and is not even part of the run dialog as such. just something it uses on the same line as search.

This was not your argument, you said the run dialog had to be kept and that search used the run dialog code. that is something completely different form using the execute call. The run dialog is far more than just the execute, call, which again isn't part of it, but rather part of the core OS.

This thread has been moving pretty quickly today so I'll forgive you for pulling my statements out of context.

I never said the run dialog had to be kept. I merely stated that it should be kept.

I later responded to a post from Dot Matrix that stated the run dialog should be removed because the code is redundant. My point was simply that the code doing the same task between the two isn't repeated and is most likely shared, as long as MS adhered to good engineering principals.

It's a great read this thread :) One trying his best to outdo the other, neither getting anywhere, both arriving back at the same start position :woot:

Great for a giggle at the end of a hard day.

It's a great read this thread :) One trying his best to outdo the other, neither getting anywhere, both arriving back at the same start position :woot:

Great for a giggle at the end of a hard day.

Very much agreed. I needed the distraction from work ;)

You're talking about using a consumer-oriented OS like some kind of nerd's plaything, which is never going to happen. You're most likely the one person still using the archaic run dialog that should have been stripped from windows in Windows 7.

Dot, you know better than that - I have personally told of using the Runbox in Windows 8 (and Server 2012, for that matter) to avoid two issues that have plagued all versions of Windows (desktop and server) - desktop-shortcut clutter and (starting with Vista/7) Taskbar-Superbar pin clutter. (With the Start menu itself gone, my biggest reason for leveraging Run also went away - however, that does NOT take away from the usefulness of the Runbox - especially since it's the ONE area that the addition of Index Server to the Windows core - starting with Windows 2000 - has always and never-failingly worked.)

The more I use an application, the LESS likely I am to create either a desktop shortcut OR pin said application to the Taskbar or Superbar, for the simple reason that I can Runbox the application in question. (Thanks to Index Server, the Run dialog actually has a memory - it remembers the fifteen last-used commands, batchfiles, scriptlets (including PoiwerShell scriptlets) - and it's been in there since Windows 2000. That is, in fact, why I don't miss the application shortcuts that Office hasn't created by default since Office 2003 for ANY of the applications - Office 2000 only created a shortcut for Outlook by default.)

It's a great read this thread :) One trying his best to outdo the other, neither getting anywhere, both arriving back at the same start position :woot:

Great for a giggle at the end of a hard day.

what ever he says he gets you doing it wrong..

and i'd say they are losing if this was a debate.

atleast i tried to sya linked to the topic at hand lol

some of these cheerleaders lose it and go off about using the mouse for 13 pages or whatever lol

why would zoom in on one micro aspect of how this one guy uses windows ?

insist "he's doing it wrong" ?

DotMatrix what is you deal buddy ?

I'm really wondering if you have issues or something..

Why are people not allowed to have their own way of using windows or opinions other than butt kissing about win 8 ?

DotMatrix what is you deal buddy ?

I'm really wondering if you have issues or something..

Why are people not allowed to have their own way of using windows or opinions other than butt kissing about win 8 ?

I'd rather see Microsoft streamline Windows. Strip away the outdated components, and unify what's left. Unless you're Andrea Borman, do we really need compatibility all the way back to the earliest days of the desktop? Do we really need options for every damn little toggle in the OS? Do we need all this excess baggage in Windows?

I'd rather see Microsoft streamline Windows. Strip away the outdated components, and unify what's left. Unless you're Andrea Borman, do we really need compatibility all the way back to the earliest days of the desktop? Do we really need options for every damn little toggle in the OS? Do we need all this excess baggage in Windows?

So, you want MS to throw out Windows and start fresh? You should ask Netscape how that worked out for them...

So, you want MS to throw out Windows and start fresh? You should ask Netscape how that worked out for them...

It's essentially what they've started to do with Windows 8.

It's essentially what they've started to do with Windows 8.

Not really. They are trying new tricks on the old horse hoping to get it ahead in a new race, but they are racing the same horse. If they were to seriously kick legacy support in Windows to the wayside to the extreme you want they will fade to history faster than the Olson twins.

In the new race they want Windows to get into MS has no serious pull with consumers or developers so they need that legacy card to offer them some possible advantage.

Luckily for them you're not running the show otherwise they'd be looking a lot like RIM.

Not really. They are trying new tricks on the old horse hoping to get it ahead in a new race, but they are racing the same horse. If they were to seriously kick legacy support in Windows to the wayside to the extreme you want they will fade to history faster than the Olson twins.

In the new race they want Windows to get into MS has no serious pull with consumers or developers so they need that legacy card to offer them some possible advantage.

Luckily for them you're not running the show otherwise they'd be looking a lot like RIM.

Extreme? If your app is pre-XP then that's on you. If your company is still actively deploying crap that's pre-2001, that should be on you, not Microsoft. Any code pre-2000's should be considered fair game for the chopping block. To be honest, any reputable software maker should be up to date with Windows 7.

But, yes, they are essentially starting over with Windows 8.

Start Menu - GONE.

Networking window - GONE.

Old Search window - GONE.

Dialog boxes - GONE.

etc...

Extreme? If your app is pre-XP then that's on you. If your company is still actively deploying crap that's pre-2001, that should be on you, not Microsoft. Any code pre-2000's should be considered fair game for the chopping block. To be honest, any reputable software maker should be up to date with Windows 7.

That's where you show how truly clueless you are. Each Windows release builds upon the last. So the #1 software on Windows depending on pre-XP code is Windows itself! If MS drew a line in the sand and stripped anything pre-XP then Windows 8 wouldn't even boot...

That's where you show how truly clueless you are. Each Windows release builds upon the last. So the #1 software on Windows depending on pre-XP code is Windows itself! If MS drew a line in the sand and stripped anything pre-XP then Windows 8 wouldn't even boot...

Vista+ was coded from the Server codebase, not XP. Anything stripped can be replaced by Modern components or unified elsewhere in the system. The Control Panel for one should have been unified under the Modern UI. Microsoft can finally get rid of all these damn control widgets that plague the OS.

Vista+ was coded from the Server codebase, not XP.

:huh: And the "Server code base" came from where? Do you honestly think MS rewrites Windows from scratch regularly? Surely you're not that delusional Dot.

:huh: And the "Server code base" came from where? Do you honestly think MS rewrites Windows from scratch regularly? Surely you're not that delusional Dot.

Do we really need to go all the way back? My point being is, Windows carries so much legacy baggage that it's overdue for a complete overhaul. At some point in time you have to draw the line. A similar point passed around Vista's time. You saw what happened with XP... it was being picked apart by malware after malware. Now, Windows is being picked apart by slimmer, more agile operating systems. Surely that's not cause for concern? Did you not just read the news where users are concerned with the amount of space Windows takes up? Buy a 32 GB Windows tablet, and tell me, how much space do you have left? What do you want Microsoft to do?

Do we really need to go all the way back? My point being is, Windows carries so much legacy baggage that it's overdue for a complete overhaul. At some point in time you have to draw the line. A similar point passed around Vista's time. You saw what happened with XP... it was being picked apart by malware after malware. Now, Windows is being picked apart by slimmer, more agile operating systems. Surely that's not cause for concern? Did you not just read the news where users are concerned with the amount of space Windows takes up? Buy a 32 GB Windows tablet, and tell me, how much space do you have left?

As I said earlier, Microsoft is hoping this legacy support will be their saving grace. So, they don't agree with you here.

Microsoft has deliberately chosen to offer "full" Windows in the tablet space and not a slimmer and leaner mobile focused OS, like they do with Windows Phone. They are hoping that users want this legacy support and that developers do as well. Is MS right? Who knows. But I do know one thing. If users are allowed to pick an OS in mobile they largely don't choose Windows, irrespective of variant. So without the legacy card MS comes to the table with nothing in the new race and they are already a few laps behind.

As I said earlier, Microsoft is hoping this legacy support will be their saving grace. So, they don't agree with you here.

Microsoft has deliberately chosen to offer "full" Windows in the tablet space and not a slimmer and leaner mobile focused OS, like they do with Windows Phone. They are hoping that users want this legacy support and that developers do as well. Is MS right? Who knows. But I do know one thing. If users are allowed to pick an OS in mobile they largely don't choose Windows, irrespective of variant. So without the legacy card MS comes to the table with nothing in the new race and they are already a few laps behind.

If they're dragging the legacy support with them on purpose, then why is the desktop on RT a dead duck? I can't so **** on the desktop besides run Office, and that's Microsoft's own doing!

If they're dragging the legacy support with them on purpose, then why is the desktop on RT a dead duck? I can't so **** on the desktop besides run Office, and that's Microsoft's own doing!

The better question is if the Desktop is a dead duck that is being primed for slaughter then why is it on RT at all to any serious extent? Office could have been sandboxed into a very limited desktop experience.

The better question is if the Desktop is a dead duck that is being primed for slaughter then why is it on RT at all to any serious extent? Office could have been sandboxed into a very limited desktop experience.

Which is why I believe you're going to see the Metro-ification of more elements in Windows 9. Hell maybe even in "Blue".

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!