Windows 8 adoption rate almost at a standstill, far behind Windows 7

[Dutchie64]

I stopped reading after "In the month of February, according to Net Applications,"...........

It's the same as "analists came to the conclusion" or alike.

We get it, everybody hates W8..........

One of the main reasons imho:

- no new W8 pc/laptops/tablets for sale atm. It's hard to find one of the announced hardware in the shops.

- the economy stupid!

- W7 is good enough for a lot of people for now. See previous reason.

[Ian W]

I have 2 monitors, and I've never had issues hitting them. The mouse should catch, if you hit it right.

Nathan Lineback also wrote:

Back in the Windows 3.x and classic MacOS days there were many utilities that made use of "throwing" the mouse cursor to a corner of the screen. Because such an action lacks visibility, this was never popular and usually only used for invoking screen savers or advanced menus.

The whole concept of using corners falls flat on its face when viewing a desktop through something like a virtual machine window with seamless mouse integration, or through remote desktop software. The corners just don't exist, you have to aim the mouse over a few small pixels inside your window.

[Growled Member]

One of the main reasons imho:

- no new W8 pc/laptops/tablets for sale atm. It's hard to find one of the announced hardware in the shops.

- the economy stupid!

- W7 is good enough for a lot of people for now. See previous reason.

I think the economy is usually overlooked but things are still somewhat bleak and money is still tight. People are hanging on to what they have, either xp or 7.

[+Warwagon MVC]

So has the adoption rate gotten better yet?

[J_R_G]

Up about .80% over the last month, the highest it's ever been. The haters must be real proud of themselves, they've created a monster storm of Win 8 hate based on nonsense, and then sit back and say 'see nobody likes it' when the sales aren't that good. The fact that you can install a free start menu program in like 2 minutes, yet they holler about the issue, shows that this is a bunch of silliness. Yea yea you shouldn't be forced to use metro, well people shouldn't be forced to use the start menu who don't want it too. blah.

[Gone]

Up about .80% over the last month, the highest it's ever been. The haters must be real proud of themselves, they've created a monster storm of Win 8 hate based on nonsense, and then sit back and say 'see nobody likes it' when the sales aren't that good. The fact that you can install a free start menu program in like 2 minutes, yet they holler about the issue, shows that this is a bunch of silliness. Yea yea you shouldn't be forced to use metro, well people shouldn't be forced to use the start menu who don't want it too. blah.

How many years has the start menu existed? And how much more useful is it than the crappy Metro UI? A lot less useful.

 

People hate Windows 8 because it takes longer to do things than Windows XP or 7 (Unless you are gifted with a touchscreen which changes everything).

 

Yes I said it, Windows 8 is useless on non-touchscreen computers. Why? Because Metro is made for touchscreen, every part of its design.

 

You shouldn't have to install a program to use a start menu, Microsoft should have defaulted non-touchscreen computers to use the start menu, and touchscreen devices to use Metro.

 

I think you could agree.

[notchinese]

How many years has the start menu existed? And how much more useful is it than the crappy Metro UI? A lot less useful.

 

People hate Windows 8 because it takes longer to do things than Windows XP or 7 (Unless you are gifted with a touchscreen which changes everything).

 

Yes I said it, Windows 8 is useless on non-touchscreen computers. Why? Because Metro is made for touchscreen, every part of its design.

 

You shouldn't have to install a program to use a start menu, Microsoft should have defaulted non-touchscreen computers to use the start menu, and touchscreen devices to use Metro.

 

I think you could agree.

 

Nothing takes longer to do on Windows 8, don't be ridiculous.

[Gone]

Nothing takes longer to do on Windows 8, don't be ridiculous.

Care to back this brief, bland statement?

[AngelGraves13]

Nobody cares or wants Windows 8 anymore with Windows 9 right around the corner.

[notchinese]

Care to back this brief, bland statement?

 

I use Windows 7 all day at work, come home and use Windows 8. My usage pattern is identical. You were the one who made some "brief, bland statement" about Windows 8 taking longer, except that you never provided evidence.

 

There are in fact a number of things that I can do faster in Windows 8 than Windows 7.

 

Examples:

 

The items exposed directly in the explorer ribbon are faster to access.

The services tab in the task manager having the ability to restart services.

The startup tab in the task manager existing period, reducing the need to use msconfig, not to mention msconfig has less detail.

[Gone]

I'm hoping Windows 9 is the upgrade equivalent of upgrading XP to 7.

[Gone]

 

 

 

I use Windows 7 all day at work, come home and use Windows 8. My usage pattern is identical. You were the one who made some "brief, bland statement" about Windows 8 taking longer, except that you never provided evidence.

 

There are in fact a number of things that I can do faster in Windows 8 than Windows 7.

 

Examples:

 

The items exposed directly in the explorer ribbon are faster to access.

The services tab in the task manager having the ability to restart services.

The startup tab in the task manager existing period, reducing the need to use msconfig, not to mention msconfig has less detail.

 

There we go, I like the presented evidence!

[DeadEndAccount]

Personally what will appear in 'Threshold' should have been in Windows 8 right form the outset especially when it comes to windowed metro applications - if they standardised on a single set of applications which could be run in full screen or windowed mode along with the existence of the start menu then I'd say that 95% of complaints would never have been made (the remaining 5% will complain no matter what you do) - there would't be a situation of the win32 applications not sharing the settings with their metro counter part and vice versa; the existence of two competing control panels, two competing update managers etc. All of that should have been replaced with single versions of each application running in either full screen or windowed mode based on what the end user wanted. Honestly, why does it take a disaster before Microsoft realise that what they did was stupid? are all their developers getting high on their own BS that they have lost contact with what the average person actually expects from their computer?

[neo1911]

^^ What the above poster said. In contrast, Apple has nailed the user experience in OSX Yosemite. There is 1 single control panel/settings and update mechanism is common for installed store apps and the OS.

I disliked Windows 8 once I came to know that Microsoft had removed Wireless network management feature. It was very useful. Now everytime I change wifi settings network name jumps 1 number. Currently I am on Network 8

[PGHammer]

^^ What the above poster said. In contrast, Apple has nailed the user experience in OSX Yosemite. There is 1 single control panel/settings and update mechanism is common for installed store apps and the OS.

I disliked Windows 8 once I came to know that Microsoft had removed Wireless network management feature. It was very useful. Now everytime I change wifi settings network name jumps 1 number. Currently I am on Network 8

As opposed  to ALL networks (regardless of how you connect) being managed in one place?

 

If you only connect wirelessly (or only connect wired), I can see why you like the "one place" thinking.

 

However, unless you have a laptop or notebook that NEVER uses a wired connection, that is highly improbable.

 

Do you think that desktops ONLY use wired connections?

 

While a wired connection may be preferable for a desktop, it's not always practical.  (I have had to set up wireless connections for desktops, under every flavor of Windows from XP forward.  Having to deal with wireless connectivity in XP, VIsta, or even 7 is MUCH different than connecting in a wired fashion; having it be in a different place atop that is adding insult to injury.)

 

  With Windows 8 forward, what differences there are are in the connection wizard itself - however, all connections - wired or wireless - are in the same place, and even MANAGED in the same place.  If you are using a portable - of any sort - and have metered AND unmetered connections to choose from - in a Dunkin Donuts for example - you can now choose HOW to connect.  You can also set up connect-by-location connections.  It no longer matters how - just where.

 

Folks are sticking to what is familiar - no shame in that.  However, to pretend that it is ANYTHING else is blowing smoke, and should cease.

[DConnell Member]

How many years has the start menu existed? And how much more useful is it than the crappy Metro UI? A lot less useful.

 

People hate Windows 8 because it takes longer to do things than Windows XP or 7 (Unless you are gifted with a touchscreen which changes everything).

 

Yes I said it, Windows 8 is useless on non-touchscreen computers. Why? Because Metro is made for touchscreen, every part of its design.

 

You shouldn't have to install a program to use a start menu, Microsoft should have defaulted non-touchscreen computers to use the start menu, and touchscreen devices to use Metro.

 

I think you could agree.

 

I disagree.

 

Things took far longer in XP and even slightly longer in 7 than they do in 8. Abandoning the Start Menu was a godsend for me, and when it comes back, I'm desperately hoping its only an option. I don't ever want to have to navigate multiple layers of menus to find what I need again. That design concept should have been replaced in Windows 98, rather than in Windows 8.

 

Windows 8 is designed to work with a touchscreen, but it is in no way "unusable" with a mouse and keyboard. Touch is clearly designed as a supplemental input method, with mouse and keyboard still perfectly functional. I use my mouse with no problems in both Metro and desktop. Well, apart from the elements that were added to Update 1 that were supposed to make things better with the mouse. They actually just get in the way. Especially in remote desktop apps - that titlebar "helpfully" drops down so I close the entire remote session instead of just the program running within the session.

 

Improve the options to let people choose one interface or a hybrid, but both should remain.

[neo1911]

Folks are sticking to what is familiar - no shame in that.  However, to pretend that it is ANYTHING else is blowing smoke, and should cease.

 

Defend Windows 8 as much as you can, but the true story is reflected in the original article. Microsoft blew it by making half assed decisions and they are paying the price by slowly loosing marketshare.

 

The point is, if Apple's OSX app store starts driving more and more business, they might even release OSX for normal PCs in future. (A distant possibility)

 

Windows 9 must be what normal consumers (Not geeks like you and me) like and want. Not something which is some upper management's wet dream.

 

I for one think Steven Sinofsky was completely innocent and he clearly knew that Microsoft's vision during Windows 8 development was not an optimum one. But he took the entire flak and was made to resign. I blame Julie Larsen-Green for this entire Windows 8 fiasco. But she got promoted.  :laugh:

 

Flame suit on !!!

[adrynalyne]

 

The point is, if Apple's OSX app store starts driving more and more business, they might even release OSX for normal PCs in future. (A distant possibility)

 

 

Mmmm, no.  Apple is a hardware company and that would drive away sales of their own machines.

 

Maybe, one day. if Apple decides to become a software company in the future.  Unlikely though.

[PGHammer]

Defend Windows 8 as much as you can, but the true story is reflected in the original article. Microsoft blew it by making half assed decisions and they are paying the price by slowly loosing marketshare.

 

The point is, if Apple's OSX app store starts driving more and more business, they might even release OSX for normal PCs in future. (A distant possibility)

 

Windows 9 must be what normal consumers (Not geeks like you and me) like and want. Not something which is some upper management's wet dream.

 

I for one think Steven Sinofsky was completely innocent and he clearly knew that Microsoft's vision during Windows 8 development was not an optimum one. But he took the entire flak and was made to resign. I blame Julie Larsen-Green for this entire Windows 8 fiasco. But she got promoted.  :laugh:

 

Flame suit on !!!

sanke - it's STILL blowing smoke.

 

You (like every other critic) are insisting on non-change - and there's nothing wrong with that; haven't I pointed out since the Developer Preview that all too many folks are change-averse?

 

I don't have a problem with being change-averse - however, I don't want folks blowing smoke and insisting that it is anything else BUT that.

 

Further, not moving is easy - it costs nothing to not move.

[Salgoth]

I don't really see people leaving windows 7 until the next advancement in computer hardware itself. Since PC's over the past few years haven't really gotten that much faster when it comes to OEM desktops. So in general the only people who do upgrade are those people who love new tech, An that's only a small percent.

No reason to upgrade when everything on your current system works great.

Couldn't have said it better myself!  On an existing system there is nothing compelling about Win 8 to drive adoption.  New portable or tablet systems - sure.  New desktop systems - NOPE, why have to train/teach a new OS when Win 7 works so well?

[PGHammer]

Mmmm, no.  Apple is a hardware company and that would drive away sales of their own machines.

 

Maybe, one day. if Apple decides to become a software company in the future.  Unlikely though.

adrynalyne - it's not as if Apple is trying all that hard to block OS X from being installed on non-Apple hardware.

 

Further, how many folks running OS X download at least SOME applications from the MAS (whether free or fee)?

 

The MAS is the obvious model that the Windows (App) Store chose - as there are both free AND paid apps there; further, the MAS does NOT block you from installing Mac software the traditional way - any more than the Windows (App) Store does.

 

Instead of comparing Windows 8+ to Android or iOS, Windows 8+ should be compared to OS X - in particular, OS X Lion and later.

 

Windows RT can (and possibly should) be compared to IOS - however, comparing Windows 8+ to iOS does a disservice to the Microsoft operating system.

 

Further, Windows 8+ and OS X Lion and later CAN co-exist, and on the same (non-Apple) hardware.  I'm not the only person running Windows and OS X side-by-side on the same hardware - not even on Neowin.  (Yes - in my case, it's Windows 8.1 and Mavericks, which I am about to update to Yosemite.)

 

I'm not change-averse - and that is by choice.

 

My issue is not with being change-averse - it's with those trying to blow smoke and claim they aren't when the evidence says otherwise.

[Malisk]

did extremetech make that chart? I wonder where they got there data from. maybe I didn't read properly I actually just skimmed article. I wonder where they got their data from.

Net Applications. The results were mirrored by the number of apps in Windows Store, as tracked by MetroStore Scanner.

 

I'm not sure why OS X is discussed here. That's not why Windows 8 is having a hard time. OS X is a small, also almost non-growing OS. I think it's just a combination of Windows 8 not being so much better than Windows 7 for desktops that people bother, combined with the entire desktop platform having a hard time right now.

[Hum]

I'm waiting for, a hopefully better Windows 9.

[Salgoth]

Going even further I would predict that even Win 9 will not drive new adoption.  Taken as a whole there really isn't much more you can do with the standard user interface until there's some big change in how we interact with our computers.  I think MS has to go the "software-as-a-service" route sooner rather than later.  Sell the package dirt cheap and if the product is good you can count on guarenteed annual revenue for decades to come - why go through the jumble of creating a new "version" every 2 or 3 years?  Realistically, MS could still be updating and adding features to Win 7 if it wasn't for their trying to drive new sales by forced obsolescence of a perfectly functional product.  Just imagine if they had gone saas with Win XP - they would have banked over a decade of continuous revenue off that single product!

[neo1911]

sanke - it's STILL blowing smoke.

 

You (like every other critic) are insisting on non-change - and there's nothing wrong with that; haven't I pointed out since the Developer Preview that all too many folks are change-averse?

 

So me switching to OSX from Windows 8 is not change averse? I am the biggest fan of changes if they are functional. The disjoint start screen and dual control panel is not functional change.

 

However, Windows 8.1 Update 1 is tolerable. 

 

There should not be a change for the sake of it. Microsoft promising to bring back Start menu in future is the very proof that the change was not good.

 

BTW this was not just blowing smoke by me. When so many people blow smoke, it causes fire. lol Microsoft's bottom is over it and that's why all the backtracking. Like you, even I want Microsoft to succeed. Hopefully they will. But my only wish is that app store is not shoved on my face like it is now with Windows 8.1

 

Frankly, the Modern UI is getting stale and boring these days.