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

[adrynalyne]

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.

MS doesn't try very hard to block activation cracks either, but that doesn't mean they are moving to a free model.

[fusi0n]

OS X is a small, also almost non-growing OS. 

Do you have any facts to back this statement up? OS X is widely used and is still growing pretty fast.. Is it as big as Windows? No.. But, to say it's small and not growing seems senseless. 

[PGHammer]

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?

In my case, it is because of issues that Windows 7 still has.

 

Disk Defragmenter didn't advance beyond the capabilities it had in Vista; to move beyond that, you needed a third-party disk-optimization utility.  Disk Optimizer (Windows 8+), on the other hand, is very much a third-party killer; not even the current version of Diskeeper can match it.  (Yes - you DID read that right.)

 

Windows 7 doesn't even HAVE a utility that will mount - let alone burn - disc images; Windows 8+, on the other hand, includes both features as built-in.  It even one-ups OS X by enabling you to do either right from the image itself - OS X requires the separate Disk Utility for image burning.

 

Virtualization - even if you can't run Hyper-V (native virtualization support built into Windows 8), if a third-party (such as either vmWare or Oracle) is what you need, Windows 8+ is a more stable foundation for either than Windows 7.

 

Lastly, I'm not scared of advancement - in terms of hardware OR software.  I can't expect to stand pat forever.

 

That isn't the case with ordinary folks - they move when they feel they have to, and not sooner.

[PGHammer]

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.

Then what WOULD be functional change that would be accepted and NOT break existing (desktop) software?

 

That is, in fact, Microsoft's problem - introducing new features (in fact, a new paradigm) without breaking backward-compatibility.

 

Microsoft did better with Windows 8 than anyone expected - which even the critics admit.  However, during a bad economy, it was still easier to stay put.

[Max Norris]

Do you have any facts to back this statement up? OS X is widely used and is still growing pretty fast.. Is it as big as Windows? No.. But, to say it's small and not growing seems senseless. 

You can look at any OS marketshare report, fluctuates a tad but it's been pretty consistent over the years, typically bouncing between 6 to 8% depending on whose numbers you look at. 

[fusi0n]

You can look at any OS marketshare report, fluctuates a tad but it's been pretty consistent over the years, typically bouncing between 6 to 8% depending on whose numbers you look at. 

I agree.. But, the way his statement was coming across, sounded like OSX isn't used by anyone.. 

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

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.  

 

Agreed. Let's see them have another go at it in Windows 9. 

[Max Norris]

I agree.. But, the way his statement was coming across, sounded like OSX isn't used by anyone.. 

Ahh, no that's just silly.  I wouldn't say it's growing a lot or anything, but not used by anyone?  Puhleez.  (That's the desktop mind you, iOS is a different situation entirely.)

[PGHammer]

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!

"Perfectly functional" despite the features that I pointed out that Windows 7 (an OS that sold in droves) flat-out lacked?

 

And by using XP - not 7 - as an example, you are actually highlighting the change-averseness of people in general.

 

Thank you for basically making my argument for me - though you doubtless would rather not have.

[Eric Veteran]

[Thread closed]

Please do not resurrect year-old posts unless you have relevant new information.