Analyst Says Windows 8 should be free to existing Windows users

[MorganX]

It's a little late to back track now but Windows 8 was marketed wrong by MS and should of been presented as a different flavor geared towards touchscreen tablets and Windows smartphones, not as an upgrade to Windows 7. Windows 8 will NEVER be accepted by the business community. The learning curve would be too enormous to train people over to.

 

I would agree with Windows 8 RTM. But with the changes in 8.1 and the rumored return of the Start Menu, I think MS is covering its business problem. It'll do just fine in the enterprise. Modern UI might not do so well, not if random app quits don't become a thing of the past.

[MorganX]

Just how would it be impossible to train users on the start screen? Hell, if a business is deploying tablets, and people use it there, then what?

 

 

You're both actually right if he meant the cost being to enormous. You can teach anyone just about anything within the scope of this discussion. But the cost may not be worth incurring. Not just end users, but administering the Start Page and Modern Apps. It can all be done, but is it worth the cost.

 

It all works, but where's the value that makes it worth it, given what Windows 7 delivers. People are enjoying the returns on Windows 7 deployment and training investments, why ditch that and start over? That's the question ...

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

The problem with Windows 8 unlike other versions is Modern. Microsoft cant simply dump modern in a future version Windows, they now committed indefinitely with the 100,000s of apps.

[PGHammer]

It's a little late to back track now but Windows 8 was marketed wrong by MS and should of been presented as a different flavor geared towards touchscreen tablets and Windows smartphones, not as an upgrade to Windows 7. Windows 8 will NEVER be accepted by the business community. The learning curve would be too enormous to train people over to.

The problem with that idea is then Microsoft really WOULD be throwing the existing users - the very folks saying that they want no part of Windows 8 OR 8.1 - under the bus.  And if you think the screams are loud now, imagine the screaming in THAT scenario!

 

Niche flavors of what is otherwise "desktop Windows" have not historically fared well - the closest any such Windows came to succeeding was not a subset of Windows (Tablet PC Edition) but a superset (Media Center Edition).  Those beating up Microsoft over Windows 8 and 8.1 know this - they aren't stupid.  What they ARE, however, is quite selfish.

 

They know quite well that a pointing-device-centric UI or UX won't work on tablets, slates, or adaptive hardware (convertibles, detachable-screen hardware, etc.).  If you are going to maintain a consistent UI or UX, that meant that a pointing-device-specific UX won't work.  The UX - if not the UI - must be more neutral than the Start menu has ever been.  However, they don't want to adapt.  They are quite happy using a pointing-device-centric UI, and maintaining the Windows 7-and-earlier UX.  They don't want Windows RT, Windows on tablets, slates, etc. - in fact, Windows on anything that doesn't support pointing devices - to succeed.  If that puts Windows itself into a niche, so be it.  After all, it's their niche.

[belto]

i really do not like the w8.

[MorganX]

The problem with that idea is then Microsoft really WOULD be throwing the existing users - the very folks saying that they want no part of Windows 8 OR 8.1 - under the bus.  And if you think the screams are loud now, imagine the screaming in THAT scenario!

 

Niche flavors of what is otherwise "desktop Windows" have not historically fared well - the closest any such Windows came to succeeding was not a subset of Windows (Tablet PC Edition) but a superset (Media Center Edition).  Those beating up Microsoft over Windows 8 and 8.1 know this - they aren't stupid.  What they ARE, however, is quite selfish.

 

They know quite well that a pointing-device-centric UI or UX won't work on tablets, slates, or adaptive hardware (convertibles, detachable-screen hardware, etc.).  If you are going to maintain a consistent UI or UX, that meant that a pointing-device-specific UX won't work.  The UX - if not the UI - must be more neutral than the Start menu has ever been.  However, they don't want to adapt.  They are quite happy using a pointing-device-centric UI, and maintaining the Windows 7-and-earlier UX.  They don't want Windows RT, Windows on tablets, slates, etc. - in fact, Windows on anything that doesn't support pointing devices - to succeed.  If that puts Windows itself into a niche, so be it.  After all, it's their niche.

 

+100 on the selfish comment. That's what happens when share holders are running the ship. And when senior managers are suffering from megalomania (Sinofsky) and left unchecked by the CEO (Ballmer. This is really his on true failing).

 

As for not wanting their mobile initiatives to work, I'm not sure about that. I think they just had a knee jerk reaction to the shift in market growth curves; Tim Cook's comments that were applicable to Apple but not Microsoft (Ballmer and boys got hoodwinked into diving head first into Apple's strength while alienating their own, which was desktop dominance), and then Sinofsky's narcissistic alienation of everyone not under his control. He made stupid decisions and Ballmer let him. Hence no tight iTunes like integration between WP8, W8, W8 based tablets. They abandoned their strongest weapon, the desktop, as a common hub. The irony, Apple did not. Windows with iTunes is more of a hub providing consistent content and device management, than Windows is for Windows Phone and Windows 8 Based Tablets. That's just ludicrous. Tim Cook must laugh his ass off every single day at how easily he suckered these guys. Not only did MS disconnect all of its devices from the desktop in a manner that is not consumer friendly, they made a mess of the desktop itself more millions of its desktop users. I don't know if it was intentional or if Cook is a psychological genius that hit Goliath smack dab in the eye.

 

Ballmer's One Microsoft reorg may undo the cancerous corporate culture Sinofsky was allowed to spread, but a lot of time was lost. What needs to happen, is all Windows 8 devices need to be able to communicate and share information as easily and transparently as the company needs to be able to do under this reorganization. And so far, they're simply not even aware that is a problem. They are addressing one issue, the Modern UI must accommodate the needs of, and the workflow of, desktop users. It should not be exactly the same on a mobile device as it is on a desktop device. Just as OS X is not the same on a desktop as iOS is on a mobile device.

[MorganX]

What should be free? Zune Client 8.1 (Call it Xbox Central or whatever branding you want). An elegantly designed Modern App that is a combination of Xbox Music & Video. That manages all media and sync directly and dynamically to Windows Phone 8.x and Windows 8 based tablet devices just like iTune or older Zune versions.

 

Want to use cloud streaming, go ahead, if not, you have all the previous functionality to easily manage and sync your media and devices in a fun, intuitive manner. Not tied to any paid or free service.

 

Pay someone to port all Microsoft Studios owned XBLA games to WinRT, pay for rights to port Shadow Complex, Geometry Wars, etc to WinRT. Make no more endless runners and reintroduce things with a consumer focus.

 

Continue the direction they're taking to improve Windows 8 for desktop users, add more direct GPO control of the Start Page, and all will end well.

 

Not going to happen.

 

Edit: Oh, and remake Media Center for WinRT and give it away with Pro. < Also not going to happen.

[webdev511]

Edit: Oh, and remake Media Center for WinRT and give it away with Pro. < Also not going to happen.

Like that A LOT.

If 8.2 has a mini-start it will be to appeal to business users.

IMHO, companies that sold desktop apps written for Win2k, XP, Vista & 7 need to pull the source code out, make fixes and rebuild them with based on the guidelines for building Metro apps. I am NOT saying they should rebuild them AS Metro apps, rather that they should be updated so that they use the same memory handling, tombstoning and power management schemes as Metro apps. E.g. my work machine has a Plantroics utility that manages audio source & interacts with Lync to show if I'm in a call or conference call. It runs on Windows 8.1, but if I don't manually kill it before powering down it occasionally hangs which causes the shutdown process to hang. If it were re-written to work with Windows 8 rather than just run on Win8 in desktop mode, that wouldn't be a problem.

I guess in a way Windows 8.x does have a "Vista" like issue in that the OS itself works very well (but still needs improvement), but third party applications written for older versions of Windows aren't doing Microsoft any favors.

[Gerowen]

Long rant about Windows licensing fees, be warned.

 

Licensing fees is one of the reasons I and many others choose to use Linux.  Unless you have a specific requirement that can only be filled by Windows, a lot of admins benefit from it because it's open source, and it's free so they don't have to worry about paying exorbitant licensing fees if they want to legally put a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate on a whopping TWO of their computers.

 

I demanded and received a refund from Microsoft one time.  I went to Best Buy and bought a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate for right around $300.  I had bought Windows XP before, and in doing so I was allowed to install that copy on 3 computers; it said so on the box, so I assumed the same was true of Windows 7.  I got it home, installed it, activated it, then tried to do the same thing for my wife's laptop, and got a message telling me it had already been used.  Rather than pay another $300, and because of some compatability issues I had on the one machine that did end up receiving Windows 7, I nuked it, replaced it with Ubuntu, and followed the procedures indicated on the website for returning a product.  I will give Microsoft kudos for actually issuing me the refund, including sales tax, and the reps were very polite, but their licensing fees are a bad business practice that keeps people like myself from getting involved with their products.

 

I even converted a number of people, average users, to Linux for that reason.  I used to work on personal computers on the side when I was an IT Specialist in the Army.  90% of the time, if it required an OS re-install, there would be a restore partition or the customer would have the restore discs.  Sometimes however, the hard drive would have failed and the warranty will have expired, requiring them to pay for restore discs to be mailed, or a previous "friend who knows a lot about computers" will have installed a pirated copy of Windows that had been FUBAR'd, meaning no restore discs except another copy of Windows for a clean install, and I don't do piracy, I figure if it's good enough for me to choose, it's good enough to pay for.  Most of those people, when they heard how much they'd have to pay, opted to have Linux installed because the majority of them didn't do anything that couldn't be done using Linux, LibreOffice, and Firefox.

[Dot Matrix]

Long rant about Windows licensing fees, be warned.

Licensing fees is one of the reasons I and many others choose to use Linux. Unless you have a specific requirement that can only be filled by Windows, a lot of admins benefit from it because it's open source, and it's free so they don't have to worry about paying exorbitant licensing fees if they want to legally put a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate on a whopping TWO of their computers.

I demanded and received a refund from Microsoft one time. I went to Best Buy and bought a copy of Windows 7 Ultimate for right around $300. I had bought Windows XP before, and in doing so I was allowed to install that copy on 3 computers; it said so on the box, so I assumed the same was true of Windows 7. I got it home, installed it, activated it, then tried to do the same thing for my wife's laptop, and got a message telling me it had already been used. Rather than pay another $300, and because of some compatability issues I had on the one machine that did end up receiving Windows 7, I nuked it, replaced it with Ubuntu, and followed the procedures indicated on the website for returning a product. I will give Microsoft kudos for actually issuing me the refund, including sales tax, and the reps were very polite, but their licensing fees are a bad business practice that keeps people like myself from getting involved with their products.

I even converted a number of people, average users, to Linux for that reason. I used to work on personal computers on the side when I was an IT Specialist in the Army. 90% of the time, if it required an OS re-install, there would be a restore partition or the customer would have the restore discs. Sometimes however, the hard drive would have failed and the warranty will have expired, requiring them to pay for restore discs to be mailed, or a previous "friend who knows a lot about computers" will have installed a pirated copy of Windows that had been FUBAR'd, meaning no restore discs except another copy of Windows for a clean install, and I don't do piracy, I figure if it's good enough for me to choose, it's good enough to pay for. Most of those people, when they heard how much they'd have to pay, opted to have Linux installed because the majority of them didn't do anything that couldn't be done using Linux, LibreOffice, and Firefox.

You know Microsoft did sell "family pack" upgrades for Windows, right? Why didn't you take advantage of them?

Licensing is how Microsoft gains revenue. They license you the OS to use, and they provide you with support for the next several years. If you don't like that, then continue using Linux.

[PGHammer]

+100 on the selfish comment. That's what happens when share holders are running the ship. And when senior managers are suffering from megalomania (Sinofsky) and left unchecked by the CEO (Ballmer. This is really his on true failing).

 

As for not wanting their mobile initiatives to work, I'm not sure about that. I think they just had a knee jerk reaction to the shift in market growth curves; Tim Cook's comments that were applicable to Apple but not Microsoft (Ballmer and boys got hoodwinked into diving head first into Apple's strength while alienating their own, which was desktop dominance), and then Sinofsky's narcissistic alienation of everyone not under his control. He made stupid decisions and Ballmer let him. Hence no tight iTunes like integration between WP8, W8, W8 based tablets. They abandoned their strongest weapon, the desktop, as a common hub. The irony, Apple did not. Windows with iTunes is more of a hub providing consistent content and device management, than Windows is for Windows Phone and Windows 8 Based Tablets. That's just ludicrous. Tim Cook must laugh his ass off every single day at how easily he suckered these guys. Not only did MS disconnect all of its devices from the desktop in a manner that is not consumer friendly, they made a mess of the desktop itself more millions of its desktop users. I don't know if it was intentional or if Cook is a psychological genius that hit Goliath smack dab in the eye.

 

Ballmer's One Microsoft reorg may undo the cancerous corporate culture Sinofsky was allowed to spread, but a lot of time was lost. What needs to happen, is all Windows 8 devices need to be able to communicate and share information as easily and transparently as the company needs to be able to do under this reorganization. And so far, they're simply not even aware that is a problem. They are addressing one issue, the Modern UI must accommodate the needs of, and the workflow of, desktop users. It should not be exactly the same on a mobile device as it is on a desktop device. Just as OS X is not the same on a desktop as iOS is on a mobile device.

MorganX - that wasn't the issue at all.  The problem with the desktop being dominant over so long was that it didn't allow for recession OR the impact of form-factors where a pointing-device-centric UI or UX doesn't fit.  Starting shortly after the launch of Windows 7, both happened - the Great Recession AND formfactors where a pointing-device-centric UX didn't work became not only viable, but practical.  (While most Windows 8.x tablet and slate designs are basically forks of the Ultrabook design, unlike Ultrabooks, a pointing-device-centric UX doesn't work due to the mouse not being present much, among other issues.)  Microsoft had TRIED a niche OS for tablets before - Windows XP Tablet PC Edition - do we remember how well it was received?  I can wager that Microsoft does - it got whacked rather hard over the head with THAT failure.  So how do you accomodate those form-factors without creating a niche flavor of Windows?

 

And going the iOS route is something that Microsoft DID do with RT - it's a completely different architecture.  However, how much has RT been accepted?  What is being insisted on - even with RT?

 

ModernUI is certainly usable on traditional desktops - as is; millions of Windows users, and tens, if not hundreds of Neowinians, prove that day in and day out.

 

Those complaining are used to thinking that a pointing-device-centric UI or UX is the only way to work, or play, or do anything else.  Some of these same folks are so arrogant to believe that tablets, slates, and non-desktop form-factors as a whole (including Android and iOS) will fail.  That is the height of hubris - and I utterly refuse to walk into THAT trap.  It reminds me of the fringes of American politics - on both sides.  "My way or the highway." (The Biblical parable of the mote comes rather disturbingly to mind whenever I see the hubris of the pointing-device-centric UX crowd - except the beam in their eyes - that they are not paying any attention to - is from a sequoia.)  They are unwilling - if not completely unable- to compromise.

 

And for the poster ranting about licensing fees - the issue there is compensating those that deserve compensation for their hard work.  Commercial software is licensed for use - not sold.  The license fee is compensation for all the folks that made the product possible.  If a Linux distribution meets your needs, use it - I have nothing against Linux distributions.  (I've used a few, and tried many others - I wouldn't do that if I had an animus against Linux.)  However, the arguments for not allowing the compensation of all those that invested the time and money in creating upgrade versions of Windows are centered in two areas - Windows itself is too valuable to change, or "Microsoft has made enough money."  Both arguments target Microsoft specifically, and have not been applied to Apple or Google - both of which have larger market caps than Microsoft.  Basically while everybody was comfortable in their niches, Microsoft - despite still having that dominant position on desktop formfactors - has gone from Goliath to David.  It has nothing to do with ModernUI - it happened before the Developer Preview of Windows 8 even leaked. It had nothing to do with Windows itself, actually.  What happened is that the desktop got end-run.  You can do things away from the desktop.  Microsoft noticed.  Apple noticed.  Google noticed.  However, the vast majority of consumers - and especially those comfortable in the pointing-device-centric UX niche - may have seen it on the periphery, but paid no attention to the trend, even though they may well have been part OF that trend, simply by using smartphones, company tablets, etc.  (What makes the best comparison - Cleopatra, or the ostrich?)

 

While mainframe computers and mainframe-based computing - my old niche - is still around, how relevant is it, on a day-in and day-out basis to most people?  Notice that I did NOT say that desktop computing will go away - however, given that mobility is a heck of a lot more practical than it was just ten years ago, how relevant will it be for the day-in and day-out computer user?  In fact, how relevant will the desktop formfactor be in just five years - regardless of what Microsoft does?

[Noir Angel]

And?

Microsoft and Apple have two opposite pricing schemes and even primary businesses. Apple sells hardware, while Microsoft sell software. Just because Apple can make software free, doesn't mean Microsoft can. If you upgraded, then .x upgrades will be free to you, however, upgrading from a previous release will still cost you.

 

I thought Microsoft were a super duper hardware company now... Or is that argument only applied when you're trying to defend TrashUI?

[Dot Matrix]

I thought Microsoft were a super duper hardware company now... Or is that argument only applied when you're trying to defend TrashUI?

I'll just quote Trooper11's post which will explain things, since you're too busy throwing rocks to continue reading on.

MS does not manufacture pc hardware. They do make one piece of tablet hardware, but to compare that with what Apple does hardware wise is a stretch.

Now if MS was the sole producer of pc hardware, then MS could definitely do what Apple does.

Just because they are now a devices and services company, does not mean they will be making all of the 'devices' that run their software.

[trooper11]

Are you afraid of giving people choice because they'd potentially pick the start menu or "mini start" over the mess that is the start screen?

He was responding to a post making the claim that no one would ever want to use 8.

[trooper11]

What should be free? Zune Client 8.1 (Call it Xbox Central or whatever branding you want). An elegantly designed Modern App that is a combination of Xbox Music & Video. That manages all media and sync directly and dynamically to Windows Phone 8.x and Windows 8 based tablet devices just like iTune or older Zune versions.

 

Want to use cloud streaming, go ahead, if not, you have all the previous functionality to easily manage and sync your media and devices in a fun, intuitive manner. Not tied to any paid or free service.

 

Pay someone to port all Microsoft Studios owned XBLA games to WinRT, pay for rights to port Shadow Complex, Geometry Wars, etc to WinRT. Make no more endless runners and reintroduce things with a consumer focus.

 

Continue the direction they're taking to improve Windows 8 for desktop users, add more direct GPO control of the Start Page, and all will end well.

 

Not going to happen.

 

Edit: Oh, and remake Media Center for WinRT and give it away with Pro. < Also not going to happen.

Well since none of that is going to happen, I think we can stop dragging this topic along. The longer this thread goes, the more people derail it and just start to make silly posts that are there more to provoke a response than actually discuss anything.

Honestly, if MS doesn't fix things, we can all just get out of their way.

[Athernar]

He was responding to a post making the claim that no one would ever want to use 8.

 

Your point is?

[MikeChipshop Member]

Analysts typical day...

 

Get up > Scratch arse > make up some crap > profit > sleep

[Barney T. Administrators]

Thread cleaned. Please post maturely.

[srbeen]

I don't agree they should offer it for free.  Windows 8 is actually better than all its predecessors despite its downfalls, and should be offered for the $15-25 range for people with legit XP+ keys. Microsoft isn't fooling anyone trying to sell it for $180+. Ubuntu is a damn good contender and costs $0.

[trooper11]

Your point is?

Don't worry, it was taken care of already.

[margrave]

Analyst need to just not speak anymore

[MorganX]

Well since none of that is going to happen, I think we can stop dragging this topic along. The longer this thread goes, the more people derail it and just start to make silly posts that are there more to provoke a response than actually discuss anything.

Honestly, if MS doesn't fix things, we can all just get out of their way.

 

Actually I like these threads when discussed intelligently and civilly. MS needs this. I for one, would love for them to get it right, and I also like to here what does and doesn't work for others. Microsoft has it's detractors that are going to hate no matter what. But MS has performed so badly at a critical time, I think creative criticism, nonstop until its rectified, is exactly what they need.

 

They also need to make this phone, lol, Steve Jobs would, at least he'd try. If they did, view what I would do with my iPhone 5s:

[Dot Matrix]

I hate to say but the Surface Phone is an near impossibility now the Microsoft has Nokia. It wouldn't have near the amount of appeal as the Lumias do right now. As much as I like the mockup, I'd still be buying a Nokia for the exclusive apps, and not to mention, the amazing camera innovations they've done.

[trooper11]

Actually I like these threads when discussed intelligently and civilly. MS needs this. I for one, would love for them to get it right, and I also like to here what does and doesn't work for others. Microsoft has it's detractors that are going to hate no matter what. But MS has performed so badly at a critical time, I think creative criticism, nonstop until its rectified, is exactly what they need.

 

They also need to make this phone, lol, Steve Jobs would, at least he'd try. If they did, view what I would do with my iPhone 5s:

Its a nice thought, but lets face it, even if the made that exact phone, it wouldn't change anything.

As far as the value of discussing these things, I agree when its done fairly, but there is always a point when you have exhausted the same old ideas or arguments and all your left with is back and forth bs.

I've just seen to many of these threads. It gets a bit depressing after a time.

[MorganX]

I hate to say but the Surface Phone is an near impossibility now the Microsoft has Nokia. It wouldn't have near the amount of appeal as the Lumias do right now. As much as I like the mockup, I'd still be buying a Nokia for the exclusive apps, and not to mention, the amazing camera innovations they've done.

 

Nokia has yet to have Mass appeal relative to the industry. Take away enterprise sales because it's a Windows PHone and I'm not sure it exists. Of course there's time. Consumers haven't really warmed to the Nokia "insert obscure number" the way they have to the iPhone, or Galazy, or any "droid."

 

However, it is an impossibility. Too creative, to slick, too cool for today's Microsoft.