Is Microsoft ignoring the desktop again?

[Noir Angel]

Good thing that's not even remotely what MS did then...

 

Curious, the amount of backpedalling they have done since the release of W8 would suggest otherwise.

[NightScreams]

If you don't like the direction of Windows then use Linux. It's not a rocket science decision people. I use OS X and could care less what MS does with Windows.

[HawkMan]

Curious, the amount of backpedalling they have done since the release of W8 would suggest otherwise.

That's a nonsensical statement. All the changes in 8 and 8.1 where done for good reasons and from market research, and focus group research. However sometimes the market doesn't accept changes no matter how good or well thought out they are. of course the fact that the media and power users who just had personal agenda's are the reason regular users didn't like it also undermines your nonsensical argument. regular users are those who actually like windows 8 most and make best use of it once you let them try and show them that it's not the horrible thing the media and their "tech friends" told them it is.

ignoring that, you talk about back pedalling. however MS isn't reversing and backpedalling, they are bringing back elements, but they're keeping the changes from windows 8 as well, it's a merger and evolving and adapting the modern elements that the wannabe tech people didn't like with elements they thought they wanted to get a modern UI that they want.

[Dot Matrix]

Microsoft hasn't backpedaled at all. In fact, Metro/Modern are more prevalent in Windows 10 than it is in Windows 8, and has even replaced classic elements, such as the Control Panel.

[Noir Angel]

However sometimes the market doesn't accept changes no matter how good or well thought out they are. of course the fact that the media and power users who just had personal agenda's are the reason regular users didn't like it also undermines your nonsensical argument. regular users are those who actually like windows 8 most and make best use of it once you let them try and show them that it's not the horrible thing the media and their "tech friends" told them it is.

 

Actually i'd argue that it's you and your argument of "change is good even if users universally despise it" that's talking nonsense. You sound like a truther making silly conspiracy arguments like that.

[Dot Matrix]

Change is good. It keeps things fresh, new, and exciting. In the computing world, if you stagnate, you die.

[PGHammer]

And your solution to that is to just throw crap at the wall until some of it sticks? Making change for the sake of change is just as stupid.

Who says that it's change "for the sake of change"?

 

Hardware itself is changing - the increased use of touch is not OS-driven, despite what you seem to think, as it started with Windows 7 - not 8.  (It's still user-choice, though - you can choose to adopt it - or not.)

AIOs - and ordinary desktop PCs, for that matter - have LONG been able to use multiple network connections at once.  (The feature was originally in the server space; however, like all useful innovations in anything, it has migrated to the everyday space - again, prior to 8; it was, in fact, supported way back in Vista.)

 

If anything, Windows 8 itself was a LAGGING - not leading - indicator when it comes to hardware feature support.  The brouhaha started due to those that had no interest in using those "leader-edge" HARDWARE features that Windows takes either greater advantage of (such as multiple network connections) or advantage of at all (such as touch and multiple displays).  While I personally have no use for touch, I can't ignore it - the users I support won't let me, as a greater number of them DO use it.  I am - more likely than not - one of Neowin's last non-smartphone laggards; however, that doesn't necessarily mean that I can escape it's reach, either.  (In fact, I haven't - I run BlueStacks because I haven't escaped, as I use BlueStacks to game on Android.)

 

You chose - and choose - not to move in terms of hardware.  That's fine - I haven't moved in terms of hardware, either.  However, just because you choose to not move in terms of hardware, why should anyone else - let alone everyone else - be forced into staying put because you did?  Microsoft - as a company - cannot afford to think that way.  Windows - as an operating system - cannot afford to be built that way, either.

 

As I have said repeatedly, sticking my head in the sand is not an option.

[HawkMan]

 

Actually i'd argue that it's you and your argument of "change is good even if users universally despise it" that's talking nonsense. You sound like a truther making silly conspiracy arguments like that.

 

Whaaat ? you're not even making any sense here. what are you talking about.

also users do not universally despite it. stop making up BS.

[PGHammer]

If you don't like the direction of Windows then use Linux. It's not a rocket science decision people. I use OS X and could care less what MS does with Windows.

Yes - OS X is an option; I've pointed that out constantly.  So are Linux distributions and the BSDs.  So is UNIX, for that matter.

When it gets down to cases though, what keeps the masses on Windows is wide-ranging capabilities - arguably, the most wide-ranging of any OS for anything anywhere on Earth.

The arguments AGAINST the changes that began with 8 - and continue with 10 - mostly boil down to "I'm not looking to move!".  I don't have a problem with that sort of thinking, despite that I don't share that opinion - I literally DIDN'T move except for upgrading the OS - however, I upgraded for the usual reasons that a person upgrades their OS - it makes better use of the hardware and software I am using right now than the OS I left did.  That's it - it is literally that simple.

 

However, when you're the champ, you have to defend that title - which is something that Microsoft must deal with.  That includes support for new hardware - and the capabilities OF such hardware.  Remember, I pointed out that touch screens began appearing with 7 - not 8.  And it wasn't just tablets and slates - I saw it on not just Ultrabooks, but traditional notebooks and even non-AIO desktops, in addition to the AIO desktops that launched then.  Problem - Windows 7 didn't support touch-screen displays.  Hence the use of third-party overlays.  (The feature was certainly common enough - it's still used in smartphones, despite Android supporting touch-screen natively.)

 

The issue fits multiple displays, too.  While Microsoft didn't support then natively, you could have them - as far back as (believe it or not) Windows 9x - via third parties.  One of the most common third-party utilities was from ATI Technologies (now part of AMD) - Hydravision.  Hydravision let you use your CRT TV as a secondary display - as long as it supported component-in.  However, it took until Windows 8 to make Hydravision moot - despite ATI selling LOTS of graphics cards (and lots of graphics chips to third parties) entirely due to this feature.  From merely 1995-2000, you could count on one hand - with fingers left over - the number of ATI graphics cards that DIDN'T support Hydravision.

 

The world - even, if not especially the computing and tech world - doesn't stop evolving just because you choose to.  And for that same reason, Microsoft cannot afford to be a laggard-driven company.

[DeadEndAccount]

Microsoft hasn't backpedaled at all. In fact, Metro/Modern are more prevalent in Windows 10 than it is in Windows 8, and has even replaced classic elements, such as the Control Panel.

 

One could argue that this was part of the plan all along and that Windows 8.x was an example of something not complete rather than Windows 10 being a back pedal. Having had a look at the tonne of WinRT that have been added over the last several months it will be interesting to see where things end up long term - hopefully Microsoft can convince developers to move to WinRT which will free Microsoft up to make changes under the hood without having to worry about unintended consequences further up the stack.

[BajiRav]

Curious, the amount of backpedalling they have done since the release of W8 would suggest otherwise.

Looks like Microsoft forgot to backpedal all "3" desktop improvements listed by HawkMan on my Win 8.x systems.

[Noir Angel]

You chose - and choose - not to move in terms of hardware.  That's fine - I haven't moved in terms of hardware, either.  However, just because you choose to not move in terms of hardware, why should anyone else - let alone everyone else - be forced into staying put because you did?  Microsoft - as a company - cannot afford to think that way.  Windows - as an operating system - cannot afford to be built that way, either.

 

Why can't it? Every other manufacturer of smartphones, consoles, and computers kept their desktop and touch OSes separate and it seems to have worked out just fine for them, especially Apple. Microsoft are the only company hell bent on bastardising at any cost and it shows in the comparatively mediocre sales of their non desktop products.

 

There's absolutely no evidence that supports the assertion that Microsoft had to bastardise and plenty of evidence that the alternate strategy works just fine.

[PGHammer]

Why can't it? Every other manufacturer of smartphones, consoles, and computers kept their desktop and touch OSes separate and it seems to have worked out just fine for them, especially Apple. Microsoft are the only company hell bent on bastardising at any cost and it shows in the comparatively mediocre sales of their non desktop products.

 

There's absolutely no evidence that supports the assertion that Microsoft had to bastardise and plenty of evidence that the alternate strategy works just fine.

In short, you are basically ignoring the evidence of the hardware base?

 

Windows was already LAGGING the hardware base with merely 7  - I even pointed out how.

 

If anything, catering to the laggards would have made that even worse - which is already something that non-enterprise customers have been lambasting Microsoft for (in terms of Windows) since XP.

 

And the very reason WHY all the other companies (including the competition) isn't doing it is why Microsoft's decision TO do it makes sense - they want no part of confronting Microsoft heads-up, whether their OSes can or not.  (I can't do ANYTHING about competition that basically refuses to compete - ask the competition why they won't.)

 

I have been pointing out - right here in this subforum - that Android could compete heads-up with Windows - and right now.  (Heck, Chrome OS could.)  Ask Google why they won't go there.

iOS IS taking sales away from Macs -Apple ADMITS this.  Still, for some reason, they refuse to compete heads-up with even Android, let alone Windows - instead, they stayed in their niches and avoided both.

 

The question should be asked of Apple and Google - why are you avoiding Microsoft (let alone each other)?

[NightScreams]

Yes - OS X is an option; I've pointed that out constantly.  So are Linux distributions and the BSDs.  So is UNIX, for that matter.

When it gets down to cases though, what keeps the masses on Windows is wide-ranging capabilities - arguably, the most wide-ranging of any OS for anything anywhere on Earth.

The arguments AGAINST the changes that began with 8 - and continue with 10 - mostly boil down to "I'm not looking to move!".  I don't have a problem with that sort of thinking, despite that I don't share that opinion - I literally DIDN'T move except for upgrading the OS - however, I upgraded for the usual reasons that a person upgrades their OS - it makes better use of the hardware and software I am using right now than the OS I left did.  That's it - it is literally that simple.

 

However, when you're the champ, you have to defend that title - which is something that Microsoft must deal with.  That includes support for new hardware - and the capabilities OF such hardware.  Remember, I pointed out that touch screens began appearing with 7 - not 8.  And it wasn't just tablets and slates - I saw it on not just Ultrabooks, but traditional notebooks and even non-AIO desktops, in addition to the AIO desktops that launched then.  Problem - Windows 7 didn't support touch-screen displays.  Hence the use of third-party overlays.  (The feature was certainly common enough - it's still used in smartphones, despite Android supporting touch-screen natively.)

 

The issue fits multiple displays, too.  While Microsoft didn't support then natively, you could have them - as far back as (believe it or not) Windows 9x - via third parties.  One of the most common third-party utilities was from ATI Technologies (now part of AMD) - Hydravision.  Hydravision let you use your CRT TV as a secondary display - as long as it supported component-in.  However, it took until Windows 8 to make Hydravision moot - despite ATI selling LOTS of graphics cards (and lots of graphics chips to third parties) entirely due to this feature.  From merely 1995-2000, you could count on one hand - with fingers left over - the number of ATI graphics cards that DIDN'T support Hydravision.

 

The world - even, if not especially the computing and tech world - doesn't stop evolving just because you choose to.  And for that same reason, Microsoft cannot afford to be a laggard-driven company.

 

What does the UI have to do with evolving compatibility with emerging hardware and software technlogies? It's the #1 complaint. Technically supporting new technologies can be done with service packs as certainly shown in XP's sp's. but their critics for their direction has nothing to do with supporting new tech. MS's direction is about all in one which means sharing the same experience with completely different hardware and uses and obviously there are many that prefer different experiences for different hardware uses. That idea is based on the reality that their mobile platform failed at being the 3rd wheel...a pathetic failure mind you. To turn it around, they opted this route from which they can't really just backtrack from now, it's too late so all they can do is evolve the experience.

Apple seems to be doing quite well having both iOS and OS X while still offering flexibility for emergence between the two platforms and hardware. The purpose of an OS is to be a platform for performing tasks as efficiently as possible. Higher efficiency means more productivity in less time which equals money for some and tighter consumption for others. MS has actually been descending in the efficient speed of production starting with Vista. We now have to rely much more on kb shortcuts which now includes voice commands to get anything done in a world still driven by work stations that primarily makes use of the mouse and the users focus on the screen. With MS increasing focus on style, widget apps and cornering users into investments from their platform specific App stores takes focus over providing workhorse platforms for specific uses to that of just consuming media content.

 

Only 25% of MS's income is from Windows and Windows Live and decreases every 2 years. their focus of trying to stay on top dwindled with each MS employee that kept getting replaced which is why W10 is a free upgrade. MS went from being too stale to scrambling like the music industry did in the late 90's. Over reaching for anything they could throw at the wall, just to see what sticks. Meanwhile Other OS's have steadily continued on with little trouble.

 

The reality is that MS is that no longer have identity, a company where you can rely on them supporting anything they put out because they tossed it at a wall and see if anything stuck, then dropped it anyway. With Androids, Apple products, Linux software...you basically know what your getting and the support evolves to conform with emerging hardware rather than to just shut it down, change it until something different comes out of it. With W10, they are in a sense backpedaling to pacify user outcries...why? because they had no clue wtf they were doing to begin with since their monopoly days they got so comfortable with. They are a victim of themselves, so they hire some new people and then some newer people, again still scrambling to find their identity about what kind of company they want to be.

[PGHammer]

What does the UI have to do with evolving compatibility with emerging hardware and software technlogies? It's the #1 complaint. Technically supporting new technologies can be done with service packs as certainly shown in XP's sp's. but their critics for their direction has nothing to do with supporting new tech. MS's direction is about all in one which means sharing the same experience with completely different hardware and uses and obviously there are many that prefer different experiences for different hardware uses. That idea is based on the reality that their mobile platform failed at being the 3rd wheel...a pathetic failure mind you. To turn it around, they opted this route from which they can't really just backtrack from now, it's too late so all they can do is evolve the experience.

Apple seems to be doing quite well having both iOS and OS X while still offering flexibility for emergence between the two platforms and hardware. The purpose of an OS is to be a platform for performing tasks as efficiently as possible. Higher efficiency means more productivity in less time which equals money for some and tighter consumption for others. MS has actually been descending in the efficient speed of production starting with Vista. We now have to rely much more on kb shortcuts which now includes voice commands to get anything done in a world still driven by work stations that primarily makes use of the mouse and the users focus on the screen. With MS increasing focus on style, widget apps and cornering users into investments from their platform specific App stores takes focus over providing workhorse platforms for specific uses to that of just consuming media content.

 

Only 25% of MS's income is from Windows and Windows Live and decreases every 2 years. their focus of trying to stay on top dwindled with each MS employee that kept getting replaced which is why W10 is a free upgrade. MS went from being too stale to scrambling like the music industry did in the late 90's. Over reaching for anything they could throw at the wall, just to see what sticks. Meanwhile Other OS's have steadily continued on with little trouble.

 

The reality is that MS is that no longer have identity, a company where you can rely on them supporting anything they put out because they tossed it at a wall and see if anything stuck, then dropped it anyway. With Androids, Apple products, Linux software...you basically know what your getting and the support evolves to conform with emerging hardware rather than to just shut it down, change it until something different comes out of it. With W10, they are in a sense backpedaling to pacify user outcries...why? because they had no clue wtf they were doing to begin with since their monopoly days they got so comfortable with. They are a victim of themselves, so they hire some new people and then some newer people, again still scrambling to find their identity about what kind of company they want to be.

RT failed because it didn't support Win32, let alone Win64 - while consistent, the software base was too small.  (I even called RT - as a straight OS, mind you - a hedge bet.)  Worse, RT was late - the tablet market - what there is of it - had already settled along pricing lines - Android at the bottom, and iOS at the top - with no room in the middle.

 

And look at the stratification of the market that RT is leaving; it is strictly about price - are Apple and Google even competing against each other with any fervor?  They have common apps. common developers, etc. - they are basically acting as an "ahnschluss" - dividing the tablet and smartphone market between them the way the Axis powers (Germany and Japan) tried to act during World War II - and getting away with it.  Windows 10 is REPLACING RT in that space - a full-featured operating system going into the niche against niche OSes.  It's a game-changer; I would say that Microsoft is taking it to Apple (and Google) by bringing in a BETTER contender for the space -which they could NOT have done if it weren't for RT's failure.

 

And I DO look at Apple - how many Macs are ACTIVELY running?  Even more telling, what is the biggest reason for running OS X?  (I've heard - on Neowin and elsewhere - that the biggest reason for running OS X is developing for iOS - not exactly a ringing endorsement of OS X, when the biggest reason other than the high-end niche market that OS X and Apple have consistently catered to is developing for a tablet version of itself.) iOS has become to OS X the tail wagging the dog.

Apple's earnings - and especially revenues - bear this out; most of their sales, and most of their revenues - and especially the "stranded revenues" - that money not brought back to the US to be taxed that liberals are so het up on - comes from IOS.  The late Steve Jobs was asked rather succinctly about that same issue, and he stated - rather tersely - that it's all about the money - he's quite willing to throw OS X under the bus to feed iOS, because Apple makes money regardless.  The firestorm from that MOAB is still burning all over Apple fora everywhere.

 

And yes - revenues ARE down from Windows - in fact they are down almost everywhere at Microsoft.  (The exceptions - services, including Azure and 365, hardware (including, surprisingly, Surface - specifically Surface Pro) and XBOX ONE.)

And if they are down due to tablets and slates eating their lunch, you still have to counter it.  RT was an attempt to counter it - however, it did fail.  What is wrong with a counterattack instead?

It's not like they didn't have a backup plan - yes, 8.1 (reworked to become 10) is the backup plan, now that BayTrail T is shipping in enough volume to worry ARM.  BayTrailT is NOT ARM - it's an Intel64 CPU that actually has quite a bit of Haswell in it.  While it fits ARM's formfactor - and thus can be used for the same OSes that ARM can - it can run the thousands of extant/existing Win32 and Win64 applications - utterly without recoding.  From "BIG app gap" to "What app gap?" 

 

Also, what about Windows' existing "desktop application compatibility" is broken with Windows 8 or later?  Do you know how much evidence I have seen that such compatibility is - in any way, shape or form, broken? Absolutely none. Zero.  The three utilities that got "fired" (along with 7) were shown the door due to better software that did the same thing is now included in the OS.  If you truly MUST have (for workflow reasons), a Start menu bringback, third-party alternatives - most of them free even for enterprise use - abound.  Therefore, so much for workflow complaints.  And this is 8.1 (what is shipping today) - NOT 10.

 

Microsoft typically doesn't surrender - it counterattacks instead.  (We, as tech watchers and wannabe pundits, should know this by now - how often did Microsoft surrender or kowtow under Gates?  Or Ballmer?  I seriously doubt that Satya Nadella knows what surrender is, either.)

[binaryzero]

31 pages and counting....

[NightScreams]

RT failed because it didn't support Win32, let alone Win64 - while consistent, the software base was too small.  (I even called RT - as a straight OS, mind you - a hedge bet.)  Worse, RT was late - the tablet market - what there is of it - had already settled along pricing lines - Android at the bottom, and iOS at the top - with no room in the middle.

 

And look at the stratification of the market that RT is leaving; it is strictly about price - are Apple and Google even competing against each other with any fervor?  They have common apps. common developers, etc. - they are basically acting as an "ahnschluss" - dividing the tablet and smartphone market between them the way the Axis powers (Germany and Japan) tried to act during World War II - and getting away with it.  Windows 10 is REPLACING RT in that space - a full-featured operating system going into the niche against niche OSes.  It's a game-changer; I would say that Microsoft is taking it to Apple (and Google) by bringing in a BETTER contender for the space -which they could NOT have done if it weren't for RT's failure.

 

And I DO look at Apple - how many Macs are ACTIVELY running?  Even more telling, what is the biggest reason for running OS X?  (I've heard - on Neowin and elsewhere - that the biggest reason for running OS X is developing for iOS - not exactly a ringing endorsement of OS X, when the biggest reason other than the high-end niche market that OS X and Apple have consistently catered to is developing for a tablet version of itself.) iOS has become to OS X the tail wagging the dog.

Apple's earnings - and especially revenues - bear this out; most of their sales, and most of their revenues - and especially the "stranded revenues" - that money not brought back to the US to be taxed that liberals are so het up on - comes from IOS.  The late Steve Jobs was asked rather succinctly about that same issue, and he stated - rather tersely - that it's all about the money - he's quite willing to throw OS X under the bus to feed iOS, because Apple makes money regardless.  The firestorm from that MOAB is still burning all over Apple fora everywhere.

 

And yes - revenues ARE down from Windows - in fact they are down almost everywhere at Microsoft.  (The exceptions - services, including Azure and 365, hardware (including, surprisingly, Surface - specifically Surface Pro) and XBOX ONE.)

And if they are down due to tablets and slates eating their lunch, you still have to counter it.  RT was an attempt to counter it - however, it did fail.  What is wrong with a counterattack instead?

It's not like they didn't have a backup plan - yes, 8.1 (reworked to become 10) is the backup plan, now that BayTrail T is shipping in enough volume to worry ARM.  BayTrailT is NOT ARM - it's an Intel64 CPU that actually has quite a bit of Haswell in it.  While it fits ARM's formfactor - and thus can be used for the same OSes that ARM can - it can run the thousands of extant/existing Win32 and Win64 applications - utterly without recoding.  From "BIG app gap" to "What app gap?" 

 

Also, what about Windows' existing "desktop application compatibility" is broken with Windows 8 or later?  Do you know how much evidence I have seen that such compatibility is - in any way, shape or form, broken? Absolutely none. Zero.  The three utilities that got "fired" (along with 7) were shown the door due to better software that did the same thing is now included in the OS.  If you truly MUST have (for workflow reasons), a Start menu bringback, third-party alternatives - most of them free even for enterprise use - abound.  Therefore, so much for workflow complaints.  And this is 8.1 (what is shipping today) - NOT 10.

 

Microsoft typically doesn't surrender - it counterattacks instead.  (We, as tech watchers and wannabe pundits, should know this by now - how often did Microsoft surrender or kowtow under Gates?  Or Ballmer?  I seriously doubt that Satya Nadella knows what surrender is, either.)

 

Yes MS counterattacks but often by completely dropping the very features, services...etc that they literally just marketed to the high heavens as if it was the best thing ever repeatedly getting caught in lies. From silverlight to RT...again they lack vision for their sight is ruled by their investors quarterly earnings. My favorite is from the Xbox division before the release of Xone. "You can't just flip a switch and turn DRM off"....then they flip the switch instantly before production of the console. lol.

 

As far as OS X only being for development of iOS, that's like saying Windows is only for gamers... well that doesn't make any sense because OS X and Windows both can do everything that consumers and pro's want to do and both contain full commercial software support. Main difference is Windows has the larger share of gaming titles because that market never had a push in any other direction from OEM's. They are full GUI, consumer and commercial based operating systems....Not that Linux distorts can't be , but they lack the commercial software and OEM support and they suffer from long evolving cycles of new software because developers do so only as they please which often is to just follow what OS X and Windows is doing. They lack iTunes for example among many other things and their alternatives are not consistent, full GUI based infrastructures. It's 2015, very few want to compile someone's software or download other files via command line to make it work.... not the communities fault but only Google actually took the kernel and made it into a marketable space for developers which in turns brings consumers. A desktop version of Android like OS back in say 2006 when OEM's like Dell and cheap laptop OEM's had a wide niche during Vista's entry to gain some users....could have yielded a different picture today.

OS X has advantage in being an OS made for their own hardware, they are much tighter in tune from a code perspective. The GUI remains for the most part remains as efficient as ever but a few things could be improved however it's their gestures that make for efficient multitasking. I wish more Linux distro's would just include Touschegg, instead users have to bust out commands to tweak it up and that's assuming they ever even hear about such a thing existing....utterly ridiculous, so much potential yet so much wasted. Linux is full of silly neglect such as this with a complete lack of insight into providing a complete consumer level experience out of box. This is why I just stick with OS X for work related tasks and browsing online but I would take Linux if they ever get in gear but hasn't happened yet and never will. MS..well they really need to ditch the registry for starters.

[PGHammer]

Yes MS counterattacks but often by completely dropping the very features, services...etc that they literally just marketed to the high heavens as if it was the best thing ever repeatedly getting caught in lies. From silverlight to RT...again they lack vision for their sight is ruled by their investors quarterly earnings. My favorite is from the Xbox division before the release of Xone. "You can't just flip a switch and turn DRM off"....then they flip the switch instantly before production of the console. lol.

 

As far as OS X only being for development of iOS, that's like saying Windows is only for gamers... well that doesn't make any sense because OS X and Windows both can do everything that consumers and pro's want to do and both contain full commercial software support. Main difference is Windows has the larger share of gaming titles because that market never had a push in any other direction from OEM's. They are full GUI, consumer and commercial based operating systems....Not that Linux distorts can't be , but they lack the commercial software and OEM support and they suffer from long evolving cycles of new software because developers do so only as they please which often is to just follow what OS X and Windows is doing. They lack iTunes for example among many other things and their alternatives are not consistent, full GUI based infrastructures. It's 2015, very few want to compile someone's software or download other files via command line to make it work.... not the communities fault but only Google actually took the kernel and made it into a marketable space for developers which in turns brings consumers. A desktop version of Android like OS back in say 2006 when OEM's like Dell and cheap laptop OEM's had a wide niche during Vista's entry to gain some users....could have yielded a different picture today.

OS X has advantage in being an OS made for their own hardware, they are much tighter in tune from a code perspective. The GUI remains for the most part remains as efficient as ever but a few things could be improved however it's their gestures that make for efficient multitasking. I wish more Linux distro's would just include Touschegg, instead users have to bust out commands to tweak it up and that's assuming they ever even hear about such a thing existing....utterly ridiculous, so much potential yet so much wasted. Linux is full of silly neglect such as this with a complete lack of insight into providing a complete consumer level experience out of box. This is why I just stick with OS X for work related tasks and browsing online but I would take Linux if they ever get in gear but hasn't happened yet and never will. MS..well they really need to ditch the registry for starters.

Can you tell me  - exactly - what features that got dropped that were NOT replaced by third parties?

 

I took ALL my desktop applications (except three) from 7 to 8.  I took all my desktop GAMES - without exception - from 7 to 8.  I couldn't have done that had desktop-software functionality been broken.

 

If your issue is the lack of Start menu, there are plenty of third-party alternatives available - ALL of which work in Windows 8 or 8.1, with most being, in fact, free - even for enterprise use.

 

Be specific.

[binaryzero]

Yawn.

[hagjohn]

Close it already.

[PGHammer]

Close it already.

Don't blame me for those that don't want to move having such poor justification - or outright blowing smoke.

 

I have my suspicions about Javik (which I made plain to him) - however, I am honoring Neowin policy and not voicing them publicly - his avatar is why the suspicions exist.

[PGHammer]

Why can't it? Every other manufacturer of smartphones, consoles, and computers kept their desktop and touch OSes separate and it seems to have worked out just fine for them, especially Apple. Microsoft are the only company hell bent on bastardising at any cost and it shows in the comparatively mediocre sales of their non desktop products.

 

There's absolutely no evidence that supports the assertion that Microsoft had to bastardise and plenty of evidence that the alternate strategy works just fine.

Every other manufacturer?  You must mean Apple - Google doesn't make hardware.

 

Apple is also perfectly willing to throw OS X under the bus to feed iOS.  I didn't utter that pithy comment - no less than Steve Jobs did.  (He did it publicly - at the second-to-last WWDC he attended before his death.)

 

You, on the other hand (if your avatar is truly how you feel) have all SORTS of personal motive to want Microsoft (and especially Windows (10 in particular) out of Android turf - which is how you seem to be defining the low end of the tablet space, if not the low end of the smartphone space); it's one thing to be competing against RT (a purist and niche OS, like Android, but with a smaller app set than Android).  Windows 10 (even without a desktop) is worse - MUCH worse; how many desktop applications actually need a big screen to be usable?  Some do - however, not ALL do; in fact, a lot of EXISTING software (such as Word and Outlook from Office) can be used on at least tablet-sized displays, if not phone-sized displays, today.  The very argument you and your Android army have been using (successfully) against RT doesn't fly against 10 (and not even 10 for phones - if said device is running BayTrailT).  "BIG app gap!" is about to become "WHAT app gap?"  It's not RT alone you have to face any more (as an Android developer) - you have RT and the entirety of the Windows application library about to be (as the Italians would say) "inna your face" in a major way.

 

So much for the attempted end run.

[Defcon]

Windows 8 is a fantastic OS with great engineering and ideas, with its actual execution and reputation crippled by horrible management decisions. e.g. the corporate mandate that its 'touch first; and thus refusing to consider desktop users, the refusal to use a single desktop/laptop in any public demo with Win 8, refusal to acknowledge the tidal wave if user fdeedback over 1+ years.

 

Using Win 8 is a pain because of certain boneheaded decisions

 

- refusal to include a tutorial, because someone said that its 'obvious'

- the insanely stupid decision not to allow Metro apps to run windowed, when in fact the WinRT API has had that capability from day one

- the stupid Charms bar which had zero functionality and kept interrupting users on a trackpad, and is probably the least discoverable/unintuitive UI element ever devised

- making Metro versions of pictures, music etc the default, locking users into Metro land with no clue (see lack of tutorial) and no visual clues, never mind that these were less functional than the Win32 versions, which were *still* present

- 2 versions of IE

- removing tons of Win 7 features (customization, themes etc) because some manager said they were not needed

 

Every single one of the above is due to one reason only - building an OS to run on a tablet only. Hence all the demos on a tablet. And the huge backlash which was well deserved.

 

Result - all the major technical advances in Win 8, all the nice UI stuff (MS account, task manager, hybrid boot, faster than Win 7) were ignored because the initial experience was so unfriendly for many.

 

MS of course know this. Once Sinofsky was shown the door, they were free to actually make changes that listened to user feedback. 8.1 was slightly better, and 10 is the vision 8 was supposed to be.

[abecedarian paradoxious]

RT failed because it didn't support Win32...

Windows on ARM, a.k.a. what you're calling "RT" did support Win32. MS Office wouldn't run on it if it didn't.

[DeadEndAccount]

Windows on ARM, a.k.a. what you're calling "RT" did support Win32. MS Office wouldn't run on it if it didn't.

 

But third parties couldn't write applications using it - it had to be a pure WinRT application and sold through the AppStore. The situation might have turned out differently if at the very least they allowed the side loading of WinRT applications. I understand the need to wean developers off Win32 but it boggles my mind that they've hitched WinRT's success to whether developers want to use their App Store.