Windows 8 - 8.1 nicrosoft what were you thinking!

[RHS]

Do you feel the desktop PC is dead, should I sell my PC now and buy a PS4 instead? Might save me a couple of quid on watercooling mind you!!

Windows 8 by any admission is currently a flop. Whatever about the consumer market, large corporates are buying PC's with Windows 8 installed and imaging they back to Windows 7 and I can't blame them having used windows 8 for about a month now.

Why deploy/inflict an OS on a user base that turns up to work and goes OMG! WTF! is this pile of steaming turds and the IT Department's reply is "Well you will get used to it" in the meantime here is a packet of boiled sweets so you can "Suck it up"

MS screwed up and people voted with their feet plain and simple. I think MS wanted to create a tablet OS, which is fine but they shouldn't have forced it onto the desktop environment where it doesn't work this was their mistake, MS are confused. They have created an OS for the Surface tablet and I'm sure its not all that bad (I haven't used it) but they should have also developed a desktop OS.

I can see why they want a unified platform for the likes of XBOX, PC & Surface as it is cheaper to develop and perhaps Windows 8 is the first step along the road, but one size doesn't necessarily fit all. If they do decide on a one size fits all they could be looking at a very bloated OS full of crap you might never use due to the device your using as it won't be optimised.

Interesting times ahead for MS, might be an opportunity to pick up some cheap MS shares

 

[Glaucus]

, large corporates are buying PC's with Windows 8 installed and imaging they back to Windows 7

This just shows lack of understanding, this happened every single releas. Becuase coporations have to test and evaluate and then deploy. No os is mass adopted by coporations this soon after launch.

 

[stoofa]

That is like saying that Windows 7 and Windows 8 are versions of Vista. Windows 2000 was NT version 5.0 while XP was version 5.1. Vista is version 6.0, 7 is version 6.1 and 8 is 6.2.

I have probably misunderstood you and if I have can you elaborate, please?

Microsoft work on a major/minor release schedule - have done for a little while. So ignoring the 9x line of code, you have:

NT4
2000 - New code from ground up
XP - Based on 2000 code, relative minor update
Vista - New code
7 - Relative minor update
8 - New code

So yes, 7 is nothing more than an overhauled 7 whereas 8 is new code again.
Things got difficult around 2000 as it was known as NT5 for much of its development period. I have beta CD's (I'm on the official MS beta and have tested every OS since 95) which say NT5 on them and install an NT5 splash screen Windows.
Late in development it was decided that NT5 would be the bridging product (bridging the 9x and NT code bases) and was renamed to the most "home user friendly" 2000. Then at the 12th hour it was decided that the home user wasn't quite ready for an OS based on NT and hence the "Windows 2000 is not designed for home users" tag that was touted by absolutely everyone (MS included).

 

[theheyes]

I think it has tho surely? I see lots of people as I go about my daily life, with ipads and mac books... Obviously people are still buying traditional Win laptops, but I'm sure the Mac sales are up.

As for tablets, the ipad is the defacto, I havent seen many people with android based pads and I have not seen a single person with the Windows variety.

Im a PC by the way!

There are more Macs around now than there were 5 or 10 years ago, yes. When I used to run Macs people were always curious about my iBook but these days nobody bothers if they see a MacBook. But to the original point I was making there is little evidence of a spike in Mac sales after the launch of Windows 8.

Due to the vast difference in numbers between Macs and PCs, if even a small proportion of PC users shared the indignation about Windows that we hear about so often and put their money where their mouth is, then we should have seen a relative explosion in Mac sales. But where is it? The uninteresting and non-sensational reality is they're riding the storm like everybody else.

I somewhat agree with you about iPad being the "standard", but a lot of that boils down to the strength of the brand. As pointed out significantly more Android tablets are shipping than iOS tablets. I've not seen many Windows tablets in the wild either, but that doesn't surprise me. They can't compete on desirability, and they can't compete on cost at the moment. But that drag on adoption will decrease over time.

WP is not doing well either. Recently read that Nokia are moaning that Microsoft arent putting enough resources in to development of the O.S. They focus on the Desktop and Office more than the mobile O.S. Nokia are complainig as they have low sales not becuase of the hardware, but becuase of the O.S. (Well they shouldnt have partnered with MS should they! Why couldnt they have gone Android. It's free?)

I think this is why Nokia are looking in to bringing out an Android based Lumia. Diversify the brand a little.

I think Microsoft need to do more with Windows Phone, and more frequently. I'm hopeful that with it now being under the OS group with Windows client it'll light a fire under their collective asses. Not being able to attract the big developers for apps is an unfortunate external problem, but I can imagine the frustrations from Nokia about issues that are very much under Microsoft's control.

 

[ShortWarning]

Other operating systems are no way near 30% of existing users buying a new version of the OS within 5 months. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, post it.

The adoption rate of the OS is completely relevant because it is made up of sales of software upgrades and new hardware. Sales that you tried to claim weren't taking place.

As stated an OSX upgrade is the equivalent to a Windows service pack. Why don't you look how many windows users adopted the last service pack?

I'm a fan of OSX and will be getting the new rMBP but your comparison is wack*.

*That's right, I used the term "wack".

 

[Deleted member 77746]

They should at least give the option to turn metro on or off by a tick box.

 

[KIA]

If the competitons sales were significant? They are far more significant, they shipped many more copies from twice as many to 6times as many depending what stats you use.
So no again you are not using the right stat in the slightests.

Not significant enough to generate an impressive adoption rate in such a small amount of time. I'll pay attention when someone other than Apple breaks the paid OS adoption percentage in the same amount of time.

As stated an OSX upgrade is the equivalent to a Windows service pack. Why don't you look how many windows users adopted the last service pack?

A Windows service pack has more in common with an Apple combo update. Both are free of charge.

People don't buy a PC just for an OS, they buy for a complete product. A Macbook is a very different product to a cheap Acer and they have very different target markets. Macbooks are more of a niche product fore a niche market and are not going for cheap mass market appeal. That's all part of the product strategy, high margin, premium product.

You are comparing Apples with Oranges.

Precisely. This is why it would be stupid to go off on a pointless tangent.

IAffluent, tech enthusiast Apple fans must surely make up a huge proportion of their customer base, whereas the vast majority of Windows users don't give a rats about upgrading.

Trying to steer the thread back on track a little, the initial post that kicked this off was about why would Microsoft "copy" OSX? Well, on the other hand, why wouldn't they adopt some of the better ideas? Moving to the yearly release cycle is straight out of the Apple book, and a good thing in my opinion. And it's free, for this version at least.

Who wouldn't want enthusiasts generating 30% adoption in such a small amount of time?

It's only ever going to be a good thing for Apple (OS sales & App Store sales), developers (new OS features to take advantage of) & customers whom benefit from OS improvement as well as potential app benefits.

Yearly updates are a great idea. At this stage of the game, Microsoft would be nuts to release 8.1 is a paid upgrade. They're not in the same position as Apple.

 

[Lucifurr]

Microsoft work on a major/minor release schedule - have done for a little while. So ignoring the 9x line of code, you have:

NT4
2000 - New code from ground up
XP - Based on 2000 code, relative minor update
Vista - New code
7 - Relative minor update
8 - New code

So yes, 7 is nothing more than an overhauled 7 whereas 8 is new code again.
Things got difficult around 2000 as it was known as NT5 for much of its development period. I have beta CD's (I'm on the official MS beta and have tested every OS since 95) which say NT5 on them and install an NT5 splash screen Windows.
Late in development it was decided that NT5 would be the bridging product (bridging the 9x and NT code bases) and was renamed to the most "home user friendly" 2000. Then at the 12th hour it was decided that the home user wasn't quite ready for an OS based on NT and hence the "Windows 2000 is not designed for home users" tag that was touted by absolutely everyone (MS included).

Ah I see now. Thanks very much. That explains deuse's comment.

 

[ShortWarning]

Not significant enough to generate an impressive adoption rate in such a small amount of time. I'll pay attention when someone other than Apple breaks the paid OS adoption percentage in the same amount of time.

Stop using "adoption rate" as a comparison.

Product A - 1 units sold (2 total users).

If 1 person out of 2 adopts the new product A they get an impressive 50% adoption rate.

Product B - 3 units sold (10 total units).

If 3 people out of 10 adopts the new product it has an unimpressive 30% adoption rate but has sold 3 times the amount.

 

[KIA]

Stop using "adoption rate" as a comparison.

A controversial OS will never have an impressive adoption rate. There's potential for any company to achieve similar levels of adoption. Microsoft's level of adoption is bound to go up if they start delivering major paid OS upgrades via the App Store. Apple uses the same method and it has paid off.

 

[Glaucus]

Yet again wrong stat. Who cares if there's a 30% adoption rate in such a tiny part of the market, it's tiny.

Osx10.8 adoption rate 0.44% per month in the first 5months and has/will stall.
Win8 adoption rate 0.45% per month and increasing. See how stupid that stat is and means nothing. Even in the initial months, win8 outsold osx10.8

 

[ShortWarning]

A controversial OS will never have an impressive adoption rate. There's potential for any company to achieve similar levels of adoption. Microsoft's level of adoption is bound to go up if they start delivering major paid OS upgrades via the App Store. Apple uses the same method and it has paid off.

But you're comparing 2 completely different business models.

Microsoft probably don't expect a 30% adoption rate over the whole life cycle of their product.

You really are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[linktoinsanity]

Microsoft work on a major/minor release schedule - have done for a little while. So ignoring the 9x line of code, you have:

NT4
2000 - New code from ground up
XP - Based on 2000 code, relative minor update
Vista - New code
7 - Relative minor update
8 - New code

So yes, 7 is nothing more than an overhauled 7 whereas 8 is new code again.
Things got difficult around 2000 as it was known as NT5 for much of its development period. I have beta CD's (I'm on the official MS beta and have tested every OS since 95) which say NT5 on them and install an NT5 splash screen Windows.
Late in development it was decided that NT5 would be the bridging product (bridging the 9x and NT code bases) and was renamed to the most "home user friendly" 2000. Then at the 12th hour it was decided that the home user wasn't quite ready for an OS based on NT and hence the "Windows 2000 is not designed for home users" tag that was touted by absolutely everyone (MS included).

I was under the impression that Windows NT 4.0 was the basis for all the current Windows from XP up? And that Vista was an extensive update to this and Windows 7 and 8 are just tweaks of that code (Windows 8's main thing being the new interface, with yet more tweaks, but the majority of the code is still the same as Vista?

As mentioned in all the other threads like this, I'm not too keen on metro, but on the whole Windows 8 is pretty good. 8.1 tweaks it quite nicely, such as the option for desktop boot.

Start Menu option would be nice, but that's all I'd need to make me happy.

Windows Server 2012 having the metro theme however is very odd...

 

[KIA]

Who cares if there's a 30% adoption rate

The competition & Apple, of course. Who wouldn't want the extra sales that come with an increased adoption rate. Microsoft in particular has strived towards creating a similar business model to Apple's.

Microsoft probably don't expect a 30% adoption rate over the whole life cycle of their product.

Microsoft's dated business model wasn't capable of generating 30% adoption rate. Apple should be admired for making the necessary changes to gain 30% adoption rate. Think of Microsoft's new vision and products instead of its legacy products.

 

[Glaucus]

The competition & Apple, of course. Who wouldn't want the extra sales that come with an increased adoption rate. Microsoft in particular has strived towards creating a similar business model to Apple's.



.

They are striving to compete with iOS not osx, they have crushed osx.
So again tell me what you would want win8 sales or osx10.8 sales. Seeing as you keep avoiding the question.

 

[ShortWarning]

Microsoft's dated business model wasn't capable of generating 30% adoption rate. Apple should be admired for making the necessary changes to gain 30% adoption rate. Think of Microsoft's new vision and products instead of its legacy products.

Apples dated business model means that they sold far fewer units than Microsoft and made a lot less money. Microsoft should be admired for selling so many units compared to Apple.

See what I did there?

 

[deuse]

A controversial OS will never have an impressive adoption rate. There's potential for any company to achieve similar levels of adoption. Microsoft's level of adoption is bound to go up if they start delivering major paid OS upgrades via the App Store. Apple uses the same method and it has paid off.

I don't think they get it and never will.

 

[theheyes]

Who wouldn't want enthusiasts generating 30% adoption in such a small amount of time?

It's only ever going to be a good thing for Apple (OS sales & App Store sales), developers (new OS features to take advantage of) & customers whom benefit from OS improvement as well as potential app benefits.

Yearly updates are a great idea. At this stage of the game, Microsoft would be nuts to release 8.1 is a paid upgrade. They're not in the same position as Apple.

I'm not disagreeing that it's generally a "good thing", but what I am saying is that the user base is so radically different it's almost meaningless to compare the upgrade ratios of the two operating systems.

Apple consumers are conditioned to expect frequent, less expensive upgrades, and their ecosystem is set up to make this as frictionless as possible.

This just isn't true at all for the vast, vast majority of Windows PCs. In fact, the situation is almost the complete reverse. The support lifecycle of Windows is so long, and the ubiquity of it throughout businesses, means that expecting to achieve anywhere near that level of adoption as a proportion of their existing user base on such a short timescale is just not realistic.

 

[ubersonic]

Apple should be admired for making the necessary changes to gain 30% adoption rate.

Like people have said multiple times thought you cant really do an Apples to Apples comparison between a new version of OSX and a new version of Windows. The differences between Lion/Mountain Lion are the types of things that Microsoft would just release for free as updates/SP's so yes Apple should be commended, for getting 30% of their user base to pay for it lol.

Apple consumers are conditioned to expect frequent, less expensive upgrades, and their ecosystem is set up to make this as frictionless as possible.

This just isn't true at all for the vast, vast majority of Windows PCs. In fact, the situation is almost the complete reverse. The support lifecycle of Windows is so long, and the ubiquity of it throughout businesses, means that expecting to achieve anywhere near that level of adoption as a proportion of their existing user base on such a short timescale is just not realistic.

This +1

 

[stoofa]

I was under the impression that Windows NT 4.0 was the basis for all the current Windows from XP up? And that Vista was an extensive update to this and Windows 7 and 8 are just tweaks of that code (Windows 8's main thing being the new interface, with yet more tweaks, but the majority of the code is still the same as Vista?

As mentioned in all the other threads like this, I'm not too keen on metro, but on the whole Windows 8 is pretty good. 8.1 tweaks it quite nicely, such as the option for desktop boot.

Start Menu option would be nice, but that's all I'd need to make me happy.

Windows Server 2012 having the metro theme however is very odd...

Well when I say "new code" there is still some old code there. You are right in that NT4 formed the basis for all OS's since (with the exception of the 9x line).
But there is very little of that NT4 code still left - mainly for compatibility reasons.
MS never scrap all existing code and literally start again - but they cycle between extensive re-writes followed by minor.
So although Vista is "hated" by many and 7 "adored" the two OS's share an awful lot of common code.