They had 7 years notice to upgrade these systems and they haven't done it...
What the chances of them upgrading them within 12months
windows 8 start menu is back
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
What the chances of them upgrading them within 12months
They had 7 years notice to upgrade these systems and they haven't done it...
What the chances of them upgrading them within 12months
Probably ask for another extension lol,regardless we will be on Win9 by the time they decide to do something about it.
The is no issue with the facts I posted, it's very simple, W8 sold ~100mil copies in it's first six months, no other version came anywhere near close to that except of course for W7 with its ~138mil copies, and W7 had a huuuuuuuuuuuge advantage in sales terms by being eagerly awaited by people keen to move on from XP and skip Vista.
I mean seriously. Can you work out the issue with what you put just there?
The is nothing wrong with what I put there, it makes perfect sense, it is the second fastest selling O/S in history, uptake/sales are very good.
You can't compare market share like that, XP is 13 years old, the was a time when Snake II was on more phones than Angry Birds, it didn't mean it was a better game. Market share isn't really connected to uptake it's just a measure of popularity over time and currently W8 is building that popularity over time faster than XP did, one of the reasons it still shows strong after all this time is because it's market share consists of computers that cannot run a newer O/S and are not being upgraded because they still "do the job"
That was the point, you can't turn Metro into a hard to navigate maze unless you have 90+ programs pinned to it. You can with start and a lot of users do (usually the same ones that have icons all over the desktop like its 2001). Obviously you can just search for a program via Start instead of navigating to it, but that's an extra step that isn't needed with Metro.
If you had bothered to read the quoted posts I was replying too, you would have seen I was correcting somebody who tried to claim W8 had tanked (when in fact it's Microsoft's second biggest O/S success), and somebody who claimed Metro offered no improvement over Start when in fact it does everything either just as well/easily or better.
If Windows 8 is so successful then why do Microsoft feel the need to do a 180? they may have sold a lot of licenses to computer/mobile phone/tablet manufacturers but that doesn't make it successful when the hardware isn't selling; and it has most certainly flopped in the personal computer space hence them backtracking.
This has got to be a joke! REALLY!!!!!!!!!!
Nope. I was chatting to the IT manager at my work last Friday and he told me the same. Not that I'm surprised. They did exactly the same with NT4
PC hardware is now up against tablets,phones etc..Remember the old days desktop PC virtually had no competition,as to u turn well some may argue adding more options for the users is a good thing and trying to keep those fussy users happy as well is also good customer support so depends how you look at it,personally I feel a lot of people could not adjust to something different in Win8 and never really gave it a chance.
Do I think Win8/8.1 is a good/solid OS?...Yes is the answer,look at Linux that may have a low distro percentage compared to Windows but does not make it a bad OS in general,far from it.
Regardless you can bet users will be moaning about something in Win9,10 etc somethings don't change and some users will always find an excuse or moan about something.
Fastest selling of fewer copies?
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
I mean seriously. Can you work out the issue with what you put just there?
XP still has a higher market share.
Start: You can still see it however, meaning that it feels less disjointed. If the modern start screen just went over the top of what is shown onscreen it would not be as bad. And what maze? It's sorted by program name or the program group with the name YOU would have set up for it.
Metro: Actually you can pin quite a lot of apps on the older start menu. The search maybe a little better (but how hard would it have been for MS to tweak the search and leave the Start Menu? That's not a Start Screen advantage, that's a tweaked search function advantage, which is different) and I always found it easy to navigate to non-pinned programs in the old Start menu.
Stop spouting tripe. I am sure MS will leave the option for either interface, so I'm not sure why you are bleating on about your beloved Start Screen, unless MS have announced they are removing that too?
You seem to be confusing rate of sale with market share, they are very different things.
There's never anything wrong with being given a choice, now I what I hope they don't do is remove the start screen all together and force this start menu hybrid, after forcing the original start screen in the first place, and countless people having become used to it, I now prefer a start screen (as per Windows 8.1) to any of the previous start menu iterations.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,860
- Location
- Rutland
Glaucus I have to say you've eaten your humble pie like a man.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,006
- Location
- Kent
Funny that the majority of those still on XP and Vista are moving up to Windows 7 though rather than Windows 8 isn't it?
I read them and agree, Windows 8 HAS tanked. Look at the market share it has compared to Windows 7 AND even XP. That is the point. Why would Microsoft even be bothering to add back in the Start menu for a minority? Why, if such of a success would Windows XP (a 13 year old OS) have a bigger market share? They wouldn't.
Are they? What sources and facts do you have to say that people "still on XP and Vista are moving up to Windows 7"?
Market share and the rate of sale aren't the same thing. You would do well to understand this. They aren't the same thing, and in fact aren't even remotely the same thing.
You are also using faulty logic to argue your position.
going by this, it's an option, which im really hoping it is
http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/threshold-revealed-microsoft-talks-future-windows
maybe it's not out until next year
http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/threshold-revealed-microsoft-talks-future-windows
maybe it's not out until next year
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,006
- Location
- Kent
I work in the IT industry and that is what most of our customers are doing. Very few are going with Windows 8.
They aren't the same thing no, but the market share is still a good indicator on how popular an OS is. Have I managed to put that in words that you can understand?
Ah Gareth, you've surfaced. I hope you are right and that they do make it an option and I expect that to be the case, as after all it would be rather stupid to drop it altogether after all the work that has gone into it.
Last edited:
Not if you understand it no, not really. The ones moving to 7 are mostly corporate domains and have their reasons for doing so (an obvious one being W7 workstations work better in Server 2003 enviroments than W8 workstations do).
I have seen it, but like myself and others have pointed out to you, it's not relevant in determining if something new has succeeded or not.
Okay, your really not understanding this but I will try with a simply analogy: The new Captain America film just grossed $96 million in it's opening weekend making it the most successful film opening of all time. By comparison Daredevil which came out in 2003 has thus far grossed $431,881 in 11 years. By your logic Captain America has tanked.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,006
- Location
- Kent
Wrong. Windows 8 works fine in a server 2003 environment. You shouldn't really be running a server 2003 based environment from tomorrow anyway, but that's for another discussion.
It is completely relevant.
We're talking about computer Operating Systems here, of which it is generally better to keep as up to date as possible, you don't need to update films such as Daredevil to Captain America do you? No, so it is not the same thing.
The fact that so many people would rather run older technology (Windows 7) rather than upgrade to the newer version of Windows is the point here.
No, it has issues that 7 does not.
No, 15/07/2015 is not tomorrow.
No, not for a new product vs an established product it is not.
Your missing the point that Microsoft have switched to faster/smaller O/S releases akin to the OSX model, the difference between 7 and 8 are not that massive (both being based on the NT6 kernel). the upgrade from 7 to 8 is nowhere near as big as from XP/Vista to 7 was and so the is less "need" to upgrade, and despite that 8 has become the second most successful O/S Microsoft has launched, beating the odds and all expectations.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
It was always going to be turned around. In my mind, the only reason for Modern UI was to encourage developers to release apps for it, which would in turn encourage developers to release Windows Phone versions, boosting Microsoft's mobile attraction.
The only question was when a start menu (either the existing one or a complete redevelopment) was reintroduced. I'm surprised it will be in Windows 8 and not 9 personally, but there we go.
All that said, I couldn't care less. I still press the start key and type, so Modern UI made sod all difference. The only issue I had with it was that when unlocking/logging in you had to pause until the animation had cleared the screen.
You can't please everyone out there,regardless Win9 is not far off so I'm not bothered either way.
I'm looking forward to the new moans on Win9,got my front seat booked aready
.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,006
- Location
- Kent
Which IT Techies can work around, pretty much like most versions of Windows ever made. There are plenty of threads around on various forums and most issues have a solution, those that do not, do have workarounds.
No, it's the 9th. Well done.
Yes it is. Why would it not be? Because it doesn't fit in with your argument?
Again, no. Also the upgrade from Vista to 7 is about the same 7 to 8 with the amount of differences, with the small exception of speed difference between them. For example upgrading from Vista to 7 gives you plenty of speed increase, the speed increase is there between 7 & 8, but i's not so noticeable.
I am not going to continue discussing this with you. All you are doing is repeating yourself, in a rather misguided view that Windows 8 and it's Start Screen interface have been a success. If you want to believe the fantasy, you go right ahead.
Yup, still a good year and a quarter of support, they did it that way so companies wouldn't have to be changing their server and workstation O/S at the same time.
Nope, because it doesn't work that way as logic/common sense should tell you, why do you think you have multiple people telling you you're wrong?
Again wrong.
The difference between 7/8 is actually much smaller than Vista/7, however the speed difference between Vista/7 is in fact quite small, the "perceived" difference was simply due to 7 running better than Vista on the average computer because the average computer spec had improved in intervening years and continued to improve after 7's launch. Vista's sluggishness on it's "recommended" hardware was actually nowhere near as bad as XP's was, and 7 kept Vistas specs and due to some tweaks and the hardware improvements that had come with time it worked better. A machine that was unusable with Vista was just as unusable with 7.
Thank god.
Yes that's because you keep ignoring the facts myself and others present you with and repeat your misunderstanding.
You mean factually correct, not misguided, they're different words.
You shouldn't type to yourself, people may htink your mad.