OS and Software > Microsoft Help > Windows 8's usage uptake falls further behind Vista's

reply to DarkSithPro

Re: Windows 8's usage uptake falls further behind Vista's

reply to Woody79_00

reply to rfhar
I would use a tablet, if I had the option to attach a external keyboard and mouse. I have too much software right now that a small keyboard and touch pad just doesn't work well with. In the future maybe.

The reason I don't like Win 8 is multitasking, in Win 7 I can have several apps open at the same time, and can quickly switch between them. In Win 8, it takes longer period, and time is money. I can't afford to take an extra hour per day doing the same function.

I don't think I should have to buy a third party app to get Win 8 to do what it should have done in the first place. Besides this causes problems when I make a custom program and the end user doesn't have the third part app installed on their PC.

If we upgrade to Win 8 MS won't fix the problems. Win 8 has a lot of things going for it, just not enough for me to switch from Win 7 which has never done me wrong and runs great.

I hope Win 9 fixes these problems because eventually I will be forced to switch.
--
He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot

reply to digitalfutur

reply to digitalfutur
They'll be forced to use whatever the MS monopoly is selling when their machines die.. or just go on with XP without updates till that time arrives... there aren't any reasonable alternatives...

reply to Blogger
So when all support for XP ends in a year, are all these users (40% of Windows desktops) going to abandon Microsoft because "too many don't like Windows 8"? Mass migration to Apple? Android?
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.

reply to Blogger
Thank you, and you make a very good point yourself.

I will say thought that when Vista was in development and nearing release I think it became clear before the product went gold that intended features were being dropped.

I liken this to my Intel Core i7 3930K / Asus P8X79 Deluxe based system in some ways. We were hearing about features of the X79 chipset like SAS support, motherboards with 14 SATA ports, an improved Intel SRT SSD caching feature and more,.....all were apparently dropped to get the product out the door on time.

I get that anticipation and expectation of a great new OS may be impossible to live up to under the circumstances but I also don't think people should get swept away with said expectations.

I mean, at the end of the day we all have to live in the real world and it helps to have realistic expectations regardless of what a company may say about their "magical" new widget.

reply to Octavean
Octavean, your post is outstanding in its content and relevancy. Well done!

I have to add something though that might be considered by some a bit at odds with the undeniably accurate info you posted.

When MS decided to replace XP with a new OS it made a big deal of it starting five years before the release of Vista. They boldly and publicly stated that they were going to make the design of a new super OS to replace XP has THE number one goal or priority of the company. They were going to spare no effort in money or manpower to make the pending wonderful new modern OS that we all were going to love.

About five years later they rolled out Vista as the end product of their super top priority new OS that would change our lives---Vista!

For both the reasons you mention plus the interface itself it was shocking to many, myself included, that THIS was the end result of five years of the best MS could produce sparing no effort or cost? It was in that context an embarrassment to the company and a shock to the user anticipating what was being advertised as coming from MS.

Naturally, Vista never took off really, and very quickly after the newest thing in town syndrome rapidly wore off and reality sunk in the OS was accurately labeled a failure by MS and they ended up two years later with OS 7, which is what Vista should have been.

OS 7 is IMO clearly the best OS MS has ever designed even accounting for the time period any prior OS was released.

Unfortunately, OS Win 8 is starting off in way too many areas in a negative way including the totality of reception by its users. Many like it. No doubt about that. But way too many don't like it and vocally so. That is not a good trait in any context.
--
The signal is usually drowned out by the noise.

reply to BloodRoses

reply to slckusr

reply to Woody79_00

reply to rfhar
Vista and Win 8, were specifically designed to literally to be a new OS to replace their predecessors. Replace as in new and not in as improved functions like a super Service Pack. In that regards Vista was a total failure, (which is why MS doesn't even mention Vista unless its absolutely necessary), and so far as of this date Windows 8 is suffering the same fate.

Subjectively, the numbers of users that bought Vista stated at a percentage that was unacceptable that Vista sucked given what it was advertised to be and in certain areas of performance. As new OS it died quickly. The autopsy completed with the release of Win 7 confirmed the extent of the fatal disease of Vista.

Windows 8 so far is failing at the same rate. Because of the newness of the OS the reasons for its failing acceptance is still being argued. All though new it is currently on life support. Will it survive or is an autopsy complete with a replacement OS two years in the future? Bookies say the odds are 3-1 it will be so. The odds may change with the passing of time.
--
The signal is usually drowned out by the noise.

reply to PeteC2

reply to Octavean
I don't think Desktops will just disappear....

The hardware in Desktops will ALWAYS be superior for 2 reasons:

1. More room for better and bigger hardware.
2. More room for better and efficient cooling.

With a high end gaming laptop, you would be lucky to get a steady 25 FPS. I would love to see someone try to play Crysis 3 on a tablet. Even a really high end gaming laptop will most likely be brought to its knees on high settings. In fact, I figure two 7970's in CrossfireX or an Nvidia SLI equavilent will be required to run that game on all settings maxed at playable frame rates @1080p

Yes there is a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps to the human eye. I can notice it, and im sure other PC gamers notice it to. Console graphics look like garbage after playing the same game on a real PC.

As for cooling....compiling huge amounts of code that peg a 4 core, even an 8 core CPU at 100% for extended periods of time are going to cause tablets, and some laptops, some serious issues with heat. These systems were not designed for that kind of heavy lifting.

Will mobile device get more popular? sure they will. Will they be the right tool in every instance? no. Will PC go away? not a chance.

in fact, I bet online part retailers like Newegg and others won't miss a beat...in fact they may gain even more business. Steam sales i do beleive are at an all time high and they cater to the PC gaming crowd. PC's are far from dead folks

reply to zod5000

said by zod5000:

said by digitalfutur:

In the next few years, the desktop PC will be replaced by full function/full power tablets like the Windows Surface Pro, which can be hooked up to a monitor and external keyboard for a user experience just like a desktop. People will pay more for the smaller form factor and the portability, just as they have for laptops before for the same reason. The transition to mobile devices is as sure as the replacement of CRT TVs was by flat screens.

I think PC sales will decline but not go extinct. The same reason laptops never fully replaced PC's. People still want to surf the internet, do their homework and use a full sized computer screen while at home. PC upgrades might be few and far between (as they are pretty powerful these days) but I think they'll still be in homes.

I find portable devices are great, but the screen sizes are so small. Tablets/Phones are great when your away from the PC, but give me a 24" screen with mouse/keyboard any day

I guess my opinion is that all of these devices will augment each other.

reply to zod5000

said by zod5000:

said by digitalfutur:

In the next few years, the desktop PC will be replaced by full function/full power tablets like the Windows Surface Pro, which can be hooked up to a monitor and external keyboard for a user experience just like a desktop. People will pay more for the smaller form factor and the portability, just as they have for laptops before for the same reason. The transition to mobile devices is as sure as the replacement of CRT TVs was by flat screens.

I think PC sales will decline but not go extinct. The same reason laptops never fully replaced PC's. People still want to surf the internet, do their homework and use a full sized computer screen while at home. PC upgrades might be few and far between (as they are pretty powerful these days) but I think they'll still be in homes.

I find portable devices are great, but the screen sizes are so small. Tablets/Phones are great when your away from the PC, but give me a 24" screen with mouse/keyboard any day

I guess my opinion is that all of these devices will augment each other.

--
Nothin' left to do but smile smile smile

reply to digitalfutur

reply to rfhar
i dont understand what the problem is with Windows 8.

It works great for me, of course i dont mind change and learning new things. I very rarely (if at all) see the dreaded start screen in my day to day usage. I have shortcuts to my most used programs on my desktop, the others are a quick search or few clicks away.

reply to digitalfutur
I agree with much of what you said.

I've been predicting for some time now that Intel will shift their priorities to Processor efficiency to combat the ARM initiative in the mobile space (smart phones / tablets). This is also in part due to poor competition from AMD in performance space.

However, using your CRT to flat screen analogy, I'll point out that I bought my first HDTV, a Viewsonic 32", in early 2006 which was about ~$1000 then:

»ViewSonic N2750w 27" or N3250w 32" 16:9 8ms HD LCD

Today a 32" HDTV would probably cost about ~$300 or possibly less. For the same ~$1000 today a 60" HDTV could be had. I guess what I am trying to say here is that there can still be progress and value even after such a transition.

I also don't think the desktop PC will totally go away but prices may go up and there will be less variety.

Expandability and performance may be found in the mobile space.

reply to digitalfutur