 BloodRosesAeolus, your daughter flies.Premium
join:2003-03-17
Louisville, KY | reply to PeteC2
Re: Windows 8's usage uptake falls further behind Vista's said by PeteC2:an equal contributing factor is that the pace of hardware development and CPU changes have slowed noticeably in recent years. You bring up a good point. A lot of people trying to run Vista were trying to run it on 128 and 512MB of system memory when it really needed at least 4GB. This is the problem with having a 10 year release cycle.
--
Fairy Blessings,
Stefanie |
|
 BloggerJedi PosterPremium
join:2012-10-18
 ·Champion Broadba..
| 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. |
|
|
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to Woody79_00
said by Woody79_00: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.
but, people are playing Angry Birds..
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
| reply to slckusr
said by slckusr: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.
And that's fine for a home user. You have the time to play and the freedom to do as you please. If you screw up, well, you've only screwed yourself up.
For a business user, not so much. Companies generally don't just hand you a computer and let you load it with Metro apps or whatever else you want, especially if it's connected to their network. That poses security risks they can't afford. They also can't afford the downtime while you play and learn, they still have work to get done. An investment in Win8 is going to cost them a lot more than just the software, and the return on investment just isn't there.
Like it or not, a big piece of Microsoft's business is the corporate customer. People sitting at home tend to forget that, but those corporations help pay the freight. What you do is not what they do. If something doesn't further their business, they're simply not going to go there. A few seconds' faster boot time isn't going to cut it with them. |
|
 OctaveanPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1 | reply to BloodRoses
said by BloodRoses:said by PeteC2:an equal contributing factor is that the pace of hardware development and CPU changes have slowed noticeably in recent years. You bring up a good point. A lot of people trying to run Vista were trying to run it on 128 and 512MB of system memory when it really needed at least 4GB. This is the problem with having a 10 year release cycle. There is a little more to it then that. Vista heralded wider adoption of 64bit over Windows XP 64. Such a transition wasn't easy for many. There was also an issue with drivers (lack of drivers / poor drivers) for many (which likely would have been true for XP 64) and general bugs in the then new OS as well as lackluster computer hardware in use during that time,...
Software support issues and many of the general problems that occur with an OS upgrade,...
So it was a combination of issues colliding. For those hit with multiple issues when things previously worked fine in XP it would be difficult to do anything other then vilify Vista,.....and go back to XP.
For those with robust computer hardware and no noteworthy software, driver or hardware problems upgrading / using Vista wasn't difficult,.... |
|
BloggerJedi PosterPremium
join:2012-10-18 Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..
| 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. |
|
OctaveanPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1 | 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. |
|
 digitalfuturSees More Than ShownPremium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2 | 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. |
|
| 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... |
|
OZOPremium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2 | reply to digitalfutur
said by digitalfutur: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?
Ready to dump Windows, is Mac or Linux better for me?
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
 H2OuUp2Happy to be herePremium
join:2002-03-15
Oklahoma City, OK | 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 Woody79_00
said by Woody79_00: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 
nVidia has really upped their game with the 680 MX mobile GPU. Currently exclusive to the high end Imacs. It pretty much gives you high end desktop graphics performance in a mobile platform. |
|
| A GTX480 will outperform a GTX680MX by around 4%, and that's two generations of desktop hardware ago. A GTX680 is about 26% faster than the laptop version. Is laptop and mobile GPU performance getting closer to desktop at a lot less power usage? Yes, but I wouldn't say it really gives you high end desktop graphics in a mobile platform.
Though I suppose one must ask what "high end" for desktop graphics really is. I only have a GTX 560ti, so the GTX680MX is more powerful than what's in my workstation PC.
--
CompTIA Net+ Network Administrator - I know networks!
Professional Photographer - www.jnphoto.biz - Weddings and Senior Photos
Nice and comfy with Frontier DSL: I can help with your issues!
»speedtest.net/result/2472459013.png |
|
