Discussion on:

Poll Results: Is there a market for Windows 8 or is Microsoft playing with fire?

Should Windows 8 even be on our radar at this early point in the development cycle?

But solely to keep an eye on what we will be supporting when in is released.

Windows 8 ought to be (in best MS tradition) backwardly compatible with Win 7, but just better. Why moan about it - other than the cost? I'd like Windows 8 to have much better Search.

Ok so the obvious majority want something to talk about. Some substance. What is Windows 8? Give us a reason to care. "Because it exists" isn't good enough and if it was we would be discussing Windows 9. It's all on the drawing board at Microsoft somewhere. They plan a few moves ahead I am sure.

If MS is going to stick to the two-year release cycle, the likely expectation is that consumers will upgrade every 4 or 6 years, or whenever they buy a new computer and accept the current OS version.

I'd say there are enough people like that to at least consider that type of a cycle. I know folks who upgraded to Vista the day it came out, and then to 7 the day it came out, even after they had just bought a computer with XP. Some people are just like that, they always want new new new, not necessarily what's good.

I just don't understand it. Ford, GM, Toyota, etc., all come out with new car models every year. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc., all come out with new camera models every year. Maytag, Whirlpool, GE, etc., come out with new appliance models every year.

Somehow, we all manage to survive without having to buy every new car, new camera, new TV, new dishwasher, etc., that comes out each year. Most of us use our cars, TVs, appliances, etc., until they wear out, or break down, or we get tired of them, or we see something new that we absolutely must have. When we're ready to buy something new, we might buy the latest and greatest model available. Or we may buy last year's model at a discounted price.

On the other hand, when Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows, it seems to cause all this controversy. Some seem to think that MS will "force" us to upgrade our OS every time a new version comes out. Others are convinced that MS only creates new versions of software so they can "force" people to have to pay for an upgrade. What's wrong with thinking that an OS is just a product, like any other product? What's wrong with using the OS you have until it is no longer useful, or until a new OS comes along that has something you really want? Or just upgrade your OS when you buy a new computer?

Why is common sense such a rare commodity in the world of IT?

Rick

It's the license terms.
In your car, you can "upgrade" or replace anything you want to: The exhaust, the stereo, the Tranny, and (if you want) the Engine too. But when you buy a mass-market PC, the Windows license is tied to the motherboard.

Yes, you can upgrade drive components, add-in cards (like video or 1Gb ethernet, and swap hard drives. But Microsoft ties their license to the motherboard- and if/when it fries, your only option is to buy a new license.

There are special Windows licenses called "Retail Version", which DO NOT have this limitation. But, at the store, Microsoft somehow manages to make all of the "old Version" products disappear. (And even more "strange" it usually happens on a specific date.) That's not how car dealerships work- they continue selling "last year's model" for as long as it's available, and used cars too.

99% of us *DO* upgrade the OS when we buy a new computer. But, due to "learning curve", and application re-installation requirements, and the need for crapware removal, and (in the case of Vista) the fact that the "new version" SUCKED WORSE -- we would have liked to stay on the "old one".

But you can't do that. Not without paying $$$$ for a "Retail" license. Microsoft makes the rules. With their de-facto Monopoly power it's not "just a product, like any other product". We're still in the days of Henry Ford saying, "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black" -- when he could make that rule STICK.

I totally agree
I see nothing in Vista or 7 that is noteworthy, except for Shadow Copies, which is nothing if you are on a domain anyway
I would run XP forever if someone would patch it forever
And who is the genius that removed the shared icon in 2008R2?
BTW put that stupid ribbon in 8, we will be pushing Linux

Cars and washing machines are pretty mature product sectors. Sure, each year's new model may introduce some new safety features or energy saving settings. But the roads driven on and the clothes washed haven't changed much in decades.

Compared to cars and washers, PC operating system (all OS, not just Windows) are still relatively new products. More to the point, applications are still a new product sector, with new ones (not just new models of existing ones) being introduced every day. In order for some new applications to be developed, the operating systems must first change to support to overlying app features.

I'm not saying there aren't product lifecycle models at work here; there certainly are. I'm addressing the question of what's the advantage of upgrading for the user / buyer consumer. I'll be installing W8 at work for a variety of professional reasons. I won't be installing it at home for the same reason I haven't migrated Vista to W7: because none of the apps I'm interested in running require an OS upgrade.

If it comes out soon enough and is viable, then I can skip Vista and 7 and go directly to 8 for personal use.
Here at work we are only converting to 7 with new PC's which aren't coming fast either. There are many more things to spend money on than new computers, just because. With the Federal government so far in debt, it is unlikely there will be mass purchases of computers for a while. There are much more important things to spend money on, like airport improvements, roadway improvements...
So, in answer to your question, why not? If you want it, buy it, if not. don't. It is their problem, not ours.

There is a market for Windows 8: new computer purchases.

However considering the last 2 places I've been employed *still* use Windows XP Professional...I don't know if there is a significant market yet for it in the business environment. I think Microsoft (after the application compatibility issues places had with Vista) has a lot to prove to private and public sector before they will seriously consider moving to Windows 8.

As a home user, I know that I am still putting Windows XP 64-bit on PCs for myself...or a Linux distro. Until such a time that I must have an OS which is newer for hardware compatibility, I will not even consider moving up.

I think I'd rather smash my fingers with a hammer than use 64 bit XP. Linux, oh yeah, I'm with you there, but 64 bit XP is a pile of unstable crap. Every machine I've had it on has had one problem or another that made it just short of unusable.

You've had an entirely different experience than myself then.

I have had one Vista machine. It is a Dell laptop, and it's on its 3rd HD already. I don't think that is just bad luck. I think something in Vista is harder on HDs.

I have 6 rigs (either entirely or dual-/multi-boot) that have XP x64 Pro...and I use them for anything from router controlling to high-end gaming with Xfire or SLi configs. I've had one hard drive go bad under XP so far.

As for Linux, I'm still just using it for basic end-user stuff. After I get settled here where I move (which seems like it's taking forever), I'm gonna get Audacity and Kubuntu, or get Musix, and setup a linux-driven home recording studio. Too many friends have told me I need to be doing music.

As for Windows 8, I can't really judge its stability. Windows 7 had nicer boot and shutdown times and better file system responsiveness than Vista. However, Win 7 had a lot of new (to borrow a James May term) "fluff" I didn't need. So, I saw no need to drop $100 on an upgrade per box.

Why is it that once they finally get an op system to the point of being stable, they come out with a new problem and start over? It seems to me more of a system to print money. Any business without a monopoly would have failed long ago. Let's move the steering wheel, brake pedal, and door handle on every new model!

I wonder if Microsoft might be abandoning service packs alltogether. 2 years is hardly a cycle to continue releasing OSes, unless you're just upgrading small pieces and changing out some elements of the UI. I wonder if "Windows 8" will be in the same category as "Windows 96" and "Windows 97."

That said, no, I would not upgrade to 8 if it comes out only 2 years after 7. No way, unless we're talking ground breaking I-need-to-have-them features. 7 is stable, reliable, and I haven't had any major problems with it, and I certainly don't need to lose another $250. I jumped the gun on new-and-shiny Vista, and I'm not making that mistake again.

Windows 8? Too much, too soon, very weary of the constant upgrade hassle and all that goes with it. Although Apple makes a fine product I'm not particularly an Apple enthusiast. However, credit given where it is due, they have the correct marketing approach in regard to their operating system. One version, all bells and whistles included, sold for a more than reasonable price, and does what the client wants it to do. It's simple, straightforward, user friendly, rarely if ever needs service packs, and enables the client to concentrate on productivity, not a thousand updates, security issues, etc. that are associated with all Microsoft products. Apple has a very stable operating system, something that Microsoft has never been able to say. Microsoft would do well to study and adopt their business model and marketing philosophy.

It's the same as always: Microsoft will force all the computer/electronics chain stores, and all the OEMs, to sell only the new version.

In the same way that XP vanished from store shelves - replaced by "new and shiny" Vista; and Vista vanished from store shelves - replaced by "new and shiny" Win7; Win7 will vanish from store shelves, replaced by Win8.

In the case of Vista replacing XP, a lot of buyers were very unhappy with the single-alternative "choice". In the case of Win7 replacing Vista, we were DELIGHTED to have it done to us.

But it's all the result of Microsoft's freedom to reward and punish their partners with "special deals" for those who follow their orders. In the old days, this was done on the basis of price.

Nowadays, the "Modified Final Judgement" pretends to control this criminal monopoly behavior. But it seems to me that Microsoft is still able to provide the EXACT SAME MONEY as a "reward" to compliant OEMs and Retailers, with the exact same result. It simply has a different name, and a little logo.

The MFJ was constructed with a loophole, big enough for an Aircraft Carrier. Instead of being a discounted price on software, it's those "co-marketing agreements", in which we all see the newspaper ads and websites of stores and OEMs show a little box saying, "XXXX recommends Microsoft Windows".

The legal trickery, as I understand it, is to claim that the vast amounts of "co-marketing money" are given in exchange for those little advertising boxes. But in fact, you've NEVER seen a full-power Linux desktop computer for sale at Best Buy, Office Depot, or Office Max. (During the worst of the Vista problems, you saw a few pathetic netbooks, NEVER a desktop.)

And you never will see such a machine on a retail store shelf. In the exact same way, Microsoft will ALWAYS force new versions to replace old versions at stores.

How was the "legal" Windows-Vista *WIPE-OUT* of Windows-XP at retailers (done under the rules of the MFJ) any different, for consumers, than the previous Windows-ME *WIPE-OUT* of Windows-98SE?

It wasn't. We're like little mice, forced to run on a treadmill, and kept there by Microsoft's ongoing monopoly-like power. KEEP RUNNING!

After Windows-8 has come out, and your old box dies, you'll be forced to upgrade Windows. The cost of "Retail" Windows, which you can re-install to a different motherboard, is astronomical. Like it or not you have to KEEP RUNNING, YOU'LL BE ON WINDOWS-8!

BTW, I haven't been paying attention to details of the features list, which is still in flux. But if Redmond has the brains to copy/emulate the multi-desktop tricks of Open-Source Compiz and KDE, then you will really, REALLY like using it.

Astronomical? What are you talking about. Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64 - $179 for OEM on Newegg... Retail price? $274.

$95 is astronomical to you? You must be one of those idiots that buys an $800 iPad then wrings his hands over a $2.99 app purchase.

Conspiracy theories about Best Buy? You're seriously asserting that Best Buy, the company who flagrantly violates consumer protections and shafts their customers on a daily basis in their wild pursuit of profit, would deny customers a Linux desktop if - here's the kicker - anybody except power users would buy them?

I guess the OSX running on all the macs I see at Best Buy doesn't count as *IX to you because it doesn't use KDE, huh?

I use Linux a great deal, but even as good as Ubu is, from an objective standpoint it's nowhere near ready for your average idiot casual end user to use. Only OSX even comes close. Dear God... did I just praise Apple?

I have requested a Linux laptop at Best Buy. They won't do it. The "Geek Squad" guys who are the resources for the others are usually running some flavor of Linux, but the Store won't support or honor warrenty if Linux computers.

The reason is that Linux users don't need to buy a bunch of add on software to make the system usable. Best Buy makes very little from computer sales. It's the Geek Squad services, the sales of endless numbers of 'Anti-virus' and 'security' programs that bring in the money. You will see Target selling Linux computers before you see Best Buy doing that.

Geek Squad people may run *IX, as one can only assume (and hope) that the Geek Squad guys are somewhat technically competent power users and can deal with *IX. Based on your statements, I can only assume that you are a power user as well. *IX is fine for people like us.

However, my mother, who is so technologically incompetent that she can't even set up her own wireless printer, would never survive even the gentlest experience ubu can provide. However, she can work fine with windows.

I use OSX, Ubu, and various Windows OSes. I've used Linux since Slackware v1 when you had to download a bajillion 1.44mb files from UCLA's anony-ftp repository. It's come a long, long way over the past almost-20 years. But it's still not ready for the average business user or consumer.

Want proof? Look at this thread. For example, SinisterSlay's complaint below where he bashes Microsoft for cutting off backwards compatibility.

UBU, as it exists today, could never survive in an environment where it needed to baby and coddle nontechnical users who can't even understand why, in the name of progress and improvement, you need to terminate support for ten year old hardware. The people who can't voice their complaint without turning it into some sort of Coast-to-Coast-esque conspiracy theory instead of a technological necessity.

When I stop having customers pay several hundred dollars an hour to ask me questions that are clearly answered in the installation documentation, I'll believe UBU (as it exists today) is ready for the average joe business degree (hurr).

Dude, you're missing the point. If UBU had to support several million idiots like Windows did, it would have a ton of Anti-virus and security programs, too. It's easy to talk **** when you only have an estimated single digit market share. Microsoft does do a lot of stupid ****, but if you've ever done any sort of OS-level C/ASM/CPP programming, you would know that they go out of their way to a ridiculous degree to support backwards compatibility, etc. Is it perfect? No. But you can't realistically both bash MSFT for not being advanced enough and also for cutting off backwards compatibility/ease of use. Something's gotta give.

I get more and more people coming to me BEGGING to not tell them to go back to the Geek Squad. Once they tell me their horror story and some of the things they have been told by them, I DO have sympathy.

They are a SALES squad and have very little technical knowledge. Like Microsoft, they are in search of gullible SUCKERS.

"...the Store won't support or honor warrenty if Linux computers."

Technically, the store won't honor warranties if the original OS has been replaced. It doesn't matter what replaced it: Linux, OS X, Unix, DOS, whatever. I don't think it will even allow Windows upgrades, but I could be wrong about that one.

My entire computer cost about $300. You show a price which matches the entire box (including 2 DVD writers), and it doesn't even include an upgraded to Windows 8.

Your wailing about Best Buy's nasty business tactics is a "Look at the Wookie" defense -- I mentioned some other computer chain stores, and you can probably think of others as well. They ALL took systems with Windows XP off the shelves during the same week. Microsoft rules the market with an iron fist.

OSX doesn't count because those systems cost even MORE than Windows equivalents. MS supports Apple in these stores, because the higher-priced fruit can be used by clever lawyers to argue that "there IS competition, see all these Macintosh systems for sale"?

Finally, you give Windows systems far to much credit, having labeled them as being "ready for your average idiot casual end user to use." I'll claim that from an "OBJECTIVE" point of view, they're utterly inconsistent, weird, easily broken, and hard to fix.

The only reason why average idiot casual end users (like me) can get much of anything done under Windows is the fact that we've had almost 20 years to learn most of it's "Bad Things", and get used to them.

The amount of additional weirdness at each new Release (With possible exceptions being made for Win-ME and Win-Vista) is small enough to keep us from running away, even though it would probably be be better for us (in the long run) if we DID switch.

XP was taken away and shiny Vista was put on shelves...

But when MS wasn't selling enough Vista, they went back to letting OEMs put XP on computers with an option to upgrade to Vista...so they could actually sell more OS licenses.

I got caught in that with the Dell laptop. Bought it with Vista, Dell wouldn't let me downgrade. Then weeks later, Dell started offering the laptop with XP pro again and wouldn't switch my license.

Hence why I won't buy a Dell ever again. If a current OS's license from MS doesn't let me back-grade OSes to an older one that will work, I don't want it. I'll just get Home/Office XP x64 Pro CDs til none are left on the planet.

...you already bought your license of Vista, from a package of probably a few million that was bought by Dell. You can't just exchange it for a license for XP, that's not how OEM licensing works. That Vista license is permanently tied to that PC. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, but it's not Dell's fault.

That in the past 3 employers where I have worked when Microsoft was pushing out Vista on new Dell PCs to government or enterprise customers that they get a "Vista license" which they can downgrade to XP...

But, I can not get that?

Hm?

Perhaps it's not Dell's fault, but it seems unreasonable that I can't have a downgrade in OS (note: i didn't ask them to give me a newer, more improved product...i wanted the old one) unless i have a business TIN and want to order 200 units a year.

Plus as I stated, shortly after that (literally days...less than a month I know) Dell started offering "XP with free Vista upgrade".

It just makes no sense. I should be allowed to downgrade to a previous version since I own the license to the newest thing.

You're not an enterprise customer, you're a regular one.

If I have Vista Pro that came on a laptop, and say XYZ government has Vista Pro on their laptop...same model and all...should those not be the same type of license?

And, it can't be cost. Because, I probably paid more for my retail purchase than they did under a state or GSA purchase.

It's not right. A Dell-based Windows license should be the same per box no matter who the purchaser(excluding there the VLAs and all).

Microsoft decided they were different. I'd expect Dell, or whoever manufactured it, has to eat the cost for an additional license (except when, for instance, Microsoft says they will). Ergo, they might do it to please a corporate account, since you're talking multiple times over in income with every sale, where that same cost might take years of casual user spending to equate out.

In short, just business. I think you'd be hard pressed to find ANY OEM that would honor those types of requests. Again, I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying it's not Dell's doing.

Vista Pro or Ultimate could be downgraded to XP Pro

But not with a license from Dell, you have to provide one.

I called Dell, and asked for an XP 64-bit disk to downgrade. I was told I could not have one...both before and after they announced they were "offering" XP installs again.

Hence, I'll never buy another Dell.

That was only applicable to systems bought in a certain timeframe, likely, as I said up there, coinciding with a program Microsoft was offering.

The other hardware vendors were no different.

Changing the drivers and making them incompatible with older hardware, and making software specifically not work (Direct X10, DX11, IE9, VB5, etc.)
It seems MS has forgotten that the OS is only there to run our programs. If it can't do that, its not a good OS.

I've been using MS since MS Win 3.0. I can remember prior to that, sending e-mail via DOS. The only O.S. of major (over-all) quality change was XP. Everything else to say the least, was simply other dogs with different fleas. MS would do well with future in mind, a major O.S. change instead of marketing the qustionable "one after another O.S." for the sake of the "money-go-round". Then again, who knows ... pencil, paper and envelopes may become popular again.

Gates sees how the PRODUCTS are not as important to Apple as the flock of iSheep. Gates is trying to grow his own flock. He will have to go through a LOT of products. I am glad that MS sux so bad, it is good income and I don't have to use it at home.

It is amusing to read the replies though! Maybe Gates is on his way after all...

If MS could just remove the bloat and the huge dependance of the OS on explorer and make it as fast as an OS should be, I'd be interested. BTW an incremental search in windows explorer would be a nice feature - how many years/versions does it take?

It'll never happen

regards

Peter

You can pick up a new laptop with 4 gig of RAM and a core i5 3 GHz cpu for around $450 if you shop around, that will make Windows 7 fly. Hell, my 5 year old Inspiron with a 1.6 Centrino single core and 2 gig of ram runs Windows 7 perfectly acceptably. Don't install so much crapware.

I bet my old 200mhz with WIn95, a notoriously slow and memory leaking OS, will kick its ass in boot time. My average boot time, from end of POST to usable desktop, was about 12 seconds, shutdown time was near instant (less than a second).
So your laptop with (i assume duel core?) its 30 times more processing power, and its 128 times more RAM, boot slower then technology that is 16 years old... Pathetic.