Discussion on:

10 reasons why Windows 8 may appeal to consumers

Reminds me of the reasons (excepting games and tablets) I chose Android , though there were many more: price, speed, flexibility, access to the underlying system, the variety and power of the apps thanks to the inventiveness and freedom of the writers, lack of lock-in (but excellent integration with Google for those willing to sign up) and the very wide choice of form factor, of supplier, of carrier and of deal.

The Windows 8 Kill Switch: A Hacker's Dream Come True

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400985,00.asp

About a year ago, I had to do some work urgently during the weekend. I had some problems with motherboard, which was replaced under warranty about week or two before that. And so, on Friday evening, Microsoft Office decided that my license expired. Normally, this is not a problem, but our local Microsoft support works only on weekdays, until 8PM or so.

Luckily, I was already playing with Linux at the time, and had it installed as dual boot. Cursing, I fired up my mostly unused Linux installation, started using LibreOffice & Monodevelop for real, and managed to get the job done until Monday. From then on, I gradually used Linux more and more, and Windows less and less. At the moment, I'm booting Windows 7 installation only every other month or so, to prevent security updates from piling up too much.

Naturally, my next machine will be Linux only.

It hasn't even been released, or installed and it's already infected with a back door.

About all of what was listed has been available for years in desktop UNIX and Apple's OS X (ok, another desktop UNIX variant).

What is new with Windows? Microsoft has finally reinvented the wheel???

For many people, the new Microsoft OS will be very different and foreign thing. They may find out, that say, Linux is more familiar..

Really, no compelling reason to use Windows, much less Windows 8.

"About all of what was listed has been available for years in desktop UNIX and Apple's OS X (ok, another desktop UNIX variant)."

If all of this and more has been available in *nix for years, why do you suppose it's gone nowhere with consumers (the audience under discussion)?

So who in your opinion uses Apples OS X and the various desktop Linux distributions? Yes, that is right, users.

Most users don't care at all, what their "OS" is, as long as they can get their tasks done.

combined make up around 10% of the installed PC operating systems.

I agree that most users don't care, but they're buying off the shelf systems with Windows pre-installed.

The magic words - Windows pre-installed - MS monopoly worked out with the H/W companies. How many people are buying I-Pads and other tablets with Windows pre-installed? Do you really believe those users are going to run out and buy a Win. 8 tablet as soon as one hits the market - especially if it costs $100+ more than an Android based? If Intel went into the PC business and started making their own PCs (with "Intel inside"), picked a Linux distro (like Ubuntu or Mint) and selling them cheaper than a MS loaded system (no fee back to MS), what do you think the average consumer would buy - two identical Intel PCs (H/W-wise), but one a lot cheaper?

However, major PC manufacturers have offered pre-installed Linux through major distribution chains, as you suggest. They went nowhere.

I agree the presence of W8 may not lure consumers to tablets, or any other platform, but I'm in the camp that thinks MS's attempts to have a single GUI across all platforms is a mistake.

I'm only pointing out that features present in Linux for years haven't drawn consumers attention to it either. You're the one who dragged Linux into a discussion that had nothing to do with it, not me.

It is true, that bundled Linux with various 'brand' PCs did not succeed much. But this is true because they did bundle typically one particular Linux distribution and that was unlikely the popular one. So in essence they would have been better to sell the PC without any OS, at all.

Most corporations will install their own Windows anyway, with their preinstalled apps etc and their licenses. Same applies for Linux, PC BSD etc.

The features present in UNIX have been largely copied by Microsoft in Windows. About any major "Windows" feature out there, has been copied and adapted from UNIX, starting with the TCP/IP stack, Active Directory etc.

I guess I didn't get my point across. People are buying Android H/W. Android is Linux based. As far as other PC makers offering Linux, the only one I was aware offering a Desktop Linux was Dell (and they really didn't make an effort). There are companies, e.g., IBM, offering Linux servers. Of course, Red Hat does extremely well in the server market. But getting back to the point I was trying to make, if a company like Intel was to make its own PC (ala Apple) with a set Linux distro installed (e.g., an Ubuntu-based), sell it cheaper than a Win. 8 PC (along with their advertising), it could make headway. Even in the business market, companies are seeing the benefit of Linux servers and switching to them. Plus, Linux is lot more popular in other parts of the world - where being tied to MS is not a "plus". In addition, who is MS going to punish? The other H/W manufacturers have to abide by MS rules if they want the best price on MS S/W they install. Intel doesn't have that problem. It will be interesting to see how the Libre Office situation plays out. Of course, either Google or Intel could port Android to the Desktop, which could make it interesting.

The users I know have specific problems that are usually solved with specific programs. So many users work with Office at work they want Office on their home computer. The majority of people I know that have a home computer depend on someone else to help them with any issues they may have. So it's true they don't really care what OS they have, they still turn to a Windows based computer because that is what the majority of their peers have.

Linux may be the best OS out there, but there are too many flavors. Linux tech support is horrendous for the average user, let alone a newbie. It's been my experience with Linux help forums where the 'pros' get so hung up with top-posting vs bottom posting that the newbie is going run away as fast as possible. The general condescension shown to people that don't post a question in the unwritten prescribed manner is awful. There is a vast Windows knowledge base, formal and informal.

Until the Linux user base becomes vastly larger than at present, and until the early Linux adopters start showing more courtesy to the new folks, Linux will continue to be nothing more than a novelty to the vast majority of users, and that's if they've even heard of Linux.

I set up and have been maintaining two home-rolled Linux firewalls for one of my clients since early 2004. I started with Red Hat 9 and am currently up to Fedora Core 14. I use Squid, Shorewall, Webmin, and NoMachine. It all works. It's free. It's not for the casual user.

Of the hundreds of people I know and work with, one person has a dual-boot computer at home because his son is into Linux.

I have a Windows Phone 7.5, W8 CP on a tablet, W8 DP and WS8 DP on virtual machines. Metro is great for consuming information. When I need to get deeper into things, going to the W8 desktop is easy.

So many are not turning to MS based PCs because that is what their peers buy, it is because it is their only choice. It amy be true that those who use Windows at work (their only choice) end up with a Windows machine at home. Apples are lot more expensive and MS has a monopoly on the PC market of course, if they use an Apple at work, then they probably use one at home). How many PC makers do you see really pushing a choice between MS and some other OS. Remember what the other H/W manufacturers did to IBM and OS/2. DELL did offer a Linux alternative (don't recall what distro), but then (as I heard) MS started making threats about the pricing deal for DELL. Now that Intel is on the Libre Office bandwagon, it will be interesting to see how that plays out with MS and their MS Office offering. Maybe they will find some way to shoehorn it into Windows like they did with IE!

I agree there are a lot of Linux distros out there, but the two distros most "average" Linux users have settled on are Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based Mint. As far as tech support, how many average users actually call MS for support (and pay them). Also, how many of them actually go to the MS site looking for help? Of course, if you go with Red Hat and buy there total package, you get support. If you go with a distro you downloaded, you have to rely on your peers and forums and the like. Now there are some @$$holes who do talk down to "newbies", but I have also found the same problem on the Windows forums. There are many great forums where the "experienced" (and even IT pros who work in IT) bend over backwards trying to help out a "newbie". And if you worked in the IT field where you have a few co-workers, I'm willing to bet you will find one or two with condescending attitudes. At least on the forum, you can post a "lighten up" to them - try it at work and it might have repercussions.

I agree the Linux setup you described is not for the average user. The typical average user does e-mail, reads the news, maybe does e-bay or some other on-line shopping, maybe uses MS Word on occasion, maybe check on their 401K (if they still have a job), plays games, downloads and/or music/movies/TV, saves photos and maybe a couple of other things. Everyone of those things can be done on a Linux systemas easily as on an MS system. Granted, there are some apps that only run under Windows and won't under WINE Photoshop may still be in that category).

It is not surprising that you can find 100 MS users vs 1 Linux user. First, as I previously mentioned, how many PCs are sold with a Linux distro pre-installed? If a person goes to one of the "box" stores where some salesperson who knows very little about Windows and absolutely nothing about Linux (ASSUMING the store sold a pre-installed Linux system) but knows you get a bigger commission on the pricier Windows box than on a Linux box, what are they going to push - especially when the manager says it means more money for the store? I ran into this in the past with the pricier Apples vs a MS machine. BTW, how many people do you see running out and buying tablets with MS Windows installed? I-Pads, of course, are huge and then you have the other tablets with Android. Do you really believe the average person is going to run out and replace their current tablet for one with MS Windows on it, just because its MS? I know quite a few people (average home users) who have bought I-Pads and now their Windows PC is collecting dust!

are NOT setting the world on fire in the Linux universe either. While I have not tried Gnome 3, I have tried Unity and Canonical can stuff it. Gnome 2 was a very good desktop from an user standpoint. It was also sufficiently easy to pick up if you knew XP (or 95/98). Ubuntu 11.10 put in the ability to switch back to a Gnome 2 like desktop, while close, there are differences. BTW, both Unity and Gnome 3 were designed both the tablets in mind (shades of Windows 8 - just catching up)!!! I believe Fedora is going with Gnome 3. A nice brief description of the two can be found at http://lifehacker.com/5853099/linux-desktop-faceoff-gnome-3-vs-ubuntu-unity . Jack Wallen also has a good article - see http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10-things-the-linux-desktop-can-be-proud-of/3093 .

Last I heard, you could still buy certain Dell systems with Linux pre-installed. You had to do some digging on their web site, but it was still an option. That was about 18 months ago, long after the push for Linux systems at Wal-mart.

Do wheels make a car an appealing thing to have? Flat wheels?

don't like for windows to upgrade or use the same good ideas. As a user of all but apple I find the new approach by Microsoft to be a good attempt to get from old DOS to something new. Lets not nay-say the attempt just because it is still a "BETA" program. I concur with most of the points made in the article but I am not a fan of the "cloud' or Social Media. I could slam them if I was of a mind too. But it is the concept I have problems with not the programs.

Yes, this is Microsoft chance to finally produce an viable operating system. But given how absurdly they try to push it on the consumers and the enterprise and given that UNIX already exists as an stable, extensive and extremely available platform (not to ignore costs).. Microsoft has to deliver some true miracle to have this happen...

"Yes, this is Microsoft chance to finally produce an viable operating system."

Looks like Windows has been viable for 25 years or so.

... That forces established users to totally relearn everything they've done for the past 20 years.

Is THIS a viable OS? Not for long-time, experienced computer users.

Danbi is the one who said, "Yes, this is Microsoft chance to finally produce an viable operating system." Like you, I agree they've had a viable one up until now.

It is not easy to define 'viable' when it comes to OS, because we are likely coming from different backgrounds and have different weights to different issues. So, my comments below may sound too technical. But I will try to restrict myself to the 'normal user' part. Note, I am still claiming that Microsoft does not get the "OS" concept. After so many years.. .shame!

The "OS" is what manages your hardware and resources. Things like memory, various peripherals, file systems etc. An application should not even know about these things. With WinRT, Microsoft are finally trying to get there, although in a true Microsoft way, they are about to create yet another mess. (*)

The user interface is something, that does not belong to the OS. This is where things with Microsoft get ugly. They assume, that the "OS" is the "UI"... and everything is centered that way. This gets in the way of the users AND programmers, because for each "new" OS version, they have to learn and implement completely different UI.

The APIs, is what interfaces an application program with the OS and what interfaces an applications program with the UI. You may have multitude of APIs in an OS environment, to strictly specific OS APIs to APIs for audio/video encoding/decoding for example, for access to various 'common' things like calendars, address books etc. About the only OS specific there should be, is the OS APIs. Everything else, should be available in all different OS versions, with the same API.

An good example of such separation is OS X. As you may know, OS X is based on BSD UNIX for the OS. But it leverages Apple's specific APIs for the UI and other programming. The current OS X 'environment' is Cocoa. It has two 'primary' APIs, one OS specific, called 'Foundation' and another UI specific, called AppKit (on OS X) or UIKit (on iOS). Because the OS (BSD UNIX) is the same on OS X and iOS you use the Foundation API to program anything that relates to OS functions (peripheral access, memory management, process management etc). You use the respective UI APIs to program for the different UI. If one day, Apple invents another UI paradigm, they will probably create an NewKit API, that you can use to write programs for the new UI paradigm. THIS is an viable OS. For both the users and developers.
(and please don't start it how Apple's products are expensive etc junk, because that has nothing to do with the OS, or whether it is viable or not -- I just use it as an example)

Similar is the situation with all UNIX systems, no surprise. You have OS specific APIs, that might be different for different architecture UNIX systems, such as BSD or Linux. Then you have various UI APIs. These might range from KDE3, KDE4, Gnome2, Gnome3, plain X11 etc APIs. Suppose you develop your applications using the KDE4 API on Linux. If your applications is not using any Linux specific OS API (which they won't for the most user applications), you can run that same application on BSD system, with the KDE4 runtime. It will display the same UI and the user will not have to re-learn everything. This is yet another example of viable OS.

(*) It appears, that even if you 'stick' with WinRT/Metro, you will still have access to run Win32 DLLs in your "Metro" application. This is what I call Lazy Programming and one particular example of the problems that have plagued Windows from the very beginning. This is not something I would call "viable OS", ever.

I interpreted 'viable' by the dictionary definition, that it is capable of surviving. It sounds like you're going with something closer to 'technologically efficient'.

Reasons #1 through #4, clearly indicate that Windows-8 is suitable for and oriented to smartphone/tablet users--certainly not laptop/desktop users.

It clearly says 'Consumers'.

Why does Microsoft so strenuously believe it has to dumb down more and more and make life more and more difficult for experienced users?

You make the word 'Consumers' sound like chicken in a feeding line in a chicken factory.

TsarNikky was discussing the impact on business users. I pointed out the discussion is about consumers. There was nothing implied about that market; I used the word 'consumers' only in contrast with the words 'business users'.

So, which one is the first class users, and which one is the second class users?

We should expect the introduction of an "Business class OS" and another "Consumer class OS" from Microsoft, right... oh, they have already done that long ago....

but as to 'first' or 'second', that depends on who a company is targeting. If you're a gaming company, business users probably aren't even fourth class. Microsoft has historically done a decent job of meeting the needs of both markets by targeting different versions of the OS, as you noted. In this case, I don't think their 'one size fits all' approach is going to meet everyone's needs or desires. Specifically, I think users will like W8 on touch systems and / or on systems intended primarily for content consumption. So far the majority of those systems are used by consumers, not business users.

The only way the average home user (who is also a "consumer") will buy a Windows 8 PC is when their XP (or Vista) PC bites the dust and its cheaper to buy new. If there should be a some competing OS available, pre-installed, and cheaper, they will switch. The amount of effort to move their photos and a few other files would be about the same. My XP Desktop bit the dust about 6 months ago. It was cheaper to buy new.(it came with Windows 7). In six months, I have had a number of BSODs (some were even black - talk about being beaten up until "black and blue"). I also have had to run "Repair" 2 or 3 times. I have an external drive that was plugged in when I booted Win. 7 and somehow got clobbered. I now have to run a data recovery routine to try and get back the files (partition restore and other like utilities cannot get it back). Plus I have run into so many nuisances (many for the sake of change rather than really had to be done that way), that I ended up installing VirtualBox and installed a couple of Linux distros in it - eventually, I might install XP into VirtualBox. BTW, in "snooping around", it seems many of the MS files are the same as what was in XP, some probably tweaked and maybe a few rewritten.
I also noticed that about 90%+ of the weekly updates are security updates - so much for "more secure" than XP!

I used Win8 for a couple of weeks and got tired of the constant apps to desktop, back and forth, back and forth. Monotonous! Also I would like it a lot more if the apps opened as individual windows on the screen, not in a line down the side of the screen. I would like to actually see several windows open at the same time on the Metro screen, not just one at a time. They seem to have gone backwards with this release. I re-installed Win7 and I'm pretty sure I'll stay here until there are a lot of improvements and changes to Win8.

I think there is a lot of merit for the tablet and phone users who are out for the latest in bling. But they have an uphill battle to compete with the iphone and ipad. They are firmly established platforms. Forcing this interface on desktop and laptop users will probably backfire as consumers will probably wait for the next best thing as windows 7 is proving to be so reliable and effective.

I'm not sure it matters. Most consumers get a new OS when they upgrade their computers, and they don't base their upgrades on a new OS being released. If Window tablets take off, then Windows 8 will be a hit. If they don't, then I think the future of a Windows consumer OS becomes a lot more murky.

It's not like Microsoft is going to allow OEM's to bundle Windows 7 on everything but tablets or that they'll restrict Windows 8 to just tablets. Windows 8 will come preinstalled on EVERY pc device (desktop, notebook, tablet, etc) that's available for purchase so consumers will automatically be Windows 8 user's the next time they go to buy a PC.

that doesn't mean people will buy those new computers.

Look at Vista. Vendors pre-loaded it, often on hardware that shouldn't have been used to run W2K. Word of mouth quickly spread about the unsatisfactory experience, and buyers began 'downgrading' to XP by any means possible. These methods included a run on the last new XP machines, installing XP from (sometimes unlicensed) media, and delaying purchasing new systems until OS was available. All of these methods are possible to get a Windows OS that isn't W8, and more since virtualization has reached consumer compatibility.

W8 can be a hit on phones and tablets and still get a 'Thumbs Down' from consumers on the desktop and laptop.

Microsoft has tighter controls on exactly what devices OEM's can preinstall their OS on so the performance problem is solved...especially considering that the performance requirements between Windows 7 and 8 are nearly identical. From XP to Vista, there was a significant increase in the system requirements, that's not the case with this transition so your argument about "bad" reviews due to performance is not applicable.

What is applicable is the 10-15 minutes it'll take to show users what Windows 8 has that's different from Windows 7. It's not like a customer is going to walk in to Best Buy, NOT use the computer and purchase it blindly. And even still, the only thing preventing those same users from using the desktop is logging in and clicking on the Desktop tile.

Now, please explain to me how THAT is such a huge obstacle that will cause all of the consumers to outright reject Windows 8?

Based on my limited W8 experience, I think that those consumers will take a look at W8 on those demo machines and be displeased with seeing it switch back and forth between GUIs. Late fall and the Christmas sales season should tell us a lot more.

It's more likely they'll walk into the store and say, "I want a new Windows PC."
The salesman will give them one.
When they get home, turn it on and see Metro, they'll pack it up and return it to the store.

Similar to what happened with the first Linux netbooks.

Since what they wanted was "Windows PC".

There are still millions of users on XP. I do agree with Palmetto_Charlies point on this. Also, when those XP users (or those who went through the rigors of migrating from XP to WIndows 7 Premium (or lesser distros)) start to find out it is another migration (at least from what I read), they may be more than happy to look at other alternatives such as "free" Linux Mint or Ubuntu. BTW, if a lot of the Ubuntu users who were happy with 10.04 or 10.10 and then moved up to Unity in the later distros weren;t happy (and most are not the typical home user), what do you think the reaction of home users will be with Win. 8?

Those are two very different devices, the former to consume media, the latter to create it. That's why In my opinion W8 will see a very limited release, unless they radically redesign the desktop interface to be evolutive from 'Desktop Windows' (the general UI paradigm we have had since Windows 95) instead of the radical change they want to impose now.

.. that there is life beyond Microsoft and Windows.
There are plenty of other options and most other options are better suited for many tasks as well.

I'm piecing this together from two sources so I could be wrong but I've been watching most of the Channel 9 videos about win8.

1) Early on, around Dev Preview: they said "sure you can run the desktop it is just another application available for you to launch from the metro start menu"

2) Yesterday I watched a dev show (http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/bursteg/Part-3-Windows-8-Camp-Introduction-to-Building-Metro-Apps-Part-3) and they were talking about how apps should be roaming aware. The guy mentioned that an app gets a notification that it is going to be suspended in 5ms (yes ms) and it is supposed to sync up whatever data it needs to (on the harddrive, cloud whatever). Two problems I have with this and haven't heard back yet:

1: 5ms really? Lets say you are using a mobile carrier: you might not have signal, you're wifi might have had a hiccup and needs to reconnect etc. If so it sounds like you'll just get suspended anyways. Regardless 5ms is probably less time than your network latency so you are screwed. Which isn't a problem unless:

2: he also mentioned in the talk that if the system gets too busy it starts closing suspended apps. Ie. things you open don't necessarily stay open until you close them, the system will take over if you are low on resources and close them. That is why it is really important that you actually do backup your data when you are told you are being suspended. But:

If you put those two together does that mean that your system could get busy and kick out your desktop session? What happens to the apps running in it (does Win create a hibernate file or is it just "too bad so sad"), especially with the time constraints: say you have a video rip going on or something all of a sudden blamo "sorry you didn't back everything up in 5ms".

Yet another question I forgot to ask but when you switch apps the previous app goes in suspend mode (including presumably the desktop app). How does that work with things you have that you want to keep going (like your torrent app for example). A lot of this kind of thing really hasn't been answered and could hugely affect productivity on the platform.

That's the fundamental problem with your thinking, you are trying to make your computer do useful computer like things. Windows 8 was not designed for that.

Also, I am sure there is some API somewhere that can be used to halt a system suspend.