Discussion on:

Rejected: 74% of organizations have no plans to deploy Windows 8

Will be in the corporate world for a long time. Most places are just getting away from XP.
This o/s will be a dud. The tablet craze has died down now.

(Minority report fantasies)

My company just finished deploying Windows 7 with a handful of users still hanging on to Windows XP due to legacy apps. A lot of companies are beholden to their line of business application provider and can't even install a service pack without the vendor's blessing.

Businesses aren't like consumers. They don't base their purchases on one vendor's product release cycle. This isn't anything against Windows 8, it's just the reality of running a business. I'm pretty sure that even Microsoft won't upgrade all of it's PC's to Windows 8.

NT

you mean "obligated"

Some LoB vendors have companies by the short hairs. At my former employer, they dictated our IT environment. We couldn't patch a browser without their permission because if something didn't work and the browser sub-version number didn't match their requirements, we were on our own.

That bank is probably still running on Windows XP.

Some users use computers to accomplish speific work. SO they pick hardware and OS platforms that support the software that they need to do the work. Maybe?

In the world where software has to work reliably all the time, change in the underlyig platform is expensive and carries a lot of risk. Proper software validation is not cheap or easy, and it takes time.

To justify that risk there has to be a reward. That's reality 101.

No; no we don't agree.

Not at all likely they look cheap nasty and like something that was in Windows 1 Predevelopment Concept long before a Beta was ever thought about.

I saw better Icons with better design on BBS's long before most people knew what the inter web thingy was.

But maybe that's just me.

Col

tile option was tried in Linux a few years back and got picked on there by most of the users, to the extent some Linux developers have dropped them again and others have come up with a whole swag of alternate GUIs that appeal more to the non-tile crowd.

Glass 3D became Aero a few years later, and now the same with the tiles - which shows MS is 3 to 4 years behind the times.

like putting large wooden boxes on a sleek aerodynamic race car.

nt

Mostly what I don't like is that they've replaced the Start Menu. Why would I want a full-screen Start Menu? We got rid of that when Windows 95 replaced the Program Manager in Windows 3.1.

I don't like having to bypass the Start screen every time I log in to get to the desktop. As a support tech, I log into multiple machines dozens of times a day. That's dozens of times I had to get past the Start screen to get to the traditional desktop where I can get some real work done.

I don't like the inability to arrange the tiles to my preference. You can't push them all the way to the top or left sides of the screen; that leaves a lot of wasted screen space. You can't arrange them in horizontal rows; they get forced into vertical ones.

I find the ones for traditional apps to be ugly when compared to W7 Start Menu shortcuts. That's my personal opinion, but so is your 'expression' that everyone thinks they look nice.

I have no use for the 'live' feature of the Metro app tiles. I don't participate in social networking, don't need a constant weather update, don't need to track my 401K every second. There are plenty of cases where these would be a waste of slow bandwidth. I'll bet they're fighting tooth and nail to download e-mail in the northeastern US right now; streaming Tweets by default isn't going to make that any easier.

Yes, if I forget they were built by Microsoft, they might be easier for me to accept. That's because if the OS was from another source, I wouldn't expect it to behave like Windows. But it is from MS, and it doesn't behave like previous versions of Windows. MS is expecting me to abandon habits and behaviors they've spent years ingraining in me (and the users I support), for what I regard as minimal benefits.

W8 is going to rock on tablets and phones, but I don't see any benefits to it on a desktop, laptop, or any other device not designed for mobility or content consumption. I'm glad you like the tiles, but don't tell me everyone does. If it's 'just an expression', it's grossly inaccurate and I suggest you stop using it if it isn't exactly what you mean.

"Mostly what I don't like is that they've replaced the Start Menu. " You summed it up in one sentence.

....As they sort of vomited the whole thing up onto your screen.

I keep seeing these comments about the start menu being replaced. I installed Windows 8 and found a very nice start menu at about the same place as the Windows 7 Start menu. Just one click and the social interfaces disappear. I admit when it first loaded, I was felt a little confounded, until I went to windows.com and spent 15 minutes with the tutorials.

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU FILLED ALL THE HOLES IN A LEAKY BOAT ANOTHER HUGE HOLE POPS OPEN; THEN YOU SAY TO YOURSELF "(OOPS) THIS. THIS AINT WORKING; TIME TO ABANDON A FRIENDSHIP THAT IS NOT WORKING; ( )HIT SHAPPENS.

Most of us in IT support have pretty much already fluent with Windows 8, it won't take noobs that long to learn and get used to it

You're imposing your knowledge and expertise on n00bs. Trust me, that's *not* the case. The problem with people in IT is they forget 'what it was like' back in their Dark Ages when they first saw, and tried to use, a computer.

Yes, we had a much better 'sense' of what it was we were dealing with because computers only drew users from those technically inclined and not afraid of trying things. That was half the fun.

But today's consumer is another breed. 'Trust me, we'll take care of you.' And they do. 'Click here.' And they do, without the most tiny of ideas of why. And all the companies, not just Microsoft, take full advantage of that complete lack of interest in 'how does it work?' Or, maybe more important, why does it work.

There is still a small portion of new users who are curious and want to know 'how/why' - and much more - they're the ones who will drive future changes.

I remember similar reports for (pretty much) EVERY Windows O/S release ever. If you use Win8 in Desktop mode, you essentially have Windows 7 for all pragmatic purposes. Metro will be choice when you're on a tablet, Desktop mode when you're at your desk. So, I think it will all depend upon the needs of the users. I know I'm ramping up to deploy it on MY computer, just because I want to be able to share elements of my desktop with a Surface Pro tablet once it releases in 2013 (an experience that I can't quite capture with an iPad). But for most of my organization, it probably will be a non-issue. We'll cut over to Windows 8 (or 9) as we upgrade/replace machines.

It's not the same as Windows 7 in desktop mode, you keep having to switch back and forth to the Start screen which is incredibly annoying, I keep losing track of what I'm doing and also I end up having to plaster the desktop with icons because I can't be bothered to go hunting for the tile. It's crap.

Set up the start screen in groups that are useful to you with the desktop icon in the top left, then the return key always takes you to the desktop. Put some useful shortcuts like "Shutdown" and "Restart" in the same group. Use Alt-F4 to close Apps instead of swanning around with the mouse and use the "Windows" key to switch to and from the desktop to the Start Screen. It is now quicker and possibly better organised than with Windows 7 Start Menu. I have no icons on my desktop and just a few on the Task bar. My Start menu has four groups, "Utils" including Desktop, Shutdown, Restart, Store and search, "Apps", "Productivity" including some MS Office icons and GIMP, "Tools" including Control Panel, Command, Secunia PSI and notepad. It works for me and when I start using a Windows tablet, which I'm sure will come, I can have the same setup.

Goodie for you.. Greytech .. you've spent time getting things the way you want them or need them ..

Many of us don't have time to do this for our users, nor having to switch from the desktops they are already use to, over to the Metro UI ... additionally as someone else posted.. the live tile bull.. our employees are not marketing are not *supposed* to be socially connected for the 9 hours they have on site .. they are to be working, with the exception of an EMPLOYER PROVIDED XMPP (Pidgin) connection which are *ONLY* setup for employee to employee communication .. and the the use then is more than just "update happy tiles" they are conversational based messages.

Just like others have said.. our shop (under 250 employees) are multitasking all day with 10 or more windowed apps (ie, ff, chrome, having additional windows each) not one employee have I ever seen with a full screen on anything unless its during a webex (or noc when watching movies) beyond that.. windows 8 appears to hold no love for the multi-windowed with more than simultaneous view enabled by the corners of our eye..

ie over lay several command prompts pinging different IP's so that you can see when one starts or stops responding while the other continues, or multiple SSH windows running a command in one then processing something in another watching for the shell to come back.. or even run MTR in a smaller ssh window watching latency and packet loss while doing other things..

all of this multitasking is hampered by a conceptualized tablet interface where your whole screen is taken up with *one* app.

Again.. the problem is that Microsoft didn't make it easy or even track what type of pc you're on.. I'm at my desk, two monitors.. I want the standard Start Menu & desktop experience .. I detach my screen / tablet .. then I'd like MS to switch over to a tablet centric interface.. but not while its attached at the desk, with two 22 inch monitors attached with the multitude of actions going on.

nt

Please explain? there is not a Desktop Mode in the current version; at least what I have found.

locked into expensive core software designed for Win XP that will not work properly on the versions of Windows released since, thus they'll stay with XP as long as they can as the cost of moving on is just too high in the current environment.

Yes, XP Mode in Win 7 helps some organisations, but I've found it will NOT run ALL software designed for XP, and this is the area that I see a lot of the delays.

Also, with the cost of touch screens being about three times that of non-touch screens (especially in the larger sizes) there is no advantage to a touch centric OS for people not using a touch screen.

Personally, I think the forced changes by Microsoft in command sets so legacy software and hardware don't work are what is causing much of the dissension of the last few years and will continue to be a major issue until they stop doing it.

None of the comments quoted in the article referred to application incompatibility. The GUI training issues seemed to dominate.

I wouldn't know if any of our legacy apps will work with W8. The interface issues have put deploying it off our schedule, so we haven't bothered with app testing.

from XP are doing so due to the cost of important legacy software. A few I know that were concerned about having move onto what they call Microsoft Orifice, have been successfully moved up to Win 7 with Libre Office - the move to Win 7 was due to some hardware driver issues between XP and their new PCs.

There are a lot of organisations with critical legacy software originally designed for Win 2000 and Win XP that do NOT have newer versions as much of it was special design stuff. All that is very costly to redo.

MS Office 2003, don't upgrade it; it won't work. Actually there are reports of users being able to install it and use it but it breaks the automatic windows updates.
Thanks,

Is potential incompatibility with legacy applications and the cost of touch screens the only reasons not to go to Windows 8? Although these two alone are probably enough, but there are many more reasons. Business is all about productivity. Is there a study indicating that using touch screen, as opposed other pointing device, boosts productivity. I don't believe that. Yes, touch screen is a great tool for consuming content; I doubt it's a great tool for producing it.

a lot with the type of work you do. For people like me who create and alter documents a lot (I wrote stories and edit others a lot now) Win 8 is a very retrograde step that reduces productivity. For some others it may enhance their productivity.

The whole topic of productivity is conspicuously absent from all the hyperbole about Windows-8 and touch-centric tablets. Is that a huge part of running a business? Your last two statements are so correct.

nt

Yeah, almost the entire financial sector is still using vertical software which won't run on Win8, and they really didn't need 7 in order to use it, or it won't run on 7, either. That, and the lack of backwards-compatibility. I alone operate my 22 machines. Due to lack of backwards-compatibility with each MS 'upgrade', I've had to keep my older machines deployed. Result is that each machine becomes dedicated to the programs and hardware which don't 'upgrade' with the OS. I purposely just bought three more machines with hardware which can 'bridge' to Win8 if I ever have to go to it. But I won't go to it except kicking and screaming, and the meanwhile am newly learning Linux so I can create dual-boots. You can still get Linux in older versions for very old machines (going all the way back to i386.) Can't do that with Windows.

MS really has made it too complicated and buggy. God forbid you should UPGRADE rather than install a fresh OS. Which version of the OS do you buy, do you pick OEM or upgrade or (now) System builder version, how do you know all the differences in each, to decide? The differences are significant, and undisclosed. Example: Excel 2003 won't run a DOS Lotus 1-2-3 on XP Pro unless I sign up with MS to have 'credentials', but will run fine on Home.

Upgrades versus clean install versus reinstalls, unknown features/bugs, removal of old useful features, wholly-new procedures -- all these make for slower sales, more angst, and a gradual weariness when an 'update' occurs. When a collegue was surprised I answered the phone right away, I said I was just idle, trying to 'screw up my courage' to install the machines which FedEx had just delivered. His laughter was of empathetic commiseration.

I would very much like to see priced Linux applications which can read the files Windows apps create. Still open-source, idea being you're paying for the software and you can change the code afterwards, or get updates from the Linux vendor, again for a fee. So still open source, but priced. That's akin to selling a Lotus 1-2-3 DOS template. Big market for that, back in the old days.

Linux needs to get out of its 'no cost' mentality, because the software DOES cost you in TIME. That's why it's less popular. People should be paid. We'd jump on that in the business world, as we don't want to write our own code, but need to be able to see how it works. Sorry, but LibreOfice and its kin don't have enough oomph. There are many other applications in Linux which are too weak compared to their non-Linux counterparts. There is money to be made, noble money. After all, people didn't stop buying Kleenex when other tissue began to be manufactured and sold. We stick to a brand that originates. The copycats generally produce a lower-quality product.

I'm sick of MS' tyrannical architecture, which is responsible for most crashes. Funny: once Win98 stopped being supported, it became stable, and I"ve not had even one crash since the support stopped. Now, suddenly my XP machines are much more stable, because I'm not getting the 'updates' as before due to support ending. So my new Vista and Win7 machines from Dell Auction, I wonder if I should update. Will see.

I shudder to think what a multiple-employee business is going through!

Wow. That must be the geek equivalent of the lady with 22 cats.

but it depends on which ones. Libre Office reads all the MSO files OK, is one example. There are paid for programs like Crossover that runs on Linux and will run most Windows based software within it, like a VM. Cedega and WINE are very much the same.

Unless there is something unique about the hardware, I'd look at that approach.

1) Windows Millenium. 2) Vista. 3) Windows 8. You'd think Microsoft could do better (and I am not a regular Microsoft basher).

Vista was an okay OS, get tired of people saying it was bad. It wasn't bad at all, it was just a shock to people who'd started using a computer with XP or 2000 and had no experience of having to switch drivers. The memory handling wasn't that fantastic I do agree but I've got plenty of users on Vista and it works fine.

Note that Vista is Windows 6.0, 7 is 6.1 and 8 is 6.2 - check the build numbers.

mainly due to incompatibility. Drivers didn't work for nearly a year. Applications were 6 months to a year before they had stable versions (antivirus anyone?).

No. Vista was a disaster. The only thing that "worked" on it was Office, and only if you upgraded.

Vista really did suffer out of the box, for all the reasons mentioned above. However, after several months (well, really after SP1) it was quite a good, stable OS. But no one ever heard those news reports and the myth of its atrocity grew and grew, even beyond the time when it was no longer true.

With press such as this, especially with headlines (Rejected!) that will be taken to mean 74% Plan NOT to deploy Windows 8--a far cry from the reality of 24% who feel this way, WIndows 8 may well be on the way to suffering from the same mythology.

the command set so the hardware that was manufactured as XP compatible was NOT Vista compatible. Then they didn't include enough drivers to over come that in the initial versions of Vista. Add in they didn't give the hardware companies enough lead time to make Vista compatible hardware, and you got what happened - software that didn't work well with much of the hardware.

By the time things had progresses to the drivers and compatible hardware being available, most people had given up on it. And the root cause was a deliberate arbitrary change of the command sets by Microsoft - in short, they shot themselves in the foot in an attempt to force change on people.

Microsoft hadn't solidified the basic method for drivers to interact with the OS until a month prior to release - thus the huge backlog in time for adjustments to be made to programs and drivers to accommodate. This is ALL on Microsoft's head. They should have solidified the driver architecture over a year in advance of release and this is why Vista was such a disaster.

That would have worked even better.