Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 Sales Below Projections
harrymcc writes "With early reports on Windows 8 sales indicating that the new operating system is off to a slow start, it's worth pondering what Microsoft could have done differently. Over at TIME.com, I considered several different scenarios, ranging from one in which it released a much more conventional Windows upgrade to one which would have been much like like the Windows 8 we got — except with the ability to boot directly into the desktop, complete with Start button."
that is pretty telling of what they should have done differently.
We didn't need another OS. Windows 7 was still alive and well, by releasing Windows 8 they only confused / distracted the current user base. I can't even count how many people have asked me what is special about Windows 8, besides the horrible new desktop I honestly can't really saying anything. No one is ready to upgrade from 7 to 8, if they waited another year or two then the outcome would be different, they haven't given people the chance to want something new.
How about a Windows 8, Developer Edition? A version that doesn't have Metro, just the basic start menu and trimmed-down version of their operating system specifically designed for software developers and gamers who want power and efficiency, not pretty sliding menus. I would rather my computer's RAM be occupied by the far-odd blocks on Minecraft than a smooth windows frame for some gidget that I never wanted, nor will I ever use.
sudo make me a sandwich
obviously sales of Surface are cannibalizing Windows 8 sales.
bazinga!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Windows, every other iteration. XP good, Vista bad, 7 good, 8 bad. 9 ??? They have a special knack for stumbling on something good and then massively screwing it up the next go around.
I don't have much of a reason to switch to Windows 8. I understand there are a few performance benefits and a couple of nifty tie-ins, maybe an app or two, and the new Start screen which isn't *that* bad. But Windows 7 is working just fine. Why upgrade?
Why do we have these same news reports every time MS releases a new operating system?
The truth is that Windows 7 (and even Windows XP) is more than sufficient for most users. For that matter, a ChromeBook is sufficient for "most" users that really need only a web browser. I work in IT during the day and do some software development so I use a computer and applications heavily at work, but when I'm home, a Chromebook would do pretty much anything I need a computer for. I'm not into gaming and haven't purchased software for my home laptop in years - I've bought a lot more apps for my phone than for my laptop. Even if I were interested in gaming, I'd probably use a game console so I could play on my TV.
Additionally, most users don't ever want to upgrade their operating system - they'll wait until they buy a new computer since that's generally necessary to take full advantage of the new OS anyway.
As long as MS maintains its OEM channel, then Win8 will be a slow steady success. Though they really need Win8 RT to be successful since the PC buying trend seems to be shifting to tablets.
Seriously: what new "gotta have" features justifies the hassle and cost of going from Win7 to Win8? Any "quantum leaps" in Win8, or just more minor tweaks?
I agree it would be nice, for the sake of completeness, to totally bypass tiles, but if I was Micro$oft I wouldn't either. People need to move forward, otherwise keep using Windows 7.
This same strategy has worked well for GNOME.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
More commercials
There is a major difference between upgrading from windows 7 to 8 ass there was from xp to vista or xp to windows 7. XP came about before things like wireless G was ubiquitous. It didn't handle a lot of web frameworks very well and it was frequently populated with applications that look far shinier than it did. Combine that with the large time gap between OSes, most people were running XP on laptops with external pci wireless cards or no wireless at all and they were seeing friends, family, and coworkers with sleeker, faster, easier to use laptops that just worked with any wireless network they were in range of and actually like similar in quality aesthetically with all of the applications people were running on it.
Nobody has a problem with their current version of windows 7 where they're thinking "If only I had a new windows 8 laptop this would be so much faster/easier/less frustrating etc". In fact, the processing power required to complete most tasks your average lay windows user does has pretty much stagnated over the past five years. Screen resolutions are virtually unchanged for most; Web browsing, email and productivity apps are pretty much at a stand still processing wise. The biggest changes in leaps and bounds have been internet bandwidth and the ability for network cards to process internet bandwidth has never been a bottleneck. This is why tablets are starting to takeover for lay computer users, because the stagnation in processor requirements have allowed smaller form factor hardware to catch up.
All in all, for most user upgrading doesn't mean a shiny new toy, it means work learning a new interface. Combine that with cost and the fact that it offers no solutions to problems or limitations they are currently having with windows 7 means nobody really wants it.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
Dont you get that the entire purpose of Metro is to force advertising into those tiles...
Good-bye
"my wife has zero interest in something big."........
Good-bye
... when even Windows-fan-boi site Neowin.net, the anti slashdot talks about how WIndows 8 is failing and what went wrong afterwards.
Basically, Sinofsky made the decision to drop the start button in a meeting with Balmer saying it was a must if users were to get used to Metro. They must get immersed so Windows 8 phones can sell more etc.
Here is a little business 101 lesson. Your customers decide which UI you use and how you design your product. Not the other way around! Every company that told customers this is what you will do and how you will like it do poorly or go under. No one listens to them and MBAs feel it is their job to convert customers and tell them what to do.
They feel to acknowledge the customer can just walk out the door and take his or her business elsewhere.
So they fired Sinsosky and that is a good thing. Sad, as he did a great job for Windows 7 but they did not do any QA or UI usability testing with METRO. Just get it out FAST!! and it was was rushed. Customers hate change and Windows 7 works just fine thank you very much.
After numbers come it the problem will only get worse. Lets hope they do not something really stupid like get rid of the desktop entirely and just be a tablet company now. They lost focus on their core strengths which is another business 101 lesson you never do. They are not a consumer gadget entertainment company and they killed their number one product and money to get there. Wow! Balmer should be fired next too
http://saveie6.com/
They did not fire the woman mostly responsible for the Metro UI. Guess again.
Useability expert jacob Nielson trashed its useability. It sounde like MS doesn't do any testing at all. One thing in the linked article that made me sit up: W8 isn't Windows except in name, it's Window.
Only Microsoft calls removing features an upgrade... no, wait, Sony has done that, too.
Free Martian Whores!
I'm posting this using Windows 8. The shit is garbage. The Metro screen is fucking stupid, the desktop is fugly, the start menu in Windows 95 walks all over the Metro start junk, and this is supposed to be MS' iPad savior? Ha!
Only Microsoft calls removing features an upgrade... no, wait, Sony has done that, too.
So did the Gnome 3 people.
I think they're referring to the UI formerly called Metro. You can put two apps side-by-side, but most apps don't work well like that and it's a huge pain in the ass to work with more than one app at a time. If you use a desktop, it's more of a traditional feel and I routinely use a dozen apps at a time like that... just no Metro apps.
It is very hard, according to the experts. Clicking the desktop tile totally misses the point!
It truly is the worst UI ever made. It is not logical, practical, or offers any advantage. It hinders productivity and requires the user to learn new reflexes and do more to accomplish the same tasks. THe search ruins multitasking ability in the brain as it forces the brain to switch hemispheres in crtical thinking! You have to use the mouse now for instant search because something like p-o-w-e-r will offer you catagories instead of fucking just showing you the control panel power options! ... I could go on and on.
I had a link (lost it) I think from WIndows fan boy site Neowin where Sinsosky made the decision to remove the start menu on puprose to force users to get used to Metro so they can sell more tablets and phones. Not because it offered any advantage and Balmer had to approve it. MY GOD.
So they tell us what to do.
Here is an idea (car analogy)? Why doesn't Honda just take out the Drivers seat and steering wheels of its cars with that of their motorcycles? No gas or brake pedals. Just an uncomfortable seat and handle bars that function just like their motorcycles! That way they can sell more etc. Now it is a poor car and a poor motorcycle.
So you learned the inefficient reflexes and UI for Metro. Good for you. I will stick with Windows 7 thank you very much. It works and is designed for productivity.
http://saveie6.com/
Whose 'projections' were they, exactly? Not anybody outside Redmond's board of directors...
No sig today...
Windows started as reaction to Mac OS. As such it was crap until Windows 3.11 workgroups in the early 90's. We dealt with Windows, but it was a kludge.
There was a lot of happiness with 3.11, and much happiness with WIndows 95. It was 32 bit and was really the first modern OS that MS had.
But then Windows 98 killed the streak MS was having, along with using IE to integrate the various products instead of creating a consistent undercarriage. NT was a mish mash at first, but by the time WIndows 98 came out it was a superior product, which meant MS was in the current situation of pushing inferior OS to users that perfectly happy with, for them, the superior NT. That was me.
Windows 2000 and XP, the sucessor of NT, finally made the Windows platform whole again, but then MS started getting into the infinite SKU look within a product, and really messed us up again. But really for a long time XP was it.
But Apple was getting aggressive again, and MS got jittery and made Vista, which no one would leave XP for. I finally upgraded from XP to Windows 7, which I must admit was a adult and rational product. It runs nice.
So here we are again, with Windows 8. Evidently a innovative product, but for me, someone who uses Windows only to do certain technical work, am I going to care enough to upgrade, especially since I have to pay full price since I run as virtual. Absolutely not. In fact, I recently bought some PCs for some other people and was consistently told that sales were up as people desperately wanted W7 machines.
It is the upgrade cycle. We get used to working in an OS, then MS every couple years expects us to change our habits to satisfy their needs for sales. It did not happen in the 90's and it s not going to happen now. When MS just develops good software, they are fantastic company. But when they are trying be overly creative or reacting to Apple, they produce crap.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Normally, when a business offers a 'new and improved' product as an 'upgrade,' the product has been improved sufficiently to make the consumer want to purchase it. However, in the case of Windows 8, the changes are all to help Microsoft supposedly improve its competitive position by moving a more powerful Windows to mobile devices. The main reason that Microsoft gives their customers to purchase "Windows 8" as an upgrade is: 'We will not support you if you don't buy it.' For people purchasing a new computer, there's no real choice as those computers will come with Windows 8 and so that's likely to be most of their sales to date. And then, of course, Microsoft also offers "Windows 8" for buyers of mobile devices...a completely different market segment. For those buyers, the main Microsoft sales pitch is 'buy a new device with Win 8 and it will run your old Windows apps such as Office' and give you a powerful Windows desktop on your mobile device.' In that situation, Microsoft is answering a question that no one is asking. All of Microsoft's problems come from one simple thing. Microsoft has not put themselves in their customer's shoes and asked 'what do our customer's want and how can we make our customer's lives better with our products?' Unfortunately for Microsoft, unless you have a monopoly or a state-owned economy, that is the driver for all business.
Or Windows 7 and even XP work fine. Why change what is not broken? If their circa 2005 laptop still works with XP why waste money in this economic uncertainity when the fiscal cliff could hit, Greece could default, and your health premiums are up to $600 a month!!
10 years ago when people paid $80 a month for health insurance and wages were rising and you could get rich just investing stocks and flipping homes then perhaps people would give a shit about their computers more. Now it is a burden and an expense with other pressing issues. SO who cares?
Windows 8 is a terrible OS. If I were to buy a new system I would go out of my way to get one with Windows 7 like I did back in 2007 that was XP compatible so if I didn't like Vista I could dualboot to XP.
http://saveie6.com/
As a Linux user for more than a decade, I was forced to purchase a Windows machine for work. That being said, I sort of like the computer after making a few minor modifications:
#1 Adding a registry key so Windows would use the Blue-Ray that otherwise showed up perfectly in the Device Manager.
#2 Installation of Classic Shell to get a working menu. http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/
#3 Killing the touch screen menu that is unable to sort programs by name.
#4 Removal of all of the useless apps that are just links to Bing.
#5 Removal of about 1000 registry entries tied to Bing.
#6 Moving Windows Defender to CPU core 7 so my programs wouldn't intermittantly freeze.
#7 Disabling useless services like BITS, PnP, & DCOM and only re-enabling them for Windows Updates.
#8 Downloading every codec and plugin that I need.
#9 Installation of a second Linux HDD which can be used on the infrequent occasions that I disable UEFI in the BIOS.
Granted, my TV tuner does not work with Windows, nor does my HD Homerun (but I can hear the audio), nor WebEx recordings for work. But other than that, the clock constantly resetting, lack of Media Player, Flash crashing on restore to original size, and having to roll back to a restore point a few times (in the past month) everything has been smooth sailing. I just don't see why people hate on this OS.
Only Microsoft calls removing features an upgrade... no, wait, Sony has done that, too.
Yeah, right. Apple does that more often.
Going from Lion to Mountain Lion made my 3-monitor system almost unusable (due to the particular needs of my setup, which worked fine with Snow Leopard and Lion). I had to buy an app (TotalSpaces) that restores functionality removed by the Mountain Lion "update".
In fact, when I heard what MS was doing with Windows 8, my first response was "Those idiots think they are Apple?". Apple can pull crap like that off because people will just buy the "latest Apple". For Microsoft the best case is for people to buy something new if it can do more (otherwise they will sit with their trusted Win XP, Office 2k3 etc).
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
This is exactly the problem. Windows 7 is great as a stand alone experience. Metro is great as a stand alone touch experience. Microsoft is determined to force the convergence of them, despite no evidence that this particular venn diagram has any crossover: live tiles may be great for pure consumption (sometimes), it really kinda sucks for multi window productivity. Maybe 30 years from now we'll all work in such a radically different way that the live tiles will seem way ahead of their time, but right now, they're trying to ram a VW beetle sized peg into a square hole.
Win 7 is a resource-sucking pile of goat clusters.
Everytime I am forced back to a Win desktop - XP or 7 - I'm astounded people put up with it!
I have been on Linux of various flavors and OSX for so long, I forgot about the Stockholm syndrome of Microsoft's captive audience.
Oooh! Oohh! I want to play the platform flame war, too!
*straps on the asbestos underwear*
You know, some of us can afford a computer faster than a 486/66, so we don't have to use a crappy OS that supports 20 year old hardware. Now, shave off that neck beard and learn how to use a goddam mouse, you communist hippy!!!!!!!!
*Wheeeeee!*
Thanks for that trip back to 1994, I forgot how much fun usenet was!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Why?
Why do I need to move "forward"? Is this OS "forward" because its new? What if "new" is really several steps backward in usability, or compatibility? (for instance, advertising built in)
Basically, what makes newer = forward. Intrinsically, nothing. Yet people keep saying it. Forward in time, well then you are saying nothing. Yes, Windows 8 is newer than windows 7. Kind of a redundant statement to make.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
This OS doesn't solve any problems for me. Windows 3 was better than DOS, then I lept at 95 because it plugged so many holes in 3.1.1, the same with 98 and the 98's to follow. Then I went to 2000 because, as a developer, it was so much better and ME just sucked. 2000 was the first time I didn't have to reboot every 2 hours. But then I stuck with 2000 until just way too many applications wouldn't work. So begrudgingly I switched to XP. Then I switched to Mac. Yet if XP had been tweaked a bit to be properly 64bit I couldn't really see any reason to upgrade beyond that; vista and Windows 7 just didn't call out to me. I am not saying that windows 7 sucked but I wonder if the effort that went into Vista and Windows 7 had gone into making XP better if that would not have been just as good. So I look at my VM of Windows XP and then I read about windows 8 and wonder what killer feature 8 will have that hasn't just be arbitrarily denied to XP. My plan is to keep XP in a VM for web page testing and to soon get 8 into a VM so that I can use whatever useless version of IE it has for more testing.
.net. Again it was the answer to Java and solve many problems. But then by .net 2.5 it was all about integrating various MS products into my projects.
The only thing that Windows does to me is cause me to write: if($browser.msie){do stupid code;}
If Microsoft wants me back then they have to solve some problem that I have. But as a developer they only want me to solve their problems. They want me to use coding tools that will require my customers to buy Office and various server products. In the early days Microsoft put out tools that were directly aimed at me and my problems. Visual Basic allowed me to code stuff for Windows in a flash. Coding for windows was hard using crap products like Borland C++. Then they came out with Visual Studio and poof I could code windows using MFC which simplified the whole process. But then MFC started getting more and more supportive of MS products. Then came
If MS wants to win me back they need to buy something like Trolltech's QT and make it so that I can program for Windows/Android/iPhone with equal ease. MS would then get splashed by all the applications that could be ported in a snap.
MS has completely turned me off when I reinstalled Windows on a laptop using the legitimate Dell supplied DVD and serial. I use the code and bloop "This product is not Genuine." Nice.
Apparently Jacob Nielson is an idiot. My windows8 has three windows open right now.
Yes, the desktop works the same way it did before, except that they killed the Start button and force users to go through Metro instead. But users are no longer brought to the desktop upon logging in. Instead they are dumped directly into Metro, which does indeed have the limitations outlined by Jakob Nielsen. And it's not made obvious to new users how to get back to the desktop from there.
The bottom line is that with Windows 8, Microsoft deliberately sacrificed usability on the desktop for marketing reasons (pushing Metro into people's faces to bring more visibility to their tablet/phone products).
Ive been using the power switch to close Metro apps. Seems to be working awesome! Works best if you just leave it that way.
You're being modded as off-topic, but you're right, and relevant. All the 'designers' are pushing for dumbing down the desktop with no thought to those that actually need to use the more advanced features to actually do more than browse FaceBook. The Unity/Gnome-Shell changes are a perfect example (and I even find Gnome-Shell mostly usable). I wish they'd picked a better time to screw around with an exception Gnome 2 interface ... they could likely have grabbed more marketshare from Microsoft. As it is, it makes it hard to recommend Ubuntu to a new user for the same reasons that it's hard to recommend Windows 8.
FYI, Jacob Nielsen is the #1 name in usability, and has been that for decades now. Most of the improvements that you see in apple products for example are based on implementing his teachings.
Nielsen is also author of most of the reading that any decent university course on usability will give you.
I have Windows 8 on my laptop, and overall I like it. It feels much snappier than 7 did (Not sure if it's simply because it's a fresh install, or lack of Aero?), and boot times are really good.
However, the entire Metro UI feels half baked and like a last minute addition. Opening, and then closing a Metro app does not take you back to where you were, it forces you back to the start screen. You then have to alt-tab back to the window that you were at. I had to Google where the Shut Down option was (Yes, I know that I can just press the power button, but I very rarely shut it completely down. I usually either restart, or put it in sleep or hibernate depending on what I'm planning). For the record, the shut down button is now in the Settings panel for some unknown reason.
As far as the start button, there was NO reason for that to be eliminated. They could have kept the metro UI, and start screen, and still had the start button. Removing that and forcing the start screen is just forcing a poorly designed UI on everyone. The really frustrating part is that in Vista & Win7, they had made a ton of improvements to the start menu. It was really, really useful and intuitive. Much more so than the crap they have now.
There's also quite a bit of half baked system settings screens that use the metro UI. For example, in the Devices & Printers screen, you can add and delete printers, but I haven't found any way to do anything else, like adjust settings, view the print queue, etc. Right clicking does nothing. You can still go to the Win7 style control panel, but that's somewhat hidden, and not nearly as easy to access as it was in Win7 (Unless I'm missing something).
Don't even get me started on Minesweeper and Solitaire now. Both used to be games that you could open in a window, and quickly play while you were waiting for a task to finish. Minesweeper is now an over 130MB additional download, which wants you to log in to xbox live to play, forces full screen, and takes several seconds to load. I know that the games aren't a major part of the OS, but it really epitomizes how much usability has been lost in Windows 8, and how they're trying their hardest to force metro UI on everyone.
I've been screaming at it. Doesn't work at all, but I feel better. Though it does make me think that if they were gonna add a human sense to Windows they should've added hearing, not touch.
From those *thousands* of people on the forums were screaming "Don't take away the start button" and "make the metro interface optional," and hundred of other sensible rational suggestions, we told you so.
Someone, or some group, deep in the heart of Microsoft chose to ignore them all.
If they haven't been fired yet, they *should* be fired. Immediately. For incompetence AND being arrogant asses. This crap impacts the lives, businesses and productivity of millions of people. This is not a "House" episode. You get no points for being clever and obnoxious. Hopefully, all you get is shitcanned while some poor set of humbler, and more experienced SOBs go in and try and figure out a way to clean up your blundering mess.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Actually WIndows 8, like it's predecessor, includes speech recognition - and it's a perfect example of how half arsed the update is.
The first thing you'll notice when setting it up is the tutorial. It's entirely unchanged from the Windows 7 version, and includes diagrams showing the Windows 7 Start Orb and Start Menu that no longer exist. You're told how to turn off the PC by issuing the commands:
"Start"
"Shut Down"
"Turn Off"
If you try this however you'll find that Metro has completely buggered this up. The actual sequence as near as I can tell is now this:
"Start" (Return to metro start screen)
"Press T" (To start a search)
"Settings" (To search settings)
"Delete All, Turn Off Your Device" (To search settings for the correct item - it's easier to just delete the original T)
"Show Numbers, Two, OK" (You can't select the search result any other way. Saying "Turn Off" etc just adds the text to the search again)
At this point you now finally have the settings side bar up with the "Power" button available. You might think saying "Power" will get you there. It won't - apparently the side bar doesn't have whatever accessibility hooks are needed by speech recognition, so it's back to:
"Show Numbers, Five, OK"
"Turn Off"
Oh that's nothing, you want telling watch this video of a bog standard average user plopped down in front of a new Win 8 system, just like what would happen if they bought one and brought it home without taking classes for the damned thing first. This is EXACTLY what I saw from the 7 months I had a unit running in my shop for folks to play with, only with more frustration and anger that they were having trouble with even basic tasks. Nothing pisses someone off more than to feel helpless, and if you don't have all the keyboard shortcuts memorized (Protip: The vast majority of Windows users are "clicky clicky" mouse users and don't know the shortcuts) you will quickly feel overwhelmed and helpless.
That is why for months guys like me that work with average users have been saying things the reviews now confirm which is Win 8 is THAT bad from a user perspective. Now if it works for you? I'm happy for you, but I bet you are nothing like the average user, instead being more of a keyboard heavy power user. But the only features I've seen that make Win 8 has some advantage over Win 7, hybrid boot, hyper-V, on demand services..these frankly are vastly outweighed by the boat anchor that is the metro UI.
Why they simply couldn't have let the USER choose when UI they wanted is beyond me, you know it would have been trivial to simply leave the Win 7 desktop UI in the system and let the user switch at any time. probably afraid nobody would take the WinPhone which the metro UI seems to be designed to force us to "learn to love" but if the combo of user backlash and low sales has proven anything, its that most agree with me that Win 8 is a pass.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Wow, so Win8 is really so much better at speech recognition that you can now have a five minute conversation with your PC while turning it off...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!