Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blames PC Makers For Windows Failure
rtfa-troll writes "The Register tells us that Microsoft has begun squabbling with PC manufacturers over the reasons behind the failure of Windows 8. Microsoft is 'frustrated with major OEMs who didn't build nearly enough touch systems.' PC manufacturers have hit back, saying that they 'would have been saddled with the costs of a huge pile of unsold units,' claiming that customers actually avoided higher-end touch products which were available and instead bought lower-end, cheaper laptops while 'Microsoft is not blaming itself for' the failure of its own touch device, the Surface RT. The PC manufacturers' claims that touch is the problem seem to be backed by reviews, and some educational rants from users and opinions from user interface design experts. However, Microsoft sees this differently. Microsoft is planning to strike back at the PC vendors in February with Surface Pro; with a shorter battery life and much heavier than a normal tablet, this is being seen as a direct competitor to traditional laptops. By using its desktop operating system franchise as a lever, Microsoft will be able to enter the lower-specification end of the laptop market with a cost advantage which make make life difficult for former partners such as HP and Dell. We've discussed previously how some PC manufactures such as Dell have failed in generational change whilst others have diversified to survive market changes; Samsung with Android and the (still) bestselling Chromebook. ASUS with their successful Nexus tablets. We also discussed the ergonomic problems which are claimed to make touch screens unsuitable for PC use."
Last I checked Dell and HP are both very much still MS partners. This is more akin to a lover's spat than a breakup.
I flip out when people touch my screen. How do you think I'll react when *I* have to touch my screen.
Knock it off with the touch screen crap, already.
I see touch screen computers all the time at best buy, so the PC manufacturers are definitely making them. The problem is, they don't market them very well. All of the PCs and laptops are lined up in a row and you could walk right by one and not know it is a touch screen.
I think Microsoft is trying to create a market of PCs that act like tablets, when that market doesn't really exist. If people wanted touch screens, they could get them today. Most users either want a tablet or a traditional computer. The users who want both usually want them as separate devices.
Microsoft screwed the pooch on this one and it will probably mean the end for Ballmer. Hopefully the next OS corrects the issues and slashdot can find something else M$ to bash.
Johnkoerner.com
My ten year old daughter was in tears because she couldn't figure out her new windows 8 laptop.
Now the laptop was underpowered, but it couldn't play DVDs out of the box and she couldn't figure out how to run her software on it thanks to the removal of the start button. Also, Toshiba added its bonus software which seemed to take over the whole computer periodically since pop ups now take the whole screen.
I was frustrated trying to use it until I found a start menu hack and added it back.
I installed VLC so she can play DVDs and she has a start menu and now is very happy. Perhaps MS shouldn't have tried to do too much too soon?
The hallmark of those truly incompetent. To be found on the very left side in the diagram showing the distribution for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
How MS could mess this up so badly is quite astonishing. The only reasonable explanation is really, really bad leadership.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Windows 8 is one of the best consumer products Microsoft has ever made. I've introduced 4 low level users to it, and after a couple months, without fail, they all love it.
Win8 is one of those things people will look back at after the fact and recognize that it was much better than everyone thought.
This time is content creation vs content consumption. Everything from typing a quick memo to video editing falls under the content creation. They usually need a full complement of input devices, a full keyboard, a good mouse, larger the screen it is better. But content consumption does not need all these user input devices. Oftentimes, a tap, a touch, a click is all that is required to passively consume content. Ch+ , Ch-, Vol+ and Vol- buttons cover 99% of the usage in a TV remote!
Microsoft first missed the boat in creating a simpler device for content consumption. It had been shipping WindowsCE and other such "simpler" devices for ages. But its idea of simple was less functional PC. It never understood the split was content creation vs content consumption. Eventually Apple got on to that divide, with at least some of its managers who came from deep unix background.
Then it decides to attach OS with two completely different goals (consumption vs creation) with some band-aid and baling wire to create a rickety contraption and call it Win8. Consumers of one do not want to pay for the other. I would not touch, literally, a touchscreen and smudge it up if I am also typing a doc or code on it.
The hardware makers also remember the days when 90% of their revenue came from WinTel boxes and how Microsoft walked roughshod all over them. They eviscerated the hardware vendors and danced on their entrails with hob-nailed boots, to conjure up a vision from PGWodehouse. Now WinTel accounts for a much smaller percentage of their sales and even lower percentage of their profits. Now it is payback time for Microsoft from these vendors. What went around is coming around to Microsoft.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
There is a NPRM coming out Monday from OSHA proposing the nationwide ban of non-handheld touch screens in the workplace while their ergonomic issues can be investigated.
A coalition of insurers that includes Aetna, Cigna, and others, plans to file the request with OSHA over concerns of the potential for repetitive stress injuries from use of full-sized touch PCs. The document will list several potential RSIs along with reports of injuries by touch PC owners that include:
- Torn or irritated rotator cuff injuries
- Back pain from disproportional development of upper arm musculature (gorilla arm syndrome)
- Elbow tendonitis
- Fatigue
Apparently this is a much larger problem than we all thought.
Why not just blame this on Bush too.
The Register article talks about squabbles over "underwhelming Windows 8 sales over Christmas", which isn't exactly the same thing as "the failure of Windows 8".
Words. They actually mean things.
Life needs more saving throws.
Windows 7 is stable, usable, and a sufficient progress over windows XP. WIndows XP dominated the last 10 years, and my prediction is that 7 will dominate on PCs in businesses the next 10 years. The company where i work has finished the Tests and adoption of windows 7 last year and is now rolling it out as the new standard system. And no - i dont belive that they will consider Windows 8. Reducating the employees to the Ribbon interface in office was already something they liked so little that they have their own solution for adding the old menus temporarily.
There is no visible advantage of touch in the office, and that is where MS truely domiates. The idea of touch-pcs is somthing which MS dreams about since at least the mid - 90s. Then they had an epic fail, now they hope they can ride in the waves of the ipad and android.
You have obviously never used multiple windows at once. At work, I have two 24" screens and regularly have lots of open windows at once. If even one of the programs I use are a "metro" program, I am not able to use regular windows programs at the same time. This problem will only get worse with time, and is a showstopper for me.
Windows 8 is the solution to Microsofts problems, not the users' problems. That kind of disrespect for your customers never pays off.
1.) Bad Economic Times, 2.) Everyone has a fast system already (mostly - so NO NEED TO "RE-BUY" (especially in economic hard times)), & 3.) Trying to put a smartphone interface onto a device folks are 18++ yrs. or so used to using with the Win9x shell, alienating them.
* Were I to speculate WHY Windows 8 hasn't done well? It's those 3 things, with HEAVY EMPHASIS on #3... especially THAT one!
That's ME, practically the "poster child for 'Windows fanboy @ /.'", which makes me a minority player around here actually, but @ least I can be honest & state WHY I don't & WON'T use Windows 8!
Does it have good things in it? Yes, beneath the 'covers', ala:
---
1.) Self-Terminating Services (which I've been doing for decades now since Windows NT 3.51, albeit manually)
2.) Heap "chunk randomization"
---
However - that interface? Stinks... pointless on a PC Desktop or Laptop even imo!
Microsoft's coding time would've been BETTER SPENT producing Service Pack #2 for Windows 7 instead of just issuing hundreds of patches!
(Which SP#2 won't be produced, due to MS WASTING TIME ON BUILDING A SMARTPHONE INTERFACE ON A PC DESKTOP - without the option during install to use the 'classic desktop shell' we've all become accustomed to over decades now!)
APK
P.S.=> Mr. Ballmer - Face it: You screwed up, own up to it, & move on... you'd be best-served doing that much, rather than railing against facts & attempting to "argue with the numbers" passing the buck/placing the blame on others, projecting your own faults onto them, when it's YOU & YOUR DECISIONS that are part of the problem!
... apk
Because is broke search. Because the start screen breaks workflow. Because it has 2 horribly disjointed user interfaces.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Hey Microsoft - I'm part of the problem. I've used Win 8, hate the interface and I'm avoiding it. I'm also telling people to stick with Windows 7 because 8 looks like a massive tech support problem for me. So I flat out tell people that I won't support Win 8. Use Win 7, Ubuntu, or buy a Mac. Life is better for me, and it sucks for you.
Your mistake is FORCING the new interface onto users, rather than making it an option. Had you produced Win 8 with a start button, and made Metro (or whatever you call it) something users could grow into, it would have been something I'd support. But you made it a Take-It-Or-Leave-It deal and what do you see users doing? Yeah - we chose to leave it.
I'd suggest you guys quickly come out with Windows 8.1 and add an option to put the old Win 7 interface on it. In my opinion, Metro feels unrefined, inconsistent and not ready for prime time. Make it an option and all will be forgiven.
And stop blaming others. Everyone else saw this coming a mile away. You make a bad decision - own up to it. Blaming others makes you look stupid and totally clueless. This is causing us to question your ability to deliver in the future, as it indicates you are not listening to your customers.
Place nail here >+
It's just so painful to flip back and forth between the classic desktop and Modern UI.
Also, the integration is half-baked: you have two Control Panels, two places to pin apps (taskbar and start screen), two Internet Explorers, and it ships with a mishmash of desktop/modern apps. It just feels more like running two virtual machines instead of one OS.
The live tiles are a fun toy to watch social media, that's all there is for me.
The telling thing about Windows 8 is that even the most rabidly pro-Microsoft people, when you look at their comments on Windows 8 as a desktop OS, they're basically saying "You can ignore Metro, and it's almost as good as Windows 7". I really haven't seen anybody try to claim that Windows 8 is a step forward over Windows 7 on the desktop. Since it was pretty obvious the Suface RT and it's expensive RT friends were going to be pretty niche, and not trouble the mainstream, affordable tablet market, it's a lose on the desktop and a lose on tablets, so I don't see how Microsoft can blame anyone but itself.
" By using its desktop operating system franchise as a lever, Microsoft will be able to enter the lower-specification end of the laptop market with a cost advantage which make make life difficult for former partners such as HP and Dell."
Yes, Microsoft won't have to pay for a Windows license. However since the Surface RT with keyboard is already more expensive than a low-end Ultrabook, and Microsoft will have to either keep a decent price differential between the RT and Pro, or withdraw the Surface RT from the market, I don't expect that the Surface Pro is going to be keenly priced enough to worry anybody. It will be priced up there with the mid-range 13" ultrabooks, but with worse battery life and a screen that's too small if you plan to use it primarily in laptop mode, it will be a niche purchase.
Oh no... it's the future.
apps are always full screen, which is usually what you want
Even if it's what you want, it isn't what I want, or what people who use a computer to do actual work want. I bought a 1920x1080 pixel monitor for my desktop PC so that I could view two 960px wide windows side by side using the Snap feature of Windows 7. Even my laptop with its 1024x600 pixel screen is wide enough for two 80-column windows (a source code editor and an output terminal).
That's nice, but there's a problem:
Metro is being shoved in our faces, even on the desktop. Metro apps are supposed to be the new de facto standard for Windows.
Yet, it seems that nobody ever thought about keeping the desktop working as it always did, but better. No, they needed gratuitous changes, like removing the start button (Why? It's still there, serves a similar purpose and doesn't bother anyone), replacing the network pop-ups with a metro panel, moving the power options to the same stupid metro panel...
Metro isn't the problem. The fact that it bleeds into the desktop is.
If you have big investments in Microsoft or Microsoft products, you should be worried. The inability to recognize their failure means they will keep trying to ram themselves in to the ground.
This reminds me so much of the 98 Internet Explorer "Integration" fiasco. You WILL install it and you WILL use it regardless if you want it or not. The only reason they did it was to crush their competitor. But eventually they realized that even this was a mistake and somewhat backed down from it.
They even canned Microsoft BOB fairly quickly, and you don't see much of Clippy any more either.
But if they really don't realize they made a mistake here, then you will see no improvements in Windows 9/10/11 etc and further product degradation in to an even worse mess of useless crap.
It's simple really. Consumers are moving towards tablet like devices. Businesses are sticking with traditional desktop/laptop. Windows 8 targets tablet like devices, which could be good for consumers, but that isn't where most desktop/laptop sales are occuring, which is the business market. Desktop/laptop sales in the consumer market are are very price conscious. Desktop/laptop sales in the business market are directed at productivity, which equate to lowering costs of duing business.
Windows 8 may be the next best thing since sliced bread as a technology (although I doubt that). However, it appears that it misses the mark in both the consumer and business markets for traditional desktop/laptop computing. Maybe Microsoft needs to go back and take a Marketing 101 course or two, because Microsoft has nobody to blame but themself. The hardware manufacturers are producing what the market will buy. It is simple supply and demand and there isn't a lot of demand for Windows 8.
> Touch is a nice extra, but as the main input for a system that needs to be productive it doesn't justify the costs.
And that is the big problem with touch. It is a waste of money. Why should I spend extra on a desktop monitor or laptop that has touch? I have no use for it, and it does not help get work done any faster/easier. It even gets nasty when finger prints are all over it! It looks cool? So what? The economy is still in the shitter and most people have to watch every dollar they spend.
Please don't use the word "Modern". It's an intentional trick to sow confusion, akin to "Office Open XML" when their biggest competitor was OpenOffice. We need a proper name, and with the lack of something official, "Metro" is the best candidate (as it was official).
This is Microsoft, remember that they act opposite to Hanlon's razor.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Calling viewing works created by others "consumption" makes me think of tuberculosis. Anyway:
Consider three kinds of users: people who only view works, hobbyists who create works, and professionals who create works for a living. A dichotomy between devices for viewing works created by others and devices for creating works makes it harder for people to start creating for at least three reasons:
Having to re-buy If a viewer device is not suitable for creating, then someone who wants to step up from viewing to creating will have to buy a separate device. Lack of economies of scale Because fewer people will be buying devices capable of creating, they won't be able to take advantage of the intense price competition in viewer devices, causing a general-purpose device to climb far out of the price range of a Christmas present or something on which to spend an income tax refund. Gatekeepers Finally, once the sticker shock has scared away most hobbyists, certain gatekeeper entities will gain control over who is and isn't allowed to possess a device for creating. This gatekeeping has been seen since the mid-1980s in the video game market, with a dichotomy between "retail consoles" for home use and "devkits" for use only by professionals who have already proven their "relevant video game industry experience" and "financial stability" by moving to Austin, Boston, or Seattle for an apprenticeship of several years. Initially, this was needed to reassure brick-and-mortar retailers of the value of inventory and shelf space in the wake of a 1984 recession in the North American video game market, but as I wrote elsewhere, the constraints of retail aren't so important since the fourth quarter of 2006.Each of these three hurdles deters people from creating as a hobby in the first place, which tends to turn people into "sheep that passively graze on what others make available to them," as free software advocate Richard Stallman put it when he decried the word "consumer".
[Devices for creating works] usually need a full complement of input devices, a full keyboard, a good mouse, larger the screen it is better. But [viewing them] does not need all these user input devices. Oftentimes, a tap, a touch, a click is all that is required to passively consume content. Ch+ , Ch-, Vol+ and Vol- buttons cover 99% of the usage in a TV remote!
If a viewer device isn't artificially restricted, it's a doddle to upgrade the latter into the former by buying a $15 keyboard and a $15 mouse. But if market-segmenting cryptography is in play, people who want to step up from viewing to creating might not be able to afford dropping $700 on a Mac.
Microsoft first missed the boat in creating a simpler device for [viewing].
Then what's the Xbox 360 console? In countries where the law allows, Microsoft even established a public "Indie Games" route to market using the XNA framework so that anyone with a $300 PC can create games for the platform.
In that case, why do I need Windows 8 at all? Windows 7 does the same thing only without the useless Metro bloat.
I love people who talk like you do, with the idea that the signature part of the entire OS is somehow something you can just avoid, or that you should.
The fact is that if you have to avoid Metro to do your work, Metro (and Windows 8 with it) suffer from a rather catastrophic design failure.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
The biggest issue for me is the whole "full screen only" apps and the context switching issues in Win8... and the waste of screen real estate.
Sorry, that got a bit "Spanish Inquisition" there...
Seriously though: whenever I 'let a coworker drive" my pc, they always go to full screen on each program - and since I run multiple 1920x1200 screens, it just drives me BONKERS to see that much screen wastage.
When I need to go to theirs, its amazing how many folks run their stuff in full screen - I don't know how they manage... it just doesn't work for me.
Doing developer support means that I often have 3 or 4 copies of visual studio running at once and am switching between them (customer's solution open in one and two or three boilerplates or other projects where I've solved similar problems for others open and copying/pasting or comparing things between them) along with a text editor and maybe two or three different browsers (esp. if I'm testing a web app) all the while with email and IM and phone queue management apps sitting on the side where I can see if they need attention.
I'm sure Win8 is ok on a touch device or something, but the abysmal handling of context switching is a deal breaker for me on a desktop. Windows 2000 pretty much had the perfect (for me) UI except for a couple of the nice convenience features of Win7 like a New Folder button in explorer by default (Oh how I love thee), and the search built right in.
I've found taht taking Win7, shrinking the icons a bit, installing UltraMon and using Classic Shell and turning off all that Aero stuff gives me a perfect (for my needs) UI. And I don't mind that it takes a little time to get set up initially. What I care for is that I can hammer it into a great UI for the way I work, MS seems to be taking a "use it our way" mentality with Win8 which is just a giant deal breaker for me. I'm hoping that they'll come to their senses with Win9 and that Win8 is just MS Bob 3.0 (2.0 being Windows ME)
Hell, I prefer VISTA to Windows 8... seriously that should show how bad 8 is right there.
The Digital Sorceress
People do not want touch PCs. It's really that simple. Microsoft is trying to move the market in a direction that it doesn't want to move, and the market tends to react negatively to that.
Metro on a desktop PC is fucking awful. It's best used like Windows 7, where you try and pretend that Metro doesn't exist. In that case, why wouldn't I just use Windows 7? It's not much better on a laptop. The UI is just not built to do real work. It's built for phones, and it works fine for that. When I'm trying to do my job, it's something to fight with as it decides that I really didn't want three windows visible at once.
"Windows 8 - almost as good as Windows 7!" isn't much of a marketing slogan.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
I don't know why anyone expected this to be so wonderful. It's an even number release:
http://www.rationalskepticssociety.com/blog/2012/02/28/windows-8-cursed/
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
...is that Microsoft has tried to cram two operating systems, which are used for very different applications, into a single OS. If they had just made Windows Metro or something for touchscreen devices and left Windows 7 alone, we would not be having this conversation right now. If Apple has done one thing right, it's that they have for the most part kept iOS and OS X separate.
My wife has a Windows RT tablet made by Asus, and if you stay within the Metro interface, it really is a pleasure to use. As soon as you go to make some changes to settings, or try to use Microsoft Word, you go into the traditional desktop and with a touchscreen that's a nightmare. Likewise if you try to navigate Metro with a pointing device – it just feels weird.
Everybody heralding the death of the desktop and the takeover of tablets has definitely jumped the gun, and Microsoft's attempt to shoehorn us all into their one-size-fits-all view of computing has without a doubt been a failure. They should have made a dedicated touchscreen operating system and forgotten about Surface or at least kept it simple.
Lord Ballmer: "We would have sold more of them if more people had bought them!"
Unwise Minion: "Uh, Lord Ballmer, sir, isn't that almost a tautology?"
[brief pause]
Lord Ballmer: "Get the cleaners in here. Some minion just died while eating a chair."
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
In that case, why do I need Windows 8 at all?
Because your old PC has died, and new PCs come with Windows 8, and as I wrote in a reply to Anonymous Coward, lack of driver support means Wi-Fi may stop working if you exercise your downgrade rights.
Worse yet, the name "Modern UI" is downright insulting to anyone who knowns anything about user interfaces. Full screen applications? One application at a time? Just like the good old DOS days of the 1980s! And even back then people were trying like crazy to escape that with character based multi-taskers like TopView/DESQview or GUIs like Visi On, the original Mac/Lisa, GEM, Amiga, and a little program from Microsoft called "Windows".
The system is identical to Windows 7 only the boring "Start Menu" has been replaced by the "Start Screen" with "Live tiles". It's turned one of the drab features into something cool.
People trying to do real work don't need "cool".
They need fast, functional, and familiar.
At work many people request a mac, then wipe it and put Windows on it (or run Parallels). They want the nice hardware but they want the Windows 8 OS. They don't want some piece of plastic.
Even if you are talking about laptops (where not being "plastic" has some importance), you have some insane management at your work if they are willing to pay 2-3x for hardware that has no official support for Windows 8 drivers.
The only touch device I like using with my computer only gets used when browsing for porn..... :)
Seriously, it's bad enough to not be able to touch-type through a form without having to leave home-row and use the mouse or touch pad. I certainly don't want to be gorilla-swiping my screen in between fields just because Microsoft wants to make more money. WTF!
-- L8R, guitardood
"A metro app" being the keyword. I regularly use ten applications at once, keeping most in the background with a little bit of the window visible so that I can see state changes. Metro breaks this usage pattern.
My company was using a touch screen add-on for Macintosh's back in the early 90's to allow them to be put in Kiosks so we could hide the keyboard/mouses. It was a simple film you put on the monitor and would act as a mouse. Despite this technology being available, I haven't seen any proliferation of touch screens in a box for people to use for their computers and laptops. How does MS come up with the idea that everyone wants this on their pc's/laptops?
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
Seriously, the Windows Key + X shortcut is the best thing since sliced bread. Also, given the ability to customize the Start screen and pass that out as a default means I can put shortcuts to all our business apps and deliver a useable start menu for everyone. It's also forced users to learn the "press the start key and start typing to find what you want" trick which has started solving the "I can't find blah" calls. The full screen metro apps can feel free to go away. Those suck. Windows 8 is my new OS currently being deployed on all new boxes and old boxes are being reimaged as time permits. By summer I should have over 500 Windows 8 desktops in production.
// TODO: Witty Signature
I'm surprised that MS isn't being watched closely for anti-trust on the whole windows 8 thing. Win8 is a crappy interface for a non-touch PC, and a terrible change for anyone who's used to a traditional OS. What it is good for, is getting people used to the same interface as on MS tablets etc. Since they're late to the tablet market, it seems that "unifying" the interface is really an attempt to lock people into MS's metro interface and app-store etc, so that they can push more into the tablet market as it replaces the PC market.
However, I thought that leveraging a monopoly in one market to gain an advantage in another is one of the foundations of anti-trust. Can somebody explain that?
Here's what happens when an enthusiastic adopter of new technology tries to use Windows 8.
Basically: The new interface sucks. So people are avoiding it. Makes sense to me.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
If windows 8 hasn't failed yet, it will. It is certain to fail. It is such a dreadful experience that it makes even (spit!) Vista look good. It's been forced out by manufacturers, and bought by rote, not by people choosing it. I have an install for a 17.3" screen that thinks it's on a mobile phone and has a minimum of 5 consecutive menus to navigate before you can do squat. I couldn't abide it even as the other os on my box. And then there's that EFI B.S. locking people out of their own PCs - plenty of fun to be had there yet. I've seen M$ shoot themselves in the foot before, I have never seen them do it with such a large canon
I am the perfect target of Windows 8. I use a touchscreen laptop (Lenovo x220t) and I love it--I work with the pen as much as possible, even when typing would be more efficient, simply because I like it.
I and users like me have been complaining since Windows 8 released that it's simply not a good touch/pen interface. Windows 7 had an excellent pen input system. Microsoft scrapped it and replaced it with a much less useful and less practical input interface in Windows 8. It was a bafflingly stupid decision--they dumped the best interface in the industry for something that's barely functional.
Reviewers haven't paid much attention to this problem because, I think, relatively few people are using the pen as a significant input device. But Microsoft is trying to change that. If they want Windows 8 to succeed, or PCs to move towards a touch/pen interface generally, they need to ask some hard questions of whoever is currently in charge of those design decisions. (I'd recommend, "Can you name any single way in which the Windows 8 pen interface is superior to the Windows 7 interface?", "Then why did you change it?", and "Have you been drinking on the job?")
I solved this problem easily... switched to Linux Mint and now run Windows in VM's...
If I need a metro app it will just get its own VM and can then be resized appropriately and reside on one of the six screens on my desk and lab bench. :-)
I do still have a few standalone Windows systems. But they are all just lab bench test systems. Use until they croak from driver testing and then re-image.