Windows 7 Still Being Sold On Up To 93% of British PCs

nk497 writes "The vast majority of PCs sold by British PC makers are running Windows 7 — not Windows 8. PC Pro spoke to several PC builders, with some reporting as many as 93% of recently sold machines were on the older OS. One company initially sold its PCs with Windows 8, but feedback from users soon changed that. Customers quickly began to specify systems with Windows 7, those with Windows 8 'took delivery and wanted to change back to Windows 7' – a process the firm described as a 'nightmare.' Another firm found success by installing a 'start menu' tool on Windows 8 machines, and others said the switch would have gone smoother if Microsoft has offered a Windows 8 tutorial or better explained the new OS."

Comments

That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 8 UI is ghastly. With Classic Shell though, you'll never need to load metro again, and then its just a fast Win 7...

Re:That's because

[The MAZZTer]

Start8Menu was the best "free" alternative for me. Stardock's Start8 is the best trialware one that I saw.

I tried Classic Shell but it aims to emulate the classic Windows 2000 and earlier Start Menu. I much prefer the more modern Vista/7 Start Menu, which my top two choices provide.

Re:That's because

[linebackn]

But this raises the question why should millions of customers have go to the trouble of installing a separate program just to get a sane UI. And how many actually will, or can.

What this story tells me is that Microsoft didn't threaten to break enough legs in the British PC sales market.

Nobody here in the US wants Windows 8, and the manufacturers know it. They just sell it to make their Microsoft monkey overlords happy. Customers be damned.

I'm not switching.

[concealment]

There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.

First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.

Second, I don't trust any new product until it has been on the market for 18 months in order to get the bugs out. Developers know why, and the reason isn't developers (generally).

Finally, I distrust trends. They blow through, take your money, and blow out the other door. I trust reliability and paradigms that are time-tested.

As a lack of positive reason, I'm not sure what Windows 8 offers that Windows 7 does not. There are improvements; they look really neat. I'd like to play with them, on some computer I'm not using for work when I have lots of spare time to play around with it.

The computer is a tool for me. I use it to achieve other ends. Thus I'm not that fascinated with the OS and want it to "just work." Windows 7 does that, or an adequate job of it at least, on a wide variety of hardware.

Re:Vista 2

[rtb61]

Windows Millennium Edition Part 3.

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us?

[jonbryce]

Windows 2000 was also a win.

The ideas behind Windows Vista were sound, they were just badly implemented until about SP2. Windows 7 was Vista done properly.

The difference with Windows 8 is that the whole idea of having a single interface for both tablets and desktops was wrong. It's not that there are some annoying bugs that need to be fixed, the whole specification of it is flawed. For Windows 9, Microsoft will need to either go back to the drawing board, or alternatively release a Windows 7.1 that brings any new under-the-hood stuff to the Windows 7 UI.

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us?

[drinkypoo]

Windows 2000 was also a win.

In terms of quality at release, Windows 2000 is unmatched by any other version of windows save perhaps 3.51. All the problems with Windows 8 seem to lie in the interface, which differentiates it from other hated versions of Windows. It's a shame Microsoft can't admit failure in a timely fashion.