5 ms·

What's so infuriating about Win 8.x is where it improves over Win7 it's clear, however, MS went out of their way to positively screw it up in whole new ways, su

What's so infuriating about Win 8.x is where it improves over Win7 it's clear, however, MS went out of their way to positively screw it up in whole new ways, such as Metro. It should never be the responsibility of the end user to tweak things to decent defaults - defaults should be right out of the box. Take Metro etc. out (or, better, have it as an app launched from the desktop, and completely uninstallable), sort out the start menu and a few UI tweaks and they would have had an easy win on their hands, but their efforts to do things no one wants are causing them to fail, even to the point of giving people like Google an in with the latest Chrome for Metro aping a full screen Chrome OS like experience which, ironically, is more Windows 7 like than Win 8 is. MS really need someone that understands not only what they're good at but why people have stuck with MS software at their helm.

malkia 13y ago
Yup. Imagine a world, where you are still getting all these cool linux kernel improvementds but you are stuck to say "Ubuntu Unity's" ui and nothing else.
josteink 13y ago
MS really need someone that understands not only what they're good at but why people have stuck with MS software at their helm Microsoft realizes the end of the PC-era is here. (Almost) nobody is buying PCs and OS-licenses anymore, so Microsoft can't gamble it's future on those petty things. They realize that the future belongs to services spanning several devices and multiple platforms, among which Windows can be one player. That's why you can have Microsoft-software for iOS and Android these days. But for Windows to be a player in the future, people must want to have it on their shiny, portable touch-devices with long battery-life due to apps running in a controlled environment. Nothing from the desktop-era Windows fits into that picture. Nothing. For Microsoft to be on those devices that just needs to go. You and I may hate it, but Microsoft is literally forced to make this "new" Windows-model if they want to remain relevant in the future. Microsoft is upping its service-game, and it will do so at the cost of everything the PC used to be.
- soundoflight 13y ago
  348.7 million PCs were wold in 2012. Never make absolutes, except that you shouldn't make absolutes. They make your opinions look dumb.
  - hershel 13y ago
    But the sales in 2013 declined in 11% .
    - soundoflight 13y ago
      Still higher sales than tablets. Edit: Also, 2013 figures shouldn't be out until March (if I remember right)... where are you getting these numbers from? Is that a quarter decline?
      - hershel 13y ago
        Just some rough internet search. Others talk about 10% , and mid year predictions we're similar.
- bad_user 13y ago
  > nobody is buying PCs and OS-licenses anymore Yet, almost everybody is still using PCs and regular desktops, either at home, or at work. Even with the explosive growth of mobile devices, the PC market is still bigger - and I suspect that the reasons for why people aren't buying so many PCs anymore is due to (a) lack of innovation and (b) PCs have a long life and a 4-year old PC or laptop is working just fine for most people. What's really over is the upgrade treadmill. Either way, I'm glad that all kinds of wankers think the PC-era is over, maybe we'll finally have some real innovation in this space. > They realize that the future belongs to services spanning several devices and multiple platforms ... Microsoft is literally forced to make this "new" Windows-model if they want to remain relevant in the future Actually there is only one platform that is slowly but surely cannibalizing every other platform, the open web, making the concept of an operating-system irrelevant for the purposes of achieving lock-in the good-old fashioned way. In fact, I bet that Microsoft wants a future dominated by app stores, because that's a future they know how to control.
wfunction 13y ago
Call me cynical but I don't really think unifying the desktop/laptop/mobile OSes was the point here. I think the (unspoken) point of their whole "app" idea is to make people transition into a subscription model instead of a single-payment model; the unification reason was just an excuse.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- hershel 13y ago
  Could anybody please explain that ?
  - wfunction 13y ago
    I mean think about it: people at Microsoft aren't idiots. There's no way in hell that they didn't realize people hated Metro. So why would they still force it upon people even though it means they know people would hate Windows that way? The only reason is if there is an overriding goal worth the short-term loss of money, and this is the most plausible explanation I could come up with: even if you make people hate your product, if you can force them to move onto a subscription model, they probably won't be able to go back.
    - hershel 13y ago
      But where's the subscription ? isn't 8.1 a regular purchase?
      - wfunction 13y ago
        The OS is, the apps aren't necessarily.
    - marcosdumay 13y ago
      The most plausible explanation is the explanation MS gave for creating Metro: They want to unify destops and mobile, so that they can extend their desktop dominance at the mobile market.
Xdes 13y ago
The users are going to learn to like it or stay with Windows 7 for the next 6 years. Microsoft doesn't mind leaving them behind because what is the worst they can do, buy a Mac?
- jackmaney 13y ago
  A significant amount of Windows PC users stick with Windows because they're gamers. However, the number of recent and current games for the Mac is steadily increasing (for example, just under half of my Steam library is Mac compatible). Also, the "Mac tax" (ie extra amount paid for a Mac over the cost of the hardware) has greatly diminished.[1] If Microsoft doesn't release a worthwhile successor to Windows 7 within the next few years, then yes, some consumers will buy a Mac. [1] http://bgr.com/2013/12/26/mac-pro-windows-diy-cost/ http://bgr.com/2013/12/26/mac-pro-windows-diy-cost/
- e40 13y ago
  As a matter of fact, yes. I've been using Windows since version 3.1. I've used every version except Vista. I'm building a hackintosh and am moving to Mac OS X. I could have bought a Mac Pro had they been like the previous Mac Pros (e.g., internally expandable and reasonably priced). I'd be using Linux if Adobe Lightroom worked on Linux.
  - deathcakes 13y ago
    In fairness, for the spec, they are pretty reasonably priced. Compare them to the equivalents from say HP, the Z420 and they are in fact cheaper. Obviously if you're building your own then you'll save a hell of a lot, but if you're looking for a prebuilt machine you could do worse.
    - e40 13y ago
      The HP you reference is a lot cheaper: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CIvD7qzOnLwCFeZ7Qgodt3cAVA&Item=0A5-006A-00038&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-All+Desktop+PCs-_-0A5-006A-00038&ef_id=UuVm7AAAASb0nV4e:20140126195004:s http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CIvD7qzOnLw... $1,629. It would need a nice video card, I think, but let's call it $2,000. Now, it still better than the Mac Pro, because if you have a bunch of disks, you need to spend, for the Mac Pro, between $1,500 and $2,500 to hold the disks. That makes the Mac Pro a LOT more expensive.

malkia 13y ago

Yup. Imagine a world, where you are still getting all these cool linux kernel improvementds but you are stuck to say "Ubuntu Unity's" ui and nothing else.

josteink 13y ago

MS really need someone that understands not only what they're good at but why people have stuck with MS software at their helm Microsoft realizes the end of the PC-era is here. (Almost) nobody is buying PCs and OS-licenses anymore, so Microsoft can't gamble it's future on those petty things. They realize that the future belongs to services spanning several devices and multiple platforms, among which Windows can be one player. That's why you can have Microsoft-software for iOS and Android these days. But for Windows to be a player in the future, people must want to have it on their shiny, portable touch-devices with long battery-life due to apps running in a controlled environment. Nothing from the desktop-era Windows fits into that picture. Nothing. For Microsoft to be on those devices that just needs to go. You and I may hate it, but Microsoft is literally forced to make this "new" Windows-model if they want to remain relevant in the future. Microsoft is upping its service-game, and it will do so at the cost of everything the PC used to be.

soundoflight 13y ago
348.7 million PCs were wold in 2012. Never make absolutes, except that you shouldn't make absolutes. They make your opinions look dumb.
- hershel 13y ago
  But the sales in 2013 declined in 11% .
  - soundoflight 13y ago
    Still higher sales than tablets. Edit: Also, 2013 figures shouldn't be out until March (if I remember right)... where are you getting these numbers from? Is that a quarter decline?
    - hershel 13y ago
      Just some rough internet search. Others talk about 10% , and mid year predictions we're similar.
bad_user 13y ago
> nobody is buying PCs and OS-licenses anymore Yet, almost everybody is still using PCs and regular desktops, either at home, or at work. Even with the explosive growth of mobile devices, the PC market is still bigger - and I suspect that the reasons for why people aren't buying so many PCs anymore is due to (a) lack of innovation and (b) PCs have a long life and a 4-year old PC or laptop is working just fine for most people. What's really over is the upgrade treadmill. Either way, I'm glad that all kinds of wankers think the PC-era is over, maybe we'll finally have some real innovation in this space. > They realize that the future belongs to services spanning several devices and multiple platforms ... Microsoft is literally forced to make this "new" Windows-model if they want to remain relevant in the future Actually there is only one platform that is slowly but surely cannibalizing every other platform, the open web, making the concept of an operating-system irrelevant for the purposes of achieving lock-in the good-old fashioned way. In fact, I bet that Microsoft wants a future dominated by app stores, because that's a future they know how to control.

wfunction 13y ago

Call me cynical but I don't really think unifying the desktop/laptop/mobile OSes was the point here. I think the (unspoken) point of their whole "app" idea is to make people transition into a subscription model instead of a single-payment model; the unification reason was just an excuse.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hershel 13y ago
Could anybody please explain that ?
- wfunction 13y ago
  I mean think about it: people at Microsoft aren't idiots. There's no way in hell that they didn't realize people hated Metro. So why would they still force it upon people even though it means they know people would hate Windows that way? The only reason is if there is an overriding goal worth the short-term loss of money, and this is the most plausible explanation I could come up with: even if you make people hate your product, if you can force them to move onto a subscription model, they probably won't be able to go back.
  - hershel 13y ago
    But where's the subscription ? isn't 8.1 a regular purchase?
    - wfunction 13y ago
      The OS is, the apps aren't necessarily.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    The most plausible explanation is the explanation MS gave for creating Metro: They want to unify destops and mobile, so that they can extend their desktop dominance at the mobile market.

Xdes 13y ago

The users are going to learn to like it or stay with Windows 7 for the next 6 years. Microsoft doesn't mind leaving them behind because what is the worst they can do, buy a Mac?

jackmaney 13y ago
A significant amount of Windows PC users stick with Windows because they're gamers. However, the number of recent and current games for the Mac is steadily increasing (for example, just under half of my Steam library is Mac compatible). Also, the "Mac tax" (ie extra amount paid for a Mac over the cost of the hardware) has greatly diminished.[1] If Microsoft doesn't release a worthwhile successor to Windows 7 within the next few years, then yes, some consumers will buy a Mac. [1] http://bgr.com/2013/12/26/mac-pro-windows-diy-cost/ http://bgr.com/2013/12/26/mac-pro-windows-diy-cost/
e40 13y ago
As a matter of fact, yes. I've been using Windows since version 3.1. I've used every version except Vista. I'm building a hackintosh and am moving to Mac OS X. I could have bought a Mac Pro had they been like the previous Mac Pros (e.g., internally expandable and reasonably priced). I'd be using Linux if Adobe Lightroom worked on Linux.
- deathcakes 13y ago
  In fairness, for the spec, they are pretty reasonably priced. Compare them to the equivalents from say HP, the Z420 and they are in fact cheaper. Obviously if you're building your own then you'll save a hell of a lot, but if you're looking for a prebuilt machine you could do worse.
  - e40 13y ago
    The HP you reference is a lot cheaper: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CIvD7qzOnLwCFeZ7Qgodt3cAVA&Item=0A5-006A-00038&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-All+Desktop+PCs-_-0A5-006A-00038&ef_id=UuVm7AAAASb0nV4e:20140126195004:s http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CIvD7qzOnLw... $1,629. It would need a nice video card, I think, but let's call it $2,000. Now, it still better than the Mac Pro, because if you have a bunch of disks, you need to spend, for the Mac Pro, between $1,500 and $2,500 to hold the disks. That makes the Mac Pro a LOT more expensive.