21–30 of 75 posts
Sigh. More new stuff to learn when I need to help people with their Windows boxes. How long can these guys go on releasing new operating systems? And how long will people keep buying them?
Blogspam, a lot more content in the original: http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/threshold-be-called-window...
I like Windows 8 but there is like 10 people using it. Most of the people are still on 7. I really don't see the need for a Windows 9 that will just bring driver troubles, incompatibility and inconsistency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idunno, the idea of unifying a tablet/phone UI seems to be a good idea with the massive shift to mobile devices. MS stands the risk of being completely left behind. I think the Metro UI could've worked if they'd bolted a taskbar/start-menu onto it, as a concession to the fact that notebooks/desktops aren't tablets and have enough screen-real-estate for such things and aren't really a good fit for "hot corners".
Metro would have worked if MS hadn't tried to pull a Jobs with the windows store. And left the old start menu of course.
I like Windows 8 but there is like 10 people using it. Most of the people are still on 7. I really don't see the need for a Windows 9 that will just bring driver troubles, incompatibility and inconsistency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well they could have called it Windows 8.2, no?
Technically they could have, but do they have any history of doing that? (edit: didn't realise they released 8.1, thought it was SP1. I guess I partially retract how stupid I think the sentence is) The sentence would have made a bit of sense if they had gone back to vista style naming, and called it windows or something. But the last 2 releases have been called 7 and 8, is 9 really distancing itself from 8?
Windows Phone went from 7 to 7.5, and then to 8. It's possible that they could have gone with Windows 8.5, too.
So are we now seeing the confirmation of the anti-Star Trek Curse[1]? Windows 9 will be OK, 10 will be terrible, 11 will be OK, and so on... Microsoft's new leadership needs to start thinking about resigning itself to being the stable operating system choice. Nothing fancy, nothing sexy, no major "rebirth" to keep up with the Jonses ever other version. They are an enterprise operating system for 95% of businesses out…
I can see your points, but this is EXACTLY how Nokia and RIM went down the drain. They both thought that as long as we just churn out new iterations of the same thing, it'll keep people on. Look how that went...
I get the impression that Microsoft is trying as hard as it can to be... hip and sexy? They're not very good at it, though, which is unfortunate for them.
Maybe one of their core problems is the fact that the market in question is, well, not a market. They are only competing with themselves and they don't even need to compete. Why would I care about Windows 8? It doesn't do things that Windows 7 can't do, save for the modern UI, which I'd probably try to stay away from in the first place (because it is aimed at a different type of machine than the one I'd be running it on).
So what's left for them? How are they going to convince ME that their newest operating system is worth buying because of how much better it is?
I don't know. The one thing that seems to have made Windows 8 innovative over Windows 7 was also a reason it's not being adopted and the only reason for its current adoption rate is because it's simply sold on new hardware, whether we like it or not. The other features MS added to Windows 8 were mostly catching up with the rest. I'd seen things like one dialog for all copying actions years prior. The same goes for allowing an actual task bar on your second monitor.
They're throwing away so much money on marketing something that I don't know if they need to market it in the first place, and if they care to, they might want to consider replacing the whole marketing department because when Microsoft's marketing makes the news, it's not in a good manner...