Is Windows 8 already a failure?

[ShyWriter]

.

Is Windows 8 already a failure?

• By Joe Wilcox
  
• Published 7 hours ago
  

Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

Late this morning, Robert Johnson sent me a link to Paul Thurrott story "Windows 8 Sales Well Below Projections, Plenty of Blame to Go Around" -- "Uncertainty could turn Windows 8 into the next Vista". The lead sentence is frightening: "Sales of Windows 8 PCs are well below Microsoft’s internal projections and have been described inside the company as disappointing". Uh-oh.

Robert asked my opinion, and I'll give it. Relax. Slow start isn't surprising at all. I've said for more than a year that Windows 8 wouldn't be big. It's a transitional operating system coming when most businesses just upgraded to Windows 7 or are in process of doing so and when tablets capture consumer interests more.

Perhaps Microsoft managers drank their own Kool-Aid and simply expected too much too soon. Look at the economy. Target and Walmart posted disappointing results this week, sending stocks downward. Retail is weak right now, which surely affects consumer PC buying. Besides, something is missing: Compelling designs at affordable prices.

I'm surprised at how lackluster are Windows 8 computers and how over-priced they are. Reality is this: Companies like Dell and HP drove down prices long ago. Consumers expect to pay bottom dollar, but, suddenly, everyone wants to be Apple this release cycle. Windows 8 slates selling for one-thousand bucks compete with Android tablets or iPads selling for less than $500. New Windows PC designs I've seen ask too much but give too little. ASUS and Microsoft stand nearly alone offering reasonably feature- and price-competitive models.

Then there is Microsoft's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde user interface. Among several of Thurrott's on-the-money statements: "It’s a floor wax. No, it’s a dessert topping. Microsoft’s new whatever-the-F-it-is operating system is a confusing, Frankenstein’s monster mix of old and new that hides a great desktop upgrade under a crazy Metro front-end".

The two-motif approach doesn't work, particularly on Surface. If users can't install legacy apps on the desktop, why have it at all? Windows RT should be an all Modern UI affair, with Windows 8 Pro presenting the desktop by default on any computer without touchscreen.

Thurrott is right about Windows RT: "Imagine Apple announcing a major new version of iOS and then releasing a new tablet that runs Mac OS X instead of that new iOS version. Doesn’t make a lick of sense, does it? Well, that’s what Microsoft did".

Windows 8's greatest risk is Microsoft. I rightly faulted the company for killing off the Windows Vista "Wow" marketing campaign and making other strategic changes soon after launch. Like Windows 8, the executive responsible for managing Vista's development and launch left the company. In the wake of Jim Allchin's departure and concerns about slow early sales, Microsoft wrongly shifted marketing strategies, which as much anything else doomed Vista. History repeats. Steven Sinofsky is out, and if Thurrott is right Microsoft sees slower-than-expected sales. The temptation will be to shift strategies, particularly marketing. Change now would repeat past mistakes. Stay the course, Microsoft.

Windows XP sales started slowly, too. Microsoft released during a recession and six weeks after the Twin Towers fell. Consumers' mood was grim. Yet despite early hurdles, XP proved to be the most endearing release ever. Just because Windows 8 stumble starts doesn't mean it's already finished.

SOURCE: http://betanews.com/...eady-a-failure/

Steve

[exile360]

Windows RT should be an all Modern UI affair, with Windows 8 Pro presenting the desktop by default on any computer without touchscreen.

I have been saying this all along and I still think it's true. In fact, the very reason I will not run 8 is precisely because I do not have a touch screen so the START screen would just get in my way.

[Stevie D]

This one has failure written all over it. Not surprising given this history:

Windows 95: Success

Windows ME: Failure

Windows XP: Success

Vista: Failure

Windows 7: Success

Windows 8: ???

The next one will probably correct their mistakes.

[DarkSnakeKobra]

I have to agree with Exile. Once they moved from the Developer Preview (they still had the start menu) to the Consumer Preview that was it. This is the worst mistake yet. MS and Canonical don't listen to their customers/users. The outcome may have been different if they took suggestions and did research on what consumers want rather then the market. You can't mix a desktop and tablet together. Huge mistake.

@Stevie

I have the same concept in mind. This appears to be an ongoing and repeated cycle. I don't expect it to change in the next several years since MS doesn't "listen".

[exile360]

This one has failure written all over it. Not surprising given this history:

Windows 95: Success

Windows ME: Failure

Windows XP: Success

Vista: Failure

Windows 7: Success

Windows 8: ???

The next one will probably correct their mistakes.

What about 98 ?

Also, while Vista was a retail failure (there's no arguing that), it was and still is a decent OS. Most of the issues it had were with software compatibility and drivers, most of which were fixed by the time 7 was released thanks to software and hardware vendors finally supporting the new kernel and UAC. In fact, everything that makes stuff work on 7 now also makes it work on Vista, there's literally no difference with regards to compatibility. The hardware performance vs cost caught up with 7 as well, so a new system running 7 had higher specifications typically than one which was sold with Vista on it.

Vista's biggest problem was timing. It took too long to release and MS either didn't allow enough time for vendors to catch up or didn't push them hard enough to do so.

[noknojon]

..... so a new system running 7 had higher specifications typically than one which was sold with Vista on it...

This is where M/soft sent Vista out much too early - XP SP 4 was required first and major machine upgrades were needed.

XP could run on half a G RAM (but most upgraded), while they were the last version that could (in comfort) -

Most Win7 computers have at least 4G RAM (Vista was still released on 1G RAM units) and this was another major failure point.

Timing was only part of it, a lack of practical ideas were missing, and they (Microsoft) thought any O/S would succeed.

I keep finding this was a major part of the problem, and I relate it to Vista / Microsoft Developers -

What is actually needed to run Windows8 ??

[CWB]

exile360 :

"Vista's biggest problem was timing. It took too long to release and MS either didn't allow enough time for vendors to catch up or didn't push them hard enough to do so."

also , along the lines of what noknojon mentioned ...

i agree ... i have a customer that still runs XP on his office machines/network because two of the companies/programs he uses as a foundation for data acquisition for his products have still not come up with a decent fork over to W7 .

he wanted a new "on the road laptop" , he asked me to shop around for him i came up with four choices/models , of these only one had W7 on it the rest were XP .

he asked me which way to go , i told him that i would lean toward XP as the software he uses is "tried and proven" with XP .

so , he bought the laptop that looked the "prettiest" and was running a "new OS" (we know what "glam buying" is) .

leave it suffice to say that in the time since then he has lamented about buying W7 over XP ... and rightly so ... much time on the phone with tech support from the two companies and the ensuing headaches .

the other simple truth of the matter is the old saying : "if it's working - don't fix it !" .

for his needs (and the needs of many other small businesses) , XP fills the bill , is in place and holds it's own .

barring severe motherboard or other failure , there is no valid reason for him to replace his machines and OS ...

slap in a new supply or HDD and "bob's yer uncle" .

i can certainly appreciate small companies with 10 or more comps being hesitant at changing over to a new OS ... it is a costly venture that may prove to be an exercise in futility .

as far as it goes , i personally do not have a valid reason to change over from XP to W7 or W8 .

as for XP to W7 ... if someone actually needs an new machine and the software that is an integral part of their use is available to run on W7 then i would endorse the changeover .

but a change from XP or W7 to W8 is not justifiable (in my book) due mostly to the -*ahem*- GUI of questionable functionality and the ability to change it into something that is conducive to real production in a work environment .

[gerardwil]

Sales of Windows 8 PCs are well below Microsoft’s internal projections and have been described inside the company as disappointing. But here’s the catch: The software giant blames the slow start on lackluster PC maker designs and availability, further justifying its new Surface strategy. But Windows 8’s market acceptance can be blamed on many factors.

http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/windows-8-sales-well-below-projections-plenty-blame-go-around

[AdvancedSetup]

Well I disagree about Vista. It inherently has a screwed up self repair mechanism compared with Windows 7. The vast majority of repair tickets that are time consuming are Vista.

We're not talking about a clean install by someone that knows what they're doing and maintaining in a clean state, we're taking users that don't have a clue and beat the hell out of it. You take the same 2 computer models and install Vista on one and Windows 7 on the other. Then give it to the same person that is not a technical person and have them use and abuse both computers for a couple years and I'll bet you money the Windows 7 box will be much easier to clean and fix than the Vista box will be. Vista has broken code inside it and all the patching in the World won't fix that. Windows 7 is probably 95% Vista code but their Software Engineering department spent months going through and over the code and fixing or removing the flawed stuff from the Vista code to make Windows 7 (Windows 7 is not really "new").

Windows 3.0 = bad

Windows 3.1 = Good

Windows 3.11 (for Workgroups) = Even better.

NT 3.5 = Bad

NT 3.51 = better but still Bad

NT 4.0 = Good

Windows 95 had A, B, C builds

Windows 98 = Okay

Windows 98SE = Good (actually very good (IMHO))

I'm not saying Windows 8 is quote-unquote bad, but I just don't see that it brings anything as a "Must Have" to the table to warrant buying a new computer or a new OS

[CWB]

yep ... 98SE was good . i know a couple of guys that still run it .

windows ME (not to be confused with W2K) seemed to be a sort of glorified version of '98 but (as you mentioned about vista) had "self destructive tendencies" .

even that analogy is not quite right as 98SE was no where near as "buggy" as ME ... unless the modified code was totally crap .

the best way i know how to sum up ME is : "eventually you wind up with a ball of band-aids" .

[nccomp]

I have been using Windows 8 for 3 months now on my office computer with no issues. I spend 99.99% of my time working from the desktop and with Classic Shell installed for a Start Menu I feel like I am working on a windows 7 machine. I do not like the start page.

While I have had no issues with Windows 8 I strongly feel the average windows user is not going to like Win8 when they login and land on the start page.

Lets face it, it is going to be a long time before we all have touch screens sitting on our desk.

[rgabbard]

I've been using Windows 8 as my primary OS since the developer preview. Probably not the best idea, but my job revolves around being on top of technology. That being said, I am also a huge fan of Windows Phone, so the Start screen doesn't bother me. It operates the same basic way that my phone does so I can sit and look at my start screen and see what I need to get started on. Is it perfect? No, there are some things that I don't like about Windows 8. Is it better? Yes.

[AdvancedSetup]

Is it better? Yes.

Please provide some type of proof that Windows 8 makes you more productive than other versions of Windows and actually makes you or your company more money simply by replacing Windows XP or Windows 7 with Windows 8

Having more eye candy I suppose could be construed as better to some but actually more productive I find very difficult to believe. I've been running it quite a while myself and so far I've not found a single operation that makes it faster or easier to accomplish real work on the computer.