I gave Windows 8 (consumer preview) 3 months, going back to 7

Discussion in 'Operating Systems' started by Hugo Drax, May 8, 2012.

  1. lifeblood

    lifeblood Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2001
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    6
    Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely agree the work done creating Vista was desperately needed and we ended up with a better OS because of it. There is no doubt Win7 is just a tweaked Vista, the difference is that MS tweaked the right things in Win7.

    As far as businesses, don’t fool yourself. Businesses users still have a huge influence on MS. The slowness of businesses to migrate from XP to Vista was a major, if not the biggest factor pushing MS to fix Vista with Win7.
     
  2. gmaster456

    gmaster456 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure on the consumer side, people will be fine with Windows 8 for the most part. That's where it will shine. Businesses, I'm not so sure. I for one will not be deploying it amongst our user base until I see something worth having to make it worth while to train people to use a brand new operating system. Windows XP to 7 was pretty smooth, but I have a feeling transitioning to windows 8 will be quite jarring for people who just make powerpoints, excel sheets, word docs and email.
     
  3. Wyndru

    Wyndru Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    7,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was thinking the same thing, but more along the lines of this being a purposeful pattern. It almost goes Personal -> Professional -> Personal -> Professional.

    It seems like they do full releases that almost feel like trial versions (i.e. me before 2000, vista before win7, etc...) to get the masses feedback before they fine tune it for corporate.
     
  4. Genx87

    Genx87 Lifer

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2002
    Messages:
    39,446
    Likes Received:
    6
    This is the first OS from MS I am not interested in upgrading to. I even upgraded to Vista and moderately enjoyed it. But in its current form there is no way this will be deployed on new workstations within my office. I would spend 95% of my day explaining how to open up applications or print and the other 5% searching for a job in the food service business.
     
  5. sequoia464

    sequoia464 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just put in an application down at Taco Bell. If I get lucky, I can put in a good word for you. You prefer the taco or the burrito side of the business?
     
    #55 sequoia464, May 23, 2012
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  6. ViRGE

    ViRGE Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    31,071
    Likes Received:
    7
    And the thing is that it's actually a really nice OS. MS has improved a ton of stuff including memory usage and the file copy dialog. But the interface is so maddening that you can't stand to use it long enough to get at the good stuff.
     
  7. FeuerFrei

    FeuerFrei Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,502
    Likes Received:
    1
    :hmm:


    So .... The Wow ends now? :rolleyes:
     
    #57 FeuerFrei, May 24, 2012
    Last edited: May 24, 2012
  8. Gonad the Barbarian

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 1999
    Messages:
    10,497
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm not sure they can state it any more clearly than by the actions they've taken. Removing any way to disable Metro. Dumping you into it at every opportunity. Ugglying up the desktop by removing Aero. And now removing desktop support from their free development tools.
    http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/24/...development-tools-for-windows-8-desktop-apps/
    The writing is all over the wall. Hell, its even in their Win8 logo (it's not a window, it's a tile). MS is actively trying to kill the desktop.
     
  9. dagamer34

    dagamer34 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,592
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the point of building a major feature into the OS if people are going to disable it? Stick with Windows 7 then.
    How often are you actually using the start menu in Windows 7? It launches apps and searches for files. That's it. Oh, and please list some of those "opportunities".

    There are tons of quotes of people who thought Aero was ugly when it was first introduced. People hate change. I also see little reason for a GPU to be spending time on transparency effects when it eats battery life (1-4%). They admitted as much themselves: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/...archive/2007/05/14/aero-and-battery-life.aspx

    Professionals always paid for Visual Studio. Microsoft clearly wants hobbyists for which the Express versions were designed for, to be building Metro apps.

    Again, I still haven't seen Microsoft say "we are killing the desktop" or say "Office is only in Metro". Actions can be interpreted by whoever is speaking.
     
  10. mikeymikec

    mikeymikec Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    7,242
    Likes Received:
    2
    And Windows 2000? NT4?
     
    #60 mikeymikec, May 25, 2012
    Last edited: May 25, 2012
  11. Puddle Jumper

    Puddle Jumper Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,835
    Likes Received:
    0
    A 1-4% hit to battery life is utterly inconsequential, I'd gladly take that over an OS that looks like it's from the 80's with solid color borders on windows. If this Aero replacement looks anything like what I have seen so far it has much less contrast as well and will look absolutely awful on the crappy screens most consumers are using, it's bad enough on my IPS monitors.
     
  12. WelshBloke

    WelshBloke Lifer

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,904
    Likes Received:
    40
    Generally putting your customers into a situation where they either have to use something they don't want to or not use your product is not a great idea.
     
  13. Nothinman

    Nothinman Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which might be ok if Metro was as capable as Win32 on the desktop, but it's not even close.
     
  14. dagamer34

    dagamer34 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not use which product? Are businesses going to suddenly switch to Mac OS X or Linux?

    Everyone knows that Metro is less capable than Win32, with some of it by design because of the sandbox. You aren't going to be able to write DLLs or a partition manager or code a web server in Metro and Microsoft doesn't expect you to. But none of those apps are meant to be sold in the Windows Marketplace either.
     
  15. lifeblood

    lifeblood Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2001
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    6
    They'll keep using Win7, just like they kept using XP when Vista came out.
     
  16. lifeblood

    lifeblood Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2001
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    6
    The more I think about this the more I'm convinced their is something more going on here.

    MS needs to break into tablets, and they need to do it conviningly. So Win8 will be primarily a tablet OS. But MS is too smart to abandon the standard business desktop, their is way to much money in it still. And they learned with Vista that busnesses will not just blindly follow them because they have nowhere else to go. So, the question is, whats the plan?

    A. Win9 will be more of a combined desktop OS.
    B. Win9 will have two versions, a Metro based tablet version and a Explorer based desktop version.
    C. MS really is turning its back on the desktop.

    I don't know what it is, but I doubt its C. MS knows people don't buy 24" LCDs just to display a single Metro app, they want the flexibility of Explorer. How they are going to satisfy both types of users is what I'm want to see.
     
  17. sequoia464

    sequoia464 Senior member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2003
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't the newer pre-release scheduled to be out soon? Just wondering how close it will be to the final release.
     
  18. dagamer34

    dagamer34 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ditto. Because of the business cycle, no matter how impressive Windows 8 was to businesses, they are still rolling out Windows 7 and have no appetite to do another upgrade so quickly. However, consumers are buying iPads at record numbers and that's where Microsoft needs to focus their energy. And I'm sure Microsoft would openly admit that the Metro environment in Windows 8 is very 1.0 and needs time to grow, just like iPhone OS 1.0 was no where near ready for business consumption.

    Windows 8 is clearly targeted toward consumers. Certainly some businesses will use Windows 8 products (specifically those designed for touch like tablets and large screen presentation boards) but the real integration of the two will have to happen in a future version of Windows.

    Also, most large businesses have software license agreements with Microsoft which pays them yearly to get any version of the OS they want even back to Windows 3.1 (though not supported) so it's not as if Microsoft isn't going to make money. What they DO need to avoid is another Windows XP where a strong resistance to its successor caused Microsoft to support the OS for a total of 12.5 years after multiple times of pushing back the date. They've set a support date for January 13, 2015 for mainstream support and January 14, 2020 for extended support for Windows 7 and they want to stick to it.
     
  19. Nothinman

    Nothinman Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which is the point. They're attempting to force developers into Metro apps in their Market because they want to bolster the market and because they get a percentage of all of those sales. Also effectively leaving free apps out in the cold because eventually VS10 won't cut it any longer.
     
  20. Vic Vega

    Vic Vega Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    4,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...
     
    #70 Vic Vega, May 25, 2012
    Last edited: May 26, 2012
  21. lifeblood

    lifeblood Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2001
    Messages:
    726
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don’t know if Vista sucked, but Microsoft did handle it badly. If you remember, MS had promised a bunch of cool sounding features would be in it which, one-by-one, were dropped as they got closer to launch date. One of them was a SQL based file system which I don’t think would have been very useful or beneficial to it, but it sounded cool and people were upset when it was dropped. By the time Vista was released people already had a negative attitude toward it.

    Vista itself was going to annoy people because its desperately needed improved security was going to be a big difference. Its increased hardware requirements also annoyed a lot of folks. So many people asked me why buy an OS that required twice the RAM and CPU but didn’t do anything that the old OS couldn’t do? And although it was not MS’s or Vistas fault, many companies didn’t write Vista drivers for slightly older hardware in order to force people to buy new hardware. That greatly added to the dislike of Vista.

    And don’t forget Office 2007 came out at the same time with the much hated ribbon bar. That certainly added to the dislike although that again was not Vistas fault per se.

    My personal feeling was that it was slightly unstable, although that could have been 3rd party drivers rather than the OS itself. I used it from release until Win7 came out and I really felt "meh" about it.

    Did Vista suck? Probably not, but its release could certainly have been handled a lot better.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
     
  22. dagamer34

    dagamer34 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    2,592
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Vista was a good lesson to Microsoft though. The performance when it launched was so bad, they basically changed the entire way they developed Windows 7 such that only working and performant features were ever announced (no more PDC 2003 mock videos) and that has been replicated throughout the entire company. No pre-announcing features. No talking to the press until absolutely necessary on their terms. It's the Sinofsky way of running a tight ship.

    Oddly enough, despite being a brand new runtime and environment, no one has ever really said "Metro is slow" (they may hate it for other reasons but performance isn't one of them). For what's basically a 1.0 environment, that's actually a rare occurrence.
     
  23. VirtualLarry

    VirtualLarry Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    33,317
    Likes Received:
    24
    Wow. They are killing the dev tools? Not cool.
     
  24. mikeymikec

    mikeymikec Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    7,242
    Likes Received:
    2
    I've seen Vista perform well, but I've seen its performance suck a heck of a lot more. The situations involving the latter weren't down to "not enough RAM" or "too many pieces of software running on startup", "malware", "crap security product" or any of the other usual suspects.

    For example, one computer I built in 2009 was a Core i7-920 with 3GB RAM, beefy graphics card, decent enough hard disk, and just a clean Windows install with AHCI enabled (Vista 64) took three times as long as my ageing Athlon XP setup on XP. It was clean-install-upgraded to Win7 this year and booted up and settled down perfectly quickly (1 minute boot time with MSE installed as well). From what I've seen, Vista typically takes ages to settle down after a long boot time, regardless of the amount of clean-up I've done on it. XP and Win7 run things around Vista typically in these respects.

    If you leave a Vista machine alone for long enough after boot-up (probably 10-15 minutes), its performance is somewhat better, and obviously if you put it to sleep rather than shutting it down it resumes quicker than booting and is 'ready to go' much quicker, but why is it necessary to cut Vista this sort of slack when XP and Win7 can do things perfectly well?

    Of the machines I've seen running Vista well (what I regard as "well" - 60-90 second boot time, including settling down after boot so that say IE loads as quickly then as it would ten minutes after boot, and I'd expect IE to load in 3-6 seconds depending on the spec and machine type), I haven't been able to spot anything that makes those machines stand out. When I've recently done fresh installs on Vista machines (say after replacing a disk), the performance is pretty reasonable as opposed to what I regard to be typically Vista.

    So, please explain how Vista's performance only sucks if "you're a moron".
     
  25. Gonad the Barbarian

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 1999
    Messages:
    10,497
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's C. I think the change to their dev tools confirms it. They are attempting to close down the PC ecosystem just like Apple, just like their Xbox. Every program DLC through them, every service needing Live, etc. They see dollar signs from content control and everything else be damned. And they can't pull it off if they leave a business version still open as an alternative. I'm sure they'll change things like one app at a time limitations in Metro, but the foundation is being laid. So yes, there is certainly something more going on here.