IDC: Lack of Start Button Deflates Windows 8 Interest

Status
Not open for further replies.

antilycus

Distinguished
Jun 1, 2006
933
0
18,990
1
So dumb. If you are going to force change on consumers they will look for alternatives such as linux and mac. Some will pay the rip off prices for MAC some will take the free and open linux and some will stay. Either way yuou are forcing them to make decission whereas previously they didnt need to. Split up yoyr market...yet another great business idea on behalf of MS.
 

tokencode

Distinguished
Dec 25, 2010
847
1
19,060
39
Microsoft should have simply detected whether a touch device was present or not. If there is no touch device, default to a standard windows 7 style desktop interface. It's that simple, Microsoft should be following the Hippocratic oath, first do no harm.
 

visa

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2006
140
0
18,690
3
[citation][nom]tadej petric[/nom]Not getting 8. If I can live normaly without ever having vista than its same thing with 8. Worst windows to date[/citation]
I think Windows 8 is leaps and bounds better than Vista. I've been using it for months without issues, other than getting used to lack of a start button. I guess you don't remember all the driver and compatibility issues with Vista?

I do think it is pretty strange that they didn't even think to include an option to enable a start button though. I think most people looking in these forums can work around it without problems but it could be very difficult for the average office worker.
 
If they didn't put the Metro interface in there and introduced a desktop that just let you boot to the traditional desktop and gave you a start button, on the surface it wouldn't seem like much of an upgrade.

We'd all have even less of a reason to upgrade from 7.

I do like the idea of the integrated environments though between the phone, tablet, PC, Console, etc... But when it comes to the nitty gritty (office documents, programming, normal copy paste operations, multiple windowed environment, etc...), everything is done in the desktop.

From a purely entertainment standpoint (browsing web, streaming video, social networking, live tiles, online shopping, etc...), the Windows 8 metro interface is sufficient across platforms. Although, the non-metro browser interface for most of the entertainment functions is far more robust. I can't stand shopping on Amazon through the Metro Widget.
 

sot010174

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2004
89
0
18,630
0
I don't get Microsoft. I'm using 8 on my X202e and It's great. But why force the Windows 8 Metro or whatever if beyond me. OK, let's fix Win8:

1. Allow the user to select between Win 8 or Win 7 interface mode. Being that Metro is still accessible via an icon.

Done.

 

sot010174

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2004
89
0
18,630
0
Windows 8 Fix:

Allow the user to select between Windows 8 or Windows 7 interface mode. In win7 mode, allow the user to access metro as a program.

Done.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]tadej petric[/nom]Not getting 8. If I can live normaly without ever having vista than its same thing with 8. Worst windows to date[/citation]dude, windows 8 + startmenu fix is much better than the unfix-able performance problem Vista.

What Microsoft did wrong is not provide a bridge between the 2 diff UI. windows 8 should have both metro UI and the old UI. Back then winXP has win9x UI to bridge the gap. win Vista/win7 all has classic mode. It is rather surprise Microsoft stop this in win8.
 

ibjeepr

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2012
632
0
19,010
14
Booting directly to desktop seems like it would have been such an easy thing for MS to add. At least make it an option.

That said I have no issue with no start button. I would prefer to boot to the desktop though and use the start screen as simply the updated start "button." Putting the mouse into the corner without having to actually make sure you are on the button is actually faster for me.
 

Branden

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
598
0
19,060
39
windows 8 is great, in virtually every aspect it is the best windows yet - the list of pros is pages long.
unfortunately, the only thing on the cons list is a biggie (and a deal-breaker for many people) - the start button.
 

This makes sense. The metro interface has it's place as in the integrated environment between platforms, but I use it very little on my Win 8 laptop. The inability to arrange windows as I see fit, the inability to perform normal copy paste operations and the lack of metro app functionality (compared to standard browser counterpart functionality- like netflix or amazon) are stoppers for me.
 

TheMadFapper

Honorable
Oct 18, 2012
170
0
10,690
1
Even if they add the start button...it's still garbage. Especially if you do an upgrade from 7 rather than a clean install, it takes a seemingly random sample of your programs and files to place upon Metro and the "Apps List". I felt so disorganized even after a full night of clean up.
 

Cryio

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2010
881
0
19,160
52
I think people are retarded thinking the whole OS is simply broken, nonfunctional and incompatible with everything simply because the Start has a different interface.
 

visa

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2006
140
0
18,690
3
[citation][nom]TheMadFapper[/nom]Even if they add the start button...it's still garbage. Especially if you do an upgrade from 7 rather than a clean install, it takes a seemingly random sample of your programs and files to place upon Metro and the "Apps List". I felt so disorganized even after a full night of clean up.[/citation]
I wouldn't see a reason to update from 7 to 8 unless you're using a laptop with a touchscreen.
 

diddo

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
115
0
18,680
0
IMHO most analysts underestimated the enormous size of Windows 8 disaster.
Windows 8 user adoption rate is not only small, it is negative.

The sense of this statement is that machines does not live forever: there is an average lifespan for machines, and if the user adoption rate of the new system is lower than what is needed to replace retired machines it means your market share is reducing.

If a desktop PC average life is 5 to 10 years, 12 months/year, that means the replacement rate needs to be 1.66% to 0.84%/month

If you are the company owning the 90% of the market, like Microsoft, you need to keep up with the 90% of this replacement rate if you want to maintain the market share, say you need to get the new product to 1.5% to 0.75% of the market.

A rough approximation may be: if you are Microsoft you MUST sell to more than 1% of end users each month, or you are losing ground - that nowadays doesn't mean someone is necessarily buying a Mac (that was happened with Vista) or an Ubuntu box, but more probably people are moving to alternative markets (tablets) or moving data and programs to the cloud in the effort to need to use less PCs.

The problem with 8's user adoption is not only is smaller than Vista's one, the real problem is that it is well below the bar of doom - 1% - to point out loudly Microsoft is losing ground every day in its very stronghold.
Last months, despising the immense traction of Office launch, in fact it was below HALF of the death bar!
Even more worrying, is the fact Windows 8 aims to a wider market, so it would need to grow even faster to keep up with competitors.

Face the numbers of the disaster, Ballmer, Windows 8 is far below the death bar while being 1) actively promoted by the largest MS advertising campaign so far 2) being sold to a wider market than any of its predecessors 3) notwithstanding the costly launch of dedicated hardware and port to ARM world 4) notwithstanding 30% of your user base is on XP, good but 12 years old.

The latter part is especially worth of attention: 6.x kernel improved security and stability of NT.x kernel, but not dramatically; 7 and 8 improvements made the kernel quite a good performer, but the system is still huge and on low end hardware hardly matches XP, and on high end hardware it is more efficient, but again not in a dramatic way.
OK, XP was released in 2001, 8 in 2012, it contains 11 years of development from one of the biggest software house in the world.
Now compare what can you do on XP and 8, and compare what you can do with XP and a system 11 years older than XP, Windows 3.0.
And after that let's talk about MS' missed decade.
 

That's true, but one you have to scroll through with no branching.

 

diddo

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
115
0
18,680
0
IMHO most analysts underestimated the enormous size of Windows 8 disaster.
Windows 8 user adoption rate is not only small, it is negative.

The sense of this statement is that machines does not live forever: there is an average lifespan for machines, and if the user adoption rate of the new system is lower than what is needed to replace retired machines it means your market share is reducing.

If a desktop PC average life is 5 to 10 years, 12 months/year, that means the replacement rate needs to be 1.66% to 0.84%/month

If you are the company owning the 90% of the market, like Microsoft, you need to keep up with the 90% of this replacement rate if you want to maintain the market share, say you need to get the new product to 1.5% to 0.75% of the market.

A rough approximation may be: if you are Microsoft you MUST sell to more than 1% of end users each month, or you are losing ground - that nowadays doesn't mean someone is necessarily buying a Mac (that was happened with Vista) or an Ubuntu box, but more probably people are moving to alternative markets (tablets) or moving data and programs to the cloud in the effort to need to use less PCs.

The problem with 8's user adoption is not only is smaller than Vista's one, the real problem is that it is well below the bar of doom - 1% - to point out loudly Microsoft is losing ground every day in its very stronghold.
Last months, despising the immense traction of Office launch, in fact it was below HALF of the death bar!
Even more worrying, is the fact Windows 8 aims to a wider market, so it would need to grow even faster to keep up with competitors.

Face the numbers of the disaster, Ballmer, Windows 8 is far below the death bar while being 1) actively promoted by the largest MS advertising campaign so far 2) being sold to a wider market than any of its predecessors 3) notwithstanding the costly launch of dedicated hardware and port to ARM world 4) notwithstanding 30% of your user base is on XP, good but 12 years old.

The latter part is especially worth of attention: 6.x kernel improved security and stability of NT.x kernel, but not dramatically; 7 and 8 improvements made the kernel quite a good performer, but the system is still huge and on low end hardware hardly matches XP, and on high end hardware it is more efficient, but again not in a dramatic way.
OK, XP was released in 2001, 8 in 2012, it contains 11 years of development from one of the biggest software house in the world.
Now compare what can you do on XP and 8, and compare what you can do with XP and a system 11 years older than XP, Windows 3.0.
And after that let's talk about MS' missed decade.
 

diddo

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
115
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]Cryio[/nom]I think people are retarded thinking the whole OS is simply broken, nonfunctional and incompatible with everything simply because the Start has a different interface.[/citation]
Yes? Tell me again how calling customers retarded is going to fix lack of sales?
 

house70

Splendid
[citation][nom]Cryio[/nom]I think people are retarded thinking the whole OS is simply broken, nonfunctional and incompatible with everything simply because the Start has a different interface.[/citation]
I think it is retarded to call people retarded, opinions may differ.
 

diddo

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2010
115
0
18,680
0
IMHO most analysts underestimated the enormous size of Windows 8 disaster.
Windows 8 user adoption rate is not only small, it is negative.

The sense of this statement is that machines does not live forever: there is an average lifespan for machines, and if the user adoption rate of the new system is lower than what is needed to replace retired machines it means your market share is reducing.

If a desktop PC average life is 5 to 10 years, 12 months/year, that means the replacement rate needs to be 1.66% to 0.84%/month

If you are the company owning the 90% of the market, like Microsoft, you need to keep up with the 90% of this replacement rate if you want to maintain the market share, say you need to get the new product to 1.5% to 0.75% of the market.

A rough approximation may be: if you are Microsoft you MUST sell to more than 1% of end users each month, or you are losing ground - that nowadays doesn't mean someone is necessarily buying a Mac (that was happened with Vista) or an Ubuntu box, but more probably people are moving to alternative markets (tablets) or moving data and programs to the cloud in the effort to need to use less PCs.

The problem with 8's user adoption is not only is smaller than Vista's one, the real problem is that it is well below the bar of doom - 1% - to point out loudly Microsoft is losing ground every day in its very stronghold.
Last months, despising the immense traction of Office launch, in fact it was below HALF of the death bar!
Even more worrying, is the fact Windows 8 aims to a wider market, so it would need to grow even faster to keep up with competitors.

Face the numbers of the disaster, Ballmer, Windows 8 is far below the death bar while being 1) actively promoted by the largest MS advertising campaign so far 2) being sold to a wider market than any of its predecessors 3) notwithstanding the costly launch of dedicated hardware and port to ARM world 4) notwithstanding 30% of your user base is on XP, good but 12 years old.

The latter part is especially worth of attention: 6.x kernel improved security and stability of NT.x kernel, but not dramatically; 7 and 8 improvements made the kernel quite a good performer, but the system is still huge and on low end hardware hardly matches XP, and on high end hardware it is more efficient, but again not in a dramatic way.
OK, XP was released in 2001, 8 in 2012, it contains 11 years of development from one of the biggest software house in the world.
Now compare what can you do on XP and 8, and compare what you can do with XP and a system 11 years older than XP, Windows 3.0.
And after that let's talk about MS' missed decade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS