PC industry expected to experience decline for the first time in over ten years.
PC Industry Concerned Over Lukewarm Windows 8 Interest : Read more
PC Industry Concerned Over Lukewarm Windows 8 Interest : Read more
PC Industry Concerned Over Lukewarm Windows 8 Interest
- Thread starter zakislam
- Start date
- Status
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,265
- 108,890
[citation][nom]jojesa[/nom]Microsoft should have listened to costumers as they did with Windows 7.[/citation]
When you hire a costumer (tailor), the tailor is usually the one doing the listening.
In principle, Microsoft would be better off listening to cUstOmers than cOstUmers... but those who have the power and make the rules are too busy swapping their tailors' business cards for that.
When you hire a costumer (tailor), the tailor is usually the one doing the listening.
In principle, Microsoft would be better off listening to cUstOmers than cOstUmers... but those who have the power and make the rules are too busy swapping their tailors' business cards for that.
damianrobertjones
Distinguished
- Aug 14, 2010
- 587
- 1
- 18,995
[citation][nom]jojesa[/nom]Microsoft should have listened to costumers as they did with Windows 7. They forgot mighty fast.[/citation]
How do you know that they didn't? As far as I can tell the people that have actually 'used' the software to do work and carry on doing work like the product. It's hardly a massive difference once you hit hte dektop.
P.s. Maybe the oems should make really good kit for once! Just a thought there
How do you know that they didn't? As far as I can tell the people that have actually 'used' the software to do work and carry on doing work like the product. It's hardly a massive difference once you hit hte dektop.
P.s. Maybe the oems should make really good kit for once! Just a thought there
halcyon
Splendid
- Dec 4, 2004
- 5,566
- 0
- 25,810
Windows8 represents the first time that I can recall since Windows 3.0 that I've had so little interest. Windows Millennium generated more wow for me and a lot of us recall just how great it was (not). I also think tablets and smartphones are actually stealing a lot of the thunder for folks that aren't overly into gaming.
It doesn't matter how much Microsoft spends in advertising I'm still not buying Win8. I think the $1.5 billion would be better off spent giving people free copies of Win8 just so they can break the disk into little pieces, and throw them in the arrogant faces of Microsoft's CEO's.
esrever
Splendid
- Dec 27, 2011
- 5,391
- 0
- 26,160
[citation][nom]jojesa[/nom]Microsoft should have listened to costumers as they did with Windows 7. They forgot mighty fast.[/citation]
The customer really just want the same thing they had since they don't want change. People just like to bitch at companies for innovating and if they don't they bitch the same product gets released over and over.
There was nothing wrong with vista and its pretty much exactly like 7 yet people say 7 is great while vista is crap, the simple reason being people don't like to change. By the time 7 came out, people had enough time to appreciate something "new" when really it was just the same thing dressed slightly different.
The customer really just want the same thing they had since they don't want change. People just like to bitch at companies for innovating and if they don't they bitch the same product gets released over and over.
There was nothing wrong with vista and its pretty much exactly like 7 yet people say 7 is great while vista is crap, the simple reason being people don't like to change. By the time 7 came out, people had enough time to appreciate something "new" when really it was just the same thing dressed slightly different.
esrever
Splendid
- Dec 27, 2011
- 5,391
- 0
- 26,160
[citation][nom]shafe88[/nom]It doesn't matter how much Microsoft spends in advertising I'm still not buying Win8. I think the $1.5 billion would be better off spent giving people free copies of Win8 just so they can break the disk into little pieces, and throw them in the arrogant faces of Microsoft's CEO's.[/citation]
Nobody is forcing you to buy windows 8. Go use w/e OS you want.
Nobody is forcing you to buy windows 8. Go use w/e OS you want.
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,605
- 599
- 59,140
[citation][nom]damianrobertjones[/nom]How do you know that they didn't? As far as I can tell the people that have actually 'used' the software to do work and carry on doing work like the product. It's hardly a massive difference once you hit hte dektop.P.s. Maybe the oems should make really good kit for once! Just a thought there[/citation]
Change is one thing. You can do it slowly. Like 32bit to 64bit. 64bit XP was horrible due to lack of driver support but now it very uncommon to have 32bit 7. Or the change from FAT32 to NTFS. It took time, XP supported both at first and with SP3 was mainly NTFS.
What I don't like about 8 is the lack of the start menu, they can have Metro but give the choice, or the fact that you cannot bypass Metro to go straight to the desktop.
Iut feels as if 8 is more geasred towards tablets/touch interfaces with desktops being an afterthought.
[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]The customer really just want the same thing they had since they don't want change. People just like to bitch at companies for innovating and if they don't they bitch the same product gets released over and over. There was nothing wrong with vista and its pretty much exactly like 7 yet people say 7 is great while vista is crap, the simple reason being people don't like to change. By the time 7 came out, people had enough time to appreciate something "new" when really it was just the same thing dressed slightly different.[/citation]
Vista is to 7 as ME is to XP. Both the same in essence as ME was tthe doorway to XP and Vista to 7. Vista and ME share the same "hate" although both can be good OSes. But 7 is a much more optimized version of Vista. Even with the same hardware, Vista would be slower in some respects than 7 due to that.
Still 8 doesn't feel good. 7 felt good. Vista felt fine. But 8 feels like Microsoft is giving up on desktop PCs when thats still their major consumer base.
Change is one thing. You can do it slowly. Like 32bit to 64bit. 64bit XP was horrible due to lack of driver support but now it very uncommon to have 32bit 7. Or the change from FAT32 to NTFS. It took time, XP supported both at first and with SP3 was mainly NTFS.
What I don't like about 8 is the lack of the start menu, they can have Metro but give the choice, or the fact that you cannot bypass Metro to go straight to the desktop.
Iut feels as if 8 is more geasred towards tablets/touch interfaces with desktops being an afterthought.
[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]The customer really just want the same thing they had since they don't want change. People just like to bitch at companies for innovating and if they don't they bitch the same product gets released over and over. There was nothing wrong with vista and its pretty much exactly like 7 yet people say 7 is great while vista is crap, the simple reason being people don't like to change. By the time 7 came out, people had enough time to appreciate something "new" when really it was just the same thing dressed slightly different.[/citation]
Vista is to 7 as ME is to XP. Both the same in essence as ME was tthe doorway to XP and Vista to 7. Vista and ME share the same "hate" although both can be good OSes. But 7 is a much more optimized version of Vista. Even with the same hardware, Vista would be slower in some respects than 7 due to that.
Still 8 doesn't feel good. 7 felt good. Vista felt fine. But 8 feels like Microsoft is giving up on desktop PCs when thats still their major consumer base.
esrever
Splendid
- Dec 27, 2011
- 5,391
- 0
- 26,160
[citation][nom]jimmysmitty[/nom]Vista is to 7 as ME is to XP. Both the same in essence as ME was tthe doorway to XP and Vista to 7. Vista and ME share the same "hate" although both can be good OSes. But 7 is a much more optimized version of Vista. Even with the same hardware, Vista would be slower in some respects than 7 due to that.Still 8 doesn't feel good. 7 felt good. Vista felt fine. But 8 feels like Microsoft is giving up on desktop PCs when thats still their major consumer base.[/citation]Why does it matter if Microsoft makes a mobilecentric OS? I wouldn't be using it, and most people who are complaining aren't forced to use it either. I don't see what the problem is. I have new had the need to get to latest OS. Most professional software won't be moving on from window 7 or even XP. I don't get what people even want from windows 8 beside the fact that they hate all the new features, take those out then you are left with windows 7 which people should be perfectly happy using if they didn't like windows 8.
Why hate something that in no way affects you? I used the beta for a while and it was fine, everything felt the same once I got used to it. Not like I would pay to upgrade but why all the hate on it?
Why hate something that in no way affects you? I used the beta for a while and it was fine, everything felt the same once I got used to it. Not like I would pay to upgrade but why all the hate on it?
ohim
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2009
- 1,195
- 0
- 19,360
If MS would have listened to "customers" few negatives on a website doesn`t mean the majority of "customers" we would still be stuck with windows 98! There was the same hate twards XP back then as it is for Win8 now, everybody was bitching about how the interface was slowing down the "customers" crappy hardware (oh wait the same happened later on with vista). The "customers" should shut the fuck up since Windows 8 is quite very fast OS , just because you don`t like the new Start (oh look again something graphical) you`re ready to trash the whole improvements of the new OS. Better go do some brain check.
techcurious
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2009
- 228
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]There was nothing wrong with vista and its pretty much exactly like 7 yet people say 7 is great while vista is crap, the simple reason being people don't like to change. By the time 7 came out, people had enough time to appreciate something "new" when really it was just the same thing dressed slightly different.[/citation]
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! Vista was extremely buggy and unstable when it came out, had poor driver support for anything but the most common hardware, and was much slower than XP.
When windows 7 came out, it supported most hardware natively, even if it was to at least offer basic functioning of that hardware until newer drivers were downloaded from windows update. It was extremely faster than Vista and even faster than XP when using new hardware! (And, for any wise asses out there, I do mean compared to running XP on the same new hardware!) And on top of all that, Windows 7 was Rock Solid Stable from day one! Vista achieved stability after the first service pack, but it still remains slower than XP and Windows 7.
All these reasons is why I only tried Vista and quickly returned to XP (and then only got to use Vista on client computers) but I didn't hesitate to switch over to Windows 7 as soon as it hit RTM and have never looked back! Vista was always frustrating with driver issues and bluescreens, Windows 7 was a dream to setup, configure and to use!
These are the real reasons so many people hated Vista and so many loved Windows 7. (Most of the people who don't hate Vista are people who didn't get to use it until it was already on it's first service pack a year later).
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! Vista was extremely buggy and unstable when it came out, had poor driver support for anything but the most common hardware, and was much slower than XP.
When windows 7 came out, it supported most hardware natively, even if it was to at least offer basic functioning of that hardware until newer drivers were downloaded from windows update. It was extremely faster than Vista and even faster than XP when using new hardware! (And, for any wise asses out there, I do mean compared to running XP on the same new hardware!) And on top of all that, Windows 7 was Rock Solid Stable from day one! Vista achieved stability after the first service pack, but it still remains slower than XP and Windows 7.
All these reasons is why I only tried Vista and quickly returned to XP (and then only got to use Vista on client computers) but I didn't hesitate to switch over to Windows 7 as soon as it hit RTM and have never looked back! Vista was always frustrating with driver issues and bluescreens, Windows 7 was a dream to setup, configure and to use!
These are the real reasons so many people hated Vista and so many loved Windows 7. (Most of the people who don't hate Vista are people who didn't get to use it until it was already on it's first service pack a year later).
[citation][nom]bllue[/nom]Marketing better be good. I guess they must've gotten positive reviews from focus groups to keep the Modern UI despite all the criticism it's had[/citation] They should of given every one in the focus groups desktops and notebooks instead of tablets and phones than lets see how positive the reviews are from the focus group..
[citation][nom]shafe88[/nom]They should of given every one in the focus groups desktops and notebooks instead of tablets and phones than lets see how positive the reviews are from the focus group..[/citation]
Agreed that Vista wasn't great. Windows Vista was basically one big Beta for Windows 7 which turned out for the better.
Agreed that Vista wasn't great. Windows Vista was basically one big Beta for Windows 7 which turned out for the better.
esrever
Splendid
- Dec 27, 2011
- 5,391
- 0
- 26,160
[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! Vista was extremely buggy and unstable when it came out, had poor driver support for anything but the most common hardware, and was much slower than XP.When windows 7 came out, it supported most hardware natively, even if it was to at least offer basic functioning of that hardware until newer drivers were downloaded from windows update. It was extremely faster than Vista and even faster than XP when using new hardware! (And, for any wise asses out there, I do mean compared to running XP on the same new hardware!) And on top of all that, Windows 7 was Rock Solid Stable from day one! Vista achieved stability after the first service pack, but it still remains slower than XP and Windows 7.All these reasons is why I only tried Vista and quickly returned to XP (and then only get to use Vista on client computers) but I didn't hesitate to switch over to Windows 7 as soon as it hit RTM and have never looked back! Vista was always frustrating with driver issues and bluescreens, Windows 7 was a dream to setup, configure and to use!These are the real reasons so many people hated Vista and so many loved Windows 7. (Most of the people who don't hate Vista are people who didn't get to use it until it was already on it's first service pack a year later).[/citation]
Vista's driver support was a bit lacking at the beginning but it ran perfectly fine as long as you didn't have a 5 year old computer after SP1. It ran much faster than XP in just about anything if you had decently enough hardware. 4 gb of ram was all you need for vista to feel perfectly smooth and it had much better hardware acceleration for multicore threading and disk caching. Everything feels much smoother than on XP so long as you are not hitting the ram wall.
I never did have a blue screen with vista using it for 3 years, on xp I had multiple blue screens due to simple memory errors from sleep mode. Switching to 7 I didn't feel it was any different than vista, the only real noticeable difference was the ram use was lower when you had nothing loaded but it didn't ever matter to me, unused ram is wasted ram.
Vista's driver support was a bit lacking at the beginning but it ran perfectly fine as long as you didn't have a 5 year old computer after SP1. It ran much faster than XP in just about anything if you had decently enough hardware. 4 gb of ram was all you need for vista to feel perfectly smooth and it had much better hardware acceleration for multicore threading and disk caching. Everything feels much smoother than on XP so long as you are not hitting the ram wall.
I never did have a blue screen with vista using it for 3 years, on xp I had multiple blue screens due to simple memory errors from sleep mode. Switching to 7 I didn't feel it was any different than vista, the only real noticeable difference was the ram use was lower when you had nothing loaded but it didn't ever matter to me, unused ram is wasted ram.
they don't get it. we need service pack 2 for win 7. that's it (plus that'd get them way more money than developing a trashy os nobody would buy)
[citation][nom]techcurious[/nom]You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! Vista was extremely buggy and unstable when it came out, had poor driver support for anything but the most common hardware, and was much slower than XP.When windows 7 came out, it supported most hardware natively, even if it was to at least offer basic functioning of that hardware until newer drivers were downloaded from windows update. It was extremely faster than Vista and even faster than XP when using new hardware! (And, for any wise asses out there, I do mean compared to running XP on the same new hardware!) And on top of all that, Windows 7 was Rock Solid Stable from day one! Vista achieved stability after the first service pack, but it still remains slower than XP and Windows 7.All these reasons is why I only tried Vista and quickly returned to XP (and then only got to use Vista on client computers) but I didn't hesitate to switch over to Windows 7 as soon as it hit RTM and have never looked back! Vista was always frustrating with driver issues and bluescreens, Windows 7 was a dream to setup, configure and to use!These are the real reasons so many people hated Vista and so many loved Windows 7. (Most of the people who don't hate Vista are people who didn't get to use it until it was already on it's first service pack a year later).[/citation]
WindowsXP was actually WORSE than Vista, for stability, when it launched....but it's been patched to the point that it's become the most stable Windows release still in use. MS ignored a lot of the bug reports that were filed throughout the Whistler beta.
I never had an issue with Vista and I upgraded to it on release day....then ran it right up until Win7 launched.
WindowsXP was actually WORSE than Vista, for stability, when it launched....but it's been patched to the point that it's become the most stable Windows release still in use. MS ignored a lot of the bug reports that were filed throughout the Whistler beta.
I never had an issue with Vista and I upgraded to it on release day....then ran it right up until Win7 launched.
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]WindowsXP was actually WORSE than Vista, for stability, when it launched....but it's been patched to the point that it's become the most stable Windows release still in use. MS ignored a lot of the bug reports that were filed throughout the Whistler beta.I never had an issue with Vista and I upgraded to it on release day....then ran it right up until Win7 launched.[/citation]
I'm going to have to agree with that.
Fire up a vanilla Windows xp, Vista suddenly seems much more stable...
I'm going to have to agree with that.
Fire up a vanilla Windows xp, Vista suddenly seems much more stable...
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question How to correctly identify and oragnize PSU cables with their respective PSUs
- Started by BlackOrangutan
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Question How to stop Microsoft Store Apps zombie auto updates?- Started by Cellie
- Replies: 0
-
-
Question Window 10 Keeps sending me back to download screen
- Started by fern213
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram