Windows 8 Uptake Falls Behind Windows Vista Pace

[rolli59]

one of the keys to win7 success was MS solicited what its customers wanted or needed and MS listened and catered to them. With win8 MS offered what it thinks customers wanted or needed and then make sure customers get them, take it or leave it.

Do not forget that it took over from Vista as well. Like all the reviewers said on release, Windows 7 everything that Vista should have been.
The most successful OS's come after a failure like when XP replaced Millenium which was a far more severe case than Vista.

 

[somebodyspecial]

All of the guts used to be available via the start menu. My admin tools, control panel, network etc all on the start menu.

You can add those to the Start Screen if you like. But there's a faster way to do it. Hit Win + X and a menu appears from the bottom left (same location as the start screen) which appears like a right click menu. The options are:

Programs & Features
Power Options
Event Viewer
System
Device Manager
Disk Management
Computer Management
Command Prompt
Command Prompt (Administrator)
Task Manager
Control Panel
File Explorer
Search
Run
Desktop

Somebody special, you can access any of those with 3 keypresses, while looking at the lower left of the screen (or with your eyes closed). Is that not simple enough for you?

So in your mind memorizing keyboard shortcuts is easier than a right or left click? In your mind 3 key presses is better than one click? I'm much faster with a mouse I'm afraid and with so many apps to already deal with in IT (supporting them) I really don't want to be bothered by learning keyboard shortcuts all the time. The whole point of a UI is EASE OF USE correct? As you noted in your other post, XP is still tough for some after 12 years. It would be difficult to teach keyboard shortcuts to these users I can learn them, that's not my point though. I don't get anything for the homework. I'm faster in 7/XP64. There is no reason to cause me to learn something if I gain nothing from it other than wasted time RE-learning something I already should know how to do (because you shouldn't have changed it, it gained nothing).

If You could do all these things with 1 mouse click and the OS was 30% faster or something maybe it would be worth it. But so far I see nothing gained but a UI look and I'd argue that's not a gain, just a chick wearing pink lipstick instead of red (and I prefer the red...LOL). I have no intention of ever touching my monitor, that's just abysmally slow. That will never work on a desktop.

It's simple enough...But why are you making me learn this and do more for the same thing/results? Make me do LESS to get the same info and you win. Make me do more and I ask why? What have I gained by learning a new way to do the same thing? You just wasted my time correct? (not you, I mean the OS). Am I faster learning keyboard shortcuts etc rather than a mouse click? Does the OS do something magical now (like run faster)? No. So why would I want to do that? If whatever you throw at me doesn't [in some tangible fashion], speed up my day then I can't be bothered to pay you for it or learn it. I fully understand why users look at IT with disdain when we try to pull this kind of stuff on them. 😉 They get that "WTF?" look on their faces... If the change doesn't make me faster, forget change. Change for the sake of change to sell me another OS is pointless and will always fail when tried. This should be a tablet/phone only OS and never foisted on desktop. Maybe this would fly (with fixes) 2 years from now, but we just got win7 and it was quite a change for most users since nobody went for vista. They did this so quick to catch android/ios, but they should have kept it there, not try putting it on my desktop. Tablets are not designed for content creation. It's OS environment will never (oops said never, maybe years from now) be what a full fledged desktop OS needs to be. Touch=slow, click=fast. Marrying these two will always be difficult. Best to just make them work together as coherently as possible but separate. Having close to the same browser exp would be good, similar config options/menus names, but past that they don't need to be the same. Just close enough to be semi-intuitive to use and not so different I have to read a bible to get them to work together

 

[somebodyspecial]

Wow such an aversion to change. So I guess we should just use the same things over and over again without moving forward at least in the attempt to improve usability or to provide some freshness that allows for better touch interaction. Even IBM is saying touch is where computing is going. Samsung is releasing regular touch monitors at CES. I use Windows 8 on a traditional ThinkPad laptop with no touch and I don't go into the Modern UI except to use those apps I particularly like to use since they are fresh and truly full screen. Plus they are great in dual monitor mode. I guess you are an iOS/OSX lover that espouses the great innovation in OS's that have the same UI for years and years on end.

You're not getting the point. It's not an aversion to change, it's an aversion to change that gets me nothing. If you make us FASTER and it's easier to use, YAY sign me up. This is not the case here. You're slowing us down and forcing people to learn new stuff for...Well, just because you want something new. It gains NOTHING. There is NO advancement here for the desktop. It's SLOWER to reach to your monitor than to click a mouse. You'll never win that argument.

If you think I'm going to EVER reach across my desk all day to touch my 24in (or 22in, I have dual) to get work done you're not understanding the idea that time is money. That's abysmally slow. Touch is slow. It works on a phone (it's a touch device with no mouse/keyboard) but not on a desktop.

Touch will never improve my interaction with two monitors and I hate fingerprints on my screens...LOL.

You sound as though anything new is great. You're wrong. Change for the sake of change is NOT always good. Wasting money on crap like BATTERIES when others make it cheaper is dumb. Drilling for OIL instead of buying it from others is smart and cheap. See the point? Oil towns have 3% unemployment and tons of cash (like 35B surplus in Alaska under Palin, giving out $13000+ to families of 4 each year...LOL rebates!). But these GREEN jobs go bankrupt leaving workers in unemployment lines and tax payer dollars wasted. We stopped doing what worked (obama/epa block every oil drilling permit they can on ANY fed land), and started doing what didn't all while buying what worked from others (brazil, iraq, saudi etc). These ideas are change that doesn't make sense (and costs a lot of actual CENTS...LOL).

You're calling this guy a moron for having the same opinion as 98% of the users out there (win7 was adopted 4x faster). Might want to look in the mirror before going into [as he put it] "attack dog mode". Sounds like he uses win7...Not sure how you made the jump to IOS/OSX lover...Attack the opinion not the person...I digress...If the UI works, yea, keep it the same for years UNLESS you come up with something BETTER/FASTER. Win8 is neither. It's just NEW. That's it, and arguably, quite a bit slower doing the same stuff (more clicks etc).

 

[somebodyspecial]

I know full well how to use the previous OS. Opening Windows Explorer from the Start menu is not the same as the start menu being able to browse the file system, which is what the poster I was replying to was asking for Metro to do. Windows Explorer is a separate application, opened from the launcher, which would be the start menu. In Windows 8 you can also open Windows Explorer from the launcher, which would be the Metro interface. Besides, if you're still using the mouse to open windows explorer, it's probably best that you don't comment on the usability of any version of Windows. Winkey+E. Been there since atleast Windows 2000, maybe earlier.

Metro doesn't block anyone who knows how to use a computer from accessing anything under the hood. It takes some time to setup, granted, but the reason the interface is dumb by default is because people are dumb by default. Once setup properly, Metro is a full screen start menu that is way more customizable and way more intuitive. I don't see why businesses wouldn't love this aspect of it. The OS is dumber by default, just like most employees. Metro is a godsend to any system admin who knows just how stupid users can be.

Anyway, it's pretty clear you've not actually used the OS if the only good thing you can say about is that it starts up and shuts down quickly. So go get an eval copy and use it for a month, THEN come back and tell us all how wrong we are.

Already used it...Lasted 3 weeks. Saw no gain. It cracks me up when guys like you say you didn't use it because you don't like it...LOL.

I even watched the lynda training for it (well most of it), but I don't plan on getting a cert for it. Waste of time and money as I don't believe anyone in business (with many employees) would ever deploy it. You're not going to beat me clicking a mouse vs windows shortcuts (yes I know they're there). What do you think a UI/mouse is for? I use CTRL-F in a lot of things but usually because it's faster than going to a menu (as find is different in many apps - I use Alt-PrtScn a lot also due to dual monitors among other shortcuts but it's still rare). Explorer is pinned to my taskbar also so for me it's a click away. IF the keyboard shortcut isn't faster why would I use it? You just said users are stupid (I'd say ignorant, but that shows your attitude), but espouse the glory of learning keyboard shortcuts at the same time?...ROFL. Really? If it's actually faster, I use the shortcut, but I wouldn't expect many users to learn them. Also I don't seek to learn shortcuts when I have a mouse for that. I can click things and get around in milliseconds compared to seconds constantly clicking tons of keyboard shortcuts. The mouse came along to END that crap (along with a great UI). I don't get a great UI then avoid it by treating it like I'm still at a dos prompt. The point of the UI was the use of the mouse instead of a command prompt and learning archaic commands.

Why did MS fire sinofsky? It's not intuitive 😉 Why do so many people have vids of users completely befuddled by win8 upon trying to use it? It's not intuitive. I gain nothing from taking the time (as you put it) to set it up. It's not better than what I had. That is the point of all the whining. To most who've used it, it appears to be more learning and a BILL for pretty much no reason whatsoever. If you were in IT you wouldn't want to support this OS. Employees aren't all dumb, rather they're ignorant about their OS. I'm ignorant about their jobs too, but that doesn't mean I couldn't learn it (which is what dumb implies). I don't know cars, but I'm not a mechanic. It doesn't make me dumb, just ignorant about cars (by choice). You wouldn't make it in IT calling people DUMB for not knowing YOUR job. You'd be one of the guys that give the rest of us a BAD NAME. To most of them the PC is a tool to help them get THEIR job done. Most of them don't go home and play on it for another 8hrs like I do...LOL. To me, it IS MY JOB to KNOW the PC in order to facilitate their workday. Making your OS treat me like an idiot just slows me down. Making a tech person look like a newbie or feel like fool when he sits down in front of your os after years of computing? That is dumb.

 

[somebodyspecial]

You had many through most of your post until you started retarded neo-con political crap which wasn't needed nor the same thing. And get your facts straight before re-posting right-wing crap.

A) Are you NUTZ? So what you are saying, let CHINA make everything for *US*, lets not build anything in the USA.... that's bullshit. We need jobs in the USA and to do that, we need companies making American-made stuff for Americans. So with you, its "let china make it with their slave labor".

B) About oil? Jobs, pollution, rights don't matter as long as you have your oil. Look up real facts....
(1) Oil production for the past 1~2 years is higher than it ever has been under GWBush (You know, the retard who started the Iraq war based on lies = $3Trillion debt and 4400+ dead Americans).
(2) Oil companies are the most profitable in the world.
(3) We made so much OIL - that *IT WAS / IS* being exported to other countries like CHINA.
(4) Oil is a commodity, its not local. Oil drilled here or there, doesn't effect pricing. (re-read #1 and #3) - we can double oil production, it still won't make it $1 a gallon.
(5) Oil company wants their profits, we are used to paying $3+ per gallon. Why would they want to lower the price? After all, this is capitalism at its best.
(6) Oil companies get their hand-outs in billions of tax breaks. How much did Exxon pay in taxes?
(7) Oil is NOT infinite. Its limited, we are RUNNING out of oil to drill. This is EASY to prove:

How *DO* we know that oil supplies are drying up in TWO words: OFFSHORE DRILLING

Why the hell would anyone spend about 5X time money to drill for oil in the ocean? As we already witness several times, blow-outs are difficult to cap and causes tons of damage. (Think that is free?)

Solar and Win power *IS* infinite / re-new-able. Are those HARD words to understand?! Once the wind-farm is built, it continues to work... just maintenance is required. Oil drilling requires contant searching and drilling. Coal mining requires constant mining.

When a windmill fails, it stops working until a tech replaces/repairs something. When a drill fails = fire, death and millions of gallons of oil everywhere.

Even the Saudi's are NOT THAT STUPID when it comes to oil/re-newable energy. They are building super-solar stations (its not like they have lots of farm-land) to then re-sell to Europe.

Yes Solar and Wind power is STILL new... but they don't create pollution, they are safer and will eventually become cheaper. Especially if every home had a solar/wind generator - even better.

So... stop thinking its 1950. We know more now than we did back then. There *IS NO FUTURE* in oil.

ROFL. I'm saying you can't compete with slave labor & attempting to do so will only lose you money until they stop it. It's not right wing crap if it's the truth. You're right we need jobs, so quit blocking ON SHORE drilling. Oil towns in usa don't have an employment problem, or did you miss that? Coal being shutdown right an left too (check out virginia etc they have ghost towns now). We have a LOT of years left in oil and coal to give us plenty of time to come up with renewable energy supplies. Clamping down on it now however, is killing the economy and keeping people from work. We have a long time before we run out of oil. Sorry, you're incorrect. However we can't afford to keep paying others for 1/2 of it.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
Note sure where you get your numbers, but according to the govt, we import 1/2 our oil and 60% of the oil refined in this country is from OUTSIDE the USA. We are trying to drill offshore because some prick won't give permits for ONSHORE on ANY federal land. The only reason oil is UP in production is PRIVATE land which he can't stop (or he would!). If we started drilling more the cost comes down when opec etc gets scared.

What's retarded about not wanting to pay for 50% of our oil from other sources? What's retarded about putting people to work in our OWN country drilling and fracking? It's retarded to pay other countries for stuff we already have but just aren't using. Using it would put people back to work. The pipeline would also lower cost and put 10000+ back to work but that got blocked by you know who also. We're very good today at the searching/drilling/mining/fracking. The problem is we're not doing much of it. Apparently you have no idea how many permits have been blocked by obama for ONSHORE drilling eh?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/16/picket-flashback-oil-drilling-permits-down-36-perc/
They were up a ton under bush and gas was $1.80. You not understanding the math here? Stop oil permits, gas goes to $4. Give them out freely it costs $2 for bush's terms. He leaves office boom $4...LOL. Not quite sure why you can't get that. Your numbers don't make sense, nor your statements.
We are running out of oil to drill because he keeps blocking off land. Not because the oil isn't there:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578040873921142716.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
11.5million acres just BLOCKED in August...Do the math. Tons of oil, he just won't let us touch it.
""the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades." This decision, they add, "will cause serious harm to the economy and energy security of the United States, as well as to the state of Alaska." Mr. Begich is a Democrat. "

ROFL...A democrat calling Obama out...Is he a Neocon too? The entire Alaskan delegation was against this! You're either misinformed or misrepresenting the facts my friend. Same article:
"The problem isn't that Alaska is running out of oil but that federal rules are preventing the state from developing those resources. No matter what Mr. Obama says now, in a second term his great Alaska energy shutout will continue."
So not running out then eh? That's happening all over the USA. This is why gas has been $4.

Not quite sure how you got to war/anti bush stuff and why you went into our debt (not a good argument), but Obama has spent twice (6-7Trillion now) that and got more killed. Not defending the syrians (arming rebels)=30000 dead while we essentially watched. Obama got another 2000 US killed in afghanistan + the number is higher in Iraq now too, so him and bush are about equal on US dead. I didn't like Bush's spending habits, but I hate Obama's 4x as much (just like his 4x bush's spending...LOL). We didn't go to war for oil as you seem to suggest, and haven't collected a DROP free since iraq. Also note it only took obama 3yrs to double Bush's 8yrs with wars/katrina etc. In the next 4 he'll spend more than all other presidents combined. WOW. Welfare people exploding etc. Jobless % terrible for 4 years, 2 credit downgrades (1st time in US history). It's only getting worse. Canada has more millionaires than USA now...ROFL. WTF? We don't have the money to test tons of new energy sources now, but we have plenty of time to do that WHEN WE CAN AFFORD IT. Right now we need what works and what we KNOW. Exxon paid about as much as Apple I guess...LOL. Not sure what tax breaks have to do with what I said as I wasn't defending tax breaks (and don't think they need them, but whatever). However, if we updated refineries (or heck built some NEW ones), and got our oil HERE it would drop to a buck. No new refineries built since 1976! :
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/07/29/no-new-oil-refineries-since-the-1970s-but-capacity-has-grown
Also we don't pay for the drilling, private companies do. They don't drill empty holes on purpose and not on our dime. Your renewable energy crap though, IS ON MY DIME! And it's failing right and left costing us BILLIONS. We are talking about two different things here. The 90Billion our president has spent on this crap dwarfs the tax breaks you mention and brought NOTHING but a tax bill to americans. Fisker didn't make one car in America before closing their plant (their A123 batteries filed bankruptcy recently too)...So that crap doesn't produce jobs either. Private industry needs to pay for this stuff (or not if you can't make money on it), not YOU OR ME. I'm against my money paying for it (basically vegas gambling with my taxes), not American companies trying to do it on their dime. You misunderstand my point of view. Nothing is infinite if you have to pay for upkeep. Solar costs so much I wouldn't make a dime putting it on my roof for 15yrs. It's not economical unless you're a business (who may be around long enough to recoup the costs of going green). But go ahead and put one on your roof

Environment? Don't those windmills kill birds?...LOL. I couldn't care less about animals etc if it means we go broke saving one. America first, animals/environment second. I'll wipe my a$$ with a spotted owl if it puts people back to work thanks 😉 FYI, George Bush has 2 degrees. One from Yale (BA in history), the other from Harvard (Master's in business - the only president with one AFAIK). I'd venture to guess he's brighter than you 😉 Despite his lack of speaking prowess. Might want to look up a person's history or education before you dis them, even though I didn't mention bush (or did I?). You can't get those two degrees being retarded. Like Bush, you should know your country's history 😉 Either way, I was speaking for the country's interests not GWB's. The comparison was made between MS & Obama because it was so easy.

My bad, Exxon actually a higher tax rate by far, almost double in fact than apple:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps-pay-megataxes/
42.9% of their profits went to taxes. Which BTW was THE HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY. WOW. Apple came it at #9 with 24%....Sorry, you're wrong again. Quit drinking the cool-aid. The top 3 oil companies paid more tax than any other companies in the country 😉 Those companies (& rich people) who make money HIRE people like us because they need us. If they didn't make money, they wouldn't hire correct? We done here?

 

[Guest]

Windws 8 is a complete and utter disgrace and makes Vista look like the new XP.
I despise the metro layout, and after 5 months of using Windows 8 am ready to reinstall Windows 7..

Bring on Linux based OS capable of doing everything windows can. I would switch in a heart beat!!!