Will Windows 8 go the way of Windows ME and Windows Vista?

discount81

It seems the majority skips a version of Windows.

Win 98 was popular, Windows ME was a failure (although I personally liked it better than 9

XP was obviously massive, Vista was a let down.

Windows 7 has become widely accepted, and I get the feeling that Windows 8 won't be a hit with consumers..


ME and Vista were both thought to be rather buggy operating systems, the jury is still out on windows 8, it may not be buggy but I don't think a lot of people like the interface.

Personally I usually adopt the latest, I will probably keep Windows 7 on my workstation for a while yet, but I am seriously considering a Microsoft Surface tablet with Windows 8.

sratakhin

I never understood why Windows ME is considered a failure. I used it for almost three years without ever having to reinstall it. Kind of a record for a Win 9x system. Vista, on the other hand... Don't get me started

tpatt100

I never ran into problems with Vista, the main problem for me was vendors were slow on drivers. XP wasn't a big hit gaming side until the first service pack. I remember the boutique gaming PC companies like Falcon Northwest were advertising Windows 98 SE for a bit after XP came out. XP became a standard a few years after release.

For example:

Windows XP Slow To Take Hold

On the first anniversary of Windows XP's release, Microsoft (NSDQ:MSFT) has little to celebrate.

Less than 10 percent of Microsoft's installed base has upgraded to Windows XP since its release last October. That matches a 2001 Gartner prediction that nearly 75 percent of all corporate PCs would still be running Windows 95, 98 or NT Workstation by the end of 2002.


The adoption rate for the installed base of 250 million Windows users is "pretty small," said Rogers Weed, vice president of Windows client product management at Microsoft. "We're trying to kick-start some momentum."


One solution provider said Windows XP hasn't had any impact on his sales over the past year. "I've not had a single client that wanted to upgrade from any previous version to XP, especially from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. There's just so little difference," said Jeffrey Sherman, president of Warever Computing, a Los Angeles-based solution provider specializing in networks.


At the Gartner Symposium/ITxpo 2002, held last week in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., Microsoft committed $1 million to underwrite corporate studies to prove the return on investment with Windows XP.

Users cling to old Microsoft operating systems - CNET News

Even though Microsoft said this week that it will stop distributing Windows 98 at the end of this month, a new study shows that a substantial number of businesses, both large and small, are still using it.The study, released this week by technology consultant AssetMetrix, found that more than 80 percent of companies still have some machines using Windows 95 or Windows 98. Of those companies still using the older operating systems, an average of 39 percent of desktops were running either Windows 95 or Windows 98.
"We found a significant occurrence of Windows 9x," said Steve O'Halloran, managing director for the research arm of AssetMetrix. The study looked at 372,129 PCs from 670 companies ranging in size from 10 to 49,000 employees.
The size of the business did not seem to dictate how prevalent the older operating systems were, with larger companies as likely as smaller ones to have a high prevalence of older operating systems. In total, Windows 95 made up 14.7 percent of operating systems, and Windows 98 made up 12.5 percent. Windows 2000 was the most common OS, running on slightly more than half of machines, while its predecessor, Windows NT4, was still used on 13.3 percent of desktops.
Windows XP, the most current version of Windows, was found on just 6.6 percent of the machines.
Consumers are also still widely using Windows 98. Google reported that 29 percent of searches done in September came from machines running Windows 98, as compared with 38 percent from Windows XP-based PCs and 20 percent from Windows 2000 machines.

I got Vista with a new PC, I think I heard more complaining but nothing specific. Though I only use Windows to launch programs I do little with the OS itself.

I loaded Windows 8 on my laptop and well, it was not natural for me. Needed a tutorial to be honest. My biggest issue with it was I got so used to the Windows 7 taskbar, I wish Microsoft expanded on the taskbar.

The Dell I bought was an epic piece of garbage though. Had thermal issues that were well known but looking back I know why the price dropped so much after it hit clearance as a 2011 model.

I bought a Macbook Pro this weekend. Going to use that as my personal OS and use Windows 7 just for gaming on my desktop.

varelg

I thought this was a discussion on the chances of win 8 survival in general... The impression is that MS created win8 to win the enterprise tablet adoption, kinda stand up to BYOD trend and less on winning the home consumer.
Personally, count me out of win8, not a big fan of sudoku- like interface, no start button, no taskbar=no go.

ptilsen

Tpatt, the big difference is that XP went on to dominate the vast majority of the market a year later. ME and Vista never gained significant market share -- XP still has greater share than Vista.

I don't think Windows 8 will be the failures Vista was. Vista wasn't that bad if you got it on a system with good drivers, but 7 was a substantial improvement. ME was a complete failure, with all of the negative aspects of 9x combined with features that it wasn't ready for. I think business will skip 8 just as they did Vista, consumers will complain for a year or so like they did with XP, but it will eventually gain some serious market share due to tablets and tablet/laptop hybrids. I think we'll see some major complaints about 8 get fixed in 9, or whatever they decide to call it (hopefully 9).

I don't think we'll see the waiting and the backlash in the consumer market that Vista had. We will still see declining PCs sales, but it will be due to competing tablets and Macs more so than Windows 8, regardless of whether people love or hate Windows 8.

tpatt100

If Microsoft had been firm on killing support for XP way back when they originally said they would then Vista would have gotten larger market share due to force based on security patches alone. XP was supposed to be the beginning of the subscription OS model and 8 with it's internet based framework might finally achieve that. Seems like every tile in Windows 8 required an internet connection

ptilsen

If Microsoft had been firm on ending XP support, we might have seriously seen market shift to Mac and Linux. Lots of companies have delayed 7 implementation to the bitter end, and almost no one went to Vista at the large org level. Even SMBs skipped Vista.

You have to consider too, that if not for AutoCAD and the like, Windows client is not needed. XenApp/RDSH/Terminal Services might have been used alongside Linux clients if business had been forced to switch.

Vista was that disliked.

ally_uk

For me Metro on a Desktop or Server is horrendous, I can see it working quite nicely on a tablet but anything else for me it's a pain. I am Running Windows 8 have added a start menu and have bypassed Metro so the machine boots straight to a desktop. Combined with a SSD Boot up times are very fast , What is there not to like essentially it's a faster more secure version of Windows 7 and without the Metro crap getting in the way it's pretty damm good

powerfool

Windows ME (AKA Windows 98 3rd Edition): I ran it for three hours before I dumped it and installed Windows 2000.... never ran it again.

Windows XP: I couldn't stand it and did not run it at all at work environments I was in control of until after SP1, and I wasn't happy with it until SP2, when Windows Firewall became useful.

Vista: I had no issues with Vista... it really isn't very different from Windows 7...

Windows 8: Again, it isn't very different from Windows 7. If you look at Windows Phone 7, it is still essentially the same OS as Windows Mobile 5/6/6.5 (Which is really just Windows CE) with the Metro UI on top of it. Windows 8 is the same thing brought to the flagship OS. I think Windows 8 has a huge opportunity that many folks aren't considering. The Metro UI is really for a touchscreen system, like tablets. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) is a big buzz now and the Federal government has released a toolkit for agencies to use in developing their BYOD policies. BYOD brings up TONS of security issues and it tramples on decades of movement within IT to standardize. If folks are going to bring their own tablets, how are companies supposed to support their business applications in a Walled Garden environment on multiple operating systems (iOS, Android, Windows 8... or 7, maybe Blackberry)? Virtual desktop. So, which virtual desktop, the enterprise still manages your standardized corporate environment and you access it from your own tablet. Well, Windows 7 isn't very tablet friendly... but Windows 8 is. So, I see Windows 8 picking up traction in VDI if BYOD gets off the ground.

Also, there are plenty of folks out there that aren't tech savvy that aren't that interested in Android. My wife has a Samsung Galaxy SII that she has been using for quite a while now and I figured she had learned to love it, so maybe she would like an Android tablet... I bought her an ASUS Transformer with the keyboard dock... really nice setup. She wants to load Windows apps on it... she wants Microsoft Office. She wants a regular laptop... She has had the thing since the beginning of January (a late Christmas gift) and she is now thinking that she will give it to our eldest daughter and get an ultrabook, or something. Personally, I think the thing is cool... but I understand its utility, and I have three laptops (personal, work, work-client) that I deal with... I don't need another one. I love that it essentially draws little to no power while sleeping and waking it up is just pressing the button and it is instantly there. I see Windows 8 gaining a respectable share of the tablet market, at minimum.

Honestly, I don't like iOS, at all. I don't see the appeal of Apple devices. I cannot stand the Apple Store. Seriously, they try to make it look busy in there by packing it with "geniuses" and then there is no room for customers... There are plenty of fanboys out there, so Apple is going to do just fine. I hoped that Mac OS X was going to change desktops, but it didn't... I used to despise MS... but then it grew on me. Windows may lose its sheer dominance when tablet computing matures, but they will still be a player. Maybe the dumb justices will see that the anti-trust stuff was just stupid... true monopolies only exist with the assistance of the government, Microsoft had a monopoly because they offered something that people wanted and that can change (and it is changing)... when that happens, the market fixes it. Unless Microsoft really gets it act together, its monopoly on end-user devices will be gone. Maybe that is a Good Thing (TM).

tpatt100

The Apple Store has the highest profit per square foot In retail in America. Plenty of companies are adopting the layout/style because it is profitable. 17 times more profitable, companies cant ignore that.

http://mashable.com/2012/08/15/apple-stores-infographic/

Best Buy was slow to adapt and is going with the small Apple like stores. Samsung and Microsoft stores are going with this approach as well.

It was the "less choices more customer support" that is a big part of it. You went shopping for a phone or laptop and had several dozen choices and 90 percent of them were similar so customers spent more time looking and often ended up not buying something.

I bought my Macbook at Best Buy and it took me almost an hour to buy it. Only reason I went there was it was on sale for 100 off. They pretty much make it obvious you are better off buying it online and picking it up in store.

DevilWAH

First,

Why are we discussing Apple and Android in a thread about windows 8??

As for windows 8, I don't personal think it will see the success that XP, 2000 or windows 7 has. Its a new product and much like Vista needs so ironing done to it. What I do think is that the next version will possible do very well, what is easy to see and was the same for vista is that they introduce a lot of new ideas some of which work and others people are questioning. Its like a market study see what people think and develop on it. Its new territory for windows the table market and this is clearly a signifient shift in direction, its not going to be perfect of the bat, but they have shown they learn and improve the second time round.

jmritenour

Sorry, I'm not running a tablet OS on my laptop/desktop. Until MS gives us the ability to switch back to a classic desktop, or there's a killer app for it, I'm avoiding Windows 8. And core only installs for 2012.

higherho

I thought Windows 8 Pro can switch between classic Desktop (windows 7 ish) view to Windows 8 Tablet view?

jmritenour

You can bring up a Windows desktop at any time - but there's still no start menu, and the desktop itself is just a Metro app - you're still stuck with Metro as your shell.

Also, there are hacks like ally alluded to that bring back the Start menu & boot straight to the desktop, but MS ends up killing them off via Windows update sooner or later. At least, they have with all the preview & beta builds. I want official functionality from them that lets me change to it at will.

tpatt100

I thought that Metro was going to be like a Windows Media Center interface. They should have released Surface Win 8 burn cash to speed u adoption then introduce Metro to the desktop

SteveLord

I don't think even Vista could compare to ME. But I think 8 will be like Vista.

Cpl.Klinger

I've been using 8 for the past week (RTM Pro, full version, DreamSpark for the win!). I've used everything from 95-current, and I love it. It's different no doubt, and it may not be the ideal for some people. But I tend to be on the power user end of things you'll take my copy when you pry it from my cold dead hands. Native ISO mounting, integrated virus scanning, faster file transfers between disks/folders (talking about HUGE file transfers, >1GB), stupid fast installs. Boots from cold to desktop in under 30 seconds, including time to click on the desktop from the start menu. A Task Manager that most people could actually comprehend! It has it's good points/bad points, but I'm hooked.

paulgswanson

I definitly think it will head the directions of ME and Vista not so much in terms of bugs and drivers, just in terms of install base and acceptance on the users ends. From my limited time with '8'. Its not buggy, just awkward.

Besides its waaaaaay to soon for a sequel to 7. They (IMHO) should have waited another 3 years at least. 7 is a major hit and they should play to that strength and continue to improve on various features.

SteveLord

Hmmm...I thought because of legal reasons Microsoft was not allowed to include MSE in their future products. Oh well. MSE rocks and I still make money on the side cleaning up computers which includes relieving people of junk like Norton, AVG and whatever else.

DevilWAH

paulgswanson wrote: »

Besides its waaaaaay to soon for a sequel to 7. They (IMHO) should have waited another 3 years at least. 7 is a major hit and they should play to that strength and continue to improve on various features.

I have a feeling they are aiming windows 8 at the tables and will continue supporting 7 for desktop and business. I can see the next version bringing the two together as tables and touch screens develop and become more main stream to business and home users. So Rather than jumping the gun I actuly think they are being cleaver. testing the touch market while they have a popular product in windows 7 to support the development.

SteveLord

They tested "touch" with their Windows phones already. Which have all been flops in terms of sales year after year. And just like with the smartphone market, iOS and Android are light years ahead of Windows. Today's modern user will not accept Windows in tablet form either unless there is something substantial offered along with it.

RobertKaucher

paulgswanson wrote: »

Besides its waaaaaay to soon for a sequel to 7. They (IMHO) should have waited another 3 years at least. 7 is a major hit and they should play to that strength and continue to improve on various features.

3 to 4 years has been the cycle since before the days of 3.11. Windows 7 released on 22 July 2009. Windows 8 will be hitting general availability just a little earlier than is typical of a major OS release and it's obvious that the reason for this is so that MS does not fall behind in the tablet market.

Windows 8 is clearly building on the stability of Windows 7 and with the new architecture of WinRT it's pretty clear MS is trying to move to a software white-listing system for their consumer market and pushing enterprise line-of-business development to the HTML5/JavaScript scene. You cannot make that kind of move without a serious and direct break with the past. This is needed if we really want to see a serious increase in security and stability in the Windows OS over Windows 7.

I have no idea why technical people are whining about the loss of the start menu. I have a 20 some inch monitor with a taskbar that is only half used and has all (12) of my primary applications pinned. I use keyboard short cuts out the wazoo and hardly ever even open the start menu any more. For me it's almost always been Windows Key + R and the task bar. Initially I was annoyed with the loss of the start menu but once I really thought about it, I realized I hardly ever use it.

it_consultant

I have been running RTM Windows 8 on my home laptop and I just got good with it. There was a learning curve involved, but I have to say I like it. I like its native integration with Facebook, Flickr, etc and I actually try to stay in the tile interface as much as possible. I even use the native mail app, which is saying a lot because I have access to outlook.

I have two tips for people that shake their world when they complain about Windows 8:

1. Start typing anywhere (in the tiles interface)
2. Windows + C

I told my wife "just start typing" when she was complaining about trying to find something in the metro UI, she hasn't complained about it since. Microsoft must change their UI in order to stay relevant. Whether metro will be a huge hit or not, they recognize that they may be going the way of Novell if they don't make drastic changes.

IMHO, we are the worst. We don't want to learn something new, we complain and complain and people hear us and automatically assume "well if IT guy can't figure it out, it must suck". No, we are just stubborn in our ways.

Claymoore

RobertKaucher wrote: »

For me it's almost always been Windows Key + R and the task bar. Initially I was annoyed with the loss of the start menu but once I really thought about it, I realized I hardly ever use it.

I rarely used the start menu as well, just a couple of programs that I pinned there instead of the taskbar and the run/search option to launch the odd program rather than look through the program folders and shortcuts in the start menu. I imagine that 98% of the users out there use pinned programs on the taskbar or shortcuts on the desktop. Microsoft collected usage data from their customer experience improvement program and used that data to redesign the Windows interface around what we are actually doing. They likely determined the start menu was useless in addition to it being an impediment to a touch interface.

Tackle

For those of you looking for a start menu alternative here is one that looks great: First commercial version of Start8 for Windows 8 released - Neowin

AlexNguyen

For the tablet market, Windows 8 seems to be a huge hit. All Microsoft Surface tablets are sold out in the US: All Microsoft Surface Tablets Sold Out in the US - Softpedia

Trifidw

I wish people would stop being so ridiculous slating every other OS Microsoft releases. Vista was a fine OS and provided many great features over XP. It was people who ran it on unsuitable hardware that found it poor. Windows 8 provides a nice fresh desktop experience that also allows users to translate instantly from Tablet to Desktop without having to learn a new system.

varelg

Strangely, I haven't seen a topic like this opened when win 7 was about to come out. Why is that?

varelg

AlexNguyen wrote: »

For the tablet market, Windows 8 seems to be a huge hit. All Microsoft Surface tablets are sold out in the US: All Microsoft Surface Tablets Sold Out in the US - Softpedia

Either that, or it is typical marketing move to hype the new product. Nothing that is previously not seen.

AlexNguyen

varelg wrote: »

Either that, or it is typical marketing move to hype the new product. Nothing that is previously not seen.

I did not see such hype when RIM introduced the Blackberry Playbook.

DevilWAH

Trifidw wrote: »

I wish people would stop being so ridiculous slating every other OS Microsoft releases. Vista was a fine OS and provided many great features over XP. It was people who ran it on unsuitable hardware that found it poor. Windows 8 provides a nice fresh desktop experience that also allows users to translate instantly from Tablet to Desktop without having to learn a new system.

I have to disagree. I have supported 2000, XP, VISTA and Windows 7 in medium/large deployments (>1000 devices). By far the most issues we had where with vista, in particular the incompatibility with software that visa had, and poor support for drivers. Upgrade some ones pC, from XP to vista, spend a week struggling to get there bespoke software running. Upgrade a user from XP to windows 7 and they hardly notice.