Microsoft partners say Windows 8 caused ‘millions of customers’ to switch to Apple

IT69

Microsoft partners say Windows 8 caused

I dont like Windows 8 but didnt think it was that bad, I definitely do not like Apple and their overpriced computers so sad to see so many users switching.....

it_consultant

This is a dumb article, I have seen a few like this around, I doubt the existence of Windows 8 made anyone do anything they weren't already prepared to do. Even if Win 8 does not see wide adoption it is still an important step for MS. Everyone should keep in mind they are the only manufacturer to field an OS that works substantially the same on low power tablets and x86 PCs. We are trying to get linux based ARM servers to work and it is a beast. Normally these articles are written by people who have absolutely no idea how complex it is to create a kernel.

ptilsen

I believe it, but don't get too caught up on the word "millions." There are hundreds of millions (billions?) of Windows computers in existence. Yes, Windows 8 is not doing well and some people are probably switching as a result. It might even be in the millions. But, it's hardly a mass exodus yet.

Time will tell, but my gut (and sales data, I suppose) says what we're really seeing is just less frequent purchasing of PCs combined with wider non-PC tablet adoption. The low end of x86 Windows tablets is still more expensive than iPads for not actually providing much more productivity or versatility, so it should come as no surprise that people are still buying Android tablets and iPads over Windows tablets. Windows tablets cater well to certain groups, but for most people a cheap four-year-old desktop coupled with their iPad is good enough, and they can skip Windows 8 without looking twice. There is some transition to Macs, too, as web is continuing to become a viable substitute for so many Win32 apps, but with Mac Air starting at $1,000 we are still looking at MS ruling the laptop market, at least for now.

tpatt100

Windows 8.1 (lol) sounds like it is going to fix a lot of the stuff I had issues with. Stuff with the UIFKAM (user interface formerly known as metro) drove me nuts was how messy the UI organized groups of applications, I couldn't stack them in a library/folder it was just a row of stuff. I am so used to drag and drop grouping of applications in Android and iOS so that is how I roll now a days. I am fine with getting rid of the desktop just make it easier for me to use the "touch" UI with a mouse and keyboard.

New Windows 8.1 leak includes 'Metro' file explorer and improved multitasking | The Verge

Architect192

I actually made the switch because of Vista. Still working on OSX but happy to run a VM with Windows 7 and now Windows 8. Yes Windows 8 is a pain to get used to but once you do it's ok.

gc8dc95

I Think That This Is Due Partially To People Making Assumptions Based On Hype. Yes The Metro Sucks, But Win8 Is Still An Improvement In My Opinion. I Like It With The Exception Of The Metro Disaster. Although I Am Pro Linux Is Well.

GAngel

That should replace the millions who've just switched from Lion.

gkca

Well, I've bought a mac last summer, right after testing the Windows 8 from TechNet. The reason is that I need some applications that are available for either Windows or Mac, otherwise I'd buy a regular laptop, wipe the Windows and install Linux.

About7Narwhal

gc8dc95 wrote: »

I Think That This Is Due Partially To People Making Assumptions Based On Hype. Yes The Metro Sucks, But Win8 Is Still An Improvement In My Opinion. I Like It With The Exception Of The Metro Disaster. Although I Am Pro Linux Is Well.

Why Is The First Letter In Every Word Capitalized? Also, I Agree With Your Stance 110%. Windows 8 Is A Great Improvement, But Poorly Implemented. I Also Agree That Most Of The Dislike Is Simply Based On Hype More Than Experience.

pcgizzmo

Man, I could go on and on about this and hopefully I won't but I've got a few things to say about Windows 8 and really Microsoft's short sightedness.

1. A majority of the negativity could have been dealt with by simply asking the person if they had a touch screen or not and if they didn't putting the old familiar "Start" button back to where it used to be. Then have the option of turning it on or off for touch.

You can't spend years getting end users used to using a task bar and start button and then yank the carpet out from under there feet in new version of the OS. Users need to be eased into things.

Microsoft in not doing the above is forcing users to move to a "touch" environment whether they want to or not. I think things may eventually move that way but we are no where close to being ready for it especially in a corporate environment.

2. We've already discussed that we won't be using Windows 8 at my company as Windows 7 has a fairly long life cycle and hopefully by the time we switch our end users will have some experience with Windows 8 from a new home computer or Microsoft will have changed their stance on it's current design.

As a side note my in laws purchased a laptop with Windows 8 on it. It took me twice and long to do the things I currently do on XP or Windows 7. So I know if it was frustrating for me a former DOS, Win 3.1, 95, 98, linux, OSX, XP, Windows 7 user then I know it's going to frustrate the hell out of them.

the_Grinch

Honestly, Windows 8 only prevented mass adoption. Windows 7 is a decent operating system and let's face it people are not going out in droves to replace their PC. They are going out, buying a tablet, and using their desktop/laptop less. When you aren't using it as much the wear and tear is less thus the computer is lasting longer. Also people are basically only surfing the internet and watching Youtube videos. This doesn't require a whole lot on the PC end thus people just aren't buying computers. We had this debate at work and yes people hate Windows 8, but that isn't the biggest factor in them not buying PCs.

Jasiono

about7narwhal wrote: »

why is the first letter in every word capitalized? Also, i agree with your stance 110%. Windows 8 is a great improvement, but poorly implemented. I also agree that most of the dislike is simply based on hype more than experience.

You Did The Same Thing!

tpatt100

I still think Microsoft should have made a baby step like Mac OS X did with "Launch Pad".

olaHalo

Title of the thread should be
[h=2]Windows 8 caused ‘millions of customers’ to stick with Windows 7[/h]
I personally use Windows 8 on my personal computers at home btw. Windows XP, Windows 7, Server 2003, and Server 2008 R2 at work.

About7Narwhal

Jasiono wrote: »

You Did The Same Thing!

Thought we might be speaking in code or something..

powerfool

Sorry, I am going there.... the premise is the dumbest thing I have ever heard (this month, at least).

No, Windows 8 didn't cause anything. MOST consumers that buy computers don't buy it because of the operating system, period. They buy something that they can afford that they want. They don't give a crap whether it is running Windows 7 or 8... or Mac OSX. The economy is still weak... folks don't want to buy traditional PCs... they want tablets. So they look at the iPad and the Kindle Fire and Samsung tablets because they are popular and heavily advertised.

Correlation does not equal causation. I could tell you that children with larger vocabularies have more cavities... that would be an accurate statement... but having a larger vocabulary does not increase a child's susceptibility to cavities. The cause is that older children have more cavities because the have had more usage of their teeth... and older children tend to have larger vocabularies.

Start menu? Really? It is a paradigm shift... the home screen IS the Start menu. The problem isn't the Start menu... it is that "Metro" applications cannot be used like traditional applications. You cannot make the window smaller and put them side-by-side, etc. If you have a problem with the home screen, you really have blinders on that are keeping you from seeing that it is just a different perspective of the good ol' Start menu. That is supposedly being addressed.

powerfool

About7Narwhal wrote: »

Why Is The First Letter In Every Word Capitalized? Also, I Agree With Your Stance 110%. Windows 8 Is A Great Improvement, But Poorly Implemented. I Also Agree That Most Of The Dislike Is Simply Based On Hype More Than Experience.

Maybe he is German and is having a hard time determining what is a noun and what isn't?

gc8dc95

Lol. My phone must have been doing it automatically.

it_consultant

Windows 8 actually shows pretty well on a touchscreen interface. People who have been given 20 minutes of instruction have a fairly positive experience. Win 8 should have did what apple did when they released the iPad, run commercials continuously:

"This is how you change which app you are running in metro" (pull the left side of the screen out with your finger)
"Here is how you search for a program or file" (type anywhere...anywhere...just start typing)
"This is how you order your programs in metro" (click and drag)
"This is your skydrive" (It automagically sets up when you login with your live account)

Definitely the constant bad mouthing it because you are displeased about losing some feature like the start menu just turns off average consumers.

Windows 7 didn't have rocketship like adoption either, and it was/is great. As powerfool says, people just aren't buying PCs so quickly and they are a bit slow to adopt tablets. However, almost everyone I have talked too is interested in a full windows (not R/T) tablet. iPads in the workplace are cool, and they make you look cool...but then you have to print, use a mouse, open a spreadsheet and use the mouse, etc.

N2IT

Nothing more to add that hasn't be touched on.

PT said "most people a cheap four-year-old desktop coupled with their iPad is good enough, and they can skip Windows 8 without looking twice".

I couldn't agree with this anymore.

Windows 7 is still being rolled out in huge companies and mid size companies. There is no real need for a Windows 8. Windows 7 is a great OS why roll over into 8?

IT69

I like to believe that Microsoft purposefully released Windows 8 full of bugs and not that great as to play up to their reputation of releasing one good OS followed by a not so good one... 8 is not so horrible but it is buggy and unpolished enough that I could see Microsoft releasing it with this purpose in mind, a bit of a marketing ploy maybe.

bdub

Windows 8 is simply being used as a scapegoat just like piracy. Not that I want to start a discussion on piracy or that I am advocating piracy at all but it has become such a huge scapegoat these days and that is what it seems like many are doing with Windows 8. Any OEM's complaining that they are losing sales because of Windows 8 need to take a look in the mirror and step up their game. And as others have said there are a lot of other factors at play.

Really though, I just dont understand what else people really expected from Microsoft, especially the OEM's. Microsoft needed a tablet OS to compete in this current market, and to think they would actually make 2 separate operating systems just seems naive. Sure, they could have had some option for allowing users to enable the old start menu but if they had does that mean everyone would like it? PC sales would be up right now because of that 1 little change? So the strength of the PC market hinges on the start menu alone? I just dont get it, I dont understand how people can even think this way. I have heard no other changes that people dislike about Windows 8 when in fact theres a good number of improvements which have been added.

tpatt100

I don't see why Microsoft can't have two different operating systems. They can have the same core code just different user interfaces depending on the device. Google has Android and Chrome, Apple has iOS and Mac OS X. I am sure both companies are already starting the merge of the mobile and desktop but still they started separately.

Now a days I can move between a lot of different operating systems to access my information one way or another.

dave330i

tpatt100 wrote: »

I don't see why Microsoft can't have two different operating systems.

Because they have hard enough time with one?

sratakhin

Microsoft has Windows Phone 8.

bdub

tpatt100 wrote: »

I don't see why Microsoft can't have two different operating systems. They can have the same core code just different user interfaces depending on the device. Google has Android and Chrome, Apple has iOS and Mac OS X. I am sure both companies are already starting the merge of the mobile and desktop but still they started separately.

Now a days I can move between a lot of different operating systems to access my information one way or another.

But why make one OS that doesnt support touch and one that does? Mac OS X is poor example since Apple makes very little money if any from OS X, not to mention Apple is a hardware company first and software company second. Its not really a great comparison.

You may have a point that sure, they could have made 2 different operating systems besides the Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8, but why? What advantage would having done so given them? Just to make people happy because they dont want touch capability on their desktop?

powerfool

tpatt100 wrote: »

I don't see why Microsoft can't have two different operating systems. They can have the same core code just different user interfaces depending on the device. Google has Android and Chrome, Apple has iOS and Mac OS X. I am sure both companies are already starting the merge of the mobile and desktop but still they started separately.

Now a days I can move between a lot of different operating systems to access my information one way or another.

It's a bad strategy and Apple is moving away from it. Google isn't the only development force behind their products, so they may never notice the inefficiency of such a system.

Why would Microsoft want different operating systems? That is counter to everything they have been trying to do for years. They had DOS-based Windows and NT-based Windows and consolidated it. Good move. Then they finally eliminated their Windows CE-based mobile operating system. Another good move. Having a single interface is what is so appealing about the platform... everything syncs up and it works the same. That is what Apple folks rant and rave about as far as things working between the two... and Apple will pick one OS in the near future, mark my words on that.

If anything, Microsoft is ahead of their time... or maybe we are all just too slow to pick it up.

Windows 8 as a touch interface is fantastic. And, when BYOD becomes the norm, you are going to want to bring your fancy iPad and Android device into work and use it... well, your company isn't very likely to want to support each platform. They are going to push a virtual desktop, and it will likely be Windows 8, or 2012 with a metro terminal services, or something. Having that touch-friendly interface on your tablet of choice will certainly be a good idea.

powerfool

sratakhin wrote: »

Microsoft has Windows Phone 8.

Is Windows...

They have it compiled on two architectures now.... x86 and ARM. Windows RT and the phone platform are ARM.

powerfool

Seriously... if we just wire-framed how the traditional Windows desktop looks, and then the Start menu, and then compared it to a wire-frame of the new interface... even with traditional human interface components of a keyboard and mouse... You would likely prefer the new interface. It is just different and takes getting used it. But if someone just puts outlines of shapes out there with names in the boxes and does a sort of "double-blind" study... folks would most likely pick the new interface.

Just visualize it... the Start menu has evolved considerably since the release of Windows XP... and it was fairly stagnant prior to that. 95, 98, NT 3.51 and 4, and 2000... oh, and I guess we can throw ME in there and CE based Windows... they were pretty much the same. With XP, things got bigger. With Vista, 7 and 2008 it got wider. Just think about how you can change the size and shape of the tiles now... the start menu is just a bunch of wide tiles.

Now you can customize your tiles and have a larger palette to work with. Why do you need to see what isn't covered up by your Start menu anyhow? Most of the valuable icons got covered up since things were organized to the top-left. That is why the quick launch bar was created... it started with some commonly used icons from the desktop and a way to get back to the desktop easily.

You can use your mouse with it... it works just fine. Now, it is optimized for touch... I want touch on it... it would be silly to get a new system without touch, period.

pcgizzmo

dave330i wrote: »

Because they have hard enough time with one?

No truer words spoken.

tpatt100

bdub wrote: »

But why make one OS that doesnt support touch and one that does? Mac OS X is poor example since Apple makes very little money if any from OS X, not to mention Apple is a hardware company first and software company second. Its not really a great comparison.

You may have a point that sure, they could have made 2 different operating systems besides the Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8, but why? What advantage would having done so given them? Just to make people happy because they dont want touch capability on their desktop?

When I say "two" operating systems I don't mean they have to be really different. Some operating systems just run better for mobile devices where as desktop operating systems run better with better hardware but we expect more from them.

Microsoft could just have the Metro UI come up as a choice if it is installed on a desktop or laptop but be mandatory for tablets or phones. They could still have one core OS but two different experiences depending on the hardware it is on.

Metro was the UI that should have been back when desktops were more like the central server of your house. When you wanted to do anything PC wise you had to go boot up your desktop. Laptops were a luxury, then as everything became cloud based in a way with email, Facebook, Twitter the need to go to your desktop decreased.

When I worked helpdesk and desktop support users dumped their icons all over the desktop, some of the more organized ones might have had some folders. Not that many people used the Start menu, I always got asked how to drag shortcuts to the desktop.

So mobile operating systems with touch screens required the shortcut/folder UI setup not that awful Start menu on WinCE.

What boggles me with Windows 8 was Microsoft released it and didn't think to study mobile operating systems and let people drag and drop on a tidy Metro UI not the "well if you want it on the UI we will drag the entire Computer Management console and make you remove the ones you don't want".