Corey Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Microsoft (MSFT) had better hope that early adoption numbers aren’t a reflection of consumer interest in Windows 8, because if they are then the company could be headed for a Vista-style disaster. ComputerWorld reports on new numbers from research and analytics firm Net Applications showing that just 0.33% of all Windows-based computers ran on Windows 8 in September. For comparison’s sake, ComputerWorld notes that 1.64% of Windows-based computers were running on Windows 7 the month before it was released in 2009, meaning that the early adoption rate of Windows 7 was roughly five times that of Windows 8. Needless to say, if these numbers are reflection of how people feel about Windows 8, then it adds a lot more weight to some of the harsh criticisms hardware and software vendors have been lobbing at Microsoft in recent months. Read View the full article 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levi Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Instead of making new Operating System's just makes the ones we have better. I haven't had a problem with win7 ultimate since i got it. LOVE IT! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Instead of making new Operating System's just makes the ones we have better. I haven't had a problem with win7 ultimate since i got it. LOVE IT! But is they don't make new ones than they cant make an "unnecessary" marketing campaign to create "hype" so we buy the new one for no reason... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dddrgn Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Yeah, they should just continue to improve windows 7 rather than make a new OS... But rich people will do anything for more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAdave Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 i have it on a laptop and I can't say I'm a fan at all. Don't like the Metro thing at all. Seems Microsoft continues the trend of bad OS/good OS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xernicus Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 But is they don't make new ones than they cant make an "unnecessary" marketing campaign to create "hype" so we buy the new one for no reason... What about Mac OS X? That's remained largely unchanged for the past 10 or so years, and Apple keeps getting more and more people to buy a mac, or upgrade to the latest version of OS X. In fact, Mac OS has gained more users then Windows for three or five consecutive years (can't remember which- it's one of the two). And I am not any Apple fanboy- I'm actually typing this with a computer running Windows, I'm just stating facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolf Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 @Light: Windows 6.2 is "just" an improvement of Windows 6.1. Yes, the GUI changed, but for the rest it is just making better. @Ken: No change no process. And there are still a lot of things to improve in (every) OS. @Dddrgn: Rich has nothing to do with it. Actually the other way round, when you don't have influence / are rich (yet), others don't b*** on you when you do it your way. It would be awesome if Microsoft was poor / couldn't sell it, then they would be allowed to radically change. @UAdave: People mainly complained on previous versions of Windows because of the fact that it is larger than previous versions or less stable. If you ignore Windows ME (Windows 2000 was also available at that time!), then Vista was larger and less stable than XP, yet it was a quite new version which indeed needs some service packs. Windows 95 is actually the user interface you'd use for another 15 years, so "no change no process" holds. @Xern: Mac OS X has changed a lot, but the GUI didn't. Windows 8 runs better, faster, more smoothly, even with less system requirements, than Windows 7. But people are bitching on it because it has a full screen start menu. But then again, that's always something to hate; similar for Ubuntu Unity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xernicus Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 @Xern: Mac OS X has changed a lot, but the GUI didn't. Maybe in small ways, yes. But not in large ways. I'm talking OS wide changes, architectural changes, like the kernel. The last time anything super major changed in the kernel was adding Intel support back in 2006. And then a somewhat major change in the kernel by dropping PPC support in SL, and then dropping Rosetta in Lion. The changes that are you see made to OS X the most are akin to Vista's new Start bar, or the gadgets. In fact, if you look at Windows, you'll notice that nothing super major happened from NT4 to Windows XP. Then in Windows Vista, they made some changes to the kernel- refined them in 7 (Still using the NT4 base). And finally, in Windows 8, they're rewriting the damned thing (FINALLY). So besides having a minor aesthetic brush-up now and then, most operating systems don't really change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajnl Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 What I think Microsoft is doing wrong, is they are taking a tablet OS and trying to run it on a desktop or laptop which doesn't work. They also tried pulling a desktop OS onto a tablet and that doesn't work either. They should do what Apple does, different OS for both the computer and the tablet. Anyways, just my 2 cents. I honestly had no problem with the metro look, I actually kinda liked it. Windows 8 runs better, faster, more smoothly, even with less system requirements, than Windows 7. But people are bitching on it because it has a full screen start menu. But then again, that's always something to hate; similar for Ubuntu Unity. I had windows 8 on my desktop for a week and it definitely did not run faster or smoother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolf Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Maybe in small ways, yes. But not in large ways. I'm talking OS wide changes, architectural changes, like the kernel. The last time anything super major changed in the kernel was adding Intel support back in 2006. And then a somewhat major change in the kernel by dropping PPC support in SL, and then dropping Rosetta in Lion. I think supporting a new architecture is quite nice. Of course, when Apple announces their list of new features they call a network driver a new feature. They do more. Time Machine, Mac App store, those things are not to be forgotten. In fact, if you look at Windows, you'll notice that nothing super major happened from NT4 to Windows XP. Then in Windows Vista, they made some changes to the kernel- refined them in 7 (Still using the NT4 base). And finally, in Windows 8, they're rewriting the damned thing (FINALLY). Windows XP was making NT5.0 public to home users as NT5.1, support for all kind of fancy stuff not well available in 2000. Gaming wasn't really well supported at 2000, at XP a lot better. Also, "Finally"? Windows XP was slightly annoying sometimes before SP1, but after that rock stable. Same for Windows 7. I haven't used Vista long, but I used Windows 7 Beta and later pre-released until it expired. Rewriting the kernel is something that is required when doing new stuff, not "because you can". Until you work at very long planning, which (I guess) they have been starting to do now for ARM support. So besides having a minor aesthetic brush-up now and then, most operating systems don't really change. New printer driver architecture in Windows, support for reinstall without losing files, windows to go, awesome integration to Microsoft accounts (prev. Hotmail). I don't consider those small features. What I think Microsoft is doing wrong, is they are taking a tablet OS and trying to run it on a desktop or laptop which doesn't work. They also tried pulling a desktop OS onto a tablet and that doesn't work either. They should do what Apple does, different OS for both the computer and the tablet. Anyways, just my 2 cents. I've used a couple times iPads and stuff. And I think that you cannot consider that a real pc, just a large phone which can't call. Nothing wrong with it if you use it that way (which many do, obviously), but on a tablet you can offer support for so much more (same example, there were Windows XP tablets which could do anything). Now Microsoft has developed an UI for which you can do the same stuff as on a real pc, however while working with a (good?) tablet interface. I think that was Apple does is wrong (although perhaps not in the opinion of Apple users), you have devices which overlap, yet you develop two different systems. Of course one might have a different opinion on what is best. For what I might expect (with Windows 8 and Windows Phone 7.5 experience), you get all you want on an operation system which works as a pc, but can be used with your hands. That offers you so much more than iPads can cover. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until the release of those tablets. I had windows 8 on my desktop for a week and it definitely did not run faster or smoother. Weird. Windows 8 works better on my laptop, as well all other pc's I've used with Windows 8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parrot Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I thought I would hate windows 8. Since I got a free(to me) copy from school, I installed it. I really don't mind it all that much. Some things are easier, some harder. Mostly things are easier. Windows is still windows of course, sometimes I miss the power of the linux command line on my laptop. The only really frustrating thing is how some programs don't work for it yet. It also seems to load and reboot quicker for what it's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a dog Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Seems Microsoft continues the trend of bad OS/good OS. If they continue the pattern, Windows 9 will be wonderful! I remember how much consumers hated Vista's UAC, but that slowly went away. Businesses are big users of Microsoft's OSes and many of them have migrated to Windows 7. I wouldn't expect them to migrate again until Windows 7 is no longer supported, and that isn't until 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jopa Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 It works from any previous Windows. You can run the web-based installer from any previous version of Windows (XP with SP3 and newer) and, based on which OS you’re currently running, perform a clean install, upgrade, or migration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefke Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I'm considering the upgrade too now. Because I found a way to ignore that metro full screen crap thing that really annoys me: start8 (cost 5 dollar though) Really, the only thing that held me back was that full screen menu. The rest are improvements Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TALON1973 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 i wont be getting windows 8 anytime soon ....im more than happy with w7 home prem 64 bit edition .... only sligh issue i have its very slow in media player for a few minutes while its updating ......although why its doign updates i dont know as i turned it off makes my whoel internet slow down during teh process but not interested in touch screen and w8 just isnt as big a leap from vista to 7 for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.