Acer CEO: Microsoft is coming back down to earth with Windows 8.1

[NTAPRO]

Is that a real picture? I wonder where I can find a field like that.

 

[cliffordcooley]

"Needing to press keyboard shortcuts" Are you kidding me? When, I ask you, do you need to use keyboard shortcuts in the desktop? You don't need to in 7, and, surprise, you don't need to in 8.

Tell that to those who respond by saying press the Windows Key as a solution to some of the complaints.

If I have an issue with mouse control, pressing the Windows Key is not a solution. And no I didn't say it was or wasn't required. The one that replied as a solution, did the insinuation for me. If you are going to challenge my comment, at least do it from the same angle. If you have read the negativity on Windows 8, you wouldn't be asking me to prove my position. You seem to be suggesting the desktop has not changed and therefore the desktop experience can not change as well. Everything related to Windows 8 will effect the Desktop Experience.

I'm not interested in the fact that you can purchase additional software to make the desktop experience better. And I'm definitely not interested in purchasing additional software, to make the experience what it used to be. And further more, I'm not interested in arguing with you on what I know is not the same desktop experience. You would have to close your eyes, not to see the difference.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

Some people have an infatuation with "newness". If it's newer than it must be better. Windows 8 improved a few things under the hood while completely botching the UI on the desktop by assuming everyone wants to use a touch device on a desktop. They don't.

This argument has grown old. People who like Windows 8 keep trying to defend it. Thinking they can convince people who hate it to love it. And then they make contradictory statements like, "Yeah Windows 8 is so much better than 7". And then follow it up with statements like, "The desktop experience is no different than Windows 7". LOL.

Windows 8 has failed. It is not the success that Windows 7 was upon launch and I doubt it ever will be. I have nothing against a touch UI when used on the appropriate device. Well, honestly, that's not entirely true. Let's just say touch is more acceptable to me on a cellphone or a tablet. And one reason I may accept it more on those devices is because I use them very little in relation to the time I spend on a desktop.

Looking forward to the release of Windows Blue to see if Microsoft has got the message yet. It's no skin off my back if they haven't. And I am certainly in no hurry for anything. Windows 7 Ultimate still is now and for the foreseeable future my primary OS. What am I saying? It's my "only" operating system.

 

[captaincranky]

....[ ]....This argument has grown old....[ ]....

Be honest though, that hasn't seemed to have affected your enjoyment of it, has it now? Hm, mine either.

While being caught in the undertow of this issue, I am always reminded of the great Vista fail (*). Good M$ operating systems it seems, are like alcoholism, which is reputed to skip a generation....

(*) And all the s*** I listened to from newly minted Vista owners who swore up and down it was the best thing since sliced bread...

 

[Railman]

Windows XP is a pretty good operating system which is still being sold. I am sure there are numerous IT managers who wish that MS would continue supporting it for many years. Windows 7 has become the de facto upgrade from XP for enterprise. This is not surprising as Vista required too many tweaks to be usable. I have yet to meet any IT technicians who have a good word for Windows 8. Their general consensus is that W8 is pants.

Without doubt MS have made a blunder on the same level as Coke Cola but have they learnt any lessons? Judging from comments made by MS they do seem to have their heads in the sand.

 

[Burty117]

This has been most enjoyable to read, the comments that is

Just to note I'm a captaincranky and cliffordcooley fan though, I also have issues with Windows 8, but you've all missed a massive issue with WIndows 8 when you have to use it at work.

At the end of a rubbish day on Windows 7 you could simply click bottom left on the start menu, an arrow and "shut down".

Windows 8 you either have to "hover" near the bottom right to get the setting or bring up Metro and move your mouse all the way to the top right, Literally the opposite side of the screen to where you originally opened the Metro interface, this wastes valuable, Un-paid and an unnecessary amount of time, when I want to leave work with Windows 7, it was quick, easy, painless, With Windows 8, I have to physically move the mouse all over the place to get to what I want, This is currently the most annoying thing, it was so annoying in-fact I moved myself back to Windows 7 and run Windows 8 in VMware.

I rarely boot it up though unless its because someone wants help with something Windows 8 based.

Moral of my story? Upgrading back to Windows 7 was one of the best things I've done and I hate Windows 8 when I actually want to switch the machine off...

 

[Railman]

Loads of fans of W8 will say that the traditional desktop is still there but MS have not made it intuitive to find. In a sense W8 is a souped up racing car but they have hidden the traditional steering wheel behind the dash board and expect drivers to use a joy stick instead. You have to use the joy stick to get the steering wheel to fold out of the dashboard so it can be used.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Moral of my story? Upgrading back to Windows 7 was one of the best things I've done and I hate Windows 8 when I actually want to switch the machine off...

But didn't you get the memo? We are being told there are no differences in desktop experience between Windows 7 and 8.

 

[captaincranky]

Just to note I'm a captaincranky and cliffordcooley fan though...[ ]...

Aw Burty, you say the nicest things, Thanks much!

Moral of my story? Upgrading back to Windows 7 was one of the best things I've done and I hate Windows 8 when I actually want to switch the machine off...

Since M$ assumes that the universe revolves around them, wouldn't that make the correct term, "retrograded"?

As in, "when my Windows installation is in retrograde motion and is now in alignment with Windows 7"

"Then peace will guide our planet, and love will steer the stars"!

All together now, "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, Age of Aquarius.....(yadda, yadda, yadda).

Sing out Yo, don't make me post a video.

 

[lawfer]

Well, that's a lazy way of getting out of it, now isn't it?

No, but I'd have to be an outright imbecile to buy Windows 8 simply because I can or M$ told me to.

You would have to be an imbecile for buying something simply because you... can? Do you even understand the level of asininity in that statement?

People buy things first out of desire and second out of ability. I didn't get Windows 8 simply because I could, but first because I wanted. You insinuate that people that get things because they can are imbeciles, without first asking why are they getting the things they are able to get. Without asking for the reasons or benefits, you are left with no cause and just the effect; its synonymous to saying people that buy Ferrari just because they can are imbeciles, without asking why are they getting the things they want.

Now, I'm not implying Windows is the Ferrari of OSes. You could literally change that to anything you want. The point is, if you don't question the cause (or more applicable to this case: agree with it), and only criticize the effect, well, essentially you're the imbecile. No for disagreeing with the cause, but for judging others without consideration.

What are the main features new version of Windows usually brought? Faster boot times, better efficiency, certain cosmetics changes here and there. Basically the same thing as 8.....{ }......

This is B***S***, as least to a substantial degree.

Installing Windows 7 on a older machine designed for XP will likely net you a slower machine which may not even meet the hardware requirements for Win 7 anyway.

Today's CPUs have throughputs approaching 20X that of the venerable P-4. Memory is orders of multiples faster, not to mention SSD boot times. M$ always seem to suck up on these improvements all the while taking credit for "improvements" in Windows.

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said above. I didn't say Windows 7 was fast enough to run in older hardware; I explicitly said Windows 7's features do not fundamentally alter how Windows works enough to make it incredibly tempting for XP users to upgrade.

So, everything said above is irrelevant.

My i3-3225 machine boots faster than my i3-530 machine, yet they share the same OS. So, cut the crap, most of the speed improvements are hardware based, with little to none in Windows itself.

I can't possibly take you seriously. For a couple of reasons:

1) You call Microsoft, M$. Seriously?

2) No one said Windows 7 would perform faster on old XP hardware.

3) You mention that a clearly superior i3-3225 machine boots faster than your other i3-530 machine even though both are running the same OS, as if what you just said is some revelation.

The point I'm making is, that each new OS version usually brought often marginal (though sometimes substantial) speed improvements over its predecessors, especially when using compliant hardware as base benchmark. A good example of this would be if we had two identical machines with i3-3225s, one with 7 and the other with 8, you'll see 8 boots faster. The same would apply if you compared Vista against 7, with 7 being the winner. It has nothing to do with Windows piggybacking on powerful hardware, it has to do with the software getting progressively more efficient. This is not rocket science.

And even though pretty much your entire comment is irrelevant to the context of the topic at hand, what you imply, and I quote: "most of the speed improvements are hardware based, with little to none in Windows itself." has to be the dumbest **** I ever read. So, on the same hardware, Vista is faster than (or as fast as) 7? You know, by your theory 7 as an OS didn't bring any speedups whatsoever; and if there were any, they'd have to be because of the hardware upgrades...?

Other than little speedups and cosmetic touches, what really sells an OS to a (power) user, are the features. A lot of XP users still remain on XP because the paradigm of the desktop has not changed, and cosmetic features such as Aero Peek don't interest them.

 

[lawfer]

And no I didn't say it was or wasn't required. The one that replied as a solution, did the insinuation for me.

This was you in your previous comment:

Loss of mouse control, needing to press keyboard shortcuts equates to less than proper desktop experience, when the majority would probably rather simply use their mouse.

(I could have directed you to it seeing how it is public and I can't possibly make it up, but actually showing you is more fun.)

Tell that to those who respond by saying press the Windows Key as a solution to some of the complaints.

That's because pressing that key takes you TO the desktop. Look, once again, I'm not saying people should embrace Metro, hell, I don't even do. I challenged the previous commenter who simply stated that the desktop is worse on 8 than on 7, when in reality both are the same.

Metro, or the Start Screen, is just that, a screen before the desktop. The commenter suggested when you go into the desktop, that 8 provides an inferior experience. I'm simply counter-arguing that point.

If you have read the negativity on Windows 8, you wouldn't be asking me to prove my position. You seem to be suggesting the desktop has not changed and therefore the desktop experience can not change as well. Everything related to Windows 8 will effect the Desktop Experience.

No. People hate Metro. Not the desktop.

You loathe the Start Screen? That's cool. But people, in a desperate attempt to completely debunk Windows 8's inclusion of Metro, almost suggest the desktop is as broken as Metro, which is what I'm trying to negate.

I'm not interested in the fact that you can purchase additional software to make the desktop experience better.

The desktop is the same with Metro or not. Why do people think the Start Screen is ever-resent in the desktop? That's a misconception.

Granted, liking Metro is entirely subjective. But using THE desktop does no change at all.

And further more, I'm not interested in arguing with you on what I know is not the same desktop experience. You would have to close your eyes, not to see the difference.

Oh, irony, how amusing art thou!

So this all boils down to: you (really) miss the Start Menu? And that without the Start Menu Windows CANNOT possibly offer a proper desktop? Is that what you're implying? Because with or without additional software, I can still use Office, Chrome, burn, play, copy/paste, etc. just fine, hence my original inquiry. You could argue semantics, but I argue otherwise.

 

[TheBigFatClown]

No, but I'd have to be an outright imbecile to buy Windows 8 simply because I can or M$ told me to.

You would have to be an imbecile for buying something simply because you... can? Do you even understand the level of asininity in that statement?

People buy things first out of desire and second out of ability. I didn't get Windows 8 simply because I could, but first because I wanted. You insinuate that people that get things because they can are imbeciles, without first asking why are they getting the things they are able to get. Without asking for the reasons or benefits, you are left with no cause and just the effect; its synonymous to saying people that buy Ferrari just because they can are imbeciles, without asking why are they getting the things they want.

*Yawn* People buy things for many reasons. If you think you covered them all you need to talk to a counselor. Most people probably didn't purchase Windows 8 out of a desire for anything specific to Windows 8 but out of some desire to feel like they need to have the latest software from Microsoft. I doubt most people who upgraded to Windows 8 said, "Oh look, Windows 8 boots faster. I wasn't going to upgrade to Windows 8 but dammit, it boots faster. That completely changes everything. I just got have it now that it ******* boots faster. Woo hoo." Ummm, no.

And even though pretty much your entire comment is irrelevant to the context of the topic at hand, what you imply, and I quote: "most of the speed improvements are hardware based, with little to none in Windows itself." has to be the dumbest **** I ever heard. So, on the same hardware, Vista is faster than 7? You know, considering 7 as an OS didn't bring any speedups whatsoever; and if there were any, they'd have to be because of the hardware...?

Other than little speedups and cosmetic touches, what really sells an OS to a (power) user, are the features. A lot of XP users still remain on XP because the paradigm of the desktop has not changed, and cosmetic features such as Aero Peek don't interest them.

Lot's of words. Hard to decipher what points you are trying to make. Bottom line is still that Windows 8 sucks ON A DESKTOP. It's inferior ON A DESKTOP. I don't wanna have to do ANYTHING to make it usable ON A DESKTOP. It should be usable ON A DESKTOP out of the box. It's not. It's a failure ON THE DESKTOP. Microsoft seems to be even realizing that at this point with what I have heard about the next release. If the company who produced this garbage can finally see the error of their ways, why is it that you cant?

Edit: And further more........your whole point about Windows 8 being so much faster than Windows 7 is funny. If I have to sacrifice smooth rounded elegant transparent windows, I.e., Aero theme, for square purple boxes so my operating system can boot 2.5 nanonseconds faster than it did in Windows 7, guess what my choice is? Stick that 2.5 nanoseconds up your **** **** and give me my Aero theme. I'll Wait!!!

 

[captaincranky]

I can't possibly take you seriously.

TBH. I simply don't dare how you take me.

1) You call Microsoft, M$. Seriously?

Well yes I do. That's because I couldn't be bothered to type the corporate name out, not of respect, not of reverence, not for any reason. "M$" is an internet meme which I believe has lost most of its negative connotations anyway. And everybody seems to know exactly to whom you are referring. M$ it is, M$ it stays..

When it comes right down to it, they got you're money for Windows 8, didn't they? So, that thar dollar $ign, could be the avatar of your money.

2) No one said Windows 7 would perform faster on old XP hardware.

I see we haven't learned about, or aren't able to cope with a simple analogy.

3) You mention that a clearly superior i3-3225 machine boots faster than your other i3-530 machine even though both are running the same OS, as if what you just said is some revelation.

No, that was a simple statement of the obvious. Again an analog of how hardware can reflect an OS as being better than it is. To hear all the tablet trolls talk about great boot time, you'd swear they have no idea what, "SSD" implies.

It has nothing to do with Windows piggybacking on powerful hardware, it has to do with the software getting progressively more efficient. This is not rocket science.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure you can objectively state where the piggybacking on better hardware starts or ends.

And even though pretty much your entire comment is irrelevant to the context of the topic at hand, what you imply, and I quote: "most of the speed improvements are hardware based, with little to none in Windows itself." has to be the dumbest **** I ever heard. So, on the same hardware, Vista is faster than 7? You know, considering 7 as an OS didn't bring any speedups whatsoever; and if there were any, they'd have to be because of the hardware...?

So, even though my comment is almost "completely irrelevent", you decided to give me the largesse of a long winded rebuttal. I'm really not inclined to thank you, if that's all the same to you.

Other than little speedups and cosmetic touches, what really sells an OS to a (power) user, are the features. A lot of XP users still remain on XP because the paradigm of the desktop has not changed, and cosmetic features such as Aero Peek don't interest them.

I like 7 because I can have a parade of wallpaper in the style of my choosing. Other than that, XP gets the job done pretty well.

I think it's wonderful that you're such a staunch supporter of Windows 8. After all, it's been so poorly received that they've had to "relaunch it", and are in the process of "updating" it to work like Windows 7.

In the mean time, instead of breaking my balls, by inflicting your needless and mostly unfounded enthusiasm for Windows 8 on me and the rest of us, why don't you audition for the "Surface Tablet Dance Troupe". You'll be able to release some of that pent up hostility and aggression, by jumping around furiously like a jacka** on mescal, as does the rest of the troupe, (with or without you).

In the mean time, please do me the courtesy of putting me on your "ignore list".

 

[cliffordcooley]

In the mean time, please do me the courtesy of putting me on your "ignore list".

Hell add TheBigFatClown (I'm sure he wouldn't mind) and myself to the list as well.

 

[Burty117]

Aw Burty, you say the nicest things, Thanks much!

Your welcome, over the years of being on here, I find your posts hilarious

But didn't you get the memo? We are being told there are no differences in desktop experience between Windows 7 and 8.

Ooowww really?! How very odd, I'm usually up-to-date with my memo's. Luckily its a lie and the desktop experience has changed to such an extent, Microsoft themselves are making big changes to it, Kinda glad I didn't get that memo

Hell add TheBigFatClown (I'm sure he wouldn't mind) and myself to the list as well.

And Me!

 

[Network Dude]

I work in IT at a bank. I am a power user. The current form of Windows 8 Blows. I have to test it out so I installed it at home..Used it a few weeks (But I knew within a day) and its current form is so much slower to do the same tasks. People saying that Windows 8 is just as easy or hit the start button obviously are newbs. Yes for newbs Windows 8 might be ok or great or the same as Windows 7. But us people in the know..or people who actually do a few more thanks than surf the internet know its not as user friendly. One difference...which I hear they are fixing...where its 100% not working the same is search..In windows 7...I could click start and type what Iwanted...In windows 8 it defaults to APPS and you have to click another category if you want to search anything else...Well as a power user I want everything but apps...So search is basically broken... But since installing Start8 search is back...the nice easy access start button is back..Not full screen start screen wasting my 24" screen with crap... I pinned many things to my start menu....I can see everything in a 2 inch space... Not my whole freaking screen...That is the difference you newbs.... Us power users see this...and so do most of the masses and companies.... That is the reason Microsoft is making a change.... Not because we just like to complain about change...but because we expect at least if not better functionally as before. And being able to learn a OS without having to be trained is a plus!!

"The search will be fixed in Windows Blue. Thats the only thing I miss from Win7. And the start menu vs start screen... Couldn't care. I don't care if it's full screen or not. Why would you need to see your programs when you are searching for something? Your mouse and your attention is already given to the start menu when you open it. Why fullscreen is that bad? People complain about that, but not many actually give a reason.

I will give you a reason. When I am working with a program, let's say MS Word, and want to open something else, or find another document to help with what I'm doing the LAST thing I want to do is leave the desktop to find something only to be brought right back to where I started. That's unproductive and a waste of my time frankly. The start menu in 7 has a search area that is brilliant. While working in Word, for example, I type in what I'm looking for all while remaining on the desktop and not breaking my concentration. It allows to me to think about what I'm doing, what I am looking for, and where I want to go.. Leaving the desktop does just the opposite.

Aside from the aesthetics of tiles, which I could care less about, there is nothing in Windows 8 that could not be included in a service pack to Windows 7.

As for 100 million licenses sold so far... Selling to OEMs does not mean that 100 million people have bought Windows 8. Additionally, MS likes to game the system with their numbers. Remember when they introduced Bing? They said the market share of Bing was growing. Ya know why? Because by default Bing was the default search engine in Internet Explorer.

 

[captaincranky]

As for 100 million licenses sold so far... Selling to OEMs does not mean that 100 million people have bought Windows 8. Additionally, MS likes to game the system with their numbers. Remember when they introduced Bing? They said the market share of Bing was growing. Ya know why? Because by default Bing was the default search engine in Internet Explorer.

I would think that 100,000,000 number has to be diluted even further, as Windows 8 is ostensibly targeted at a larger market overall. Before, those numbers would have only reflected desktop adoption and OEM >PC< sales!

I'm sure those fools at the head of M$ are watching the drama unfold with Adobe now being subscription only. If Adobe manages to pull that off, you can bet M$ will want to have a go at it. As of now, they're trying to lock down the system in a manner similar to Apple. So, you can bet they're thinking about subscription. It's just they're a bit more sneaky about it.

Office 365 is the test the waters platform, and you could almost bet if it and Adobe succeed, you'll be offered the "opportunity" to "rent Windows", shortly.