Just how many people hate Windows 8?

[Noir Angel]

That's complete BS. When they removed the HAL with Vista and started moving drivers out of kernel space I for one agreed with their decision. But what they're doing with Windows 8 is not a simple matter of ironing out a piece of legacy code that no longer needs to exist it's a matter of completely redefining the entire way people use their computers in a way that was primarily designed with tablets in mind. And the delicious irony in this of course is that this decision to bastardise has left a buttload of legacy code lying about on tablets that consumes a lot of their disk space/

[MorganX]

It would seem to be great news that they are bringing back a start menu however if the start menu only takes the user to the "metro" garbage then sadly windows 8 will continue its rapid fall into obscurity and remain unchallenged as being the worst OS ever released in the entire history of microsoft.

I hear what you're saying. And I too, utilized the Start Menu to its fullest. But given the changes being made, I think you need to revisit the Start Page just as a launcher, as imperfect as lacking as it is, and make some reasonable compromise. Right now, and this is based on Snap View, Start Button, Search optimization, and rumored Boot To Desktop coming in Blue, you are being totally unreasonable.

They should just put a mini task bar or active program manager somewhere on the Modern interface. If they did that they probably could do away with the desktop.

That's not even on the table considering there are only Tapplet type applications available for Modern UI. Right now they just need to make it more productive and integrate more seamlessly with the desktop. A

name ONE feature that has been added to it. However, Microsoft removes it, and a hundred and ten defenders come out of the frigging woodwork.

I agree with your overall point but think this is a bad example to use to make it. The Start Menu didn't change much because it worked quite well.

Microsoft's data on Start Menu usage, Desktop usage, and Multitasking was obviously "bad data."

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

I bought 3 Windows 8 licenses last year (14.99 each). Once I realized the the start screen is essentially the start menu and became accustomed to the other changes, Windows 8 is great. The Start Screen is more organized and cleaner than the start menu. I wish Mirosoft could add an option to scale it down to be within the desktop though! I use the start screen exactly the same way as I used the start menu! As long as Windows 8 runs all the legacy apps, Windows 8 fine. I honestly dont see any problems with Windows 8, other than the boot to desktop which I really want!

[NEVER85]

Exactly "Roll a lucky 7" as in "Pray to god you get lucky and get a PC with windows 7"

Don't new PC's with Windows 8 come with downgrade rights to Windows 7 anyway? Does it really matter if 7 comes pre-installed?

[PGHammer]

That's complete BS. When they removed the HAL with Vista and started moving drivers out of kernel space I for one agreed with their decision. But what they're doing with Windows 8 is not a simple matter of ironing out a piece of legacy code that no longer needs to exist it's a matter of completely redefining the entire way people use their computers in a way that was primarily designed with tablets in mind. And the delicious irony in this of course is that this decision to bastardise has left a buttload of legacy code lying about on tablets that consumes a lot of their disk space/

Javik - that was the same reason that folks used when they attacked Microsoft (and the IHVs, especially Creative Technology, makers of the Sound Blaster line of sound cards - the MOST affected by that change) when the change you (and I) defended was made. "It changes how I use my PC!" has become, unfortunately, as much a rallying cry for the Defenders Of Legacy Code as the Constitution is for political conservatives in the US.

And I never said that the change would be easy - I said way back when the Consumer Preview hit the Web that the change is, in fact, massive. (Go to the Microsoft Beta pages and look for the post - it's still there.) However, I said that the change CAN be made - however, it DOES require an ability to adapt to change. Are you going to sit there and tell me that the majority of desktop users in IT are unable to adjust to even a change as massive as this one? Why the heck should I buy that?

Most folks in IT are not just smarter than me, but FAR smarter than me. And I adjusted to the change just fine. (No Start8, or Classic Shell, or any of the vast number of Start menu put-backs. And I run Windows 8 Pro - and Server 2012 - on desktop hardware that doesn't support touch.) I do everything that I did on Windows 7 - in fact, due to my adding Server 2012, I do things that I could NOT do in 7. (Note that Server 2012 - even in GUI mode - lacks a Start menu.) I have absolutely ZERO reason to believe that - let alone buy it. Being afraid of change I get - but unable to adapt to it? No way - change is a CONSTANT in IT - it was the case before the PC, and it's been the case more than ever since the PC AT. If you can't overcome and adapt to change in IT, then it's time you left; you are definitely in the WRONG line of career. (I didn't invent that quote - I heard it from my SECOND instructor - back in the age of mainframes. It's not an insult aimed at anyone; however, I have found the quote a painful truism that I have kept in the back of my brain - it's why I bust my brainbox keeping up with IT trends, including those seemingly far from where I earn my money today.)

Not adapting to change is a career-ender - more so in IT, but it applies to ALL professional fields; heck, it applies to life itself. (The hoary quote "Nature red in tooth and claw" has, more than enough times, been translated to mean "Adapt or die!" - wonder why that is.) Not adapting to change (as an operating system or Linux distribution) lands you in a niche - no matter what you were before. (Look at eComStation - it started life as OS/2. Look at Caldera UNIX, which started as AT&T System V - if you can even find it; it's in a smaller niche than Solaris.) Could it be that Microsoft saw Google and Apple coming up from underneath like so many submarines (albeit mini-submarines) and decided it needed to adapt before it found itself full of holes and reduced to a niche? (How many of you that have decried the dismissal of the Start menu own tablets - regardless of what OS is on them? How many of you own smartphones - again, regardless of what OS is on them? Microsoft has a Research arm - they have eyes. Do you honestly expect them to IGNORE the far and fast-growing tablet and smartphone trend, which started back when Windows 7 was launched? If you own tablets and/or smartphones - regardless of OS - you are PART of the danged trend; to insist otherwise is both Pharonic and hypocritical - basically you are in serious denial.)

Though I don't own either a tablet OR a smartphone (my cell phone is an old-fashioned SAMSUNG candybar dumbphone), I see the trend with BOTH eyes. I can't ignore it - and I'm rather far down on the IT totem, compared to most of you. So why do so many of you INSIST on ignoring it?

[MorganX]

Microsoft has a Research arm - they have eyes. Do you honestly expect them to IGNORE the far and fast-growing tablet and smartphone trend, which started back when Windows 7 was launched?

No. Absolutely not. The deeper question is, should we continue to allow one private, for-profit company, and the wants, needs, and desires of their shareholders and executives to have so much influence on the Nation's productivity and economy? Should we make a concerted effort to maintain heterogeneous computing environments for this very reason?

[COKid]

I honestly dont see any problems with Windows 8, other than the boot to desktop which I really want!

You can pretty much do that now. This will show the desktop at boot after several seconds. After that, I never see the Start Screen.

Make a .scf file and add the following:

[shell]

Command=2

IconFile=explorer.exe,3

[Taskbar]

Command=ToggleDesktop

Save the file here: %appdata%\microsoft\windows\start menu\programs\startup

[Defcon]

The problem isn't the Start Screen, the hot corners, or even Metro itself. The basic problem is that Win 8 does such a terrible job of integrating touch and desktop. They basically just build 2 separate OS's and bundled them together, then mixed and matched a few completely haphazard and arbritrary UI elements like settings strewn all over the place, the Metro file picker on the desktop etc.

Of course there is a need to have touch in a modern OS. But Win 8 doesn't even feel that usable on a hybrid Ultrabook. Everything works and its fast, but its not very usable or efficient. And it looks like with 8.1 Microsoft will give in to the backlash and put back familiar UI elements and give people an actual choice, instead of treating every pc like a tablet.

[PGHammer]

No. Absolutely not. The deeper question is, should we continue to allow one private, for-profit company, and the wants, needs, and desires of their shareholders and executives to have so much influence on the Nation's productivity and economy? Should we make a concerted effort to maintain heterogeneous computing environments for this very reason?

MorganX, by insisting that Microsoft Windows NOT change, you are, believe it or not, doing EXACTLY that. By denying Microsoft permission to change Windows, you are basically saying that a single Microsoft operating system - Windows - is too important to functionality to change, despite all the evidence (including those sales numbers for new PCs you have been using against Windows 8) saying something completely different. You are NOT promoting heterogeneity (many different computing environments); instead, you are promoting HOMOGENITY - a SINGLE computing environment. Windows 8 didn't kill off Windows 7 - nobody has said otherwise. Not a single Neowinian, or anyone from Microsoft, has said that Windows 8 is a Windows 7 killer. Windows 7 will, in fact, still be supported by Microsoft until - at least - 2021 - that is eight years away. Windows 9 - if not Windows 10 - will have shipped by the time support for Windows 7 goes away. At the end of its run, Windows 7 will have been supported longer than any operating system in Microsoft's history - including Windows XP.

[PGHammer]

The problem isn't the Start Screen, the hot corners, or even Metro itself. The basic problem is that Win 8 does such a terrible job of integrating touch and desktop. They basically just build 2 separate OS's and bundled them together, then mixed and matched a few completely haphazard and arbritrary UI elements like settings strewn all over the place, the Metro file picker on the desktop etc.

Of course there is a need to have touch in a modern OS. But Win 8 doesn't even feel that usable on a hybrid Ultrabook. Everything works and its fast, but its not very usable or efficient. And it looks like with 8.1 Microsoft will give in to the backlash and put back familiar UI elements and give people an actual choice, instead of treating every pc like a tablet.

That is homogenetic thinking, Defcon - which users are largely rejecting. Even most tablets are not homogenetic; the sole exception is, in fact, Apple's iPad. (Android is not a homogenetic OS, though it did, in fact, start out AS one. iOS itself started as a homogenous OS with the original iPod; it moved away from that with both the original iPhone and later iPods. It is FAR less homogenetic with the iPad and iOS 7.) A homogenous OS is, in fact, a "niche" or single-purpose, operating system. Windows 7 is a less heterogenous OS than Windows 8 - which is, oddly enough, one reason why it has gotten in trouble in terms of new hardware sales (back prior to Windows 8's launch). As smartphones and tablets have gotten more features, their operating systems have adapted to match - Android, iOS, and even WindowsRT (Microsoft's own response). Windows 8 takes what's in WindowsRT and bolts that on to the Windows Server 2012 core mixed with Windows 7's application and hardware compatibility. It's a "superset operating system".

Putting back familiar UI elements is a semi-regression , and something I seriously wish would get tossed - and that is despite my running Windows 8 today on non-touch-capable hardware. Homogenous OSes are niche OSes, and very much buck the trend started by Windows itself way back with Windows 1.0. Touch support is an alternative to mouse support - it does NOT replace it any more than voice support (which has even been on desktops far earlier) replaced the keyboard.

Live in your homogenetic niche all you please - however, don't try to deliberately condemn the rest of us to doing so.

[MorganX]

MorganX, by insisting that Microsoft Windows NOT change, you are, believe it or not, doing EXACTLY that. By denying Microsoft permission to change Windows,

I'm personally not insisting that, so I assume we are being hypothetical here. The reality is no one has denied Microsoft permission to change Windows. Millions just don't like the change and feel it doesn't "serve" "them" well.

The fact is Microsoft is on 90% of the World's desktops. That makes all changes important to everyone. And the question remains, is it wise to allow one privately held company hold that much power in an unregulated manner? Should "we" make an effort to diversify our computing environments for our own good and to disallow and private entity that much power and control over our productivity, quality of work life, and to a large extent economy or economics of individual institutions who rely on this architecture.

Have we unknowingly created a monster? It is a valid question that many are asking and have been asking. It is only renewed with the recent Windows 8 event. I believe that many shareholders who would break up Microsoft, see this ...

[Growled Member]

And the question remains, is it wise to allow one privately held company hold that much power in an unregulated manner?

As much as I am against regulation, in this case I say no. Just like it's not wise to allow utility companies to run without regulation. Some things are too important to allow greedy and/or short sighted companies to ruin things.

[PGHammer]

I'm personally not insisting that, so I assume we are being hypothetical here. The reality is no one has denied Microsoft permission to change Windows. Millions just don't like the change and feel it doesn't "serve" "them" well.

The fact is Microsoft is on 90% of the World's desktops. That makes all changes important to everyone. And the question remains, is it wise to allow one privately held company hold that much power in an unregulated manner? Should "we" make an effort to diversify our computing environments for our own good and to disallow and private entity that much power and control over our productivity, quality of work life, and to a large extent economy or economics of individual institutions who rely on this architecture.

Have we unknowingly created a monster? It is a valid question that many are asking and have been asking. It is only renewed with the recent Windows 8 event. I believe that many shareholders who would break up Microsoft, see this ...

By insisting that Windows not change, we have basically deemed the Windows UI/UX too important to be touched, MorganX - I didn't generate that out of thin air. It would be the same as barring Henry Ford's Model A (or other, and far earlier, attempts at horseless carriages) from existence - which was, in fact, exactly how Cugnot's far-earlier "horseless carriage" was treated in France. (Shortly after its first appearance, it was, in fact, banned by law in France.)

Windows had that market share prior to the launch of Windows 7. However, the computing market is so very NOT the same as it was since Windows 7 launched. There are tablets, slates, smartphones, etc. Some of these devices have Intel and AMD CPUs in them. Just looking at Android and iOS, Windows is, in fact, under siege. Ignoring the besiegers would be as big a mistake as Gulliver ignoring the Lilliputians. (And we know exactly what happened when Gulliver took that nap - the Lilliputians launched their takedown.) I'm speaking as someone that owns neither tablet OR smartphone - however, I refuse to ignore the existence of what I see with my own eyes.

Microsoft, as a company, has a lot more eyes than I do - they doubtless see the increased number of Lilliputians. They have even less reason to ignore them than I do, as they are the company under siege. What those of us that are insisting that Windows not change are doing, is, in fact, CREATING a monster - a monstrous homogenous OS that is static in features and supports only a subset of hardware. That bucks the trend of Windows itself, let alone what users of Windows have insisted on over the years. It's basically a small subset of vocal users that are resistant to change (the tail) wagging the much larger Microsoft dog. If they succeed, users that don't share their view will leave Microsoft even faster, as they will have lost what made Microsoft successful. Windows will sink to niche status, and sooner than later, become irrelevant.

Why would a company that depends on user revenue (Microsoft) WANT to become irrelevant?

As much as I am against regulation, in this case I say no. Just like it's not wise to allow utility companies to run without regulation. Some things are too important to allow greedy and/or short sighted companies to ruin things.

Do you realize that you sound like the French? That is the argument they used to bar Cugnot's original "horseless carriage" from French streets - in the sixteenth century.. They did it to protect the horse-breeding industry. All that law did was to buy time - horseless carriages did eventually become legal to be developed and driven in France, and horse-breeders adapted.

[MorganX]

As much as I am against regulation, in this case I say no. Just like it's not wise to allow utility companies to run without regulation. Some things are too important to allow greedy and/or short sighted companies to ruin things.

I'm not suggesting we regulate them. Though many have toyed with the idea that Windows should enter the public domain, that's just not very capitalistic.

However, organizations may make a concerted effort to diversify their desktops and they have to expend effort supporting heterogeneous devices in the mobile space anyway for the BYOD movement.

[MorganX]

Windows is, in fact, under siege

Windows on the desktop is not under siege. That is why Microsoft was willing to even take the risks with the desktop. There's nowhere for anyone to go except back to Windows 7. Microsoft is leveraging it to make inroads in the mobile space. Many may ask, why should we incur deployment, retraining, development, and lower productivity costs so Microsoft can satisfy its shareholders or make inroads into markets we don't care about?

One company makes unilateral decisions with a monopoly in desktop computing and it costs everyone millions. Do you really think people aren't questioning the wisdom of being reliant on the Windows Desktop when Microsoft just showed it will change it, for the worse (subjective), to suit their own needs end user be damned? The fact that many of the decisions were bad don't make it better. The longer the core apps remain crap doesn't make it better. That's why, despite the numbers, this really is a disaster of sorts IMO.

Can they get out of it? Sure, Blue is definitely headed in the right direction. Have no idea about core apps or if any serious Modern UI apps are even on the Horizon. If there had been better integration or a more subtle transition it wouldn't have mattered as everyone is currently happy with the Win32 and Web apps anyway. But putting the Modern UI in everyone's face, wham bam begged the question OK? For what? Well, there's no apps so it must be for something else. Oh yeah, Microsoft needs to make inroads in tablets and smartphones.

Everyone with a Windows/Microsoft technical architecture is all for that, it's the way in which they proceeded and executed that have many questioning the wisdom of being reliant on Microsoft to such a degree that when they say jump, you may have no choice but to say how high.

[contextfree]

The Start menu has been complained about and outright ATTACKED over its seventeen years of existence, and has gone largely unchanged over those seventeen years - name ONE feature that has been added to it.

Hunh?

MFU, pinning, links to main personal folders, and highlighting of newly installed programs (in XP)?

Search and the compact accordion-style All Programs format (admittedly more of a sidegrade than an upgrade) (in Vista)?

Jump lists and inclusion of Control Panel results in search (in 7)?

I'm not a big fan of the start menu and prefer the start screen, but saying it hadn't changed is bizarre. Win7's start menu was vastly more usable and useful than Win95's.

[Growled Member]

Microsoft is leveraging it to make inroads in the mobile space.

That's not working out too well for them and I doubt it will. It's a different space and has different players. People are leaving Windows to go to those spaces.

[MorganX]

That's not working out too well for them and I doubt it will. It's a different space and has different players. People are leaving Windows to go to those spaces.

Well, it's not working because they absolutely made a mess of the rollout. Windows 8 RTM with still crappy core apps, and the unfinished Modern UI/UX. The store is still slow, no real Modern UI apps, etc. etc. And don't forget at a minimum, no Start Button. Had no chance of succeeding. The Surface RT bombed, Surface, WP8, W8 disconnected.

I think it can work if they really fix things. They look like they're headed in the right direction with the UI/UX. But apps, that will take a year or two if developers choose to go there. They won't even begin in a meaningful until at least Blue is released, and WP8, still so far to go. If iOS 7 is nice and fresh combined with cheap iPhones, it's going to remain and uphill climb behind iOS and Android. It's doable but will take creativity currently lacking, and some serious subsidizing of the right apps.

I'm not convinced people are leaving Windows to go mobile. I think they are complimentary and parallel. People aren't buying new PCs for many reasons, Windows 8's current state one of them. But I guarantee with Modern UI heavy duty games and apps, on PCs that look like an aluminum iMac with touch, they will sell.

Microsoft's blunders just set their plans back a year or two, and that makes anything possible. It's now possible they will fail and become relatively irrelevant in those spaces over the next couple years. If they were anyone except Microsoft, this Windows 8 blunder would have ended them. But they are Microsoft. Lots of money and desktop dominance ... they just need to regroup, take their heads out of their asses, and get cool and creative, real fast.

[PGHammer]

Well, it's not working because they absolutely made a mess of the rollout. Windows 8 RTM with still crappy core apps, and the unfinished Modern UI/UX. The store is still slow, no real Modern UI apps, etc. etc. And don't forget at a minimum, no Start Button. Had no chance of succeeding. The Surface RT bombed, Surface, WP8, W8 disconnected.

I think it can work if they really fix things. They look like they're headed in the right direction with the UI/UX. But apps, that will take a year or two if developers choose to go there. They won't even begin in a meaningful until at least Blue is released, and WP8, still so far to go. If iOS 7 is nice and fresh combined with cheap iPhones, it's going to remain and uphill climb behind iOS and Android. It's doable but will take creativity currently lacking, and some serious subsidizing of the right apps.

I'm not convinced people are leaving Windows to go mobile. I think they are complimentary and parallel. People aren't buying new PCs for many reasons, Windows 8's current state one of them. But I guarantee with Modern UI heavy duty games and apps, on PCs that look like an aluminum iMac with touch, they will sell.

Microsoft's blunders just set their plans back a year or two, and that makes anything possible. It's now possible they will fail and become relatively irrelevant in those spaces over the next couple years. If they were anyone except Microsoft, this Windows 8 blunder would have ended them. But they are Microsoft. Lots of money and desktop dominance ... they just need to regroup, take their heads out of their asses, and get cool and creative, real fast.

In other words, it's not a success because it wasn't not chockablock with ModernUI apps from the get-go.

I have news for you - neither was either Android or iOS. Both took what you are not wiling to give either ModernUI or Windows Phone (let alone Microsoft) - time.

You would rather have Microsoft become that monster monolith on the desktop and not even THINK about venturing outside of the desktop niche.

Yes - I just called desktop computing a niche. A rather LARGE niche, but still a niche. (I live in that niche; therefore it's not exactly a fun thing for me to realize. However, ignoring it doesn't make it any less the truth.)

What makes me even angrier is that you are, in fact, PART of the trend away from buyng desktop PC after desktop PC - what do you do on your SurfaceRT and smartphone that you used to do ONLY on your PC?

The three technologies are complimentary for now - however, as both tablets/slates and smartphones gain capabilities that USED to be unique to the PC, how much more marketshare will they take away from it?

It is happening right now, and it will continue - to insist it won't is not just being in denial, it is ignoring a trend that predates Windows 8. (I may not participate in it; however, I utterly refuse to ignore the evidence of my own eyes.)

While YOU (specifically) may be happy having multiple devices (including your desktop) doing multiple things, not everyone is a device-aholic.

Windows 7 does quite a bit, and is no less useful than when it was launched - if that's all the capability you need, nothing say you need to move beyond it.

Do you, in fact sell (or even support) smartphones and/or tablets? I really have to wonder why someone that, in fact owns tablets and/or smartphones would want Windows to remain a desktop-only OS, unless they are so invested in Apple and/or Google (professionally or personally) that despite their also using a desktop computer, they see Microsoft (not merely Windows) as both competition, and a threat. If that is indeed the case, say so - don't sit their with that holier-than-thou attitude when you have a vested interest in seeing Windows remain a desktop-only niche OS.

[PGHammer]

Windows on the desktop is not under siege. That is why Microsoft was willing to even take the risks with the desktop. There's nowhere for anyone to go except back to Windows 7. Microsoft is leveraging it to make inroads in the mobile space. Many may ask, why should we incur deployment, retraining, development, and lower productivity costs so Microsoft can satisfy its shareholders or make inroads into markets we don't care about?

One company makes unilateral decisions with a monopoly in desktop computing and it costs everyone millions. Do you really think people aren't questioning the wisdom of being reliant on the Windows Desktop when Microsoft just showed it will change it, for the worse (subjective), to suit their own needs end user be damned? The fact that many of the decisions were bad don't make it better. The longer the core apps remain crap doesn't make it better. That's why, despite the numbers, this really is a disaster of sorts IMO.

Can they get out of it? Sure, Blue is definitely headed in the right direction. Have no idea about core apps or if any serious Modern UI apps are even on the Horizon. If there had been better integration or a more subtle transition it wouldn't have mattered as everyone is currently happy with the Win32 and Web apps anyway. But putting the Modern UI in everyone's face, wham bam begged the question OK? For what? Well, there's no apps so it must be for something else. Oh yeah, Microsoft needs to make inroads in tablets and smartphones.

Everyone with a Windows/Microsoft technical architecture is all for that, it's the way in which they proceeded and executed that have many questioning the wisdom of being reliant on Microsoft to such a degree that when they say jump, you may have no choice but to say how high.

Windows on the desktop is not under siege. That is why Microsoft was willing to even take the risks with the desktop. There's nowhere for anyone to go except back to Windows 7. Microsoft is leveraging it to make inroads in the mobile space. Many may ask, why should we incur deployment, retraining, development, and lower productivity costs so Microsoft can satisfy its shareholders or make inroads into markets we don't care about?

One company makes unilateral decisions with a monopoly in desktop computing and it costs everyone millions. Do you really think people aren't questioning the wisdom of being reliant on the Windows Desktop when Microsoft just showed it will change it, for the worse (subjective), to suit their own needs end user be damned? The fact that many of the decisions were bad don't make it better. The longer the core apps remain crap doesn't make it better. That's why, despite the numbers, this really is a disaster of sorts IMO.

Can they get out of it? Sure, Blue is definitely headed in the right direction. Have no idea about core apps or if any serious Modern UI apps are even on the Horizon. If there had been better integration or a more subtle transition it wouldn't have mattered as everyone is currently happy with the Win32 and Web apps anyway. But putting the Modern UI in everyone's face, wham bam begged the question OK? For what? Well, there's no apps so it must be for something else. Oh yeah, Microsoft needs to make inroads in tablets and smartphones.

Everyone with a Windows/Microsoft technical architecture is all for that, it's the way in which they proceeded and executed that have many questioning the wisdom of being reliant on Microsoft to such a degree that when they say jump, you may have no choice but to say how high.

Yes; Windows on the desktop - in fact, the desktop PC itself - is so VERY under siege. To ignore the increasing numbers of tablets and smartphones being sold INSTEAD of traditional desktop PCs is to be in denial.

The desktop computer being in trouble started for economic reasons - the economy turned sour, and thus businesses stopped buying a new PC with every new release of Windows. The second reason for the slowdown is, outside of subniches in desktop computing, how have the needs of users (in terms of software) changed since - don't laugh - Windows Vista? The average user doesn't do much outside of a set range of tasks - therefore, they don't need a fancy desktop (or portable PC), with an equally fancy price tag. Outside of GPU requirements, how much have hardware requirements (minimum, recommended, or real) changed for Windows since Vista? Here's a surprise - outside of the GPU, the hardware requirement for Windows 7 and Windows 8 are, in fact, identical. No change at all. Therefore, if you bought a computer during the Vista era, you would need to change little (or nothing) to be able to run Windows 7 (or 8). That's the reality in the developed world (North America, a large part of South America, most of Europe, and a not-insignificant part of Asia) as of Windows 8 going into beta. Therefore, why buy a new PC if you don't need to?

Then came the increased capabilities of tablets and even smartphones. While you may have needed a PC to create it (and that is true less and less), you certainly don't to mere view, read, or even edit it. Strike two against the PC.

Lastly, as smartphones and tablets have increased in terms of capability, their prices (like prices for all electronics) have largely remained flat. (In some cases, prices have actually dropped on an average basis.) That's not exactly an advantage for desktop PC owners OR users - it meant that the price gap viz. tablets and smartphones has increased.

Windows is under siege because the desktop PC *itself* is under siege. Microsoft can't ignore that - why is it that most of you CHOOSE to?

[MorganX]

Yes; Windows on the desktop - in fact, the desktop PC itself - is so VERY under siege. To ignore the increasing numbers of tablets and smartphones being sold INSTEAD of traditional desktop PCs is to be in denial.

I will buy that argument when you can show even reasonable data suggesting that those devices are purchased "instead" of traditional desktops. Most people I know with desktops have a smartphone and a tablet, and have always had a smartphone.

The growth in mobile, I believe, are users who would otherwise NOT have purchased anything. You really think millions of people buying cheap Androids phones and tablets for under $100 would have purchased a PC if those were not available? That's ridiculous, they would have bought a pair of Air Jordans.

[MorganX]

In other words, it's not a success because it wasn't not chockablock with ModernUI apps from the get-go.

I have news for you - neither was either Android or iOS. Both took what you are not wiling to give either ModernUI or Windows Phone (let alone Microsoft) - time.

1) Pretty much (Edit: It's 6 months later now and there still aren't mANY meaningful Modern UI apps for the desktop).

2) It's not up to me to give it time, it's up to the market to give it time. Windows 8 wasn't released in a vacuum. Microsoft new the situation and they blew it out of the gate. Now, coming from behind, they're playing double catch-up. That's not my fault, or the market's fault. That's Microsoft's fault.

>>The desktop computer being in trouble started for economic reasons<<

The reasons are numerous. The economy generally doesn't stop sales for very long if people want something. For the most part, Windows 7 satisfied users needs, and technology has reached a point where upgrades are "necessary."

Only games push today's hardware. Blame it on lazy developers. Blame it on web apps. Blame it on ugly PC design. If Windows 8 and the Modern UI actually provided a reason to upgrade, that would be reflected in sales. All markets flatten, as the mobile market eventually will, and the shift in growth will go to software and/or peripherals.

>>What makes me even angrier is that you are, in fact, PART of the trend away from buyng desktop PC after desktop PC - what do you do on your SurfaceRT and smartphone that you used to do ONLY on your PC?<<

I don't do anything on my Surface RT at the moment. It sucks, too slow, and software is lacking. It's collecting dust. If I have to I just take my laptop to work when I'm mobile. Something I never did with my desktop. The same goes for smartphones, email and texting. While email I still do on my desktop, especially if I have to write long emails. There is a physical aspect. Typing on a diminutive smartphone is for emergency on the move communication only. Office on those devices is only for viewing, though PowerPoint can be fully utilized.

So, there is nothing that I do only Surface RT or smartphone that I used to ONLY do on my PC. When I'm using my Lumia or 8X I can't even easily get music on them.

For the first time I purchased a custom PC for Windows 8. 8 is a letdown, but the PC is not. We continue to refresh PCs and in fact, just got budget increase for continued refresh. All the while, deploying iPads, Androids, and Surfaces. Due to MS' continued failures in the mobile space, our BYOD policy is now heterogeneous.

Microsoft has had plenty of time, time is simply running out in markets where they have competition. The only market they are solid in is where they really have no competition, Servers and Desktop OS.

[HawkMan]

I will buy that argument when you can show even reasonable data suggesting that those devices are purchased "instead" of traditional desktops. Most people I know with desktops have a smartphone and a tablet, and have always had a smartphone.

The growth in mobile, I believe, are users who would otherwise NOT have purchased anything. You really think millions of people buying cheap Androids phones and tablets for under $100 would have purchased a PC if those were not available? That's ridiculous, they would have bought a pair of Air Jordans.

Last year and even more so, so far this year. the amount of customers I turn away from buying a pad device and have to suggest a new laptop or keep using their old is getting very big.

the reason why I have to turn them back is pretty exclusive to Norway, our biggest electronic ID(BankID, as well the the enxt biggest, BuyPass) use java. This means they can't log into their banks or do other e-ID tasks on their pads. Granted BankID has no said that they're phasing in a new Java free solution from this summer. And while most banks have at apps, these are limited in what they're allowed to do, generally you're only allowed to transfer money between your own accounts, or you an log into the mobile bank and do a little more, but only full bankID verification allows full secure access to the bank.

I suspect from this summer, even more people than before will buy pads over traditional computers.

as for proof, look at the numbers. traditional computers in the form of desktops are non existent, laptops are waaay down. pads are selling more and more. granted the last few years sales in general have slumped or slowed because of the economy but the trend is still there. most people don't need laptops or full computers for their computing.

[Terry Nuz]

depends how you tweak it mine is fine start button and all

[MorganX]

as for proof, look at the numbers. traditional computers in the form of desktops are non existent,

Year over year sales of -14% do not mean desktops are non-existent. It does not even men the base has shrunk one iota. That is the flaw in this whole line of thinking.