Can Microsoft Ever Recover? Windows 8, Windows Phone, Xbox One, Surface, etc.

[A895]

I specifically mentioned NOT YOU. Re-read my post. Look at some of the other posts around here chastising people for not using X or Y system. Anybody who volunteers to pay for my devices and my services is free to tell me what to use. Once again, I'm not referring to you. Post after post you and I have agreed and disagreed like adults.

Sent from my iPhone using WPCentral Forums

My bad. I do agree that people around chastise other for using different workflows. Whatever works for one person works for them. Does not mean it applies to everyone else too.


Sent from my XT907 using Mobile Nations mobile app

 

[tgp]

Never saw it.

Here ya go!

 

[fatclue_98]

Wow! Some serious hostility here today. Who forgot their coffee or Midol - or both?

 

[anony_mouse]

A) You missed the point of his post
B) You should start telling the average consumer about the greatness of the Chromebook. Not many are buying it.

A) Her or his post hinged on the fact that other people's opinions and preferences were inherently wrong so I didn't find his points very interesting or helpful.
B) Why should I do that? Why would I even want to do that? I'm not paid to do so by Google. I was merely commenting that I found the Chromebook to be a much better product than I expected.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

A) Her or his post hinged on the fact that other people's opinions and preferences were inherently wrong so I didn't find his points very interesting or helpful.
B) Why should I do that? Why would I even want to do that? I'm not paid to do so by Google. I was merely commenting that I found the Chromebook to be a much better product than I expected.

Because if nobody evangelizes it, it'll continue to only have twice the market of Windows RT. And I'm told that Windows RT flopped.

 

[anony_mouse]

Because if nobody evangelizes it, it'll continue to only have twice the market of Windows RT. And I'm told that Windows RT flopped.

It's Google's job to "evangelise" it. I'm not going to provide volunteer labour to a large and highly profitable corporation. Why would anyone do that?
I'm happy to provide my opinion on a product if someone asks, or in the spirit of discussion, but I'm not going to advertise it or provide any unsolicited advice in favour of such a product.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

It's Google's job to "evangelise" it. I'm not going to provide volunteer labour to a large and highly profitable corporation. Why would anyone do that?
I'm happy to provide my opinion on a product if someone asks, or in the spirit of discussion, but I'm not going to advertise it or provide any unsolicited advice in favour of such a product.

You'd be surprised what some people do for the company they like.

​Good to know you're not one of the crazies.

 

[anony_mouse]

You'd be surprised what some people do for the company they like.

​Good to know you're not one of the crazies.

That's why these forums provide such endless entertainment.

 

[Jaskys]

Yes they can, they will release WP9 and W9 then media will droll how good it is, even thought it will probably have minimal changes

Look Win vista > Win 7, Win7 is basically the same Vista just with a new name, but it helped alot, vista was on a rough start, while W7 was smooth from first day

 

[anony_mouse]

Yes they can, they will release WP9 and W9 then media will droll how good it is, even thought it will probably have minimal changes

Look Win vista > Win 7, Win7 is basically the same Vista just with a new name, but it helped alot, vista was on a rough start, while W7 was smooth from first day

As I remember it, Vista was catastrophically slow and unreliable. And trust me, I remember it well. Whereas Windows 7 actually worked quite well when it was launched. I think that's why it was well received.

You could argue that Windows 7 was Vista with a service pack and a lot of crap stripped out. Even so, it was substantially different to use as it didn't make you want to throw your PC out of a window (pun intended).

 

[rockstarzzz]

Internet explorer has just as much market share as Google chrome.

You are underestimating the number of PCs that Microsoft has managed to bulk-install in Govts, Schools, Colleges, Libraries - all still running IE8, 9, 10 or 11.

 

[WillysJeepMan]

Yes they can, they will release WP9 and W9 then media will droll how good it is, even thought it will probably have minimal changes

It'll be more like, "I love to hit myself in the head with a hammer (win8) because when I stop it feels so good."

Look Win vista > Win 7, Win7 is basically the same Vista just with a new name, but it helped alot, vista was on a rough start, while W7 was smooth from first day

No, it wasn't basically the same Vista just with a new name. Win7 wasn't a complete rewrite, but there were significant changes to the OS between Vista and Win 7 that enabled Win 7 to run on hardware that Vista couldn't, or couldn't run as well. No amount of service packs and updates could get Vista to run on some hardware that Win7 ran on, and ran very well.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

It'll be more like, "I love to hit myself in the head with a hammer (win8) because when I stop it feels so good."


No, it wasn't basically the same Vista just with a new name. Win7 wasn't a complete rewrite, but there were significant changes to the OS between Vista and Win 7 that enabled Win 7 to run on hardware that Vista couldn't, or couldn't run as well. No amount of service packs and updates could get Vista to run on some hardware that Win7 ran on, and ran very well.

No, Vista SP2 was pretty much the same as 7. They ran the same, really. It ran a little better, but it was basically the same. Also, minimum requirements were the same when you looked at them.

Edit: Also, what do you mean by that bold part?

 

[Great deal]

In a bit of a rush so haven't had a chance to read through thread so apologies if im repeating.

With the comscore report that WP has zero growth in the US coupled with the lack of hardware, due to the takeover of Nokia and restructure I guess, and looking at what MS have in the market place I believe they have a GREAT opportunity.

The Surface brand is strong and with each SP the tech gets better and the hard nosed bloggers, reviewers are slowly softening towards it. I think MS seize the opportunity and release and focus on one device similar Apple have the iPhone.

The time is right for a Surface Phone - with all the might and support behind the 'one phone' (LOTR advert would be cool, Gandalf calling Frodo using WP9) will see growth. Would be sad to see them go the road of Android where every tom **** and harry makes a device and the OS suffers due to crap hardware.

Long live the Surface Brand!

 

[Joey Balls]

"I just feel like there is this impossible mountain for Microsoft to climb because, for some reason, the entire tech world seems biased against them. "

For some reason? You really don't know? How about the fact that they held a monopoly for 20 years and suppressed any if not all innovation that came their way? Firstly, they messed up the Internet by adding their own ideas to their browser rather than using the standards like everyone else. They will NEVER recover from that. Secondly, take a look at their OS releases. Every other release is something that businesses didn't want, but they released it anyway. Why are so many businesses stuck on older versions of Windows? Because the upgrade path is horrible, it's pricey, and compatibility is always an issue. Thirdly, they never innovate. Because of their long hold on the industry, they had the luxury of throwing any kind of software at people and we were all forced to use it (look at the desktop version of Office! Bleh!). They never did anything exciting. They tried tablets, they tried phones, they tried it all before but failed miserably because of their lack of innovation and their primary focus being sales. The original windows mobile was horrible. It was just a trimmed down version of Windows that was generally unusable on a small screen. The same with their tablets. They basically just shoved XP on a smaller device with a weaker processor. How could that possibly work in their favor? So many mistakes while they were luxuriously riding out their monopoly. Well guess what? They no longer have a monopoly because innovation pulled way ahead of them. With things like Android, iPod, etc, overshadowing their lackluster innovation and their whole financial agenda. It's a perfect example of how too much greed eventually loses. Remember, greed is a negative. There's only so far you can carry a negative without it causing negative effects.

So people who are around 35 and over will never forget their hold on the industry. That's the major reason why they are on an fast, out of control nose dive. Secondly, for people 30 and younger, they either like the cool innovative products from Apple and Google, or they just use what their parents have switched to because of their disappointment with Microsoft. That's all it really is.

I'm actually a huge MS supporter. I love their development tools, outlook.com, etc, but the only way that MS will ever pull out of this tailspin is if they create some world-changing technology using what money they have left. They need to be incredibly innovative. They need to stop playing catchup and hire some people with open minds and some understand of where the tech industry is going and embrace it, rather than pushing back. And most importantly, they need to stop basing their software and services on greed. That will never work. I understand that businesses are in it for the money, but you'll never make anything worth buying if all you're trying to do is make money. All the great inventors in our history didn't invent all the amazing things we use today for the sake of making money. Steve Jobs didn't create the iPod to make money, he did it because he wanted to carry 1000 songs in his pocket. Period.

 

[a5cent]

No, it wasn't basically the same Vista just with a new name. Win7 wasn't a complete rewrite, but there were significant changes to the OS between Vista and Win 7 that enabled Win 7 to run on hardware that Vista couldn't, or couldn't run as well. No amount of service packs and updates could get Vista to run on some hardware that Win7 ran on, and ran very well.

I know both Vista and Windows 7 internals quite well and I have not seen anything at all that would remotely support this claim. Can you be more specific or provide sources?

As a developer, to the best of my knowledge, the architecture is 100% identical. Only two things changed:

• MS didn't allow OEM's to put the Windows 7 stickers on the same type of crappy hardware that they could put Windows Vista stickers on.
• hardware companies (like nVidia) had enough time to get their drivers working with Vista's new driver model (as used unchanged by Windows 7).

Neither of those changes have much to do with the OS itself, and as mentioned, if you take Vista SP2 as the baseline it's really hard to point to any notable differences.

 

[WillysJeepMan]

I know both Vista and Windows 7 internals quite well and I have not seen anything at all that would remotely support this claim. Can you be more specific or provide sources?

As a developer, to the best of my knowledge, the architecture is 100% identical. Only two things changed:

• MS didn't allow OEM's to put the Windows 7 stickers on the same type of crappy hardware that they could put Windows Vista stickers on.
• hardware companies (like nVidia) had enough time to get their drivers working with Vista's new driver model (as used unchanged by Windows 7).

Neither of those changes have much to do with the OS itself, and as mentioned, if you take Vista SP2 as the baseline it's really hard to point to any notable differences.

Depends upon your definition of "architecture". And I'm not going to debate semantics or perspectives. You are free to believe that Windows 7 is literally Vista with a Service Pack, but that isn't what was reflected in various benchmarks and reviews at the time that Win7 was released.... particularly when running on low end netbooks. Netbooks running WinXP actually ran "better" when running Win7 (and could barely run Vista if it was able to load).

 

[a5cent]

Depends upon your definition of "architecture". And I'm not going to debate semantics or perspectives. You are free to believe that Windows 7 is literally Vista with a Service Pack, but that isn't what was reflected in various benchmarks and reviews at the time that Win7 was released.... particularly when running on low end netbooks. Netbooks running WinXP actually ran "better" when running Win7 (and could barely run Vista if it was able to load).

Not here to debate semantics or perspectives either. Just facts. So, no sources...

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Depends upon your definition of "architecture". And I'm not going to debate semantics or perspectives. You are free to believe that Windows 7 is literally Vista with a Service Pack, but that isn't what was reflected in various benchmarks and reviews at the time that Win7 was released.... particularly when running on low end netbooks. Netbooks running WinXP actually ran "better" when running Win7 (and could barely run Vista if it was able to load).

There was very little difference, performance wise, between Vista SP2 and 7.