Article: PC makers plan rebellion against Windows at 2014 CES, analysts say

[Reflexx]

I don't really see how WinPRT would be a better choice then WinRT. Then again, I'm not a developer.

Isn't WinRT more robust? It has more links to Win8 API's, doesn't it? If anything, I see WinRT and WinPRT being unified... but with WinRT being the base that the new phone OS will be based off of. It seems like it would be easier to add phone related capability to WinRT then it would be to add all the Windows stuff to WinPRT.

And what negatives do you associate with M#? Wouldn't that be a positive if implemented? It seems to me that being able to code in what is basically C#, but with more direct access and power would be good.

 

[Mike Gibson]

Isn't WinRT more robust? It has more links to Win8 API's, doesn't it? If anything, I see WinRT and WinPRT being unified... but with WinRT being the base that the new phone OS will be based off of. It seems like it would be easier to add phone related capability to WinRT then it would be to add all the Windows stuff to WinPRT.

Yes, WinRT is a better, more complete implementation of the RT concept. However, the new head of Windows, Terry Myerson, was in charge of Windows Phone so it's pretty obvious where his bias lies.

And what negatives do you associate with M#? Wouldn't that be a positive if implemented? It seems to me that being able to code in what is basically C#, but with more direct access and power would be good.

C# is not a systems language. Read the blog post by the guy working on it. He describes all the problems making it work in a systems context. Regardless, all it would do is create yet another new and completely different API for ISVs and IHVs to deal with (which they won't). Core OS APIs need to be simple ... just a way to move bytes into and out of the OS, like they are in the Win32 API. Language-specific frameworks can run on top of that core OS.

 

[chinesepiratefood]

Am I the only person who actually read the article? I'm not sure the FoxNews author who wrote that even knew what he was typing. It says flat out that they are using software to enable running Android apps ON TOP of Windows. How does that help any other platform but Windows? HINT: It doesn't. They are trying to BOOST Windows sales, how on earth is that "planning a rebellion". My god the stupidity of "journalists" continues to astound me.

 

[Reflexx]

Am I the only person who actually read the article? I'm not sure the FoxNews author who wrote that even knew what he was typing. It says flat out that they are using software to enable running Android apps ON TOP of Windows. How does that help any other platform but Windows? HINT: It doesn't. They are trying to BOOST Windows sales, how on earth is that "planning a rebellion". My god the stupidity of "journalists" continues to astound me.

It would be fine for Windows itself.

The Windows Store may take a hit though.

 

[jwinch2]

Despite your post being rather vague and never quite mentioning exactly what it is that you disliked about W8.x, I was with you up until the part I quoted above. I agree that W8.x can justifiably be faulted for many things. That W8 replaced that Start Menu with a Start Screen is not one of them.

I disagree. I am an early adopter and have no problem understanding how to use it, I simply don't like the experience. You do, and that is fine.

There is almost nothing that the W7 Start Menu does better than the W8 Start Screen. If you really think the W8 Start Screen is one of W8's biggest problems, then you're fundamentally misunderstanding something. I would agree that the W8 Start Screen has by now become a PR and marketing liability, but I assume that this thread is more concerned with real technical issues rather than just how something is perceived.

One does not have to fundamentally misunderstand something to not like it.

This is how MS can fix W8 (technically, I'm not sure the perception of W8 can be saved):

1)
Require that users explicitly enable the metro environment.

1a)
Failing to do so wouldn't mean that metro apps can't be used, but that they are instead opened in a window like any other desktop app. The metro app would only switch into full-screen mode when its window is maximized, but even then none of the traditional metro-ified means of navigation and window arrangement would apply. If you want to use metro apps side by side, then you would arrange the windows accordingly, just as if they were desktop applications. When not maximized, the metro app windows could be resized, within limits, and probably with some window size snapping that would correspond to the display resolutions that metro apps support. Without enabling the metro environment, there is no metro-like app snapping, there is no "pull down to close" gesture, there is no "cycle through apps by swiping from left" gesture. What I would retain are the metro side bars (left and right) and the W8 Start Screen. I also wouldn't bring back the inferior W7 Start Menu.

1b)
Enabling the metro environment wouldn't disable access to the desktop, but would simply have W8 function as it does today, including support for all metro-like gestures. Any metro apps that may have been running in a window on the desktop would instantly be removed from the desktop and moved over into the metro environment.

2)
Add folders to the apps list (which they should also do for WP), so people with dozens of applications can navigate the list with less clutter. Also provide a video tutorial explaining how the Start Screen is really just the same old W7 Start Menu in new cloths, with a focus on all the things it does better.

If you force people to use something rather than allowing them the option you will simply push them away from the platform entirely. The consumer can figure out what they like and do not like without having people who think they know better making decisions for them.

 

[jwinch2]

Ummm... no thanks. Get a better source and we will talk.

About what I predicted for commentary. You might consider checking the sources they cite, or the other article I linked. Or, you can just continue to waste everyone's time.

 

[a5cent]

One does not have to fundamentally misunderstand something to not like it..

True. On the other hand, to prefer something that is objectively worse does require at least some level of inflexibility or misunderstanding. Of course you might dislike the W8 Start Screen solely for superficial reasons (the colours, the animations, etc), but since you are on WPC, I'll assume your gripes are at least somewhat more profound.

The consumer can figure out what they like and do not like without having people who think they know better making decisions for them.

Obviously also true. Nobody is claiming you can't make you own decisions. Nobody is claiming to know better what you like or dislike.

I am stating only that you either can't (or prefer not to) articulate exactly what it is you dislike about the Windows 8 Start Screen. Your most descriptive attempt so far has been "I simply dislike the experience". While that statement is fine, it doesn't facilitate any meaningful discussion, which is usually why people post on a forum.

My point is that if we were to go through all the features of the W7 Start Menu and compare them to the W8 Start Screen, we would conclude that (in all scenarios I'm aware of) the Start Screen is more powerful and faster in daily use. This isn't just a simple statement of opinion. If you have a legitimate gripe, it shouldn't be hard to convince me that the Start Screen isn't right for you.

As long as we continue to operate at this level of vagueness however, I don't find it completely unfair if I continue to assume that I do know better. I'll gladly change my mind if given reason to.

 

[ohgood]

True. On the other hand, to prefer something that is objectively worse does require at least some level of inflexibility or misunderstanding. Of course you might dislike the W8 Start Screen solely for superficial reasons (the colours, the animations, etc), but since you are on WPC, I'll assume your gripes are at least somewhat more profound.



Obviously also true. Nobody is claiming you can't make you own decisions. Nobody is claiming to know better what you like or dislike.

I am stating only that you either can't (or prefer not to) articulate exactly what it is you dislike about the Windows 8 Start Screen. Your most descriptive attempt so far has been "I simply dislike the experience". While that statement is fine, it doesn't facilitate any meaningful discussion, which is usually why people post on a forum.

My point is that if we were to go through all the features of the W7 Start Menu and compare them to the W8 Start Screen, we would conclude that (in all scenarios I'm aware of) the Start Screen is more powerful and faster in daily use. This isn't just a simple statement of opinion. If you have a legitimate gripe, it shouldn't be hard to convince me that the Start Screen isn't right for you.

As long as we continue to operate at this level of vagueness however, I don't find it completely unfair if I continue to assume that I do know better. I'll gladly change my mind if given reason to.

The fact that this thread, and many others like it, exist proves there is a problem.

The users stated they dislike elements of the ui, and the forced inclusion of those ui changes on their last purchase.

You don't need to change YOUR mind about which is better, or convince users one way is better, they did so long ago. What they had was good enough.

The repair is simple, give users the previous ui by default, but the choice to try the new ui if, when they seek it out.

 

[gsquared]

The fact that this thread, and many others like it, exist proves there is a problem.

The users stated they dislike elements of the ui, and the forced inclusion of those ui changes on their last purchase.

You don't need to change YOUR mind about which is better, or convince users one way is better, they did so long ago. What they had was good enough.

The repair is simple, give users the previous ui by default, but the choice to try the new ui if, when they seek it out.

The one reason that is a bad idea and will not happen is this:

If we as a society, species, etc. took that approach with everything nothing would EVER change. These are the same battle cries that came with Win Vista which was not nearly as bad as popular media mad it out to be. Come the end of the day where else are you going to go? MSFT already knows this and they are not going backwards.

Win 8 is their first try at a major shift from previous offerings. It may not be until Win 9 or Win 10 before it becomes accepted. One thing that can almost be stated as fact is it will get accepted sooner or later.

Come the end of the day where else are you going to go?

 

[etad putta]

Hackintosh anyone? Best option out there right now.

 

[etphoto]

If you force people to use something rather than allowing them the option you will simply push them away from the platform entirely. The consumer can figure out what they like and do not like without having people who think they know better making decisions for them.

Then moved to another platform and after 85-90 yrs from now when
Microsoft goes belly up, your grand kids come back here and brag on how forward thinking you where.

I just don't get it. Every OS makes changes in an attempt to get better and Microsoft, in my opinion, is moving toward more of a mobile market (smartly) and they want their desktop OS to be a similar experience.

 

[a5cent]

The fact that this thread, and many others like it, exist proves there is a problem (with the W8 Start Screen).

Apparently the point I'm trying to make is very hard to understand... so I'll say again that, yes, I agree. I already admitted there is a problem... one of perception and understanding. Still, although this W8 Start Screen problem is a matter of psychology (familiarity, subjective aesthetics, flexibility, etc) more than it is one of software technology, its consequences (market share, acceptance, image, etc) are nevertheless very real.

If you believe that a large number of people sharing a view automatically counts as validation of that view, then I'd suggest a good history book... Thor is real, Jews are a non-human race, the command line is far superior to this new-fangled toy called the mouse, which will disappear soon enough (or at least be relegated to the kids room)... all of those were once widespread and strongly held convictions, at least in some regions.

You don't need to change YOUR mind about which is better, or convince users one way is better.

No, I don't need to. I want to. The WPC community changes my mind a little bit every day, and I hope I can help evolve other people's views as well. Not everyone is satisfied by sticking with their first impressions for all eternity.

More than anything else, it is the W8 Start Screen that is faulted for people's poor experiences, yet the accusers rarely provide a detailed explanation as to how and why. I think the onus is on them to do so. However, few question those accusations, because many have subconsciously come to accept that the problem is self evident, which just isn't true. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I hope at least some people find such questioning worthwhile. I don't see how improving our understanding of the actual technical situation can be a bad thing, which is what I'd prefer to be talking about.

Again, in a nutshell, the W8 Start Screen is objectively superior to the W7 Start Menu. Anyone that goes through each feature, point by point, and compares how each task is completed in both versions of Windows, should have little difficulty convincing themselves that the W8 app launcher (the Start Screen) is functionally at least equivalent to that of W7.

I won't comment any further on whether I'm right or wrong to question the OP's opinion. I'll gladly continue with the technical discussion...

Back on topic...

Suggesting that OEMs believe W8 is the main reason for lower desktop and laptop sales volumes is just bad reporting. The reason for lower sales is mainly price, and the continued miniaturization of computing technology. This would have happened even if W8 was the best OS ever. If most people can now have 80% of their computing needs met by a cheap tablet, why would they continue to spend their computing dollars on far more expensive desktops and laptops, particularly when most people haven't seen the need for a faster PC in years. Putting Android emulators on desktops and laptops won't make them a dime cheaper, quite the opposite actually, and the cheaper alternatives will still be good enough... Android emulators won't improve desktop/laptop sales at all.

For WRT tablets, offering an Android emulator might make a difference, but only if that has little influence on price. This would be very dangerous to MS however. It certainly doesn't further MS' interests. Allegedly, MS is thinking about reducing WP and WRT licensing costs to zero. They would compensate via profits made through app sales in the Windows Store. If Windows tablet users instead turn to Google's Play Store for most of their apps, then how is MS to earn anything at all with their OS efforts? I think such a move has the potential to kill Windows as a tablet OS.

 

[Ryanz]

Win 8 is their first try at a major shift from previous offerings. It may not be until Win 9 or Win 10 before it becomes accepted. One thing that can almost be stated as fact is it will get accepted sooner or later.

Come the end of the day where else are you going to go?

Can they really wait until Windows 9 (let alone 10)? Three of the major computer stores I live by, Windows desktops, laptops and tablets didn't move at all throughout Christmas, Boxing Day (or Boxing Week) -- and that's despite a $150 price reduction in the 64GB Surface RT, which is STILL on sale ($70 off now however).
Chromebooks, MacBook Airs and Pro's sold out before Christmas. 21" iMacs & Mac mini's sold out during Boxing Week sales (despite not being on sale).

People who realize they don't do much other than use a browser, a Chromebook is hard to beat.
At least in my city, people have made the move towards Apple (or at least away from Windows). When I purchased my laptop a guy was buying a 27" iMac. He told the employee it was because he "detested" Windows 8. So whether people hate Windows 8 or have become integrated with Apple products do to iPads or iPhones, people are realizing they do have a choice.
I did buy a Windows 8 laptop but didn't like it (Windows 8 that is). I could have installed Windows 7 if I purchased a USB DVD-drive, but I decided to give Linux a fair shot. Over a month and a half and I haven't looked back.

 

[jwinch2]

Then moved to another platform and after 85-90 yrs from now when
Microsoft goes belly up, your grand kids come back here and brag on how forward thinking you where.

I just don't get it. Every OS makes changes in an attempt to get better and Microsoft, in my opinion, is moving toward more of a mobile market (smartly) and they want their desktop OS to be a similar experience.

You can lead people where you think things should go and make the transition easy by allowing it to be an option, or you can arrogantly push people where you think things should go, and in doing so risk pissing your consumer base off, which is what is happening right now. We tend to forget that there is an actual person at the end of the supply chain who has to like and want to use the product that is being produced.

 

[jwinch2]

http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/threshold-be-called-windows-9-ship-april-2015

The fact that MS is working to push "Windows 9" so soon suggests that they recognize that this is a problem of a scale that is larger than many wish to admit.

 

[a5cent]

http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/threshold-be-called-windows-9-ship-april-2015

The fact that MS is working to push "Windows 9" so soon suggests that they recognize that this is a problem of a scale that is larger than many wish to admit.

Read the thread again. Nobody is saying it's not a problem.

 

[a5cent]

Back on topic... how much of a rebellion did we actually whiteness? In hindsight, it seems like this report was completely overblown...

 

[genuine555]

Hi, may I add my perspective on the subject ?

I have also been using Windows from day and age, and tried them all.
At home the consumer editions, on the workfloor(s) the proffesional server and meta-server editions.
To stay on subject, below only concerns the consumer editions.

One thing I have noticed throughout the editions, is that the "efficiency" of the platforms since Win2000 have been going STEADILY in 2-step increments. Because of the exponentionally growing "pace" of our economy, since Win2000, the devellopment and production stages before releasing to the public have been drastically shortened.

Meaning every "next" one will be optimized, the one after less optimized, etc...

So in Bold here is what I mean :

Win2000
Win Millenium
WinXP
Win Vista
Win7
Win8

The Bold ones were the better ones, the ones in between less optimized and less efficient.
Win2000, XP and 7 are the three rock solid platforms. Win Mill, Vista and 8 (imo) all sucked and still do.
Because of this chronology, after a short review of win8 I never even looked at that edition despite its elaborate marketing setup.
I know it sucks. I tried it and just didn't see the advantage over 7, at least in terms of true "efficienty" in daily usage with mouse and keyb. 7 beats it easily. There is no need for that metro stuff, at least untill it is finally optimized like XP and 7.
At the time of 2000 I waited for XP, and never used millenium for myself. At the age of XP, I waited untill 7, and never used Vista for myself.
Now, I am doing the same thing. Sticking with 7 untill the next edition after 8. I will never use 8. It is just the same mess as Vista was (maybe not AS bad but still similar)...

I predict that the next edition after 8/8.1 will again be a "hit" among the consumers, just like XP and 7...