01-16-2014 12:29 PM
58 123
tools
  1. ikissfutebol's Avatar
    Well...Microsoft has gone on record as saying that Surface is supposed to be attacking the high-end where OEMs were struggling to put together compelling hardware. Samsung and Google (via whomever they pick) have the high end Android on lock down between the Galaxy and Nexus lines. I'm not quite sure where HP, Dell, Lenovo, ASUS, etc. plan on competing in which they could not use the SAME strategy with Windows. The problem is that the "high end" and "low end" are now separated by relatively very little. Previously, a $200 netbook made sense for some because the high end was in the $1,000s. You can now get a high end tablet and a keyboard for it for significantly less than $1,000- why buy a full computer if it isn't necessary? The bigger thing Microsoft needs to worry about is that things actually function at the current standard bearer- Windows Phone is currently crippled by the terrible music management. It needs to AT LEAST be on par with iTunes. Shipping things like the Windows 8 mail app at launch and NOT the 8.1 update was completely irresponsible.

    The issue is and always will be companies adopting fast enough to change. How many other companies have died because they failed to adapt fast enough? Thousands. The new personal computer market is changing faster than companies can/will. Similar to how the car market got too big in the mid/late 2000s with companies have 5-7 of the same exact model that compete with one another under different brands, I think OEMs should go the Apple/Microsoft/Google/Amazon route- have virtually the same hardware that increase one thing (likely storage) between tiers- CPU/RAM, etc. can be done between tiers, too. It is stupid when you look at Best Buy and for $100 you can get the same model with this or that upgrade under virtually the same model. That can only mean manufacturing costs are higher than necessary and that the OEMs have less revenue. The tech community needs to remember how little the average consumer needs. If you are going to respond with, "but I need x, y, z", you are the problem and not the solution. Raise the costs for specialty/custom systems and start shipping out systems that are essentially netbooks with actual CPUs. If it saves them (OEMs) money to ship one device with Android AND Windows 8, go for it. Just give us the ability to recover that storage and I don't think anyone will bat an eye.

    The most important thing for Microsoft is to actually start marketing their products correctly. The new ones that talk about the features with the little one-way interviews is at least a sign that they are finally waking up. Break dancing kids, no. I think it would do wonders to actually have a little kid as well as an elderly senior citizen doing all the things you can do with Windows 8.1 as opposed to simulated screens.

    Ultimately, I think a lot will rest on the Windows Phone 8.1 update. If Microsoft screws it up with beta software akin to the W8 launch, they will be struggling. If they make the the update exclusive for new software, they are toast. Lastly, I would actually prefer if Microsoft took over the low and mid-range. They have shown with XBox that they are not afraid to sell at razor thin margins and make it up in accessories/software sales. I think it would be a lot easier if they had Surface with ARM, Atom, i5/7 and called it a day. I reckon they could sell Surface RT for significantly less than the current rate once they truly stop caring about OEMs.
    Guytronic and Laura Knotek like this.
    12-29-2013 05:21 PM
  2. a5cent's Avatar
    I think it would do wonders to actually have a little kid as well as an elderly senior citizen doing all the things you can do with Windows 8.1 as opposed to simulated screens.
    You mean like this?
    12-29-2013 05:46 PM
  3. Angry_Mushroom's Avatar
    "Scare the heck out of Microsoft?" Why? At the very least they'll still be the primary OS on the laptop, and android will be a secondary gimmick. Face it. If I get myself a nice Galaxy S4... I will likely reach for that to play Angry Birds then go through menus to boot up a flaky emulator.

    I don't see any revolution against Microsoft. Revolution was threatened by OEMs when the Surface launched. Instead convertible tablets suddenly sprung up everywhere. The supposed revolution against MS turned into an evolution of consumer electronics. I'll be straightforward. If any OEM installs an Android emulator app on my next PC, I'm uninstalling it. I've used Windows 8/8.1 with both a touchscreen and a mouse and keyboard. I've found out one thing. I prefer both over a generic touchpad interface.
    sahib lopez likes this.
    12-29-2013 06:51 PM
  4. Guytronic's Avatar
    You mean like this?
    An absolute joy to watch!!!
    I love the last part "I'll get my colleague to answer that" so sweet!
    a5cent likes this.
    12-29-2013 06:52 PM
  5. mlm1950's Avatar
    Where would any of these PC makers be without Microsoft and Windows?

    Enjoy your Chromebook.
    Guytronic likes this.
    12-29-2013 07:12 PM
  6. bilzkh's Avatar
    I'm not one to be crude, but the media and the PC OEMs can go and suck their sh!t back in.

    Honestly, there are just too many dumb sh!ts out there hating on Microsoft for the sake of hating on Microsoft, not because their products and services have their share of flaws. What god damn product/service doesn't have problems and gaps? The reality of human nature will always guarantee imperfect products and services, to HELL with anyone who is going to guilt-trip Microsoft whilst praise Apple/Google for "forward-leaning decisions." F-OFF, seriously.

    If I were Microsoft I'd release a $250 Windows RT device with Type Cover and totally out-maneuver, out-market and out-think the OEMs and their Chromebooks. Not only that, but I'd also seek out those nascent Chrome OS developers and convert them to Windows RT: Get them to orient all of their web app development to Windows RT. If the OEMs felt hurt over Surface, then I'll be sure to step it up 2-3 notches with this particular series, i.e. "Courier" - our entry-level tablet series, $249 with Type Cover.
    Last edited by bilzkh; 12-30-2013 at 01:24 AM.
    scgf likes this.
    12-30-2013 01:11 AM
  7. gsquared's Avatar
    "Scare the heck out of Microsoft?"

    Heh. Easier said than done.
    12-30-2013 07:20 AM
  8. sahib lopez's Avatar
    "Scare the heck out of Microsoft?" Why? At the very least they'll still be the primary OS on the laptop, and android will be a secondary gimmick. Face it. If I get myself a nice Galaxy S4... I will likely reach for that to play Angry Birds then go through menus to boot up a flaky emulator.

    I don't see any revolution against Microsoft. Revolution was threatened by OEMs when the Surface launched. Instead convertible tablets suddenly sprung up everywhere. The supposed revolution against MS turned into an evolution of consumer electronics. I'll be straightforward. If any OEM installs an Android emulator app on my next PC, I'm uninstalling it. I've used Windows 8/8.1 with both a touchscreen and a mouse and keyboard. I've found out one thing. I prefer both over a generic touchpad interface.
    this!!!!! i could never use on a phone much less on a tablet because i found it annoying to navigate though menus. and if comes in a computer that's the first thing im taking off my computer ( good thing i build my own ) i never liked google bloatware/malware and i never will
    12-30-2013 01:44 PM
  9. Mike Gibson's Avatar
    ...
    This is how MS can fix W8 (technically, I'm not sure the perception of W8 can be saved):
    ...
    Why they didn't do this in the first release is beyond me. It's like MSFT *wanted* Win8 to fail. I imagine most people look at a Win8 computer and ask, "where's my Windows?" (i.e. the one they're familiar with). Then they realize that if they're going to need to learn a completely new UI, they might as well give non-Windows systems a try or wait to see what happens with Win8. Either choice is lethal to MSFT. It will be a much smaller company in 5 to 10 years unless they come to their senses and refocus on the so-called "Desktop" Windows.

    If MSFT is dead set on attempting to force the Metro UI on users then they should adopt your plan. If they want to actually succeed then they need to sh*tcan the entire RT effort and do the following:

    1. Create a subset of the Win32 API (cut out old, obsolete APIs), let's call it Win32X
    2. Add a simple, scalable UI API to Win32X to replace USER and GDI (hammer home scalability in the programming guides)
    3. Have a Win32X Store that takes the best features of the WinRT Store (easy installation, updates, portability, etc.)
    4. Charge a max of 10% of the purchase price in the Win32X Store
    5. Backport the damn thing to Windows 7 so that devs have a huge existing market to sell into
    6. Open Win32X apps fullscreen on small devices, windowed on large devices

    Killing WinRT and WinPRT adopting this plan results in many positives:

    a. Devs, including MSFT itself, no longer have to create two or more versions of their programs (one for WinRT, another for WinPRT, and yet another for Win32)
    b. No stupid Async functionality (devs can use the much simpler multithreading functionality in Win32)
    c. No stupid exception-based error handling in the core API (which is terrible when you have bugs in released code)
    d. Users work in their familiar Desktop environment on familiar devices (laptops and desktops)
    e. Users benefit because the UI adapts to the device they're using at the moment (which is what they expect to happen)
    12-30-2013 02:28 PM
  10. Jas00555's Avatar
    Alright, I've thought about this multiple times and I have no clue wtf the OEMS are thinking if they do this. Like everything about this seems completely idiotic and and downright stupid.
    "Yo, guys, we heard you didn't like PCs that had a desktop OS and a tablet OS, so we're gonna give you a PC with less storage that has one desktop OS and 2 tablet OSes. Yeah, you'll like that."

    Nothing about this makes sense tbh, it sounds like they don't want to make a Windows tablet and an Android tablet separately (think Dell Venue and Dell Venue Pro) so they're just making one with both on it. If that's the case, that's just going to hurt the consumer in that they'll be stuck with an OS that they don't want.

    I mean, I can see why they think its a good idea to do this to save money, but wtf do they think consumers want a dual-boot computer out of the box. They're just helping Microsoft imo. Think about it, would you want a tablet with one simple OS or one with 2 different ones? It'll just drive Surface and iPad sales since they'll be the only 2 with 1 OS on it.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    12-30-2013 02:55 PM
  11. a5cent's Avatar
    If MSFT is dead set on attempting to force the Metro UI on users then they should adopt your plan. If they want to actually succeed then they need to sh*tcan the entire RT effort and do the following:
    Windows RT's main problem has little to do with APIs. While I agree that much of the new-fangled APIs are too concerned with looking modern rather than being efficient, scalable, flexible and robust, the bigger reasons for concern are market perception, consumer acceptance, the lack of tablet optimized software for WRT, and the big question revolving around what a touch based interface is doing on people's desktops who use nothing but a keyboard and mouse. If existing customers had welcomed Windows 8.x with open arms, and everyone agreed that it was a must-have update over Windows 7, then the developers would have put up with the API related shortcomings and delivered the apps. Developers always go where the paying customers are.

    Anyway, as far as I can tell, Windows RT is already dead. It will disappear and be replaced by an upcoming version of WP, which will replicate many of the features currently exclusive to WRT.

    The modern UI is here to stay however. MS was right to somewhat forcibly expose users to the metro UI. Change never happens without some force. Like I said, MS just needed to keep the navigation and window arrangement paradigms separated... that mistake was far more consequential than anything MS could have screwed up with the APIs.

    Why they didn't do this in the first release is beyond me. It's like MSFT *wanted* Win8 to fail.
    I don't know what W8 would have looked like if I had designed it without any of the knowledge we have today. The people who worked on it probably were thinking a bit too much about where they wanted to be... not enough about the current customer base and where they are. Considering the pressure they must have been under to catch up with the mobile revolution that was underway, that mistake isn't completely incomprehensible. Hindsight does make a lot of things look obvious, much of which probably wasn't at the time.

    Unfortunately, Windows 8 has turned out to be counterproductive... at the worst possible time.
    12-30-2013 05:31 PM
  12. Guytronic's Avatar
    Windows RT's main problem has little to do with APIs. While I agree that much of the new-fangled APIs are too concerned with looking modern rather than being efficient, scalable, flexible and robust, the bigger reasons for concern are market perception, consumer acceptance, the lack of tablet optimized software for WRT, and the big question revolving around what a touch based interface is doing on people's desktops who use nothing but a keyboard and mouse. If existing customers had welcomed Windows 8.x with open arms, and everyone agreed that it was a must-have update over Windows 7, then the developers would have put up with the API related shortcomings and delivered the apps. Developers always go where the paying customers are.

    Anyway, as far as I can tell, Windows RT is already dead. It will disappear and be replaced by an upcoming version of WP, which will replicate many of the features currently exclusive to WRT.

    The modern UI is here to stay however. MS was right to somewhat forcibly expose users to the metro UI. Change never happens without some force. Like I said, MS just needed to keep the navigation and window arrangement paradigms separated... that mistake was far more consequential than anything MS could have screwed up with the APIs.



    I don't know what W8 would have looked like if I had designed it without any of the knowledge we have today. The people who worked on it probably were thinking a bit too much about where they wanted to be... not enough about the current customer base and where they are. Considering the pressure they must have been under to catch up with the mobile revolution that was underway, that mistake isn't completely incomprehensible. Hindsight does make a lot of things look obvious, much of which probably wasn't at the time.

    Unfortunately, Windows 8 has turned out to be counterproductive... at the worst possible time.
    Key words...
    12-30-2013 05:47 PM
  13. Mike Gibson's Avatar
    Anyway, as far as I can tell, Windows RT is already dead. It will disappear and be replaced by an upcoming version of WP, which will replicate many of the features currently exclusive to WRT.
    What's hilarious, in a sad way, is that WinRT is a better implementation of the RT concept than WinPRT!

    The modern UI is here to stay however. MS was right to somewhat forcibly expose users to the metro UI. Change never happens without some force. Like I said, MS just needed to keep the navigation and window arrangement paradigms separated... that mistake was far more consequential than anything MS could have screwed up with the APIs.
    Metro is dead on large screen devices (not phones). Also, the APIs played a large part in the Win8 disaster. I won't port my Win32 programs to WinRT because I would have to maintain two completely separate code bases, not to mention that it's basically impossible to produce a complex RT program. If they had simply extended Win32 with a simple scalable UI API and backported it to Win7, I would have happily converted my programs over to it. Why? Because I could have covered phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, and XBox with one code base. It would have been fantastic for both devs and users.

    I don't know what W8 would have looked like if I had designed it without any of the knowledge we have today. The people who worked on it probably were thinking a bit too much about where they wanted to be... not enough about the current customer base and where they are. Considering the pressure they must have been under to catch up with the mobile revolution that was underway, that mistake isn't completely incomprehensible. Hindsight does make a lot of things look obvious, much of which probably wasn't at the time.
    Lack of time or resources is NOT an excuse for a company with 90,000+ employees. And maintaining backwards compatibility was always the number one concern in the Windows group. I don't know how many times I had to modify my Win95 code to maintain backwards compatibility (even to the point of zeroing specific locations on the stack to cover up uninitialized variables in third part programs!). They knew that completely breaking backwards compatibility was a disaster in the making. My guess is that the business side of MSFT got greedy and thought they could profit from the 30% cut of WinRT app sales.

    Unfortunately, Windows 8 has turned out to be counterproductive... at the worst possible time.
    You're being too kind. Disaster is a better word. As I've said before, Win8/RT/Metro may end up killing the entire company. MSFT needs to fire everyone involved in the Metro/RT debacle. The CEO and Windows chief are already gone. Now they need to root out the PMs and SDEs who designed and implemented it.
    12-30-2013 11:43 PM
  14. Reflexx's Avatar
    I do think the 30% cut is too large; especially for expensive products. There really should be a cap on how much MS makes from a sale. Maybe around $30. Right now, a company that makes $800 software isn't ever going to make an RT version; even if it wad as easy as hitting a magic "Convert" button.

    WinRT can still succeed, but I agree that they need to open up more APIs.
    12-31-2013 08:05 AM
  15. Mike Gibson's Avatar
    I do think the 30% cut is too large; especially for expensive products. There really should be a cap on how much MS makes from a sale. Maybe around $30. Right now, a company that makes $800 software isn't ever going to make an RT version; even if it wad as easy as hitting a magic "Convert" button.
    I don't have a problem with them charging a percentage of the sales prices ... but 30% is *way* too high (even the high volume 20% rate is too high). They're just copying AAPL and GOOG's stores. If small Win32 resellers can get by on 5-7% I don't see why MSFT can't. I'd support a 10% cut since MSFT handles the certifying, updating, etc.

    WinRT can still succeed, but I agree that they need to open up more APIs.
    The latest rumors from Thurrott and Foley say that WinRT is basically dead and that MSFT will grow WinPRT instead. If that turns out to be true then we'll see a "Revenge of the Desktop in Windows 9. What's interesting is how this somewhat parallels the Windows-vs-OS/2 debacle in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Win16 was in widespread usage but MSFT deemed it a "legacy" API. The OS/2 API was the new way and both MSFT and IBM poured resources into it for several years. Unfortunately, users had a death grip on Win16, Windows 3.0/3.1 exploded on the scene, and Win95 (with its highly Win16-compatible Win32 API) finally buried OS/2. Changing to a completely new and incompatible API didn't make sense back then and it doesn't make sense now.

    Also, MSFT needs to seek help for its C# fetish. If they're serious about M# then they're *really* doomed.
    a5cent likes this.
    12-31-2013 10:38 AM
  16. Reflexx's Avatar
    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.
    12-31-2013 11:18 AM
  17. Mike Gibson's Avatar
    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.
    12-31-2013 01:02 PM
  18. chinesepiratefood's Avatar
    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.
    Guytronic likes this.
    12-31-2013 01:24 PM
  19. Reflexx's Avatar
    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.
    12-31-2013 02:38 PM
  20. jwinch2's Avatar
    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.
    01-01-2014 10:42 PM
  21. jwinch2's Avatar
    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.
    01-01-2014 10:44 PM
  22. a5cent's Avatar
    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.
    01-02-2014 05:36 AM
  23. ohgood's Avatar
    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.
    01-02-2014 06:33 AM
  24. gsquared's Avatar
    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 and theefman like this.
    01-02-2014 08:21 AM
  25. etad putta's Avatar
    Hackintosh anyone? Best option out there right now.
    01-02-2014 11:26 AM
58 123

Similar Threads

  1. ATT Go Phone on Contract Plan
    By boothes18 in forum Carrier Discussion Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-27-2013, 06:11 PM
  2. Send messages in Lolcat and other fun languages with T3XT K1NG for Windows Phone 8
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2013, 05:20 PM
  3. Windows Phone and eBooks.
    By Tichshew in forum Windows Phone 8
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-27-2013, 02:59 PM
  4. Free 30-day trial available for The New York Times on Windows and Windows Phone
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2013, 01:30 PM
  5. Master of music? Prove it with MixMaster for Windows Phone, powered by Nokia MixRadio
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-27-2013, 01:10 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD