New
#10
I can't find the article, but I read Win 8 is at 2.7% saturation at the same point in time w7 was at 7.8% after its release.
Why Windows Blue heralds the death of the desktop
-
-
New #11
I can understand that MS is moving towards "the in" which is tablets and phones. I was getting lunch one time and saw a 3 year old navigating his way on an ipad better than I ever could. This kid will never use a desktop on his own accord, because all he is ever going to know is the swipe/touch style. MS understands that the next generation of kids are only going to be interested in this style and is trying to make the move now, so when they are at a certain age it is the morn. I can appreciate that from a pure business stand point.
The problem is they are forgetting the generations that were here up to this point and many of us do not want touch screens because we are comfortable. Desktops might be a thing of the past in the distant future (Iron Man's computer in mid-air was cool
), but think of it this way: People still buy vinyl records and players, even though Cassettes then CDs and now Digital music has ruled the music world, but many people like using LPs even younger kids for some reason. Those records should have been obsolete by 2013, but some bands even will make a special edition on vinyl for the true fans and collectors. Rather than SONY saying they'll refuse to produce anymore players or parts for a player (not sure if SONY does, just an example) they take care of their customers, but they put their emphasis on their current business flow and always look toward the future.
Don't see why MS wouldn't think in this fashion and take care of it's customers regardless if they don't get on board with the Cassettes and CDs of the next movement in computers. The difference is, while millions of kids enter this new movement and will be on board, there are millions that will not be part of the movement so there is still plenty of business to gain from desktop users. Unlike the music example, there is not an overwhelming population of vinyl users rather a niche, but they take care of that niche, MS seems to not care so much about the overwhelming population that wants/needs a desktop.
-
New #12
I recall reading that the uptake of Windows 8 has been slower than even that of Windows Vista, which says a lot.
----
On a different note, I'd like to clarify (I'm uncertain if I was clear enough) from my initial post regarding the Win32 bit that I want the Win32 API to live on, be developed even further, and flourish regardless of what MS and developers have to say about its alleged inefficiency and obsolescence. MS might want to kill off Win32 for a myriad of reasons, but as an end-user I consider Win32 and the software that (will) run and depend on that API invaluable in their worth.
-
New #13
-
-
New #15
Fallacy
Desktop programs run on servers too.
There is no difference running CentOS as a desktop or a server (apart from using the server functions).
Unlike Windows, you are charged exactly the same amount if you use CentOS on a desktop, or a server (free).
I'm not sure how RHEL does it.
If you need more power, you buy better hardware (e.g. multiple CPUs, HDDs, NICs, etc.).Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server supports all leading hardware architectures with compatibility across releases and a 10-year update and support lifecycle.
...
Available in either desktop or workstation configurations.
Don't forget that MS deliberately cripples its desktop operating systems, so you can't use them as servers (i.e. artificially limits the number of connections, maximum RAM, etc.).
If they didn't, they couldn't sell the more expensive Windows Server editions.
-
New #16
Hi there
servers are also multi-user OS'es -- which the Linux kernel was designed to be from the start. Windows was initially conceived as a SINGLE user OS (one person at a time --of course you can have several accounts).
However what do we really mean by "The Desktop". Is it just a platform for launching applications conveniently -- if so then so long as you can conveniently Window applications (and re-size the windows of course) does it matter HOW these are launched -- provided of course they can be done CONVENIENTLY -- and this is where the arguments start out as what is convenient to some isn't important at all to others.
Where the stupid "modern UI" fails is in setting a FIXED number ( I think Windows Blue now allows 4 applications) of applications that can run concurrently in fixed window sizes depending on the resolution of your hardware.
Now almost anybody can see that this type of approach is TOTALLY BONKERS. I really don't care a toss whether my applications run from "The desktop" or anywhere else so long as I can launch them EASILY, can have as many or as few open concurrently that I choose and can re-size all the windows to fit with MY hardware -- not be dependent on some stupid rigid Pixel size formula and navigate easily between the windows.
I don't have a problem with removing "The desktop" per se -- but I do have a problem with Fixed size and number of Windows as envisioned in "The Modern UI" look.
Cheers
jimbo
-
New #17
It's not bonkers jimbo if the OS was designed for tablet/phone which it's becoming increasingly obvious W8 was. Not a problem in itself if MS had designed an OS that detected at install time whether you had touch screen or a conventional desktop/laptop setup and surely this was not beyond the expertise of the company. There are many 'under the hood' improvements with W8 although what they are I'm not sure as I haven't extensively tested the thing myself.
The Cloud (which MS is pushing) is great provided it works 100% of the time and you have confidence that everything placed there will be again 100% secure. But we're not at that stage and probably never will be so whilst it sounds great and works fine in Redmond that's not the case in the real world. Living in the MS bubble it never occurred to them that often internet connections are flaky or non-existent so then just how does that work out.
MS need to rethink the W8 concept and hopefully will do so before it's too late. But for now there are plenty of W7 systems working just fine. Just seems a shame though there will not be a SP2 for W7 with some of those under the hood improvements incorporated - that's assuming it can be done of course.
MS knows (assuming they are listening which is debatable) how to take the sting out of the negative publicity that W8 is receiving and that's to offer choice at install time.
-
New #18
-
New #19
The only thing that worries me with this particular type of comparison is the actual validity of the data, not the raw data which I am sure is completely accurate, but the fact that the whole ecosystem has changed since the time of vista.
Today people access the net from a vast range of devices with an equally diverse set of operating systems, when Vista was released, (and to a certain extent Windows7), you did not have the huge use of mobile devices accessing the net, using iOS or Android in the main. This means that the overall percentage of people accessing the net from windows would be less than in the past.
I myself would show my net access from any Windows OS to be less than it was when I ran Vista as my main OS - I am now permanently connected to the net on my Android phone and connected most of the time on my Android tablet, I connect through windows 7 for about 12 hours a day, and a Windows 8 test system occasionally
Quote
Related Discussions