More Than 3 Out of 4 Enthusiasts Reject Windows 8

King Arthur said:

jimbo45 said:

What people here seem to be making an error on is that they seem to want a "newer W7" -- well for all sorts of reasons it can't reasonably be done --hence the need to design new OS'es. - By the logic expressed on this Forum by some people we'd sill be using XP (assuming we ever got beyond Windows 98 in the first place).

Putting aside small changes like the removal of the "classic" Start Menu and addition of security features like UAC, fundamentally there's nothing different between Windows XP and 7 in their design besides improvements to better support newer hardware (ie: SATA HDDs, and SSDs) and newer BIOS/UEFI software, and improvements to increase general performance.

A "newer Windows 7", which we would indeed love to have, would consist of kernel improvements we've seen in Windows 8 (faster boot tiemz!!!111!11one11!eleven) while keeping the desktop environment of Windows 7 and improving on it even further with improved support for newer hardware/software such as native USB3 support. It's all very reasonable to do and most end-users would prefer that over Windows 8/Metro/RT on desktops and laptops, it's just MS decided to be unreasonable and make us go their way or the highway; personally, I'm taking the highway on this one.

Hi there

Oh Dear -- there's a HUGE difference in XP and W7. For starters W7 has the ability to run (decently) 64 bit hardware although most of it is actually done via WOW (Windows on Windows).

XP did have a 64 bit version but trying to design proper 64 bit drivers and a decent security system was just not on -- as is the standard version of XP -- too many glaring holes in the security system meant that without a radical re-write of the OS XP was never going to survive frequent attacks in the new era.

If you are doing ANY sort of engineering there comes a point whether you can keep plugging leaks / applying patches to essentially an old design or whether you should start again from scratch and design the system taking into account advances in hardware / technology etc.

Even the I/O subsystem of XP had reached its limit -- it doesn't support USB3 or even SATA natively (if you try and install XP on a computer with no IDE drives you'll get the message "No Hard disks found". You have to slipstream the SATA drivers into the install process to make it work). Similarly trying to hive off really fast powerful GPU's away from the standard CPU functions also requires considerable jiggling with the OS to make the multi-tasking work successfully. Some of the modern graphics cards would just blow away the stuff that was around during the (original) lifetime of XP.

Windows 7 whilst a lot newer also has design limitations -- OK for a lot of people who are satisfied with their present hardware -- but the same considerations apply which is why Ms decided to go for an OS that can work in a modular capacity over all sorts of devices.

Another area that requires a whole slew of OS changes is to hive off the WOW (Windows on Windows) element in the OS which effectively means you are running a lot of applications in 32 bit rather than 64 bit mode. W8 is starting to reduce the reliance on WOW - and I would expect to see soon the dropping of the 32 bit OS completely with another kernel method used to run legacy 32 bit applications. This type of stuff requires a total kernel re-design and re-write so any W7 users hoping fr an "Improved" W7 unfortunately are going to be sadly disappointed.

OK some like W8 some don't --however as I've previously said NO ONE HAS to use it - but actually those that DO use it find it's nothing like as bad as the original complaints seemed to make it.

(If you were a Car manufacturer for example would you keep trying to jury rig an old model or would you decide at some point - we can't really upgrade this model any more -- we really DO have to design a new one that incorporates all the latest technological advances).

Cheers
jimbo

Why couldn't they have made a desktop and a tablet version? Apple and Google manged to, why can't Microsoft?

People use phones and tablets, in addition to, laptops and desktops. they're not used on their own. I don't know anyone who just has a tablet or a phone.

x BlueRobot said:

Why couldn't they have made a desktop and a tablet version? Apple and Google manged to, why can't Microsoft?

They can but M$ are desperate to push folks towards the subscription cloud model and paid for downloaded apps. They've seen how much money the fruit company makes from apps and want a slice of the action. But in doing so they've managed to alienate many existing desktop/laptop users.

M$ no longer have 90% plus of the computing market. Now that figure may apply if you only look at the desktop/laptop market but once you add in tablets (exclude smartphones) then who knows where their market share is.

It was and still is all about choice at install time as has been posted goodness knows how many times. But what would I know as I'm not inside the Redmond bubble!!!

jimbo45 said:

(If you were a Car manufacturer for example would you keep trying to jury rig an old model or would you decide at some point - we can't really upgrade this model any more -- we really DO have to design a new one that incorporates all the latest technological advances).

Cheers
jimbo

That simple little tablet/phone interface is more dumbed down than "technologically advanced".

The inference that "we can't really upgrade this model any more" is total baloney.

Source 'borrowed' from EightForums regarding market share

Windows has fallen behind Apple iOS and Google Android | ZDNet

Who drives innovation and technology? Enthusiasts or consumers?

jimbo45 said:

Oh Dear -- there's a HUGE difference in XP and W7. For starters W7 has the ability to run (decently) 64 bit hardware although most of it is actually done via WOW (Windows on Windows).

XP did have a 64 bit version but trying to design proper 64 bit drivers and a decent security system was just not on -- as is the standard version of XP -- too many glaring holes in the security system meant that without a radical re-write of the OS XP was never going to survive frequent attacks in the new era.

The reason XP 64-bit (not the Itanium one!) never took off wasn't because it was 64-bit, nor was it because the OS was insecure, nor was it because the kernel needed a "radical rewrite". No, the real reasons were that XP 64-bit had absolutely no tangible market share and WHQL requirements did not include a line stating WHQL drivers needed to come in both 32- and 64-bit versions. Consequently hardware vendors did not have any incentive at all to develop any 64-bit drivers. 64-bit drivers (and 64-bit Windows) didn't become mainstream until WHQL made 64-bit drivers mandatory for certification and hardware had evolved to a point where 64-bit Windows was necessary to utilize them.

I'll also point out that NT6.X (which Vista (6.0), 7 (6.1), and even 8 (6.2) are running on) descends more closely from NT5.2 (XP 64-bit and Server 2003) than NT5.1 (XP 32-bit). While you might argue that the changes involved between NT5.2->NT6.0 would be "radical" given a whole version number increase, I'd like to say any truly "radical" changes would've more than likely resulted in something far more different and out there than Windows Vista; Windows Vista and 7 are still fundamentally the same OS as XP is when you look past the differences in hardware support and Aero/XP/Classic Explorer themes and consider what the OSes are designed to accomplish.

It's also ironic that the version difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8, NT6.1 and NT6.2 respectively, is minor and would suggest minimal large-scale changes, but in truth Windows 8 is radically different from Windows 7 in design and intention. Advances in kernels don't neccesarily indicate how big of a change a given revision of Windows is, as it turns out.

jimbo45 said:

If you are doing ANY sort of engineering there comes a point whether you can keep plugging leaks / applying patches to essentially an old design or whether you should start again from scratch and design the system taking into account advances in hardware / technology etc.

Changing just for the sake of changing is pointless, if not even detrimental, and a waste of time. Look at Itanium, it was designed and created solely to replace x86 because x86 allegedly suffers the exact same problem Win32 allegedly has: Development rot. Now note where Itanium and x86 are respectively. Just because something has been developed and maintained for long periods of time doesn't necessarily mean it should be thrown out the window and new work started anew.

In addition, if that replacement, which in this case is WinRT, also serves solely to empower MS at the expense of the end-users, and if the thing WinRT is replacing (Win32) also has no practical problems, I will gladly vote with my wallet and go take the highway.

Besides, if Win32 really is suffering from such a severe case of development rot that further development is being hampered, the API would've died years ago as talks of trying to kill Win32 are nothing new. As it stands, Win32, like x86, only looks to be chugging on with nigh infinite steam unless MS just forcibly kills it right here.

jimbo45 said:

Even the I/O subsystem of XP had reached its limit -- it doesn't support USB3 or even SATA natively (if you try and install XP on a computer with no IDE drives you'll get the message "No Hard disks found". You have to slipstream the SATA drivers into the install process to make it work). Similarly trying to hive off really fast powerful GPU's away from the standard CPU functions also requires considerable jiggling with the OS to make the multi-tasking work successfully. Some of the modern graphics cards would just blow away the stuff that was around during the (original) lifetime of XP.

Windows 7 whilst a lot newer also has design limitations -- OK for a lot of people who are satisfied with their present hardware -- but the same considerations apply which is why Ms decided to go for an OS that can work in a modular capacity over all sorts of devices.

I will throw this right back at you and point out that Windows 7 (and Vista for that matter) introduced native support for SATA, among other notable improvements in the kernel and other OS subsystems themselves, while clearly keeping the desktop interface and Win32 API that have worked absolutely magnificently over the years without any problems.

Those of us who care about desktops refuse Windows 8, regardless of the system improvements, because we know it doesn't take destroying an already established OS to bring those improvements into production. There is absolutely no requirement for Metro/WinRT to be present, nor for Desktop to be eventually killed off, for any of Windows 8's improvements that are not Metro-specific to work.

jimbo45 said:

Another area that requires a whole slew of OS changes is to hive off the WOW (Windows on Windows) element in the OS which effectively means you are running a lot of applications in 32 bit rather than 64 bit mode. W8 is starting to reduce the reliance on WOW - and I would expect to see soon the dropping of the 32 bit OS completely with another kernel method used to run legacy 32 bit applications. This type of stuff requires a total kernel re-design and re-write so any W7 users hoping fr an "Improved" W7 unfortunately are going to be sadly disappointed.

WoW64 is a subsystem that keeps 32-bit equivalents of Windows's 64-bit DLLs and other crucial data (including registry keys), which then redirects any 32-bit software running to WoW64's store of 32-bit data instead of Windows's native 64-bit data. While there is certainly overhead involved, ranging from storing an entire copy of 32-bit data to redirecting 32-bit software from 64-bit to 32-bit, the subsystem in theory looks to be designed well and works relatively flawlessly.

The WoW64 subsystem also caters to the reality that moving 32-bit software to 64-bit isn't compulsory or even necessary, with many 32-bit software likely not seeing any tangible benefits from moving to 64-bit. Many audio/video filters and their media players by association remain 32-bit, many games also remain 32-bit with some starting to have options for 64-bit execution, and even some of Windows's own core programs like IE run in 32-bit with an option to run a 64-bit version.

Meanwhile, any 64-bit software executes natively on 64-bit versions of Windows.

jimbo45 said:

OK some like W8 some don't --however as I've previously said NO ONE HAS to use it - but actually those that DO use it find it's nothing like as bad as the original complaints seemed to make it.

I'm an advocate for freedom of speech and freedom of choice. If some people find Windows 8 adequate to their needs, great! Do they want to praise it? Go right ahead! If some people find Windows 8 terrible for their needs, well that sucks. Do they want to voice their dissatisfaction? Go for it, they have the right!

Personally, as someone who finds Windows 8 inadequate for my needs, and in certain areas of its operation downright conflicting with what I believe in, I am voicing my dissatisfaction with Windows 8. I am also voicing my dissatisfaction with MS's holier-than-thou attitude, which has been very clear given their unenthusiastic handling of Windows 7 support and just generally not paying heed to a customer's legitimate needs.

jimbo45 said:

(If you were a Car manufacturer for example would you keep trying to jury rig an old model or would you decide at some point - we can't really upgrade this model any more -- we really DO have to design a new one that incorporates all the latest technological advances).

As a (sane) car manufacturer, I would strive to make the 2014 model Prius at least resemble that of 2013 and prior releases of the Prius instead of turning it into a Camry. As a customer, if I want to upgrade from a 2013 model Prius to a 2014 model, I would expect the latter to build on the former; if I wanted a Camry I'll grab a Camry, not a Prius.

Perhaps, if Windows 8 was not released under the "Windows" moniker but rather something completely new and separate, it might have achieved at least some better levels of acceptance because it wouldn't need to have tried to live up to the Windows name that Windows 95~7 had established.

And now I finish this post with the realization I just created another wall of text that is TL;DR.

x BlueRobot said:

Who drives innovation and technology? Enthusiasts or consumers?

Hi BR,
With respect it is neither.
It is profit.
First last and allways.
Rgds