Originally Posted by biltong
Look I've got no issue with people not wanting to buy it. I get annoyed when their reason is that they "have to" buy it, or that they want the stability that Windows 8 has when 7 is still rock solid and does everything you ask it to.
Well the thing is, most people *do* have to buy it. Average Joe is going to get Windows 8 on his new PC, he doesn't have the option to get Windows 7 pre-installed. Corporate customers can still buy it of course, and we tech savvy folks know how to get a copy and wipe/rebuild our PCs, but we're what, 2-5% of the population? Most people just use what's on the PC they buy.
This is Microsoft's standard operating procedure, the forced march to the next OS is how they keep Windows making money. If they had not force marched people over to Vista, we would still see XP as the #1 OS out there. So I get the need to move forward, I do...I don't think staying on XP forever was the right thing to do. But was *Vista* what we had to move to? With Win7 so darn good, is *Win8* what we really *have* to move to?
And the answer is *no*. What most people seem to forget (maybe they don't teach it in Comp Sci anymore) is that the OS and the shell are *independent*. At least in a properly/well designed OS, that is. All of the good stuff in Win8 should be possible to use with an entirely different shell layered on top...the Win7 shell, the XP shell, a Mac-like shell, a Win 3.x Program Manager looking shell...it shouldn't matter. Obviously I'm oversimplifying a great deal here, but the point remains. Don't buy the concept? Ever heard of Windows Server Core? It is entirely possible to run a Windows 2012 Server, which by default has the same Metro interface as Windows 8, *without* a GUI at all. All command line. If the Metro and classic Desktop GUI *are not needed at all*, then conceptually *they can be replaced* with anything.
If you've tried it and you don't like it, that's fine too, but at the end of the day it's MS's decision that they wanted to change things up a bit and try something new. They don't "have to" provide something because you say so, it's not your "God given right" to have what you want all the time unfortunately (I've seen people thinking that way, not in this thread but they're out there).
True point, Microsoft made a decision. If the articles of the day are to be believed, they believed going all-in on Metro was necessary to the company's survival, that Apple would make them irrelevant if they didn't abandon the PC and get all lovey dovey with tablets. As usual though, (with apologies to Al Franken) Steve Ballmer is a Big Fat Idiot. Microsoft's core constituency is, and has been, the business enterprise, not mass market and fickle consumers. Mr. B has sacrificed what his primary customers want in order to go chase after the Apple crowd, but he will never catch them.
I'll say it again, for the infinity-th time: The *smart* thing for MS to do would have been to have *two* shells, one for PCs and one for tablets. This is not crazy talk, there is no need for a unified desktop...Apple does just fine with iOS and OSX, its devotees don't whine about wanting every screen to look exactly the same. And then they should not have crippled the enterprise features in Windows RT; specifically, it should have been joinable to an ActiveDirectory domain. I guarantee you that, had that happened, companies would have adopted it in spades because of its superior managability vs. iPads and Android tablets. And then when users slowly became adapted to them at work, those who were not already firmly entrenched in the Apple ecosystem would have considered them for their personal purchases as well. But as it is, the Surface with Windows RT is useless to almost everyone; and the Surface Pro is too expensive and too heavy to be a viable tablet competitor, and not as functional as a real laptop/ultrabook that might even cost less. Nice job, Stevie B.
Originally Posted by Cavi Mike
Right. Because switching OS's is like switching from McD's to Burger King. Wake up dude - the same software isn't available on every OS. Trust me, very few of us would be using MS software if we didn't have to.
Probably true. I would probably have switched to a Mac by now if all of my games would run on it. And oh yeah, if I could build my own at a reasonable price point and not pay the Mac premium.