Why Windows 8 is failing.

[smoledman]

#1 - the live tiles are FUGLY as hell. Completely flat, horrible color choices that make it appear like a real Fisher Price UI designed for retarded kids.

#2 - the app store is a clusterfreak of epic proportions. Poorly laid out and with terrible discovery for the FEW good apps that are there.

#3 - the apps all look the same - sparse with the same rectangular blocks. Does the WinRT UI toolkit even allow creative people to make a Windows 8 app look good?

Bottom line is UI is king, UI is what sells. It doesn't matter all the great "under the hood" improvement Windows 8 has if the UI is a deal-breaker.

 

[parapup]

My big annoyance is why do I need to have the added complexity of switching back and forth between Metro and traditional desktop? Screw it, I will just use Windows 7 for another 10 years. Works well and I have no superfluous stuff to work through.

Kind of insane they overlooked this.

 

[velocityg4]

It's more along the lines of people don't need new computers so they are not buying them. For the average user surfing the web, checking email, tweeting, facebooking and doing office work on the computer. A new i7 with Windows 8 can't do anything that a Core 2 Duo with Windows XP can't do.

When they do buy one the old surplus of Win 7 computers are being sold at a discount so people are tempted to get them instead. Otherwise they'll get a Win 8 computer.

I doubt many people use the app store they just buy a CD as usual and install the program (actually they try to find there old copy of a program before buying a new one). As for the tiles once someone figures out how they can get to the desktop they just stay there and everything gets familiar again.

I really don't find Windows 8 to be much different than Win 7. I just go straight to the desktop and everything is pretty much the same. Sure I don't have a start menu. But when I hit the Windows key and start typing Metro is like the Start Menu on steroids with a spotlight search that separate apps, files and settings all rolled into one.

Once you get used to it Windows 8 is really robust and feature rich. It also automates hardware installation better than ever. I've found local network printers automatically added.

Sure Metro apps can be pretty pointless or inefficient on a desktop but you can ignore Metro easily enough. On a small laptop or tablet it would be pretty nice. Since their screens are better suited for full screen everything.

 

[tech4all]

#1 - the live tiles are FUGLY as hell. Completely flat, horrible color choices that make it appear like a real Fisher Price UI designed for retarded kids.

#2 - the app store is a clusterfreak of epic proportions. Poorly laid out and with terrible discovery for the FEW good apps that are there.

#3 - the apps all look the same - sparse with the same rectangular blocks. Does the WinRT UI toolkit even allow creative people to make a Windows 8 app look good?

Bottom line is UI is king, UI is what sells. It doesn't matter all the great "under the hood" improvement Windows 8 has if the UI is a deal-breaker.

Completely disagree with you there. I think the icons look nice. Not everything has to be Skeuomorph. The problem doesn't lie with look of the UI, at least with me, but rather the UX as a whole. It's designed to be a mobile OS and having it on a desktop/laptop makes it a pain to use. Based on my experience with it, there are no keyboard /mouse equivalents to many touch UI gestures. They turned the Start menu into a whole tile interface that you switch between. I'm fine with the tiles if they were like Dashboard, but not as an essential part of using the OS that you have to keep switching to. Now I could be wrong on how the UI works, I've haven't used it much, just at a MS store once. But in regards to the looks, it's fine.

There's even talks that Apple is going to make iOS less skeuomorph and the way of Windows 8 with a more flat look to it.

 

[APlotdevice]

Windows 8 is failing, at least in part, because smartphones and tablets have reached the point where for most people they can sufficiently substitute a computer.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Biggest reason to me is the Startscreen UI is pointless without a touchscreen. And a touchscreen on desktop is non-existent unless you're using a converged tablet/PC device or have a ton of money to put down on a touchscreen monitor. Most people don't, including the enterprise market which would normally consider upgrading.

What did the OEM's initially put out? Cheap laptops without any touchscreens. Can you apply a touch UI to enterprise? Not really. These two things ruined the Win8 brand. MS putting out the Surface Pro is an attempt to rescue the brand and I think it'll work.

Other than it being lousy on non-touch hardware, I honestly don't think Win 8 is as bad as people think. It's a next gen OS designed for an era when the tablet and PC have converged. Based on Intel's roadmap, that's coming soon.

 

[malman89]

#1 - the live tiles are FUGLY as hell. Completely flat, horrible color choices that make it appear like a real Fisher Price UI designed for retarded kids.

#2 - the app store is a clusterfreak of epic proportions. Poorly laid out and with terrible discovery for the FEW good apps that are there.

#3 - the apps all look the same - sparse with the same rectangular blocks. Does the WinRT UI toolkit even allow creative people to make a Windows 8 app look good?

Bottom line is UI is king, UI is what sells. It doesn't matter all the great "under the hood" improvement Windows 8 has if the UI is a deal-breaker.

I'll use my own reasons:

1) Windows 7 is the most advanced and mature mainstream OS on the market. People have little/no reason to upgrade.

2) Windows 8 came out near the end of most manufacturers' product cycles, so they placed Windows 8 on mostly average at best hardware. Haswell releases are just 6-8 weeks away.

3) Microsoft has been oddly public about Windows Blue (either Win 8 SP1 or 'Win 9'). With such an advanced and stable OS out there (see point 1), people have little incentive to upgrade now for incremental performance increases, when a major update is around the corner.

Then add in some points about tablets, tin foil hats, and fanboyishness, and I think that covers everything.

I am personally waiting for Haswell chips before making my next purchase, which at this rate is looking more and more likely to be a Windows machine.

 

[maxosx]

I'll use my own reasons:

1) Windows 7 is the most advanced and mature mainstream OS on the market. People have little/no reason to upgrade.

I'm with you on this one.

As big of a Mac enthusiast as I am, working in a cross platform environment I spend my share of time on Win 7 and find it the very best of Windows to date.

Frankly when rumors first surfaced about Win 8... I was quite surprised, my impression was it was way to soon to even consider replacing it.

Vista was enough of a red herring, that I thought because so many people, corporations, etc, really like Windows 7 that Microsoft would keep refining it and run with it for longer than they did.

Now they are in quite a pinch as not only the regular users don't like it, the corporate types and engineers that I work with day in and day out don't like it either.

There are times when I wonder what Bill Gates is thinking about what once was his pride and joy (MS). Balmer's a very sub standard CEO, MS needs new, talented people at the top.

 

[Manicmonday]

With Windows 8 Microsoft deleted the windows from windows and replaced them with widgets. Terrible idea. No-one I know is upgrading. I've talked to my local schools, and they hate it. It's ugly, has a steep learning curve, and doesn't offer anything useful. Very annoying operating system.

 

[roadbloc]

I have Windows 8 and it ain't failed for me. The best Microsoft OS I've ever used actually. Not everyone upgrades like they do for OS X since Microsoft support their OSs for some time afterwards.

Many people will be sticking with Windows 7 until its death in 2020.

 

[joemod]

There are times when I wonder what Bill Gates is thinking about what once was his pride and joy (MS). Balmer's a very sub standard CEO, MS needs new, talented people at the top.

I was thinking about it the other day. Why change Balmer when MS keeps getting profits? Getting replaced by someone talented (like Ive for example), doesn't mean that MS will get more profits.

 

[Nightarchaon]

Full screen apps are the reason it failed IMO,

Whilst Mac OSX gives you the OPTION of going full screen when you need too, windows 8 forces full screen upon you for its native apps (or the stupid "split screen" thing)

sometimes i need windows to have, you know, WINDOWS, multiple windows arranged so i can move between them easily and keep them overlapping displaying pertinent information, Windows 8 takes away my ability to have the workflow i want and need for optimum efficiency when using native win8 apps,

Thankfully stardock have Start8, so now i don't use or see that stupid "interface formally know as metro" and i just get Windows 8, as it should have been.

 

[maxosx]

Many people will be sticking with Windows 7 until its death in 2020.

I will be one who stays with Windows 7 until the end. That's what I do like about Microsoft over Apple, they support their operating systems for long periods of time.

 

[Stella]

What does Windows 8 do that Windows 7 doesn't?

Businesses won't upgrade - a lot of effort for little benefit, like Vista vs XP. Huge loss of sales. Also, it wasn't long ago that Windows 7 was released - so another disruption in a short space of time.

Why should consumers - why upgrade for little benefit for a high price?

Apple reduced the price of OSX to encourage people to upgrade to the latest and greatest. If they didn't then I don't think [Mountain] Lion would have had the uptake that it did.

Having said that, microsoft have a different business model - they sell Windows for profit - Apple does not.


Having used Windows 8 - it works far better on a touch screen PC than non touch screen.

 

[satcomer]

Th OP forgot to add the Economy everywhere is almost as bad as The Great Depression and Windows 8 was launched right in the middle of it.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Windows 8 is a great on a touchscreen, I don't think it's failing at all. It's just the next version of the OS. You don't see major Apple upticks in sales when Apple releases the newest OS, usually you see it around new hardware.

 

[Stella]

Windows 8 is a great on a touchscreen, I don't think it's failing at all. It's just the next version of the OS. You don't see major Apple upticks in sales when Apple releases the newest OS, usually you see it around new hardware.

You used to see an increase in Windows PC sales when a new version of windows was released.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

You used to see an increase in Windows PC sales when a new version of windows was released.

But PC's have become so commoditized, as well as stagnant. There's not much that a PC from 2009 can't do. Now it's cellphones that get the upgrade when new hardware comes out. Wait 2 years, and the pace of hardware updates will slow down too. Wait a few years after that and even OS upgrades won't be all that exciting. That's where the PC industry is now, and everyone - HP, Dell, even Apple - is feeling it.

 

[Stella]

But PC's have become so commoditized, as well as stagnant. There's not much that a PC from 2009 can't do. Now it's cellphones that get the upgrade when new hardware comes out. Wait 2 years, and the pace of hardware updates will slow down too. Wait a few years after that and even OS upgrades won't be all that exciting. That's where the PC industry is now, and everyone - HP, Dell, even Apple - is feeling it.

Very true - my previous laptop lasted 3 years and this one a minimum of 3 years - I'm guessing 4. Processor speeds are so fast, software isn't making them obsolete as much as they have done so in the past.

 

[iPad5]

Windows 8 is failing because MacOS is thriving

 

[Renzatic]

Win8 isn't failing so much as it's not exploding off the shelves like Windows 7 did. It's marketshare is growing, though at a much slow rate than previous versions of Windows have.

...which isn't surprising, because MS finally has some competition in the form of iOS and Android, which are both growing by leaps and bounds.

 

[roadbloc]

Windows 8 is failing because MacOS is thriving

I wouldn't say its thriving just yet. OS X does have a higher usage share than Windows 8, but it is going to take a long time to knock XP and 7 off its positions.

iOS on the other hand...

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

Windows 8 is failing because anyone who has gotten used to the start menu will be incredibly confused. On top of that, there are no new features in Windows 8. The problems of Windows past is still present. Multi monitor support is just terrible. Mac OS X still has the same general feel. It just has been retrofitted with new stuff relevant with the times. Windows 8 on the other hand... The new Metro UI works for mobile devices and small screens. It is amazing on a smartphone/tablet. On a desktop/laptop? Incredibly stupid and inefficient. Metro UI is great for digesting small amounts of information on the go. But when we use a desktop/laptop, we want more detailed information. Windows 8 is performing worse than Vista because at least Vista still had the same general UI and stuff like the start menu. It was just the lack of hardware support like drivers that kind of ticked people off. But for most people, it still performed like previous versions of Windows.

 

[Renzatic]

From what I've heard, multimonitor support is excellent in Win8. MS finally embedded the Multimon like tools into the OS itself, which is something people have apparently been clamoring for them to do for years now.

99% of the complaints about 8 come from people who just can't stand the new Start screen. Though there's nothing about it that "doesn't work" with a mouse and keyboard unless you're playing with Metro apps. The only thing about it is that the tiles might be a little too large for a desktop setup, but that's really more an aesthetic issue than a usability one.

You know, I'm well convinced by this point that the whole "two environments rarr it sucks" is a reverse placebo effect. If MS set it up so the tiles were overlaid on the desktop background instead of making it look like you're flipping back and forth between the two, people wouldn't complain about it nearly as much. It's sorta like how if you keep the animations and transition effects running at a consistently high framerate, people will think it's running quicker than what it is. Sometimes presentation is a little more important than performance.

 

[oberus]

I personally find the Metro tile format to be cumbersome on a typical PC. It's great for tablets and phones, but I prefer a typical desktop best with a PC.