Windows 8 is the new XP
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
I think one major reason why XP succeeded was that it actually made a lot of difference. Compared to Windows 98: Way less crashing, way more stability, and a much better platform to make serious software on - thanks to a modern 32-bit kernel with proper segregation between userspace programs, which finally became widely available and tested.
What does Windows 8 bring over Windows 7 that justifies an upgrade? Small incremental updates don't count, Windows 7 has those too (over XP), yet it's still far from universally adopted after over 3 years.
(Now my lens may be colored with my view that convergence between laptops and tablets is a stupid idea, so I don't really consider that as an actual advantage of Windows 8.)
However, I also agree with you on the apps. On a laptop, I haven't once used a Windows 8 app for anything (other than the weather app once or twice to try). First, the apps take awhile to start. Secondly, they are unintuitive on a laptop. Third, the ads. Why are there ads in the apps made by microsoft? Customers aren't going to like seeing ads in a OS they just paid for.
Also, navigation between Metro apps and desktop apps is somewhat confusing. Mousing over the top-left corner seems to only show your last used application unless you awkwardly swipe your mouse downwards. The only easy to use app switcher seems to be alt+tab.
Overall, Windows 8 isn't bad at all. But it is somewhat confusing. And if it seems confusing to people who use technology all the time, will it make any sense to those less tech-savy users? I don't think it will, but we'll have to see.
Real touch screen support and an app store.
I know that it may seem like not much given that it's focused in the Metro UI, but I think it can be a lot bigger than many here suspect.
I've already had a friend ask me about the Sony Vaio Tap 20. A 20" all-in-one that has a battery so you can take it to the kitchen or coffee table. All for $900.
Windows 8 gives you the ability to have the desktop experience, which is at least as good as Win7. But also to have a first class touch experience on the same device.
It fixes the problem I have of taking a tablet and a laptop on travel. I need my laptop for work, but the tablet for everything else.
Right now it may seem like a contrived example. I think in a year Apple will be doing the same thing. And in 18 months we'll have trouble imagining why this was at all controversial.
I think we're in the same state we were in a month before the iPad shipped. Will we really like a giant sized iPhone (as it was positioned at the time)? No one really knew. I think it's fair to say that it was mischaracterized, and people really do like it.
Interestingly, even the Verge (who typically skew anti-MS, but fairly even) seem to really like the experience thus far (with some reservations).
Ask me this question in a month or two after I get some actual touch screens. :-)
But when a laptop or a tablet is being used, a touch is very natural because the screen is at the right distance and more importantly at a "right" angle. In fact it is way more convenient to use a touch based laptop instead of a tablet because of the angle the screen is at and the arm rest that the keyboard provides. Try it out yourself. I have RC running on my old hp and it is pleasant to use
Also, XP had an uncommonly long life due to the "security crackdown" imposed by Gates. Microsoft decided to release a more refined product (XPsp2) rather than more experimental offerings, in order to shore up their much-maligned approach to security. This meant that software vendors could spend more time on a stable platform, resulting in a better overall experience for IT personnel as well as final users. And of course, its release coincided with the Golden Age of personal computers, which became even more "personal" when laptop replaced desktops.
XP was given more time and chances to succeed than any other Microsoft OS, so it's hard to compare it with anything else.
Before SP2, XP didn't offer much over Win2000 and NT4 other than a slightly lower price:
http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/18829228/windows-xp...
In that same vein, Win8 doesn't offer much over Win7 if you're not using a tablet.
And how about considering each case on its own merits? Even aside from the product itself which changes, the competitive landscape is nowhere near what it was in XP or Vista days. A failure (Vista) back then was a minor inconvenience. A failure today would be different.
Windows 8 might not have a lot of native metro apps in their store yet, but at least everything works properly. Fewer companies have the option of screwing it up out of laziness.
We can also look at gnome 2, gnome 3, and unity for other examples of horrific updates that went smoothly.
Most people never need to turn off their devices. Most people probably turn off their machine when there is no need.
And new computers will come with 8 installed, so that's some pretty significant adoption right there.
I don't know a single corporate IT department in the Bay Area that has committed to a full-scale Windows 8 Deployment in 2013. My estimate is that 75%+ of new computer sold to enterprises (everywhere) in the First Half of 2013 will ship with Windows 7, not Windows 8.
2000: good ME: bad XP2: good Vista: bad 7: good 8: bad
I would argue no to all those notions. I think Microsoft in 2012 is a much more disciplined, focussed, and frankly ambitious company than it was in 2002 or 2006. The development of 7 and especially how the company communicated with the public about 7 was a quantum leap from Vista. As far as I can tell, Microsoft has carried forward all of those improvements into the process of building 8. If it is making mistakes with Windows 8, they are entirely different genres of mistakes than it made with Vista or ME.
Even Apple is subject to these media cycles (see antennagate, batteries exploding etc), they just manage to deflect them to smaller items, stuff most people don't care about. Microsoft seems to struggle much more when trying to control product perception across media channels.
NT4 (Good) 2000 (Not) XP (Good) Vista (Not) 7 (Good) 8 (Not)
98 - good, ME - fail, XP - good, Vista - fail, 7 - good, etc. (Although this whole idea is pretty silly to start with ;-))
Sarcasm aside, (some) enterprise users are going to buy tablets, and they're going to have Windows RT. Whether they adopt 8 on the desktop is a separate question, but if there's good uptake of RT that will give it a kick.
Luckily, nowadays it's easier to try out new systems, watch video reviews, and get a feel for new products, so it's even easier to be open minded nowadays.
The best new thing is suspended apps. That alone is a deal breaker over previous versions of Windows.
This comes from a guy that has a MacBook Pro since 2007.
And all of this because MS was too cocky and decided to go all in on metro instead of trying for a smoother, more gradual transition.
Whereas XP was actually better.
Win8 is the ME of this decade.