Windows 8 adoption rate falls way behind Windows Vista

Even if sales are bad there is only one way MS can think on how to recover by cutting more future feature updates aka aditions* from Windows 7 in hope it will drive people to 8.... They don't get reality from the years of being a partner with them i stopped asking what they think years ago.. that started when more aless Vista Ballmer Era started...

 

What MS failed to do with Windows 8, was make the transition to the start screen, etc seemless. I like the UI, but I'm gonna wait for the improvements to it in Blue and Windows 9, as in my opinion its a mess in Win 8. One option I'd really like to see it having the ability to vertical scroll in the Start Screen.

 

Not at all surprising given the polarised views on the subject leading up to its launch.

 

I'd suggest only installing the drivers that you need your rig to work - graphics, touchpad, and leave the rest as stock. Perhaps add sound drivers to that. I ran into no issues with AMD- and Intel-powered laptops and desktops except for one Acer lappy where I can't get fingerprint sensor to work. The extra software that is sometimes bundled with drivers is usually the cause of such issues (or generally unstable system, but it should be ok in this case as it ran fine on Win7).

 

Wow Modern UI to me is optional. I barely touch it. Been great here... You have a choice to use it.

 

Windows 8 is great, probably Microsoft's most stable release on...release.
It's just that it doesn't do anything that my current OS (Vista x64) cant already do, and that goes for Win7 also.

Both great OS's, but if UI changes and next to nill performance increases (Though im sure the beefing up of security is greatly improved) are all Microsoft can bring to the table with each release, then there really is no incentive for me to upgrade. Unless of course DX12 is for some stupid reason not compatible with my current OS.

Things will probably get worse with Microsoft's plan to release yearly updates, which im pretty sure they use to call them Service Packs. First expansion packs gave way to DLC, now Service packs to a whole new OS every year...

Microsoft Modern Warfare.

 

Another sensationalized article regarding Win 8? These stats really have no significance whatsoever. Both of these OS's were released at different times of the year (Vista released at the end of January '07 and was the first new consumer OS to be released since XP 6 years prior. Win8 released at the beginning of the Holiday season (same as Win7) and only 3 years after the very well received (and needed?) Win7.) and the situations they were released under are drastically different. I just don't understand why so many people feel the need to make Window 8 sound like it's terrible when it actually isn't. Oh well, to each their own.

 

You can probably thank Apple for that.

 

I like Win 8 a lot. It does everything 7 did, better, and more.

I think people that don't like it haven't tried it or are stubborn to changes in technology.

 

That's the great thing about opinions, you are free to share them but they can often be wrong. The people here are not technophobes and yet our opinions are polarised on the subject.

You enjoy 8, good for you but do not denigrate our members for holding opposite views. I hate it, I've tried it.

 

Windows 8 isn't terrible, but it isn't fantastic either.

 

I bet the privacy advocates didn't eve notice this part.

 

Compared to what google does, this is nothing.

 

Hellelujah brother! Ain't that the truth! MS should have kept things separate, Win8 desktop version and Win8 tablet/laptop version.....then I believe the adoption rate would have been better. Heck, if it were like this, I'd have jumped on a Win8 Desktop version at launch, or a little after that.

BTW, on a separate note, Vista wasn't as bad as many made it out to be, I recall running 64bit Vista HP with 2x HD2900XT in CF mode and it kicked butt. Was on Vista till a little after Win7 was launched...

 

Ditto. I actually had no driver issues with Vista. The UAC built in protect-you-from-yourself bull**** pissed me off but I quickly disabled that and customized the OS as I pleased. I was going to do the same in 8 to just make it like 7 but then Microshaft went full Apple and entirely removed the code for the start menu to try to strong-arm their garbage. All they did was lose customers.

I skipped 8 and I'll continue to skip their products for as long as necessary. You have no idea how many people come to me for advice about computers, these days they all ask me why Win 8 looks retarded, I tell them because it is. (Yes, yes, I tell them the details about the improvements as well, not just how stupid the interface is.)

 

Deltatux nailed it, the problem is the leadership of MS is stuck in the 80's and 90's PC boom. Tablets are computers but not the same kind as the ones on our desks.

From what I've seen a lot of 8 fans advocate Start8 and equivalents, I really can't see myself reliant so heavily on a 3rd part program especially when it comes to basic functionality in an OS. I'd rather promote Skip8.
I tried 8 and I ended up disabling things like live tiles and removed most of the apps, reset the default programs to the traditional desktop versions, turned the start screen into a giant pin board, found myself accidentally triggering those bars when my mouse cursor hovered near the top right of the screen to close a window and then the shut down procedure inspired from Assassin's Creed 1 PC port. What's the point if I'm not going to be using any of the "features" of 8 and turned it into a deformed little brother of 7?! Awful ... Symbian was better in terms of UX.

 

I had some hope for the metro because everyone kept saying that it's not that bad with a mouse and keyboard, but honestly it's all bunch of horse****. Metro UI is the worst -- actually it's so bad that I had to pop 5 bucks out of my wallet to get Start8 and be done with Metro for good. I don't usually say this, but yeah that was the best $5 I have spent my entire life! lol

 

I think Windows 8 is fine but it is what it is, an unwanted update for most people. The days of the typical desktop pc are finally coming to an end though so this is the direction they had to take.

 

For those that say that the benchamarks are biased....maybe you are one of those who has the lucky hw for win 8. But 98% of todays hw and 98% of todays progs and games run worse in WIN8. Why the hell i must pay for s.m.th which is degradation. I am one of those which don't care about looks of OS, i care about RAW performance in games. IT SUCKS really.....Oh and not to mention the STUPID notifications when you copy a file in the system folder. Stupid microsoft if i am the administrator so i KNOW what i want to do with the OS, i don't need to remind me 1000 times that i am changing a system file. WIN8 = DUMB OS. Really guys even if they offered me for 2 bucks this OS i wouldn't install it in my notebook, rather pay more and get s.m.th good.

 

Regarding the mentioned performance - games run the same or better in my case on Win8 than Win7 (let's call it the same), the productivity apps are snappier on Win8 in my case. I wouldn't post BS that Win8 is slower. I've checked how Win8 works on several machines from a netbook to powerful workstations, both AMD and Intel, and there was not a single case of a crippled performance.

I'll describe some differences of Start Menu as it seems to be the greatest concern. I don't really use so-called Metro apps besides PDF reader and some news readers, as I have and use good software that I used on Win7 before.

While I like the start menu from Win8 more than one from Win7, I do have to agree it may be confusing, especially at first. I'd suggest against using apps like Start8, as you'll have to get used to the new system anyway and some design choices are really good, but not explained enough.

Let's assume the user knows the keyboard shortcuts (Win for search, Win+W for settings, Win+F for files, Win+Q for all the apps and shortcuts listed).
Advantages:
1. Sorting - it puts the frequently used apps on the top of the list, unlike Win7, so you can type/scroll less
2. More search results visible - Win7 shows only a few results, and picking group shows Explorer search
3. Different shortcuts for different groups - you usually know if you want to look for a program, file, or settings. You can also skip from one group to another with the same query by just using another shorctut.
4. Easy pinning/unpinning/reordering links

Disadvantages
1. It looks different, and we know that people were using 98-style start when XP was released, and XP-style when Vista/7 were released - people need time to adjust and they want to spend that time on something else.
2. It uses whole screen - on one hand it may be an advantage to show more stuff at once, but wouldn't it be better to have an option to be able to show just a big popup window?
3. Different shortcuts for apps/settings/files - while I think that the design choice is good, it adds some extra learning curve.
4. Tiles - they display some data, but people may think they have to click/touch them, rather than just Win->type to search, so it's another point for learning curve.

My Start Menu usage in both Win7 and Win8 is basically the same - always Win-type-Enter. If for some reason you don't like the looks of Win8 Start Menu or Win7 search functionality, you can try free Launchy. It's a program that you point to the list of shortcuts, assign hotkey and search/launch stuff. It prioritizes the frequently used programs pretty well.

TL;DR version
- Keyboard-only support in Win8 Start Menu lookup is superior to Win7
- Do you really want to pay some company to have smaller Start Menu?
- You can give Launchy a try, especially if you're on Win7