Seeking Alpha
Seeking Alpha Portfolio App for iPad
Finance
(1)
Market Currents

More on Windows 8: 1) A recent Forrester survey adds to fears of poor enterprise adoption. Only...

  • Wednesday, October 17, 2012, 12:12 PM ET
    More on Windows 8: 1) A recent Forrester survey adds to fears of poor enterprise adoption. Only 1/3 of respondents said they expect/plan to use Windows 8, compared with 2/3 who said the same about Windows 7 in '09. 2) Shipping times for the $499 Windows RT Microsoft Surface model have risen - Microsoft reportedly ordered 3M-5M Surface units for Q4. 3) Windows RT and its pre-installed apps consume 12GB of storage (12x more than iOS).
Track new comments on this story

This news story has 22 comments:

  • I hear you on #3 in principle, but who cares about an extra 11GB of used storage when standard hard drives now store 500GB at the low end and up to 2T on the high end. Windows 8 only consumes an extra 2.2% of hard drive space on the low end and 0.55% on the high end. System performance/features matters more.
    17 Oct 2012, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • The article is talking about Windows RT which is the ARM based version of the OS. That means it's meant for tablets which generally don't have large hard drives.

    Although I do think it's mitigated enough by the lower cost relative to the iPad, it's still rather startling. I wonder how it looks without some of the Microsoft Apps/Office.
    17 Oct 2012, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Oops!
    17 Oct 2012, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • MSFT has overlooked its huge installed base of corporate and personal PC's in favor of playing ball in the smartphone and tablet markets, where it has a miniscule presence. Hardly anybody doing PC work at the office or home wants or needs a blocky touchscreen-oriented interface, much less to pay for the privilege.

    This is going to be interesting.
    17 Oct 2012, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • But interestingly you've hit at the very reason why Windows 8 is also built for existing hardware, and for people with only (or who prefer) a keyboard and mouse. You don't need a touchscreen if you want Windows 8. And the new apps you buy for the Windows 8 interface will work on your Intel or AMD or even ARM (Windows RT) based computers - with or without a touch screen.

    It's all about personal preference in what device form-factor you want to carry around.. what you want to simply consume media on... what device do you want to use as a workhorse content creation device. In all scenarios, having a common platform and an integrated experience, tied to cloud services (as an added benefit) are what Windows 8 is all about.

    Disclaimer: In case you couldn't tell (ha!), I'm long MSFT. I'm also employed by them, though in an unrelated capacity.
    17 Oct 2012, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • Overlooked? How? Care to explain, Tack? Have you used it? I run Windows 8 on my corporate and personal PC (bleeding edge guy working in IT). It's great with touch, and while it's an adjustment on the desktop, it's nice to have a single experience on both the desktop and touch. What's more is there are plenty of good things that you get under the covers that have nothing to do with the UI -- faster startup, etc. Sure, most businesses will probably stick with their Windows 7 plans, as they're just now getting off of XP or older. But that's not saying the same thing...

    Unless this is the ribbon argument all over? People kicked and screamed. Now, all except for a few dinosaurs would never go back to Windows 1.0 style menus.
    17 Oct 2012, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • Wrong!!!!I......I do lots of work on the pc.....I welcome the surface that does just about all that my pcs do.....and I don't have to carry all that stuff with me!!
    28 Dec 2012, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • I don't know if those kind of surveys really mean much at this stage. Nearly all of the folks I know that plan to upgrade do not intend to upgrade until it has been out for at least a couple of months to see how reviews are etc.
    17 Oct 2012, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • Here is a link to a Techradar review:

    http://bit.ly/VaySyB
    TechRadar rating
    4.5/5
    FOR
    On the right hardware, it's sleek, fast and fun
    Huge security improvements
    Better battery life, faster boot
    Great for touch
    AGAINST
    Start menu gone
    Can't boot to the desktop
    You'll want a touchscreen/trackpad gestures/Touch Mouse
    Modern UI will annoy some
    Some older CPUs won't run it

    Personally that list of "Against" items reads like an indictment. Almost like MS has a death wish.

    Trying to completely change the user experience for an install base that is still running XP is a disaster in the making. Especially after that POS Vista, many of us will have a hard time trusting MS and upgrade.

    Creative and brave but man does it ever seem dumb.
    17 Oct 2012, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • I am not seeing much in the "against" list that I care about, with the exception of the Start menu (I would assume though that something similar took it's place?).
    17 Oct 2012, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • Regardless of whether of not Windows 8 is a success it really won't impact the base. They aren't switching to Apple/Linux anytime soon. And with XP support disappearing in 2014, Microsoft is hedging itself slightly.
    17 Oct 2012, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun,

    Not having a "start" button and the desktop that we all see when we first login is going to be a gigantic shock to a generation of users.

    Read this page to get a very detailed view:
    http://bit.ly/S3RnRn

    Also Walt Mossberg did a review here a couple of days ago:

    http://dthin.gs/TuOB4J
    "If you don’t have a touchscreen, Windows 8 will still work, but more clumsily.
    Bottom Line
    Microsoft deserves credit for giving Windows a new, modern face. And the company will surely please existing users by maintaining the old one and the ability to run older apps. But the combination will require re-learning the most familiar computing system on the planet."

    I think it sounds like a really cool platform overall but it will be interesting whether a conservative audience will embrace a somewhat radical new approach especially when it comes with all of the bugs that MS is famous for giving us in their initial launch. Usually takes about 2 years before their OS's get stable.
    17 Oct 2012, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33 - the Start Screen represents what the Start Menu was.. with the added functionality of being touch friendly (if you have touch), and "live tiles" that show information behind the app, without having to open the app. (Example - your next calendar appointment, how many new e-mails you have... what the weather is like in your town, etc.)

    Do any of you miss Windows 3.1? Yet there were people who were "concerned" when they saw Windows 95. But it didn't take long to get comfortable with the changes, even though they were initially frustrated. This happens with every new release of every software and hardware product ever created. Ever. :) We fear change.
    17 Oct 2012, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • Kevin,

    I don't fear change. I fear another Vista - one of the worst pieces of crap ever foisted on an unsuspecting public.

    XP was a superior product and rock solid once the SP's were done.

    I like MS and I am trying to offer some ground level, customer feedback which I generally suspect MS ignores at its peril.

    As a tech guy, you have to appreciate the difference between evolution and revolution and I think this borders on the latter which means it could succeed wildly or flop around like a fish out of water.

    In any event it is a big risk and uncharacteristically bold for MS. I hope it succeeds.
    17 Oct 2012, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • I think I can manage to get past the "shock" of not seeing a Start button, it ranks around #394 on my list of Life's Traumas.

    As far as XP goes, it gradually grew to hate it and all of it's limitations - and though Vista had it's problems, it was sitll better than XP. And Win7 is so much better than either XP or Vista that I cannot see why anyone would still run XP unless they had an old 32 bit processor.
    18 Oct 2012, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • Vista was bad because it was focused on solving engineering problems rather than the end customer experience. What that meant was, particularly at release, there were lots of old drivers that needed to be updated and optimized, as well as not quite so much focus on performance optimization and things that were important to customers.

    The fact that Windows 7 is so great, however, and reason BSODs are a thing of the past, is largely because of the engineering investments in Windows Vista. Those investments were carried into Windows 7 and 8. It wasn't like Microsoft went back and scrapped everything they did in Vista -- they just improved it.

    Another issue with the Windows "ecosystem" circa Vista was that Microsoft made some bets based on where hardware was headed. Only, the economy started getting bad and people stopped buying new hardware. They wanted better performance from their existing hardware. Microsoft didn't deliver this until 7 & 8. E.g, investments in making SSDs work in Vista and 7 are only now starting to pay off for Microsoft as they start to move into mainstream.

    Of course, to your point, Joe Consumer doesn't know these facts or care. But the only way Windows 8 could be another Vista is if Microsoft had gone and redone all the engineering and driver things they had done in Vista all over. That isn't the case at all. Windows 7 drivers generally work on Windows 8.
    18 Oct 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • I completely disagree with the idea that everyone will get used to the new interface. MS has had two major Windows flops. Windows Me and Windows Vista. Neither was adopted in substantial enough numbers to consider it the "de facto operating system" of either the business or personal computing world. IMO Win8 could be in the same boat. Clearly aimed at the consumer market without any real benefits for the business world. If it doesn't wildly succeed in the consumer space, it will go the way of Me and Vista.
    27 Dec 2012, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • This is an exciting opportunity to spend more money just to look hip. Finally, a new tablet without a fruit on the cover. Everyone should own one, even two for back-up, and woe on those who fall behind the times. They'll be flogged with soggy spaghetti on public squares. Ka-ching!
    17 Oct 2012, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • I like you, 1mp1r3t4 (if that is your real name).
    17 Oct 2012, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • I've been running Windows 8 on my home and work PCs since late August. Yes, legit. I am a Windows developer and have access to MSDN. The OS works absolutely fine without a touch screen. It is actually much faster to navigate through the applications menu now than it ever was with a start menu. Just press the Windows key on your keyboard, type the first couple letters of the application you want to launch and click enter. Done.

    The Desktop itself is still there in all of its glory. You can get to it by clicking on its Live Tile or by pressing the Windows key on your keyboard. Everything runs exactly like it did in Windows 7 once you're at the Desktop. The Windows 8 Metro interface is not intrusive, and if you don't like it, you will never have to see it except when launching a program (which, again, takes seconds). I really don't know why people are up in arms over the new design. It works perfectly fine with or without touch and can be as new or as retro as you want to work.
    18 Oct 2012, 12:34 AM Reply Like
  • Amen-------thanks for your clarity....Well done!
    28 Dec 2012, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • Thank you, nruva, for what appears to be a far less biased comment than I'm used to seeing. For ONCE, the sky does not appear to be falling. I personally think that the idea of a radically new (quite wonderful sounding actually) way of interacting with my computer that is bundled right along with a means to do it "the same old way but better" is brilliant. What's not to love?
    18 Oct 2012, 07:57 AM Reply Like
Other date
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)