We should go into business offering to install Classic Shell for "only" $124!
Sounds like a good idea We could set up branches near most major computer shops (excluding Apple Stores of course ) as that's where you'd find people buying Windows 8 machines.
It seems that most people fall into one of three camps:
1) Those who are of the opinion that Windows 8 is better, even without a UI utility such as Classic Start or Start8.
2) Those who are of the opinion that without a UI utility Windows 8 is unacceptable, but if a UI utility is installed then Windows 8 is roughly comparable in usability terms with Windows 7, perhap better in some respects (possibly speed) but perhaps not as good in other respects (for example the loss of Aero, the introduction of the ribbon bar in Windows Explorer, possible hassle sorting out hardware and software incompatibilities, etc).
3) Those who are of the opinion Windows 8 is worse, even with a UI utility. This might be because they encountered problems with Win8 which couldn't be resolved.
Judging by numerous comments on this forum and others, plus various blogs and reviews, the second group seems to be in the majority by far.
Yes, that appears to sum-up the situation very well.
It begs the question of why Microsoft decided to launch Windows 8 onto the PC market in its current form.
Why didn't they make W8 an updated version of W7, with the improvements many have noted. Then Metro could have been an optional extra for those who wanted to try it on a non-touch screen desktop or laptop.
The Metro version could have continued to role out on its touch screen devices, tablets etc. It could have been tweaked and improved while more apps were added. They are still a long way behind Apple and Android in the apps "war", recently topping 40,000 against the leaders 700,000+.
Why not wait until the market was eagerly looking foward to trying their new OS, they appear to have gone into battle unprepared, with an unpopular product.
Windows 8 in its current form appears to have been foisted on an unwilling public before its really ready, not the smartest way of doing business ?
Maybe as a alternative, but Chromebook is pretty limited after all it is only a browser. Maybe if they had a Linux based machine it may be better. I know chrome Os is Linux based.
The problem here is that Windows is well known, it runs software people want to run and people know they can get the software they want. Chrome and Linux will not always do what people want.
Because that will be the time when the service packs make 8 into a usable product.:D
i doubt it, MS have no plans to change the modern UI or not to have it as default. they certainly have no plans to bring back the start menu.
in fact I would not be surprised if they are not thinking of putting something in the next version or service pack that will knock these start menus out.
Agreed, and so far they only have small screens and IMHO very high prices for such restricted usability.
Depends how you look at it. I have suggested a Chromebook for a couple of friend's elderly relatives who only want email and web and want simplicity. In this case the restricted usability is a definite plus. To not have to worry about viruses and software updates and all the ins and outs of Windows most definitely makes things easier both for the individual concerned and also for the relative who has to support them. Still cheaper than the cheapest of laptops.
Yes, that appears to sum-up the situation very well. It begs the question of why Microsoft decided to launch Windows 8 onto the PC market in its current form.
Why didn't they make W8 an updated version of W7, with the improvements many have noted. Then Metro could have been an optional extra for those who wanted to try it on a non-touch screen desktop or laptop.
The Metro version could have continued to role out on its touch screen devices, tablets etc. It could have been tweaked and improved while more apps were added. They are still a long way behind Apple and Android in the apps "war", recently topping 40,000 against the leaders 700,000+.
Why not wait until the market was eagerly looking foward to trying their new OS, they appear to have gone into battle unprepared, with an unpopular product.
Windows 8 in its current form appears to have been foisted on an unwilling public before its really ready, not the smartest way of doing business ?
That is the problem with Windows 8!
I took part in the Beta trial for windows 8 and it soon became very apparent to me that on a laptop or desktop PC it doesn't work as well as Windows 7. On a tablet or touchscreen machine it is perfectly usable interface, infact it works very well.
Microsoft should have kept Windows 7 for the PC and Laptop market and launched Windows 8 purely at the "on the move" market, such as tablets and smartphones.
The real problem for Microsoft is that whilst most corporations are now starting to upgrade to Windows 7, I can't imagine any of them will be upgrading to Windows 8.
The Samsung Chromebook is £379, whereas netbooks (which IMHO are a closer comparison) start at around £220.
I see your point regarding simplicity, but not being able to run Windows EXE programs is a huge drawback.
The last one I bought (The Samsung Google one) was £229 - and I'm not sure I agree a netbook is a closer comparison, given the Chromebook has a full size keyboard and nice screen.
The last one I bought (The Samsung Google one) was £229 - and I'm not sure I agree a netbook is a closer comparison, given the Chromebook has a full size keyboard and nice screen.
I had another look and yes you're right the 11.6" model is £229. I was previously looking at the 12.1" model which is £379 - I wonder why it's so much more? Both have 16GB SSD's but the more expensive model has an Intel processor so maybe that explains it.
Don't those small screen sizes imply netbook sized cases and netbook sized keyboards?
in fact I would not be surprised if they are not thinking of putting something in the next version or service pack that will knock these start menus out.
That would be suicidal. Not even Microsoft are that arrogant and stupid. If they did, I would ditch not only Windows 8 but also any future Microsoft upgrades.
However... the fact that they *could* disable them (because the utilities are unsupported) is one of the main arguments I have made against them.
That would be suicidal. Not even Microsoft are that arrogant and stupid. If they did, I would ditch not only Windows 8 but also any future Microsoft upgrades.
However... the fact that they *could* disable them (because the utilities are unsupported) is one of the main arguments I have made against them.
What means unsupported? If they only use documented Windows APIs they are here to stay, MS does not remove APIs. If they do use anything low-level or dirty, which I seriously doubt, then they may break later. But not because MS is mean, being mean costs them money, but because they needed to change it. There are reasons for things being undocumented and consequences if one uses them.
Agreed, and so far they only have small screens and IMHO very high prices for such restricted usability.
The Chromebooks I've seen have decent enough screens. As for usability, they're only good if you want them as an internet device or you rely heavily on cloud computing. I like the concept though and I guess they're handy to keep around as a computer you can let visitors use without worrying about them messing up your own I also reckon hotels should rent out Chromebooks to guests.
I'm sitting in my university library at the moment and someone is using Windows 8. I've noticed that all the people I know using W8 use it in desktop mode. They do use the Duplo tiles for launching programs and presumably to check on the live tiles, but none of them are using touchscreens so they'd be better off installing something like Classic Shell. I told two of my W8-using friends that
The real problem for Microsoft is that whilst most corporations are now starting to upgrade to Windows 7, I can't imagine any of them will be upgrading to Windows 8.
I doubt many companies will upgrade to Win8 but that has nothing to do with how good or not Win8 is. It costs /A LOT/ of money for a enterprise of any decent size to move and most companies will have had long term plans to move to Win7.
Also, enterprise licenses aren't sold the way they are to end users. They buy subscriptions that give them access to the latest versions of all software MSs software, so even if they never deploy it, it still goes down as a license sale. That's why in software company IPOs brochures they talk about orders v deployments
I doubt many companies will upgrade to Win8 but that has nothing to do with how good or not Win8 is. It costs /A LOT/ of money for a enterprise of any decent size to move and most companies will have had long term plans to move to Win7.
Aren't some companies still using XP or only just upgrading to W7?
I doubt many companies will upgrade to Win8 but that has nothing to do with how good or not Win8 is. It costs /A LOT/ of money for a enterprise of any decent size to move and most companies will have had long term plans to move to Win7.
My point was that they now have a choice of Win 7 or Win 8 if they are still on XP and in my view they are far more likely to upgrade to Win 7 rather than move to Win 8 especially given the, at best, "mixed" reception Win 8 has had so far.
Aren't some companies still using XP or only just upgrading to W7?
The vast majority of people in the company I work for are still on XP, including me! The company is rolling out an upgrade plan but as they employ in excess of 75,000 globally it will take some time!
Just heads-up, last day to get this hated OS upgrade cheaply. I'd say it makes sense for those who have W7 home edition and would like to benefit from pro/enterprise features, and media center.
My point was that they now have a choice of Win 7 or Win 8 if they are still on XP and in my view they are far more likely to upgrade to Win 7 rather than move to Win 8 especially given the, at best, "mixed" reception Win 8 has had so far.
I disagree, the decision to upgrade will have already been made before Win8 was released, before even CTPs of 8 where out. It is not unusual for company with 10k+ seats to take 2 years+ to do a desktop rollout, from start to finish.
Just heads-up, last day to get this hated OS upgrade cheaply. I'd say it makes sense for those who have W7 home edition and would like to benefit from pro/enterprise features, and media center.
It doesn't make any sense for W7 users to upgrade, XP users yes, but W7 users do not get anything out of it.
Comments
Damn! My 1920 x 1080 monitors won't change resolution below 1024 x 768 in W8. Nor will my smaller monitor. I guess they got me!
Except... I have Classic Shell...
Windows 8 must be really bad then
Sounds like a good idea
Acer hints at Chromebook shift as Windows 8 sales disappoint
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2239617/acer-president-bemoans-windows-8-sales
Because that will be the time when the service packs make 8 into a usable product.:D
Yes, that appears to sum-up the situation very well.
It begs the question of why Microsoft decided to launch Windows 8 onto the PC market in its current form.
Why didn't they make W8 an updated version of W7, with the improvements many have noted. Then Metro could have been an optional extra for those who wanted to try it on a non-touch screen desktop or laptop.
The Metro version could have continued to role out on its touch screen devices, tablets etc. It could have been tweaked and improved while more apps were added. They are still a long way behind Apple and Android in the apps "war", recently topping 40,000 against the leaders 700,000+.
Why not wait until the market was eagerly looking foward to trying their new OS, they appear to have gone into battle unprepared, with an unpopular product.
Windows 8 in its current form appears to have been foisted on an unwilling public before its really ready, not the smartest way of doing business ?
Maybe as a alternative, but Chromebook is pretty limited after all it is only a browser. Maybe if they had a Linux based machine it may be better. I know chrome Os is Linux based.
The problem here is that Windows is well known, it runs software people want to run and people know they can get the software they want. Chrome and Linux will not always do what people want.
i doubt it, MS have no plans to change the modern UI or not to have it as default. they certainly have no plans to bring back the start menu.
in fact I would not be surprised if they are not thinking of putting something in the next version or service pack that will knock these start menus out.
Depends how you look at it. I have suggested a Chromebook for a couple of friend's elderly relatives who only want email and web and want simplicity. In this case the restricted usability is a definite plus. To not have to worry about viruses and software updates and all the ins and outs of Windows most definitely makes things easier both for the individual concerned and also for the relative who has to support them. Still cheaper than the cheapest of laptops.
I see your point regarding simplicity, but not being able to run Windows EXE programs is a huge drawback.
That is the problem with Windows 8!
I took part in the Beta trial for windows 8 and it soon became very apparent to me that on a laptop or desktop PC it doesn't work as well as Windows 7. On a tablet or touchscreen machine it is perfectly usable interface, infact it works very well.
Microsoft should have kept Windows 7 for the PC and Laptop market and launched Windows 8 purely at the "on the move" market, such as tablets and smartphones.
The real problem for Microsoft is that whilst most corporations are now starting to upgrade to Windows 7, I can't imagine any of them will be upgrading to Windows 8.
The last one I bought (The Samsung Google one) was £229 - and I'm not sure I agree a netbook is a closer comparison, given the Chromebook has a full size keyboard and nice screen.
Don't those small screen sizes imply netbook sized cases and netbook sized keyboards?
That would be suicidal. Not even Microsoft are that arrogant and stupid. If they did, I would ditch not only Windows 8 but also any future Microsoft upgrades.
However... the fact that they *could* disable them (because the utilities are unsupported) is one of the main arguments I have made against them.
What means unsupported? If they only use documented Windows APIs they are here to stay, MS does not remove APIs. If they do use anything low-level or dirty, which I seriously doubt, then they may break later. But not because MS is mean, being mean costs them money, but because they needed to change it. There are reasons for things being undocumented and consequences if one uses them.
The Chromebooks I've seen have decent enough screens. As for usability, they're only good if you want them as an internet device or you rely heavily on cloud computing. I like the concept though and I guess they're handy to keep around as a computer you can let visitors use without worrying about them messing up your own
I'm sitting in my university library at the moment and someone is using Windows 8. I've noticed that all the people I know using W8 use it in desktop mode. They do use the Duplo tiles for launching programs and presumably to check on the live tiles, but none of them are using touchscreens so they'd be better off installing something like Classic Shell. I told two of my W8-using friends that
I doubt many companies will upgrade to Win8 but that has nothing to do with how good or not Win8 is. It costs /A LOT/ of money for a enterprise of any decent size to move and most companies will have had long term plans to move to Win7.
Also, enterprise licenses aren't sold the way they are to end users. They buy subscriptions that give them access to the latest versions of all software MSs software, so even if they never deploy it, it still goes down as a license sale. That's why in software company IPOs brochures they talk about orders v deployments
Aren't some companies still using XP or only just upgrading to W7?
My point was that they now have a choice of Win 7 or Win 8 if they are still on XP and in my view they are far more likely to upgrade to Win 7 rather than move to Win 8 especially given the, at best, "mixed" reception Win 8 has had so far.
The vast majority of people in the company I work for are still on XP, including me! The company is rolling out an upgrade plan but as they employ in excess of 75,000 globally it will take some time!
I disagree, the decision to upgrade will have already been made before Win8 was released, before even CTPs of 8 where out. It is not unusual for company with 10k+ seats to take 2 years+ to do a desktop rollout, from start to finish.
It doesn't make any sense for W7 users to upgrade, XP users yes, but W7 users do not get anything out of it.