Windows 8 is the new XP

http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-is-the-new-xp-7000006095/

by anigbrowl • 14 years ago

41 57 14 years ago

wlesieutre5• 14 years ago

I more or less agree with this take. Windows 7 was good enough that a lot of people won't have a reason to upgrade, but as Windows 8 tablets become more common I think we'll see a "halo effect" on desktops. Having seen it running for a few months, there are a lot of nice things about 8, and once you get over the Start menu there aren't many negatives.

And new computers will come with 8 installed, so that's some pretty significant adoption right there.

ghshephard2• 14 years ago

Re: "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.

notatoad2• 14 years ago

Corporate IT is inherently conservative. Frankly, any company doing a full roll-out of a new version of an operating system in the first year after release is probably irresponsible, and any company planning their roll-out before the software is even released definitely is. Good admins always wait for SP1. I wouldn't try to extrapolate anything about the quality of the software based on whether or not corporate sysadmins are deploying it.

borg9888• 14 years ago

Nope , no one in enterprise will touch it. We will wait and see what windows 9 brings.

wlesieutre5• 14 years ago

Yeah. Enterprise users are going to buy Windows 7 tablets instead.

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.

ghshephard2• 14 years ago

Why would the Enterprise buy Tablets with Windows RT? None of their apps will run on WIndows RT. Wouldn't they want to buy Tablets with WIndows 8 so they can run both legacy and Metro Style Apps?

jedberg• 14 years ago

The only reason Windows XP "suddenly" became popular is because the next version of Windows that came out was so bad that everyone finally capitulated.

phylosopher2• 14 years ago

I recently visited Microsoft innovation labs in Mountain View and they were really touting how cool Windows 8 would be on desktops and tablets. I've actually been using the release candidate version on a dual boot laptop with Ubuntu for the past couple of months and have not been impressed or greatly inconvenience. I did ask the presenter, a Microsoft developer, how I could easily shutdown my computer as the shutdown button is now not easily accessible as in Windows 7. His answer annoyed me as he gave me three options on how to do it but didn't address the "easily" part of my question. This may be a pattern with Microsoft, lots of feature but limited simplicity.

kenjackson3• 14 years ago

Ask 10 random users how they shutdown their iPad. I suspect that 9 of 10 will tell you they close their cover on the screen. Press them and say, "no, how do you actually shut it down". I suspect you'll get blank stares.

Most people never need to turn off their devices. Most people probably turn off their machine when there is no need.

NZ_Matt• 14 years ago

Shutting down using Win 8 takes exactly the same number of clicks as in Win 7. Alternatively you could just hit the power button and it'll shut down fine.

phylosopher2• 14 years ago

Not on the release candidate. Perhaps on the current release.

numo164• 14 years ago

Alt-F4 from the desktop in Win 8 still works, as well. Being that I'm in the desktop a majority of the time on Win 8 and have always used Alt-F4 if actually needed to turn off my machine for some reason (who does this anymore?), so not much change for me.

aristidb4• 14 years ago

To this day, a large fraction of companies has ignored Windows Vista and 7, and is still running Windows XP. The upgrade to Windows XP went smooth by comparison.

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.)

BruceIV2• 14 years ago

I installed Windows 8 this weekend on my primary machine (my school has an MSDN subscription). My initial impression is that it's actually an upgrade on the desktop - the Start screen really is better as an app launcher, and the app search works quite quickly (it was always dog-slow on Windows 7 on the same computer); the small upgrades to the task manager, taskbar, and Windows Explorer are nice too. It took a bit of time to figure out the new UI (it's all hot corners, but they're well hinted if you know to look for them), but it's pretty reasonable. That's the good news - the bad news is that all Metro apps (especially the Microsoft-branded ones) are useless, ad-ridden, under-featured dreck - if you clear them all from your start screen, it's a decent OS, but even Solitaire has ads, and takes a good 10 seconds to load because of its pointless XBox live integration.

freditup• 14 years ago

You summed up my thoughts too. Windows 8 starts up about twice as quick for me, which is great. The explorer changes are nice enough, and if you don't like the rather large ribbon UI, you can just hide it.

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.

gebe• 14 years ago

Don't forget Windows 2000 which in my book was the Windows 7 of its day. I was one of the stubborn ones refusing to upgrade my windows machines until it was pretty much unavoidable because 2000 wasn't supported by the software any longer. Even though the leap from 7 to 8 certainly is bigger than 2000 to XP ever was it kind of feels like history repeating itself in a way.

aristidb4• 14 years ago

Wasn't Windows 2000 targeted to the high end of the market only, and Windows 98 SE still the mass-market choice?

kenjackson3• 14 years ago

What does Windows 8 bring over Windows 7 that justifies an upgrade?

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.

aristidb4• 14 years ago

So you don't buy into the argument that vertical touch screens are unergonomic and unpleasant to use over non-trivial amounts of time, because they require holding the hand up to the screen?

toyg2• 14 years ago

The update to XP was not just an upgrade, it was also a clear separation of duties in the overall infrastructure. Back then, power users just had "the latest and greatest" as their OS; with XP, Microsoft introduced real, substantial, hardcoded differences between "clients" and "servers", with different development roadmaps that got more and more out of sync with each other. This mapped much better to the needs of corporate IT than the previous status quo, so they were happy to jump on the bandwagon as quickly as possible to put order in their ranks.

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.

azakai• 14 years ago

What a ridiculous article. So there was negativity about XP that turned out to be wrong. What about the negativity about Vista that turned out to be right?

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.

nilved• 14 years ago

In fairness the negativity of Vista was also wrong.

numo164• 14 years ago

Agreed, having used Vista from release to Win 7 release, I never seemed to see the stability issues that so many seemed to be reporting. It made me wonder if people were just trying to work with ridiculously outdated hardware and software.

gizmo686• 14 years ago

The negativity about vista was largely technical (it was unstable), and was adressed in SP1.

We can also look at gnome 2, gnome 3, and unity for other examples of horrific updates that went smoothly.

wlesieutre5• 14 years ago

Most of the negativity about Vista was related to changes that were a good thing in the long run, but didn't have 3rd party support (updated drivers) out of the gate. SP1 fixed some problems, but in my opinion the bigger reason for SP1 being reliable was that the ecosystem had gotten its act together.

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.

BruceIV2• 14 years ago

A lot of the Metro apps are a bit broken (even the Microsoft-provided ones) - a big problem is them trying to go to websites that have moved since whenever they were released.

arthulia• 14 years ago

XP was great. There were so many worse versions of Windows. Think about Vista, and ME.

admiralpumpkin• 14 years ago

This article dodges (willfully ignores) the every-other good-bad release schedule that has tended to be the pattern of Microsoft (and Star Trek movies).

2000: good ME: bad XP2: good Vista: bad 7: good 8: bad

arihant• 14 years ago

And that pattern dodges the base case - Win 98: bad? I don't think so.

notatoad2• 14 years ago

It takes a bit of tricky counting to make the pattern work. 98/ME/2000/XP/XPSP2/Vista/7.

corporalagumbo• 14 years ago

I have never understood this sentiment. If it's such an easy pattern to spot, how come someone in senior management at Microsoft hasn't spotted it too? Is your average internet commenter really smarter and more perceptive than one of the world's largest and most successful companies? Furthermore, has Microsoft not grown as a company at all for the last ten years? Has the IT environment not changed at all either? And is history destiny?

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.

toyg2• 14 years ago

It's easy to explain: it's just a media narrative. If I know in advance that the next product will be much better than the previous one, why should I read any "news report" or "analysis" about it? I'll just enjoy the goodies when they land. But if there is criticism, well, I better read up so that I can react accordingly -- here's my money and my ad impressions! The same will happen, in reverse, with the following release.

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.

RexRollman• 14 years ago

It's more like this for me in regards to the NT line:

NT4 (Good) 2000 (Not) XP (Good) Vista (Not) 7 (Good) 8 (Not)

InclinedPlane• 14 years ago

The biggest risk that Windows 8 brings is that it's not just a no brainer upgrade. It requires training, it requires consideration of the costs and benefits. And once you are on that road then you are on a road that could easily lead you to non-windows alternatives. iOS or android tablets, linux workstations, etc.

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.

Mythbusters2• 14 years ago

I don't agree that there really is a big learning curve really. The training you need is about a few minutes with the computer to know to take your mouse to corners and the sides. Once you know the patterns its basically training your muscle memory which for me took a couple of days.

WalterBright• 14 years ago

I keep XP on an older machine because Win7 does not run DOS programs anymore, and Win7 broke the windbg debugger.

manaskarekar• 14 years ago

This can't be right! Whatever happened to WinXP emulation mode or Dosbox?

yuhong• 14 years ago

Not to mention only 64-bit Win7 removed NTVDM.

rocky1138• 14 years ago

DOSBox ftw.

CoolGuySteve• 14 years ago

Everyone forgets that XP is very different from XP SP2. SP2 was a major update that replaced most of the binaries and offered significant API and security upgrades that were essential to everyone.

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.

anigbrowl• 14 years ago

Good point. I had forgotten how different the experience was pre- and post-SP2.

petercooper3• 14 years ago

We had all that when Windows 95 came out too. My dad and I stayed as MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11 holdouts for a good year or so.. ;-)

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.

natmaster• 14 years ago

This is silly. Win8 is a step backwards in usability period. You have to do a lot more to perform the same actions.

Whereas XP was actually better.

Win8 is the ME of this decade.

lovamova• 14 years ago

Windows 8 is the best operating system available today. All you have to do to make it work for desktop is to uninstall all the WinRT (Metro) apps. You will end up with a really nice start menu that can be accessed quickly from a corner.

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.

saturdaysaint• 14 years ago

XP had no real competition. Windows 8 faces well entrenched competition, much of it brutally undercutting MS on price and offering considerably better integration with their smartphone of choice (unless you're the %4 of smartphone users on WP7).

numo164• 14 years ago

I blame Verizon for my not having a WP7 phone. I refuse to switch over to AT&T and Sprint coverage is hit or miss in my area, but I still hold a grudge over Verizon for not offering a better WP7 device than the HTC Trophy.

broham• 14 years ago

For those who will be using Windows 8 and miss the Start Menu, Classic Shell is a FOSS solution. http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

zmonkeyz• 14 years ago

I still remember a magazine showing how you can make Windows 95 look more like 3.1 by putting folder shortcuts on the desktop :P

Windows 8 is the new XP

Related Stories