Ms Windows 8 Warning

[inthepink]

As I said earlier, the uptake of a new OS by large corporations is not a good gauge of its popularity, for the reason you yourself just stated. So it wasn't relevant for you to state that you had no plans to upgrade the 2,500 PCs that you look after. You wouldn't have upgraded whatever was on offer.

Actually, you're wrong. Had Windows 8 offered superior features and security without the ridiculous interface redesign, I would be skipping the remaining Windows 7 upgrades we are doing and go straight to Windows 8 (as far as application compatibility is concerned, it's excellent).

I am running it on my personal and company machines, and I have a Server 2013 running in the office with XAMPP on it - it's absolutely rock solid.

I have nothing against the OS, I love most of it, but WDI would simply be counter-productive to people who have years of ingrained experience doing things in a way they understand. Again, I am only talking about Desktop PCs without Touchscreens. It's quite intuitive and very useable on touchscreen devices. On my Lenovo AIO I quite often swipe in and hit start to switch to WDI for Ebay and so on. But I'd say I only use it about 10% of the time. And it's easy to swipe; using a mouse to get it is frankly irritating.

As for BYOD, it's full of holes and we have a DNBYOD policy (and a DDNBYON as well!). If people want mobile access they use our devices and we control and secure them.

Our employees are not "consumers", they are "employees", and they don't get to decide that their company mobile device can run Angry Birds.

Well you keep changing your mind. First you said your systems are rarely updated, now you say you are updating them...

As for your employees dictating what software is run at the company, I think you know that is not what I was suggesting at all. Taking a macro view, consumers, some of whom are employed by the company you work for and many who are not, will have a greater influence on future iterations of Windows and other OS than they have in the past. So eventually, your company and every other company will be running such operating systems, unless you plan to go back to using papyrus and quills.

[Chicog]

Well you keep changing your mind. First you said your systems are rarely updated, now you say you are updating them...As for your employees dictating what software is run at the company, I think you know that is not what I was suggesting at all. Taking a macro view, consumers, some of whom are employed by the company you work for and many who are not, will have a greater influence on future iterations of Windows and other OS than they have in the past. So eventually, your company and every other company will be running such operating systems, unless you plan to go back to using papyrus and quills.

Au contraire, I see a new version of Windows sooner rather than later (probably 6.3) that splits into Desktop and Touchscreen versions, probably in response to flagging sales in the business arena.

As for updating, I do it when I need to; XP support is nearing an end, so it was logical to upgrade to Win7. There is no such pressure (and in fact a lot of aversion) to go to Windows 8 on desktops.

[Chicog]

Just as an addendum, I can see why some people are calling for it to be called Window 8 instead of Windows 8.

I just made my first call with the Win8 version of Skype. It defaults to full screen and you can no longer do other stuff while in a video call to someone.

It seems MS are dumbing down Windows, it's far less useful than it was.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Chicog

[Khun Jean]

Just as an addendum, I can see why some people are calling for it to be called Window 8 instead of Windows 8.

I just made my first call with the Win8 version of Skype. It defaults to full screen and you can no longer do other stuff while in a video call to someone.

It seems MS are dumbing down Windows, it's far less useful than it was.

Try dragging (touch or mouse) it to the side of the screen, it is called snapping. It is one of the nicest things about windowS 8 especially for skype. Effectively making your screen do double duty without screwing up the normal desktop.

It is as such much more useful as ever before!

What is next? Skype not working perfectly? Maybe because they just started supporting windows 8 or is it windows 8 that causes Skype to not work?

Edited December 22, 2012 by Khun Jean

[Chicog]

Effectively making your screen do double duty without screwing up the normal desktop.

It is as such much more useful as ever before!

Erm... If I have a quarter sized Skype window on my screen and the rest of the desktop to access, why is that "screwing up the normal desktop"? That's why it was called "Windows".

How that makes it "as such much more useful as ever before" I have no idea, then again I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[Khun Jean]

I have no idea, then again I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I agree with that.

[hml367]

Windows 8 Pro, Skype snapped:

[Dork]

Just as an addendum, I can see why some people are calling for it to be called Window 8 instead of Windows 8.

I just made my first call with the Win8 version of Skype. It defaults to full screen and you can no longer do other stuff while in a video call to someone.

It seems MS are dumbing down Windows, it's far less useful than it was.

There are 2 versions of Skype for Windows 8, the Win8 app which can run on ARM and the desktop version which only runs on x86/x64.

https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA12162/how-do-i-get-the-desktop-version-of-skype-on-windows-8

[Dork]

Microsoft didn't build Windows 8 to please IT professionals, they built it to make money by maintaining their position as an OS leader in a changing hardware environment. That means addressing the huge growth of tablet devices like the iPad but at the same time continuing support for PC's.

Tablet devices need to be highly portable and have long battery life and presently the only way to do that is by utilizing less powerful processors like ARM.

Traditional PC's require more powerful (and power hungry) architecture in order to run any kind of application.

In the future, there will likely be hardware available with the flexibility to do both but right now there isn't. Windows 8 is Microsoft's solution to this dilemma, the downside of which is having to make compromises - one of which is the new desktop interface that so many hate.

I'm quite sure that Microsoft was fully aware that releasing Windows 8 would alienate some consumers but that's the long term strategy they have taken. You can argue that Microsoft have made a big mistake with Win8 but I can't see the point in that. If you're planning on using Windows into the future, your only options are take the temporary solution of sticking with Windows 7 or learn how to get along with Windows 8 and the new way of doing things.

After all Windows is a product that belongs to Microsoft and it's theirs to gamble with.

[hml367]

deleted..... I found the answer

MSPain

Edited December 23, 2012 by hml367

[Turkleton]

There are 2 versions of Skype for Windows 8, the Win8 app which can run on ARM and the desktop version which only runs on x86/x64.

https://support.skyp...pe-on-windows-8

Nope, with Win8 x86/x64 Pc's, you can could run both, the Metro-App and the Desktop Version!

But who really wants to run a Metro-App on a PC?

Edited December 23, 2012 by Turkleton

[Dork]

There are 2 versions of Skype for Windows 8, the Win8 app which can run on ARM and the desktop version which only runs on x86/x64.

https://support.skyp...pe-on-windows-8

Nope, with Win8 x86/x64 Pc's, you can could run both, the Metro-App and the Desktop Version!

But who really wants to run a Metro-App on a PC?

I didn't say you couldn't. What I said was the "app" can run on ARM whereas the "desktop version" cannot.

[Chicog]

Windows 8 Pro, Skype snapped:

I don't see any Skype video window there. Sure you posted the right shot?

[Chicog]

Microsoft didn't build Windows 8 to please IT professionals, they built it to make money by maintaining their position as an OS leader in a changing hardware environment. That means addressing the huge growth of tablet devices like the iPad but at the same time continuing support for PC's.

Tablet devices need to be highly portable and have long battery life and presently the only way to do that is by utilizing less powerful processors like ARM.

Traditional PC's require more powerful (and power hungry) architecture in order to run any kind of application.

In the future, there will likely be hardware available with the flexibility to do both but right now there isn't. Windows 8 is Microsoft's solution to this dilemma, the downside of which is having to make compromises - one of which is the new desktop interface that so many hate.

I'm quite sure that Microsoft was fully aware that releasing Windows 8 would alienate some consumers but that's the long term strategy they have taken. You can argue that Microsoft have made a big mistake with Win8 but I can't see the point in that. If you're planning on using Windows into the future, your only options are take the temporary solution of sticking with Windows 7 or learn how to get along with Windows 8 and the new way of doing things.

After all Windows is a product that belongs to Microsoft and it's theirs to gamble with.

Interesting points, although I disagree with you: Microsoft release new versions because they are no longer generating sufficient revenue from the old ones. Upgrades make them money that maintaining the status quo does not.

As for tablets, it would seem Microsoft's Surface is not exactly flying off the shelves, and with better hybrid options from the likes of Samsung, ASUS and DELL I can't see it getting any better. They were late to the game with that one, and frankly I wouldn't touch the Surface RT with a shitty stick, and the Surface Pro is overpriced compared to other options on the market.

As for Desktops, I don't see why hardware is much of an issue, the lack of a touchscreen on the majority of them is the issue as far as I can see. And it's being addressed with third party add-ons; I think Microsoft will cave eventually, unless there is a realistic prospect of them abandoning the desktop altogether, which is unlikely.

[Chicog]

Windows 8 Pro, Skype snapped:

I don't see any Skype video window there. Sure you posted the right shot?

Ah mea culpa, I see it on the right. I was unable to do this swiping, so it's not very intuitive. I was able to get a list of open apps swiping from the left, but I can do that effectively enough using Alt-Tab - something, thank heavens, that they haven't dumped.

[hml367]

Windows 8 Pro, Skype snapped:

I don't see any Skype video window there. Sure you posted the right shot?

Ah mea culpa, I see it on the right. I was unable to do this swiping, so it's not very intuitive. I was able to get a list of open apps swiping from the left, but I can do that effectively enough using Alt-Tab - something, thank heavens, that they haven't dumped.

There is a minimum resolution required for the snap feature. It is in the requirements. Also there are ways of changing the resolution which some people have offered as solutions.

I can snap on my higher resolution laptop and not on this particular one because the resolution is not enough. This one would not work well for me with snapping. I don't even keep my browser favorites sidebar open on this one.

I think the resolution is something like 1366 x 768 as a requirement.

MSPain

[tigerbeer]

Seems that the special price of 39.99 USD is expiring Jan 31. Anyone has any idea how much it was cost after that date? Thinking of installing it on my pc.

[NeverSure]

I wonder if there's any chance that Win8 goes away really fast like Vista did. Or Windows Millennium Edition. Or Windows 2000. It sure seems unpopular with many for desktops and laptops.

It wouldn't take much for MS to develop a new interface for it and repackage it for desktops. And no, I don't see the desktop going away any time soon, especially in the enterprise environment. They are just too cheap, too upgradable, and too flexible. Flexible as in I have 3 internal HDD's, both a CDROM and a burner, a powerful and upgradeable video card, and slots for more cards. I can upgrade the power supply on the cheap to run all of this stuff. I can drop in 8gb ram, add another gig on a video...

When did I ever see a laptop that was better or cheaper or more versatile for anything other than being portable?

I do some consulting for an enterprise with 1400 FTE employees and more than 1,000 client computers not to mention other nodes and then the Microsoft Servers, Active Directory, etc. etc.

Does someone think they they are considering trying to teach 1400 people how to use the new Win8 interface? Not even close. They still have about 1/2 of the boxes running XP Pro and only upgrade to Win 7 when they buy new desktops. Speaking of activations, they own enough licenses for Win 7 Ultimate (enterprise) to fill the house when they are ready. They haven't used 1/2 of those yet. They buy about 200 new computers at once with no OS, and then image them with a sysprepped MSI file, pushed from a server. The product key is already in the sysprep.inf file.

Just rambling I know, but I don't see 8 being a big hit. Time will tell.

[Khun Jean]

Well, you start by teaching all 1400 of them to click on one 'tile'.

It is named 'Desktop'.

I think i can teach them that in about 20 seconds.

From that moment on, they think they have the same computer as before, but then with solid 64 bit, and the better management of resources. It will probably work faster than before too, not a bad deal for 39US$.

[NeverSure]

Well, you start by teaching all 1400 of them to click on one 'tile'.

It is named 'Desktop'.

I think i can teach them that in about 20 seconds.

From that moment on, they think they have the same computer as before, but then with solid 64 bit, and the better management of resources. It will probably work faster than before too, not a bad deal for 39US$.

Not a chance. 1400 people, few of whom are power users and all of whom need tech support for any little question.

If we think that individuals are resistant to change, try to get a whole enterprise on board for it when things are now running smoothly. In this day of "group buy in" being the method for making decisions instead of yesterday's "It's what the boss wants" it's hard to make any changes. No one wants the responsibility if all goes wrong.

Why tf would such an enterprise risk a major change when Win7 is great, and the bugs in the enterprise have been worked out?

There has to be some overriding motivating reason, and no one's told me what that is yet. The reason for leaving XP is that Microsoft is leaving it with no more security updates.

[hml367]

Well, you start by teaching all 1400 of them to click on one 'tile'.

It is named 'Desktop'.

I think i can teach them that in about 20 seconds.

From that moment on, they think they have the same computer as before, but then with solid 64 bit, and the better management of resources. It will probably work faster than before too, not a bad deal for 39US$.

Not a chance. 1400 people, few of whom are power users and all of whom need tech support for any little question.

If we think that individuals are resistant to change, try to get a whole enterprise on board for it when things are now running smoothly. In this day of "group buy in" being the method for making decisions instead of yesterday's "It's what the boss wants" it's hard to make any changes. No one wants the responsibility if all goes wrong.

Why tf would such an enterprise risk a major change when Win7 is great, and the bugs in the enterprise have been worked out?

There has to be some overriding motivating reason, and no one's told me what that is yet. The reason for leaving XP is that Microsoft is leaving it with no more security updates.

Not sure how many times I have posted that my 2 computers with Windows 8 go through the tiles to the desktop when they start without me doing any tile button pressing.

MSPain

[Digitalbanana]

Well, you start by teaching all 1400 of them to click on one 'tile'.

It is named 'Desktop'.

I think i can teach them that in about 20 seconds.

From that moment on, they think they have the same computer as before, but then with solid 64 bit, and the better management of resources. It will probably work faster than before too, not a bad deal for 39US$.

Not a chance. 1400 people, few of whom are power users and all of whom need tech support for any little question.

If we think that individuals are resistant to change, try to get a whole enterprise on board for it when things are now running smoothly. In this day of "group buy in" being the method for making decisions instead of yesterday's "It's what the boss wants" it's hard to make any changes. No one wants the responsibility if all goes wrong.

Why tf would such an enterprise risk a major change when Win7 is great, and the bugs in the enterprise have been worked out?

There has to be some overriding motivating reason, and no one's told me what that is yet. The reason for leaving XP is that Microsoft is leaving it with no more security updates.

Not sure how many times I have posted that my 2 computers with Windows 8 go through the tiles to the desktop when they start without me doing any tile button pressing.

MSPain

Yes, cutting away from the condescending waffle of KJ, I don't see the point of going straight to a desktop as that's what my prehistoric version of Win7 does. It also does it very well, allows me to configure it any which way a power user would like to and boots and shuts down in a flash on my SSD laptop without a touch screen. I am never going back to Win8 having run it for a wasted week, just waiting for Win9, the learning curve for Win9 won't be as long as KL thinks some of us dinosaurs will require.

[Khun Jean]

Well, if you can't work with windows 8, how the h3ll did you do work on windows xp/windows 7.

Both are running the exact same programs, you only have a different startup screen.

Press esc or click on desktop.

Doesn't seem hard to get used to.

I 'struggled' with windows 8 for about 1 minute, then kept on working. I used an upgrade from windows 7 which leaves all programs installed.

[NeverSure]

Well, this thread has gone in many directions from where it started, and I think some of us are still discussing different things from different perspectives. I see some power users who have no problem migrating to 8, as expected. Interwoven is a discussion about volume of sales of 8 for Microsoft and how that will work out. Also interwoven is talk about the big enterprise users who have already paid big bucks for licenses for 7 and who have no motivation to change. In fact they are resistant to change.

I have to install 8 just so I can learn it and stay with the curve. If I like it, I'll put it onto my main squeeze tower here.

IMHO Microsoft made a mistake by trying to be all things to all people. If they wanted to go head to head with Android and Ipod, then I think they should have tweaked an OS to do that, touch screen and all, and maybe introduced that ahead of changing Win7 for desktops and laptops.

Make no mistake. Microsoft really screwed the pooch by getting behind on the curve of having an OS for smartphones and notebooks. They simply didn't see the inevitable and let the likes of Google tweak Linux into Android and storm their doors. Even Apple is feeling the hurt, just not as bad. Microsoft is left in the dust and has no way out at the moment. Win8 is the attempt, but who would pay for Win8 when Android is so cheap and by now people know how to use it?

So I'm not arguing which is better. It depends on the user and the need. Right now most people don't "need" anything better than 7, and most enterprises don't want to change again because they have huge bucks invested in 7 licenses, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."