Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions

[JorgeA]

A pair of informative, analytical pieces by our friend Paul Thurrott:

Microsoft Has Sold Over 200 Million Windows 8 Licenses

I've reported previously that Windows 8 has sold much slower than Microsoft had anticipated, and the firm has been updating the software with free updates to appease disgruntled customers. But with this figure, we can now determine just how poorly Windows 8 has sold. And while 200 million is obviously a big number, it's not pretty.

200 million licenses in 16 months equates to about 12.5 million licenses per month. The last time Microsoft revealed a sales figure for Windows 8 was in May 2013: At that time, it said it had sold over 100 million licenses, a pace of about 16.6 million units per month. So sales have in fact been slowing over time.

But Windows 7 consistently sold 20 million licenses per month over its three years in the market. And the firm was able to sell 240 million licenses to Windows 7 in just one year, a pace of ... wait for it ... 20 million units per month. (Windows 7 sales were curiously always very consistent.) So Windows 8 is falling far short of its predecessor.

Tami Reller Talks: Windows 8 at 16 Months

Good timeline of Reller's public stgatements about Win8 sales. Watch how they get increasingly less detailed. Another tidbit:

... I reported in the past that Microsoft blamed PC makers for not delivering the right machines to market, and that Reller outright blamed Windows 8's initial slow uptick (since even slower) on this issue. Now, she speaks of actually meeting the needs of PC makers, suggesting that the initial release of this software did not. "We have listened [to the PC makers] and we have moved as fast as humanly possible to [make the changes they requested]," she said. "And a lot of that is just happening now this spring."

--JorgeA

[vinifera]

Wzor strikes again:

From the rumor mill: Windows 9 to hit Beta in May of this year, Release Candidate close to September

According to Wzor, Windows 9 will reach Beta in May of this year. This will be the only Beta version of the operating system. A Release Candidate build of Windows 9 will then arrive sometime between late August and September of this year. Sign-off for the final build of Windows 9 will take place sometime between the end of October to the middle of November. Wzor is sticking to his claim that Windows 9 will hit RTM between October 21st and October 25th.

Ahh, it's so much fun to speculate!

--JorgeA

I wouldn't be surprised if Sept will have 1st beta

since win9 won't be New system, just s***ty tweak of 8 and probably some minor changes in favor of old shell

remember that Beta of win 7 came 2 years after vista rtm'd

and win 8 rtm is now year and half old

Edited February 17, 2014 by vinifera

[bpalone]

Microsoft has extended by one year the time that it's making Windows 7 (Professional) available for preloading on OEM PCs:

Tami Reller Talks: Windows 8 at 16 Months

Good timeline of Reller's public stgatements about Win8 sales. Watch how they get increasingly less detailed. Another tidbit:

... I reported in the past that Microsoft blamed PC makers for not delivering the right machines to market, and that Reller outright blamed Windows 8's initial slow uptick (since even slower) on this issue. Now, she speaks of actually meeting the needs of PC makers, suggesting that the initial release of this software did not. "We have listened [to the PC makers] and we have moved as fast as humanly possible to [make the changes they requested]," she said. "And a lot of that is just happening now this spring."

Now, it just may be me, but it seems like the PC makers (and the consumers) wanted Windows 7.

Or, was it just a coincidence that these items/quotes appeared at about the same time?

bpalone

[JorgeA]

I wouldn't be surprised if Sept will have 1st beta

since win9 won't be New system, just s***ty tweak of 8 and probably some minor changes in favor of old shell

remember that Beta of win 7 came 2 years after vista rtm'd

and win 8 rtm is now year and half old

Microsoft has extended by one year the time that it's making Windows 7 (Professional) available for preloading on OEM PCs:

Tami Reller Talks: Windows 8 at 16 Months

Good timeline of Reller's public stgatements about Win8 sales. Watch how they get increasingly less detailed. Another tidbit:

... I reported in the past that Microsoft blamed PC makers for not delivering the right machines to market, and that Reller outright blamed Windows 8's initial slow uptick (since even slower) on this issue. Now, she speaks of actually meeting the needs of PC makers, suggesting that the initial release of this software did not. "We have listened [to the PC makers] and we have moved as fast as humanly possible to [make the changes they requested]," she said. "And a lot of that is just happening now this spring."

Now, it just may be me, but it seems like the PC makers (and the consumers) wanted Windows 7.

Or, was it just a coincidence that these items/quotes appeared at about the same time?

I'll bet it's not a coincidence. They know that Win8 stinks in the market, so maybe they both (1) extended Win7 sales and (2) moved up Win9 development to maximize the number of customers who can skip over Win8.

As vinifera points out (see the first quote above), if the Win9 beta comes out in September (2014), that would be just over two years after Win8 went RTM (8/2012). By comparison, the first Windows 8 preview (DP) came out 9/2011 after Win7 RTM'd in 7/2009. Not much longer of an interval, but if the 9 beta does come out in the spring as Wzor says then it will definitely mean that they're scrambling to get it finished.

--JorgeA

[TELVM]

Microsoft to Kill Windows 7 sales for consumer PCs in October

[Formfiller]

New NSA stuff to rile you up:

[MagicAndre1981]

MS confirms that Metro was designed for casual users:

Windows 8 UX designer on Metro: "It is the antithesis of a power user"

http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-8-ux-designer-on-metro-it-is-the-antithesis-of-a-power-user

Miller continued on to explain that the design team split users into two groups: content creators and content consumers:

Content creators were explained to be power users: they have multiple windows open across multiple monitors, they sometimes even have virtual machines that also have their own nested levels of complexity.
Content consumers were explained to be casual users who just use basic social media platforms, view photos, and so on. They were described as the computer illiterate younger siblings, the older grandparents, or the mother "who just wants to look up apple pie recipes."

Windows 8 was designed for the latter group: the content consumers. This is also where Metro stems from: it is a platform that is "simple, clear, and does one thing (and only one thing) relatively easily." Miller described Metro as the antithesis of a power user.



Miller went on to comment on why Metro was made default, and there was no boot to desktop option included in Windows 8. He explained that casual users "don't go exploring," and that if they made the desktop the default-- as it's always been-- the casual users would never have migrated to "their land of milk and honey"-- the casual-friendly Metro interface. He explained that they would have occupied the Desktop as they always did, and that Microsoft would have been right back where they started.

:realmad: :thumbdown

[TELVM]

New NSA stuff to rile you up:

For some reason the newsreels in Starship Troopers come to my mind :

Windows 8 UX designer on Metro: "It is the antithesis of a power user"

No kidding! Who'd have thought!

[JorgeA]

Nice find, Andre.

For a long time we have strongly suspected that Metro was designed for casual users, but this makes it official. It also adds weight to @Charlotte's contention that the main fans of Metro are children.

Now I am even more disappointed in MSFT's clearly overpaid geniuses than before. If the idea was to get casual users to try out Metro (because they're too ignorant or incurious to even look for the Metro interface from the Desktop), it would be so simple to offer a selection screen that would appear while Windows is booting, and make the user decide which UI he wants to go into (as discussed upthread). Could even give a choice to make one or the other the default so that they don't have to do this every time they turn on the PC.

BTW, if casual users don't even know or care enough to start looking for and discovering Windows features -- then how on earth did the brilliant designers of Metro think that these casual users would discover how to close a Metro app, or how to switch between apps, or discover the hot corners??? The whole Win8 project was misconceived from top to bottom.

Another simple way around this supposed problem would be to present a brief tutorial showing users how to turn Metro on or off, so that power users would never have to deal with it. Remember the Windows 98 and Vista welcome screens? It's not like nothing like it has ever been done before.

--JorgeA

Edited February 18, 2014 by JorgeA

[JorgeA]

New NSA stuff to rile you up:

That is unbelievable. I had to read your post three times, and the description at the top of the YouTube screen, to realize that it's NOT a parody.

Acclimating the next generation to serfdom. :angrym:

If my cable company offered channels a la carte, Disney would stop getting my money right now.

--JorgeA

[TELVM]

Windows 8 UX designer on Metro: "It is the antithesis of a power user"

The full text from reddit:

[–]pwnies 331 points 4 days ago

UX designer for Microsoft here.

I want to talk about why we chose Metro as the default instead of the desktop, and why this is good in the long run - especially for power users.

...but not in the way you might think.

At this point you're probably expecting me to say that it's designed for keyboard execution, or some thing about improved time trials for launching programs, or some other way of me trying to convince you that Metro is actually useful. I've talked about those in the past extensively on reddit, but for this discussion let's throw that all out the window. For this discussion, assume that Metro is s*** for power users (even if you don't believe it to be).

Now that we're on common ground, let's dive into the rabbit hole. Metro is a content consumption space. It is designed for casual users who only want to check facebook, view some photos, and maybe post a selfie to instagram. It's designed for your computer illiterate little sister, for grandpas who don't know how to use that computer dofangle thingy, and for mom who just wants to look up apple pie recipes. It's simple, clear, and does one thing (and only one thing) relatively easily. That is what Metro is. It is the antithesis of a power user. A power user is a content creator. They have multiple things open on multiple monitors - sometimes with multiple virtual machines with their own nested levels of complexity.

"But wait," you're thinking, "You said Metro is good for power users, yet now you're saying it's the worst for them, what gives?"

Before Windows 8 and Metro came along, power users and casual users - the content creators and the content consumers - had to share the same space. It was like a rented tuxedo coat - something that somewhat fit a wide variety of people. It wasn't tailored, because any aggressive tailoring would make it fit one person great, but would have others pulling at the buttons. Whatever feature we wanted to add into Windows, it had to be something that was simple enough for casual users to not get confused with, but also not dumbed down enough to be useless to power users. Many, MANY features got cut because of this.

A great example is multiple desktops. This has been something that power users have been asking for for over a decade now. OSX has it, Linux has it, even OS/2 Warp has it. But Windows doesn't. The reason for this is because every time we try and add it to the desktop, we run user tests; and every time we find that the casual users - a much larger part of our demographic than Apple's or Linux's - get confused by it. So the proposal gets cut and power users suffer.

Our hands were bound, and our users were annoyed with their rented jackets. So what did we do? We separated the users into two groups. Casual and Power. We made two separate playgrounds for them. All the casual users would have their own new and shiny place to look at pictures of cats - Metro. The power users would then have free reign over their native domain - the desktop.

So why make Metro the default? And why was there no way to boot to desktop in Windows 8.0?

The short answer is because casual users don't go exploring. If we made desktop the default as it has always been, and included a nice little start menu that felt like home, the casual users would never have migrated to their land of milk and honey. They would still occupy the desktop just as they always had, and we would have been stuck in square one. So we forced it upon them. We drove them to it with goads in their sides. In 8.1, we softened the points on the goads by giving users an option to boot directly to desktop.

Now that the casual users are aware of their new pasture, we can start tailoring. It will be a while before the power users start seeing the benefits of this (that's why I said they'd benefit in the long run). Right now we still have a lot of work to do on making Metro seem tasty for those casual users, and that's going to divert our attention for a while. But once it's purring along smoothly, we'll start making the desktop more advanced. We'll add things that we couldn't before. Things will be faster, more advanced, and craftier than they have in the past - and that's why Metro is good for power users.

^ So power users must embrace Metro => Even though it is designed for computer illiterates => Because it's for the power users' own good in the long term => For Metro is the magic key that will open the door for incredible wonders that will happen in the desktop => At some undeterminate point in the future, be patient.

One of the biggest piles of manure I've ever seen.

Only the officialisation that Metro was designed for computer illiterates has a bit of relevance (we all knew that already).

[Flasche]

New NSA stuff to rile you up:

Honestly I'm not surprised anymore, and unfortunately this is how my generation and lower got screwed. All they do is spoon feed information. I remember my Spanish teacher last year (8th grade the most interesting teachers I had "one thought she was a cat o.0") tried to convince us that Mexican illegal immigration is good and ok because they only go for the jobs no ones whats then go back home. Not only did she try to convince us but she used empathy to make us feel bad!

[JorgeA]

Windows 8 UX designer on Metro: "It is the antithesis of a power user"

The full text from reddit:

Thanks for posting it, TELVM.

I'm even less impressed by the quality of their thinking than I was before reading this.

For one thing, it doesn't make any sense at all, nor does it bear any relation to reality. Windows is already chock-full of features that go way over the heads of casual users, and it has been so for two decades. How many non-geeks ever go into the Task Scheduler to automate a function; or launch Event Viewer to troubleshoot a BSOD; or open a DOS box to run a batch file or to mine for bitcoin?

Casual users don't ever use these advanced features, so there is no issue with leaving them in there. Such users don't understand them, they stay away from them, and thus these features don't affect them one way or another. So what's the problem with including new advanced features (such as multiple desktops) that casual users will never lay a hand on?

To put it another way, if casual users "don't go exploring," then how would they ever find themselves confused by the ability to run multiple desktops? By the writer's own admission, they wouldn't even be running into that feature. So again, what's the problem? You can't have it both ways (casual users not exploring but then getting confused by discovering advanced functions). Microsoft's justification for foisting Metro on everyone is simply incoherent.

In any event, if advanced capabilities "confuse" casual users, then logic suggests that for their sake the MMC (for example) should be removed from Windows altogether, just as multiple desktops have been kept out. (Psst -- you wanna drive everybody to Linux as quickly as possible? Then try applying this logic consistently.)

If the intent ultimately is to introduce new advanced capabilities for power users without befuddling casual users, then the most straightforward approach is (as we've been suggesting here) to give the PC user a choice of UI when they install Windows or at first boot after buying a preloaded retail machine. Provide a simple way to switch back and forth if the user wants to try out the other UI. You never have to deal with Metro if you don't want to, and you never have to see the Desktop if you don't want it. Incidentally, this approach would take care of that "casual users don't go exploring" B.S.: if Metro is really so wonderful, then as soon as they are shown it they will flock to it like moths to a light bulb. (With analogous consequences for their minds, I might add. ) Please spare us your "we know what's best for you" arrogance, and spare the rest of us the annoyance of having to deal with this Metro cr*p for the supposed benefit of people with simpler objectives. Stop trying to nudge or to steer users in one direction or another.

I have to wonder how much of this explanation in Reddit is a (bad) rationalization after the fact of Win8's failure.

--JorgeA

Edited February 19, 2014 by JorgeA

[Formfiller]

Here are some more posts regarding the Windows 8 UX designer:

http://www.techbroil.com/2014/02/intel-has-saved-microsoft-on-tablets.html?showComment=1392720850738#c4276986131543924159

[TELVM]

^ Heh interesting comment in there:

... I notice a s***load of reputation managers on the neowin thread defending Metro. Does that mean Satya is a Sinofsky-ite pod person? I'd expect if he was against Metro and stood for restoring sanity to Microsoft, the RMs would be told they can stop defending Metro now.

A selection of epic comments from the Reddit thread :

Man, you should have seen me the day of my first contact with metro, it was when I installed server 2012 (I only heard about metro at this time, never used it yet). I rarely go mad, specially toward a machine since it's just a tool, but this day I went off the charts.

How can you do things so wrong, I mean when you have teams, testers. It's not some noname open source project we are talking about, it's a server edition of an OS that is mass-sold worldwide.

Apparently they knew if they gave 2012 an interface that wasn't complete s*** for anyone who does more than browse the web then everyone would just try to use it as a desktop OS over 8.

I do tech support on the side for a few of my clients. My experience with Windows 8 is based on the usability of the interface. Some of my favorite quotes from clients are:

"That new computer on Windows 8 is worthless - we can't use it."

"What are those icons for - we don't need any of that."

"I can't find my files, I can't even find windows Explorer"

"I've been using computers for 20 years, we had to google how to turn the f***ing thing off."

"So we upgraded to 8.1 - now we can't print from that machine. I'm tempted to trash that computer."

There should have been a focus on marketing that educated and informed users before they made the move

^ There was. We were informed "if you don't use one of the new touchscreen-based laptops we're developing with intel, or a Surface, or a Windows Phone, f*** you"

The why (they did Metro), that I doubt he'll ever acknowledge is "To drive people towards the app store"

They want to skim the sweet cream off of app sales like Google and Apple do. They just don't realize that dropping a turd in the milk canister is no way to go about DOING that.

Oh yes. I hate the server 2012 interface. I end up putting a shortcut to c:\windows\system32\cmd.exe on the desktop, and start control panel or various msc consoles from a command prompt.

^ Starting programs from the terminal shell. Innovation is here guys.

Windows 8 is the only version of Windows that Ive given away for free (full versions) that were returned.

Someone at work told me Windows 8 wasn't that bad so I installed it on my machine at home to try.

This is why I have trust issues.

It sucks. I seriously regret pirating it.

I'm like the only one who wants Win 8 more than 7. I am alone. No one will read this.

^ NO. i do too. i searched for a comment like this. There are literally dozen of us!

Edited February 19, 2014 by TELVM