Windows 8 November, 2013 Market share

The link says it all, I should note Windows 8.0 share should expected to drop if you do not include 8.1 numbers..............

Windows 8 Drops to 7.53% Market Share, Windows 8.1 Takes 1.72%

http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-1-surges-in-usage-as-xp-continues-to-drop-7000022720/

 

If 8.1 doesn't provide an upturn than MS needs to move forward faster with W9. Personally i'm now on 8.1 and it's a step up from W8 but it's still NOT enough to sway someone from W7.

 

well one of the issues is systems are not being able to upgrade. This is true of allot of Samsung and possibly other OEMs. This could delay full saturation of not just 8.1 over older version 8.0 but also people being able to upgrade from other versions. Even if it were acceptable you have to give it at least 3 if not 6 months before throwing in the towel. The stigma it has to overcome from 8.0 is fairly massive............................

 

The title of link in the original post is odd. Windows 8.1 is a subset of Windows 8, not a separate product (Windows 8.0 and 8.1 are both Windows 8); declaring that "Windows 8 drops market share" when Win8 is gaining marketshare (albeit slowly) and people are simply using the free upgrade from 8.0 to 8.1...it's a click-bait title.

I think it's no suprise that most people aren't buying an update to Win8 from previous Windows versions for existing PCs. Hasn't this always been the case? Even with 7 versus Vista, where pretty much everyone agreed 7 was better, most people only "updated" when they bought a new computer.

 

Once again MS strikes again by fuzzing their product line. Windows 8.1 is sold as a separate product and was marketed as such to take all eyes away from the negative perception of Windows 8.

 

The link title was a bit misleading as it makes it seem as Windows 8/8.1 usage is dropping. In fact they state "Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 combined, gaining 0.36 percentage points (from 8.89 percent to 9.25 percent)."

 

I think with a name like 8.1, there's no question it's an update to 8.0 instead of a fresh-from-scratch product.

 

It doesn't matter because it's being sold, marketed and advertised as a separate product which is what MS wanted. To deflect all the negativity surrounding Windows 8, much like the Windows Vista Mojave Experiment.

At least they are making money selling an update with a different name in hopes consumers wouldn't figure out it was a repackaged version of W8. A service pack may have turned 8 into 8.1 but we'll never now because MS won't say.

Instead they did a repackage of the same product because people are usually suckers for this type of marketing ploy:

 

Agreed. M$ wants to avoid the stigma associated with Windows 8, so they're doing as much as they can to push 8.1 as something very different and much better. In reality, Windows 8.1 is hardly a worthwhile change and improvement over 8. Definitely not a massive one and certainly not in the areas where change would be most welcomed. The tech-saavy people already know this, but unfortunately for Average Joe (and fortunately for M$), he doesn't find out until it's too late.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I've performed hundreds of upgrades from XP to 7 and Vista to 7 on older hardware over the years, for people who wanted a better/newer OS on the existing rig. Not too many of them have gone from W7 to W8, and it's not a question of hardware limitation...

In all fairness, I don't believe I've ever done an upgrade from XP to Vista. Many downgrades, though...

 

Microsoft can not win. Before people complained that you couldn't buy the OS with all the latest service packs. This time the offer a version with the latest service packs, and people say they are just doing that to distract people.

Or Microsoft offers a free upgrade that does improve things but isn't hugely different. So people complain it isn't different enough and not enough of a change. Which is typically what Microsoft would have charged for since it would have need so different.

 

Not really. I still have yet to buy, purchase or spend money on a new version. I will not either until either Windows versions of 8.1 or 9.0 etc. are worth me spending my money on. This is what consumers want, a version of windows it is worth spending the money on, that is whether spending the money to upgrade or giving the money to M$ through and OEM purchase. For those already saddled with Win8, through a new PC purchase, allot of users would like to see a version more attuned to desktop usage and some may be happy as is.

Yes we complain Windows 7 version was never issues a SP2. This is just yet one more of the underhanded tactics of M$ to make Win8 look that much easier by making a new Win7 install that much harder and of course slower at first with all the updates. I have to thank you for reminding us how deviant M$ is in their marketing tactics.................

 

...and MS has well deserved those complaints. Whoever was responsible for the decision to essentially blowup a perfectly stable and robust OS along with a well proven UI used in the business world should resign. Oh wait

Microsoft has earned all the complaints and hate that W8/8.1 has generated because it could have been avoided but their attitude and approach wrt W8 has always been we are smarter than you and we know better than you. It's the same attitude and approach that got them into trouble with their XBOX ONE console which they had to drastically change their business model because gamers said hell no, i'm going with Sony.

I personally think Windows 8/8.1 is a nice approach if you want a consumption based OS ala MS Encarta. It does a nice job doing this and few can deny that but that's what tablets are for.

If MS had just simplified their product line into 2 products, few would have complained.

Windows 8 Pro - Traditional OS/UI based on W7

Windows Home - The current Windows 8.

When you are a huge company you sometimes miss the simple when it stares you in the face.

 

If they did Win 8 Pro based on the Win 7 UI, people would complain they have to pay for what is basically the same OS a Win 7. They would say the changes should have been a free survice pack. And keep in mind the pro version costs more, so this would really upset a lot of people. Not to mention if you need pro features, but you also want to use a touch screen you are out of luck.

 

Nonsense. There would have been lots and lots of improvements they could have implemented in Windows 8 that have nothing to do with a silly facelift (or destruction, as it were) of the GUI. Where is WinFS? What about finally, once and for all, fixing and modernizing desktop graphics (by, say, going to a resolution-independent vector graphics foundation)? What about extending a truly pervasive desktop search functionality, rather than crippling it more and more from one version to the next? I could go on and on; there are heaps of work that can and should be done in order to modernize Windows.
None of this truly crucial foundational work has been done, and instead they diddled around with a borderline useless new UI paradigm in order to chase the latest fad that may not ever be relevant to the market they can capture. At the end of the day, what this situation reveals are deep structural problems in Microsoft's leadership. These problems are starting to get recognized, but when, if ever, they will get fixed is not clear.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. There are a lot of under-the-hood changes and improvements that Microsoft could have implemented after Windows 7, and in fact some of those were in Windows 8. But at the same time, M$ in all its infinite wisdom decided to "fix" what wasn't broken in the first place and introduce a godawful new UI, essentially equalizing those improvements with a new host of UX and usability issues.

 

They made a lot of improvements in Windows 8/8.1. They could have done a lot of things, you have take what they have with just a UI change. So two versions, one is the Win 8 we know, with no changes. The other is now called Win 8 Pro, with all the features Pro comes with, but it has the same desktop and UI of Windows 7. Now, if you buy a system you can pick the same Win 8 for $80 oem price. Or you can get the Pro version for $140 with the Win 7 UI. And you are saying that would make people happy?

 

I am not aware of anyone in this thread discussing random fantasies, such as the one you are describing.

 

What about professionals who actually want a touchscreen-friendly UI? Removing touch support from the "Pro" version makes no sense and is just something suggested by people who want to make the statement that professional people (in general) "shouldn't" use touchscreens. But guess what, some professionals do (hence the Thinkpad Tablet 2, Thinkpad Helix, Thinkpad Yoga, etc).

What they should have done is make the KB&M-friendly options in present 8.1 (see the second link in my sig) present in 8.0 as well, and made them easier to find and switch (maybe ask during initial setup).

 

From what I've gathered by other posts is 8.1 still just does not get Windows to where the desktop users want to see it at. Without using it, only seeing it briefly at a B&M, I'd also have to agree. Again without DWM fixed and gadgets there is no way for me even with a true start menu.

My concern is with 8.1 is with all the driver issues etc. it will steer the consumer even further away from the OS. It is going to take that much longer to see how the UI merits compared to what is already out there. With all these issues, added to the old ones still not resolved, I am almost ready to compare this to Vista.

My other fear is with as bad as this is now how bad will it be when Windows 9 actually makes it out? The reverse thought is I am now glad they left Windows 7 kernel alone now. Seeing how bad that a simple few features can kill 8.0 to 8.1 I would have hated to see what going from 7 to a 7.1 or so would have done...................

 

I agree. My dislike of that touch-centric Metro interface is well known, as is my criticism of the way the desktop GUI has been crippled, but Mitlov is right here: Taking additional input options away makes no sense. All that was needed was to leave the original GUI paradigms in place as an option. Heck, after giving people some time to explore, on their own terms rather than being forced, some of them may even find they like the Metro interface, and switch over.

 

Rodster was the one I was replying to, specifically this part.

"If MS had just simplified their product line into 2 products, few would have complained.

Windows 8 Pro - Traditional OS/UI based on W7

Windows Home - The current Windows 8.

When you are a huge company you sometimes miss the simple when it stares you in the face."

 

The other issue with Windows 8.1 is that even though it is a "free" upgrade for Win 8 users, it is far from a fluid upgrade experience. You have to reinstall most of your apps and many devices require new drivers. I think the market share that is being shown is simply from new machines being purchased and existing users upgrading to 8.1 for free. Any way you look at it, it's a debacle.

 

One of the things I found disappointing was that the sync to your account feature is quite limited. I was hoping that 8.1 would offer a robust synchronization with your account where all of your Apps and settings including tile placement and size as well as geographical location would be applied with your account. From what I can tell it's limited to IE bookmarks and wallpaper.

Why does Windows 8/8.1 even with location enabled still has my timezone set to the West Coast and I manually have to change it? Auto scan and auto maintenance are performed automatically but still nags you to perform the service. There is still a lack of polish on the part of the OS and still shows it's inconsistencies.

 

Yes, Windows will probably have a bit to go before it becomes as mature as other Tablet OS's. This is one of the critics issues with the OS entering the game so late. The store from my understanding has a way to go as well. The OS's slow take off does not seem to inspire the developers..................