I get it - Microsoft thinks that they want the big market, and that the big market is content consumers. But 50% of Microsoft's revenue comes from Microsoft Office - and that hasn't changed. Furthermore, Google and Apple already own the market on smart phone OSs and nothing Microsoft has done in the past has shown that they have any ability to crack into that market.
So effectively, Microsoft wants to create an OS that abandons their core revenue base while going after one that has rejected them repeatedly.
At best, it's Windows ME. At worst, it's the rise of Linux and Apple as the future of the desktop.
Even with that in mind, Metro is a pretty big gamble. They're trying to bring a unified experience across mobile and desktop devices when there are practically no mobile MS devices out there! It would be an ambitious idea if Windows phone (or tablet!) was well established and had a decent amount of market share but, as things stand, it's appears almost insane. MS is taking a huge risk with their core market to expand into markets that they're almost completely locked out of at present.
However, if you look at the trends in computing its absolutely true that more and more is being done on mobile devices, often at the expense of the desktop. The argument could be made that MS, as a company, would be in serious trouble if they just stuck to the desktop market. It very well might be "go big or go home" time for Microsoft, and they are clearly choosing to go big.
I say good luck to MS. I hope Metro lets them push into the mobile market without alienating their desktop core. It's better for consumers if there's more choice.
Exactly. There may be some precedent for a successful OS built on a bifurcated strategy like what MS has outlined for Windows 8, but at 43, I'm not old enough to remember it.
I get it, despite being in the tech world, geek-types remain incredibly resitive to change, but I'm tired of every tiny change that Google or Microsoft makes turning into "they're jumping the shark".
But... If you are not a "geek-type", what are you doing on "Hacker News"?
Remember Windows Vista was considered a great success (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2130290,00.asp).
When you buy a generic x86 computer (any non-Apple x86, that is) you have 3 choices of OS: you can leave whatever came on the machine (most likely Windows), you can install a previous version of Windows you already had floating around or you can install any of the fine *nix-based OSs that will run on it. Most people opt for #1, some resent change (or just dislike what came with the machine) and opt for #2 and a tiny minority goes with #3 (me included).
That means I am part of Vista's and 7's success stories - I bought computers with them installed and never bothered to return the licenses, although I never used either. From a sales perspective, I'm a happy Windows user.
Also, do you remember how long manufacturers were offering laptops with Windows XP pre-installed? I think you may still be able to buy one somewhere.
Why would anyone desire a W8 ARM tablet instead of a much cheaper (as in "you can buy two of them") Android-based one or an iPad is an excellent question, but we should never underestimate the power of advertising.
If Microsoft's previos focus on reducing memory consumption produced prior versions of windows, their new focus on increasing battery life should produce Windows 8 tablets that last a half an hour, tops.
While I'm at it, in general, fuck Windows 8. The UI may be nice, but Microsoft is taking such a massive power dump on developers and users alike with this turkey that they have a tough road ahead of them if they want to even get within spitting distance of the iPad in terms of mindshare.
I agree that Windows 8 is so far rather unconvincing with regard to providing a realistically strong competitor to the iPad in market terms; but if I were to hear that the Windows team was focusing on some technical aspect, I'd expect, based on history, to see them have pretty good success with it.
The reason it isn't high on the list is because they already tackled that for Win7. You may not remember, but it was a growing problem before 7.
They aren't saying here that they need to reduce memory consumption further; they are saying that they will do the same thing with battery life for Win8, that they did with memory for Win7.
Also there was a lot of evolution between Windows 95 and XP that gets glossed over, as the internet became more important. XP, with some minor tweaks, could behave like a stabler version of 95/98 (I must admit that I stripped much of the chrome away for a few months, till I got more comfortable with the slightly different look and feel of the menus and task bar).
The also ignore one significant trend-following dead-end from the 95/98 era: Active Desktop- Vista wasn't the first time they headed up a blind UX alley.
Even with Windows 7, I think they overstate the differences with its predecessors: the Start Menu remains as important as ever.
Look at the current trends in computing. They're using those trends to influence this release. And I think that a lot of the design decisions (especially ones like "content over chrome" are really damn good).
It's going to be super interesting to see how this thing is received by non-techy people come the holiday season.
"Today, this is increasingly how we see many people use their devices, obsessively switching between different websites and programs on their PC and apps on their phone, checking to see if there’s anything new to see or do."
Just what I want my OS to facilitate. Perhaps the new OS should come bundled with an Adderall prescription?
Personally, I've found that the new Start Screen works well . . . once I've _removed all the tiles_. Similarly, one of my gripes with iOS has always been the home screen's tendency to remove the first page if it doesn't contain at least one icon. Surely I'm not the only one that launches things from Spotlight and the "double tap" bar 99.9% of the time? Organizing icons is shit work.
