The stats don't lie: Windows 8.1 seriously underperforming compared to Windows 7

Following Windows market share on NetApplications, as I do every month, it’s clear to me that Windows 8.x isn’t the hit Microsoft hoped for. There are several reasons for this, all of which I’ve discussed previously -- dwindling PC sales, users dislike of touch and the Modern UI, and so on.

Last month Windows 7’s growth outpaced that of Windows 8.x by four fold, and it’s not the first time the older OS has proven the more popular choice either. It’s becoming something of a regular occurrence. Adoption of the tiled OS is slow, very slow. Especially compared with the strong pick up Windows 7 enjoyed from the start.

Statista has taken global market share of both Windows 7 and Windows 8/8.1 since launch and plotted the growth on a chart, and the difference is stark. While Windows 8.x has a respectable sounding 9.3 percent of the global market as of the end of last month, Windows 7 had claimed over twice that in the same time period (fourteen months).

And that’s not the worst part. While the Windows 7 graph shows a steep upwards trend, Windows 8.x growth is clearly slowing, and heading for a plateau. The launch of Windows 8.1 gave the OS a significant bump, but now the appeal is waning it seems.

It’s easy to make excuses for Windows 8.x’s failure to perform. Windows 7 adoption was higher because it followed the half-baked Windows Vista -- users on XP wanted a newer OS to switch to, and users on Vista wanted to get off it, quickly. Windows 7 was, and still is, hugely popular, and Windows 8.x is struggling to follow it.

But, however you look at things, Windows 8.1 was released a mere two months ago, and instead of the upwards curve you'd expect following a major launch we’re seeing significant slowdown.

It’s possible sales over the holiday period will boost market share for the tiled OS, and restart the (short-lived) growth spurt Windows 8.1 experienced at launch, but it would take a brave man to bet on that outcome.

Microsoft is advertising its new OS everywhere, the software is on all new PCs, but still consumers don’t seem interested. What else can the software giant do to boost Windows 8.x adoption?

Photo credit: Igor Kovalchuk/

307 Responses to The stats don't lie: Windows 8.1 seriously underperforming compared to Windows 7

  1. pmdci says:

    Ludittes! :-p /s

    • scophi says:

      Leonard: For God's sake, Sheldon, do I have to hold up a "sarcasm" sign every time I open my mouth?

      Sheldon: You have a sarcasm sign??

  2. johnrc2 says:

    OK, we get it! What's the point of this continual stream berating Windows "performance"? As a user, the only kind of performance I'm interested in is the ability to do work, not market performance.

    • Dave Kratter says:

      Well since YOU'RE only interested in that, no one else should be interested in anything else.

      Delete the article!

  3. async2013 says:

    Good article, states the facts but will be beaten do death by the fanboys. We will check the comments as the fanboys will clearly stand out a mile on this article

  4. m1shk4 says:

    how come?
    from my experience - win8 is significantly faster than win7
    8.1 is slower than 8 somehow

  5. barely_normal says:

    The really big question is, "Will Microsoft take notice of this?" I wonder if anyone in Redmond does any listening to the market once a product is launched. Windows 8.x will grow market share, because Microsoft is disallowing new sales of Windows 7, so, people will have to use downgrade rights to get back to Windows 7 on new machines. [Perhaps a few articles concerning the ins and outs of downgrade rights could help push this in a positive direction...]

    I am hopeful that the company will become more responsive to customer needs, but I am not holding my breath, because that has not been the course of things, and that is over a long span of time, since I started using MS products around the release of DOS 3.3.

  6. nvic says:

    Finally an article that actually makes this statement based upon hard numbers and facts, not fanboy opinion.

    If anything, this shows much MS compares about market and user opinions. Everybody knew 8 was a dud before it was released, continually complained during beta, they ignored us. 8 flopped. Then they shove 8.1 out the door to try and fix it...also flopped (or seems to have, but it's only a few months old yet).

    At this point, MS might as well start looking towards Windows 9.

    Sacking RT or merging it with WP8 would be wise. Surface and all other RT tablets failed miserably in comparison to the x86 models. Also, the PC market needs a proper desktop OS for productivity, not a tablet-wannabe that needs third party programs to make it useful.

    IMO, what they should do is offer 3 products like this:

    * Surface Tablet OS (a hybrid of WP8 and RT, offer the same apps, made for ARM devices). Don't mention "Windows" so people don't think it'll run standard software.

    * Windows Classic (think faster Win7, no modern UI or tablet apps). Sell it on traditional PCs and laptops.

    * Windows for Touch Devices (think Win8.x, allow user to optionally convert it into Windows Classic for free). Sell it on touch-enabled PCs and on x86 tablets.

    • rebradley says:

      Let's watch the deniers go crazy. They supported the glories of Vista and now do the same for Win8ME. Hopefully when Balmer goes away MS will try to be competitive again and put out some quality products as they've had in the past.

      • dbcontext says:

        Do you recall XP as a quality product ? Honestly am I the only one who thinks it sucked compared to the newer versions of Windows (excluding the sloooow and memory hungry Vista).

      • nvic says:

        At the time, XP was definitely a quality product in comparison to what we had before it. Win2000 wasn't great feature-wise and was really only for enterprise anyway, 9x and ME crashed all the time.

        The whole reason we make newer versions of something is because we want to improve it. In a perfect world, XP *should* suck in comparison to newer versions. Of course, that doesn't always go to plan (Vista, 8.x) and the result ends up making the old product look good.

      • dbcontext says:

        XP, Vista and Windows 7 were the only reasons touch and tablets never took off, just like Windows Mobile was headed straight into a wall.

      • nvic says:

        Um, tablet hardware also just sucked until the mid-2000s at least. Old tablets were absurdly expensive, many required a stylus for the screen to work, they were heavy in comparison to today's tablets...I could go on, so don't blame it all on XP (although XP Tablet Edition did suck...).

        Vista sucked regardless of what you put it on.

        By the time 7 rolled around, the demand for tablets and touch for productivity (if there was one) had mostly evaporated since we'd been using PCs for 10+ years and have gotten used to it.

        Win8 is just trying to force us onto tablets and touch when we have no real reason to want to change. The conventional stuff we have now works for billions of people. It's change for the sake of change.

      • lvthunder says:

        You have it backwards. Windows 8 isn't trying to force us into tablets. What people are buying is forcing Microsoft to add tablet features into Windows.

        Microsoft looked at Windows Phone and said when we make our tablet play we need something no one else has. Otherwise the results are going to be the same with Windows Phone. So they came up with Windows 8. They said we can take Windows and make it an app on our new system. That way when we launch we can say our tablet can run all the apps you already know instead of having to start from scratch.

      • nvic says:

        The problem with this approach is that they missed the fact that people use both, and that they are used differently.

        People use tablets and touch for consumption, but traditional input works better for productivity.

        MS added tablet stuff to Windows, which is fine. As you said, there's demand for tablets (mostly for consumption), and it'd be silly to miss out on the market. The thing is, those features should only be put *on a tablet*.

        It makes little sense to have or use most of the tablet UI with traditional PCs. If they insist on supporting the tablet apps on normal PCs, let us install and use them as regular programs (run in a window, shortcuts in the start menu, etc.). This is why I said in my initial comment that they need "Windows for Touch Devices" and "Windows Classic".

      • lvthunder says:

        The problem with your approach is Microsoft wants all the new apps to be the new style of app. If they made a version of Windows without it none of the developers would do it. This is similar to the switch from DOS to Windows or from OS9 to OSX. I'm sure Microsoft would love to dump the desktop from a security stand point as well.

      • nvic says:

        The problem with the "new style" apps, is that they are designed for full screen, touch environments, and from a developer's point of view, are restrictive because there is no way to sell them without them complying with MS's policies and letting MS take part of the money. People don't want such an environment on a traditional PC.

        In mobile ecosystems, such restrictions are common and accepted, but those platforms pretty much started out that way.

        Users don't want less choice, and devs don't want less freedom.

        As for dumping desktop entirely, I'd say that's unlikely to ever happen, at least on x86. On ARM, it already wouldn't exist if Office didn't use it.

      • lvthunder says:

        Developers are used to selling their products through stores. So what if the store changes from a brick and mortar store to Microsoft. All those stores took a cut and had policies you had to follow. Those restrictions you talk about is part of what makes the platform more secure.

        How do you know what people want on a traditional PC. The sales numbers show most people are gravitating away from traditional PC's.

      • nvic says:

        And now many sell direct through their websites...cutting out the middleman. Assuming the product is established and already selling, why should I decrease my profit for little gain?

        Similarly, what if I want to sell something that MS forbids? There's currently no way to sell modern apps elsewhere. In traditional stores, I can just take my product to a competitor if a particular store has a policy I don't like.

      • lvthunder says:

        How does Chrome and Firefox do it then?

      • nvic says:

        I'm confused as to what you mean by this.

      • lvthunder says:

        Firefox and Chrome have Modern versions you can use that gets installed when you install them.

      • Gill Bates says:

        XP was great. It took the rock solid Windows 2000 and combined the plug and play and UI of Windows 98/ME. It unified the two.

        There are things in XP, like the file manager and network copy speed that are still better today than vista/7/8

      • testman says:

        So you completely and conveniently forgot the period between XP and XP SP2 where it was utter trash, with more holes than an old lady's knickers? It was slagged off as much as ME back then.

        "Rock solid" LOLOLOL

        Yes, it eventually did, but then so would all the other OSes when given 6 years without a successor.

      • scophi says:

        "So you completely and conveniently forgot the period between XP and XP SP2 where it was utter trash..."

        True. Windows 98 was also abysmal until 98SE came out.

        In my experience, 8 is comparatively solid and stable for a new OS. It's the interface that throws people off.

      • lvthunder says:

        That's you opinion. I happen to like the file manager in Windows 8 better than XP.

      • rebradley says:

        When XP came out it was the best operating system out there, so yes it was a quality product. Win7 is better but compared to Win8, XP still is better than Win8.

      • dbcontext says:

        yeah especially when it comes to security/boot time /s

  7. conan007 says:

    The stats don't lie but the person who interprets the data can lie. You have to also plot the growth of overall PC market (possibly on another axis) to determine whether Windows 8 is "underperforming". Many things have changed between the release of Win7 & 8, notably the impact of smartphones & tablets. If overall PC market is declining then of course we would expect the growth of Win8 is slower than Win7 even if they perform equally well given the certain PC market situation.

    • dbcontext says:

      what the author fails to mention is that even OSX is struggling in this market - a market that is seeing a shift towards tablets.

    • psycros says:

      Faulty logic based on wishful thinking. If its just about the overall PC market then all Windows versions would be showing decreasing growth. Windows 7 is gaining share. The article makes that crystal clear.

      • conan007 says:

        You do realise Windows 7 and Windows 8 were not released at the same time right?

      • Info Dave says:

        "Faulty logic based on wishful thinking." Succinctly put. The amount of rationalization and faulty logic has reached a new level here. But your logical, common sense approach will only get you down votes.

        "Never let facts get in the way of your opinion." That's what @conan007:disqus's mama says.

  8. GumbyDammit! says:

    Any second now, Fagioli will have an article casting this as good news for Microsoft, somehow.

  9. dbcontext says:

    You have to take into consideration that Windows 7 came after the worst performing version of Windows ever - Windows Vista which came 5 years after XP was released. It wasn't too difficult to jump onto Windows 7 at that time. Windows XP was old and Windows Vista was slow. Windows 7 could be considered as a saviour. (Still many people especially in the enterprise were sticking with buying new hardware and downgrading to XP at that time too).

    • scophi says:

      Agree that Vista was a major factor in 7's adoption rate.

      At the same time, if 8 offered anything substantial (other than a strange new interface) it might have done better.

      Tiles are as much to blame for 8's cold reception as poor resource mgmt was for Vista.

      • dbcontext says:

        Tiles are not the only problem in Windows 8. Documents, Music, Pictures and Videos are simply hidden from the end user. (They used to be accessed from the Start Menu). The start screen completely forgot about the 4 important "shortcuts". The power user will be able to go around these shortcomings, but the common user will be screwed.
        There should have been more interaction between the Start Screen and desktop. As things stand they are two separate worlds unable to interact with each other. For example there is no way to place a shortcut of a metro app on the desktop.
        I like the interactive tiles, but the implementation was close to horrible. Still, change was necessary, and not for the sake of change as some are saying.

      • scophi says:

        Agree, but I think that's a result of the tile philosophy.

        It's hard to make a useable file explorer when your UX is set up to hide menus and options off-screen and only allow one full-screen "window" at a time.

        Split screen doesn't work well unless you have a huge monitor...scratch that...it just doesn't work well. It's like having multiple sidebars, but without the desktop.

        The tiled interface is not useable for productivity, merely consumption. Fine for tablets, lousy for anything else.

      • lvthunder says:

        I think the usability of the new interface is still up in the air. None of the big productivity apps have been made for it yet. Sure you have to learn new ways of doing stuff, but people will get used to it. It was the same thing with the ribbon in Office.

      • scophi says:

        Usability, maybe, but not productivity or efficiency. I don't think the ModernUI has the right conceptual foundation for multitask-oriented endeavors.

        -- Full-screen apps with almost all commands hidden off-screen is not conducive to work.

        -- Lack of taskbar and an off-screen app switcher are not conducive to work.

        -- Single-window mode is not conducive to work.

        -- Absence of advanced file explorer is not conducive to work.

        There's little that can be done to alleviate these problems because they are inherent in the tiled concept.

        Yes, people can get used to it. But getting used to a less effective product doesn't mean people like it, just that they are putting up with it.

        I have gotten used to the Office ribbon, but I still hate it. I was much faster and more competent with menus and customizable toolbars. Six years later I still have to hunt and keyword search for basic features in Word.

        ModernUI is fine for tablets because that experience benefits from single-task, full-screen operations.

        But I'm betting that even when they do release tile-based office apps, productivity on them will remain low. True work will still be done with a mouse and keyboard in a traditional (non-tiled) environment.

        It's nice that I can open a spreadsheet on a tablet for a quick update, but I'm certainly not going to spend all day working there.

      • lvthunder says:

        --Full screen apps don't have to hide all the commands, but that is the trend even on desktop apps. IE, Chrome, Firefox, and iTunes comes to mind.

        --Windows 8 has a app switcher. It's the entire left side of the screen.

        --That really depends on the type of work you are doing. If you are working in Photoshop or Premiere you have the app maximized almost the entire time you are working. Also studies have shown that you are most efficient if you are doing one task at a time instead of multitasking.

        -- I don't know about you but I don't spend a lot of time using file explorer to move and copy files around. Sure Windows 8 doesn't have a complete file management solution without going to the desktop, but that doesn't mean it never will.

      • scophi says:

        Ivthunder,

        -- You are correct. Full-screen apps don't have to hide commands off-screen. But they do. That's the design guideline that Microsoft has set. They didn't like when Chrome bucked the system by showing tabs at the top. Not that they could do anything about it, but they push developers to hide commands off-screen and so far almost everyone is following. This is a problem with the ModernUI philosophy.

        -- Yes, Windows 8 has an app switcher. And like I said, it's hidden off-screen. It's a slower, clunkier version of the taskbar.

        -- Depends on what you mean by doing one task at a time. I never work 100% in one window. Even in Photoshop, I use elements from other programs or files. I drag in from the desktop, I hunt for colors on the web, I grab text from documents. This process would be cumbersome in the tiled environment, assuming I could Photoshop in the ModernUI. (There's a reason advanced programs aren't available in tiled versions.)

        -- I do spend a lot of time in my file explorer moving, copying, and renaming. I also use the desktop quite a bit to temporarily download items and then use them in web pages construction or email attachments.

        I get that the ModernUI might work for you. But it doesn't work for quite a few people. Usability experts the world over, including the respected Nielson Norman Group, have concluded that the ModernUI is not created for normal productivity.

        It's a single-task, tablet focused UI. And that's fine...on a tablet. But it's never going to be the UI of choice for most laptop or desktop users.

      • Steve Sadler says:

        Most of the time when I'm developing embedded code I need multiple windows active and viewable at the same time. 2 (or 4 with 8.1) views are not enough to maintain an efficient workflow.

      • lvthunder says:

        How many people develop embedded code? You are definitely an edge case. As developers continue down the WinRT route the API's will adjust and developers will adjust and will come out with something usable. It's the same that happens in the mobile space. One developer gets an idea and puts it in his app. That feature of the app gets popular and before you know it most everyone is doing it that way. The button with the three lines was that way. I think Facebook did it first and now you see it everywhere,

      • psycros says:

        Almost everyone i know despises the ribbon, myself included. Its a waste of screen real estate, its non-intuitive and a very poor UI paradigm. Its a throwback to those paint programs that had a billion floating toolbars on them.

      • lvthunder says:

        Most everyone I know doesn't care one way or the other about the ribbon. The problem they were trying to solve was like 7 out of the top 10 feature requests for Word were for features that were already there, but the people couldn't find them.

      • scophi says:

        I still can't find them.

      • Steve Sadler says:

        No, I just switched to Libre Office and continued to use a standard menu (home use). I dislike the ribbon interface but I use it at work. Luckily, I don't really have to use it much since my work life is mostly spent in text editors, IDEs and debuggers (not a one has a ribbon interface!).

    • Samwise Galenorn says:

      Actually, the worst performing version of Windows was Windows Millenium

  10. dbcontext says:

    The stats don't lie: OSX 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9 is a dud. Market share statistics don't lie.
    /s

  11. Gill Bates says:

    No shat, sherlock.

  12. Reed says:

    > What else can the software giant do to boost Windows 8.x adoption?

    - Make the 'desktop only' interface the default or the selectable default (no suddenly opening Metro).

    - Make the app store and certain core apps not require an MS account. W8 is competing with the convenience of Linux repositories.

    - make Metro apps display on top of the normal desktop (like with Ubuntu Unity's Dash), without taking over the entire screen.

    • lvthunder says:

      Windows 8 is not competing with the convenience of Linux repositories. Windows 8 is competing with iPad and all the Android tablets. You might also say it is competing with OSX, but when was the last time you saw a TV commercial for that.

      The one thing the PC makers should do is put Windows 8.1 on the machines they are selling. I was helping my mom buy a laptop for my dad for Christmas and I didn't see one laptop that came with 8.1. I also didn't see one that had Windows 7. So that means to me that most people who are buying Windows 7 are businesses and not the average consumer.

      • illiad says:

        win8 is nothing to do with almost any other OS GUI... take look at the images here..
        http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=desktop+gui
        you will see they are all very similar, but NOTHING like win8....

      • lvthunder says:

        So you are saying that they innovated and came up with something new instead of just copying what everyone else has done.

      • Reed says:

        > The one thing the PC makers should do is put Windows 8.1 on the machines they are selling.

        ...That's the joke.
        Be it 8 or 8.1, the public at large rejected it under its current form's showstoppers whose causality you deny. If they won't even use it pirated, what makes you selling it preinstalled will make people use it?

        The creative ways existing users resort to to fix annoyances already give an idea where dealbreaker problems existed (Start menu and boot2desktop aside, the use of metro and the app store under its current form. If desktop apps arent obtainable from there in a curated form, its plainly useless for anyone using the desktop and shunning metro).

  13. That's pretty normal !

  14. aires69uk says:

    The problem for Microsoft is there's nothing wrong with Windows 7 - there's just nothing wrong with it. It's a good operating system and it still kindof feels fairly new. And it works on old hardware, or at least hardware that's not top of the range and new. An enormous amount of people will have upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7. And those people who stuck with Windows XP for such a long time when it still worked, will stick with Windows 7 for a long time because it just works - why would you need to swap? The problem for Microsoft is that they produced such a good operating system with Windows 7, that there's no incentive to swap. Windows 8 is supposed to be that incentive but it quite obviously fails. New isn't always better and the argument that Windows 8 is better is being lost - it's a problem for Microsoft for sure.

    • maxxem says:

      except its old hat , old news ... change is just a universal law that cant be denied

      • aires69uk says:

        Except it's not working is it, and that's the problem here.

      • maxxem says:

        My windows 8.1 is running like a top ...

      • annotate says:

        Windows 8.1 is fine. I use the desktop almost exclusively. The only app I use from the Start location is the weather app. If someone says this is different from any of the OS' of Microsoft's they simply haven't used 8/8.1 or are just repeating what they've heard from others that have no idea what they are talking about.

    • Samwise Galenorn says:

      That isn't true. There is plenty wrong with Windows 7, and a number of those elements were fixed in Windows 8.
      Windows 8 is less of a hardware/memory hog than Windows 7.
      Windows 8 has more built in security than Windows 7.
      (My personal item:) Windows 7 File Explorer, when navigating the tree-view portion using the keyboard, the entire tree keeps jutting down when selecting a folder. (I hate that!) Windows 8 fixed that.
      Windows 7 has IIS 7, Windows 8 has IIS 7.5 (I believe... correct me if I'm wrong) IIS 7.5 runs PHP a lot better.
      There are other items that Windows 8 fixed.
      Believe me, I prefer Windows 7 over Windows 8 even with these faults.

      • aires69uk says:

        That's quite a statement [bit of a rant] to say Windows 7 has lots faults and then not go on to quantify them. Your implication is that despite Windows 8 faults, it has far less faults than Windows 7. Well if that's the case - prove it, show me that's the case. But even if this were true, I have used Windows 8 and it's horrible. It's not just a new UI, it's a brand new OS. And by that I mean it's not evolution like previous iterations of Windows, this is a new beast and it's not very friendly.

      • Samwise Galenorn says:

        I did prove quantify the faults of Windows 7. Didn't you read what I typed? I listed them.
        I never said that Windows 8 doesn't have faults. It is a huge failure. I can't stand it, and yes, I've used it every day for the last six months.
        That being said, don't say that Windows 7 is perfect when it clearly is not. It has faults, even if I prefer it far and above faulty Windows 8.
        Faults (not talked about) for Windows 8:
        Far more unstable than Windows 7. The video driver keeps causing the computer to stop, causing me to have to power off/on the computer (and lose work).
        Harsh on the eyes. Windows 8 is a nightmare to view when there are multiple windows open.
        Unable to set the color of the inactive window title bar. I can't do it even with a registry hack.
        Metro UI isn't intuitive. It stinks. Where is the #@[email protected]# close window button?

  15. maxxem says:

    So what! That's the way its always been with all their new operating systems ... windows 8.1 sp1

  16. John2438 says:

    For me the issue is that I have become proficient at using the standard Windows and it works just fine for my desktop PC. I don't need tiles for access productivity software or to surf the web which is what my desktop experience is. The unfamiliar setup and tile arrangement means I must learn something new which serves no benefit to me. I think the solution is to offer the Windows 7 efficiency and reliability and give us an option to use a skin to put the computer in tile mode if you like it that way. Call it Windows X.X but allow older users to use the familiar layout and my kids can login using the live tiles for social media links or RSS feeds and whatever they want . . . But I'm just a consumer, what do I know? We are all lambs and should do whatever MS tells us . . . I am getting sleeeepy . . . . . .

  17. trparky says:

    Until Microsoft wakes up and realized that the ModernUI stuff just doesn't work on a traditional desktop, future versions of Windows will be a turd. ModernUI along with all of the various touch gestures is fine on a touch screen device but that's because those two interface functions were built for touch screen environments. Getting them to work on a non-touch screen device is a chore.

    For instance, the Charms Bar. OK, where do I put my mouse cursor to get it? Do I put my mouse cursor in the corner or on the side? Do I just put the mouse cursor there or do I have to drag the mouse cursor? Do I have to hold the mouse cursor down then drag? Or do I just drag the mouse cursor with no mouse button down? Of all of the interface changes that make absolutely no damned sense on a traditional desktop environment, it's the Charms Bar. On a touch screen device the chances of getting the Charms Bar is more successful since the finger on the screen isn't as accurate as the mouse is. Maybe if they made the activation region for the Charms Bar larger so that mouse users could use it properly it wouldn't be so bad.

    As for the Start Screen, that is an abomination on the desktop. It may make sense on touch screens since you have a finger to be able to swipe the many, many times you're going to need to to find your programs but for a mouse user it's a complete pain in the ass.

    Windows 8 wouldn't be so damned bad for traditional desktop users if it wasn't for these glaring issues. Listen up Microsoft, for Windows 9 check to see if the user has a touch screen, if they do give the ModernUI stuff but if they don't give the user the traditional desktop environment that we've all be using for more than a decade. You're alienating your biggest customer base, the traditional desktop user by shoving a user interface that was never intended for a traditional desktop down those user's throats. Look at your user statistics! If a majority of users are installing a Start Menu replacement app such as StartIsBack, ClassicShell, or Start8... you have a serious problem on your hands! Open your eyes Microsoft... before it's too late!

  18. oshns11 says:

    Bad Headline. The headline talks of performance of operating systems, however this is about sales. The headline should include something about sales not performing.

  19. johnusa says:

    I will NEVER use the horrible, irritating and abysmal Windows 8 or 8.1.
    I hated these 2 garbage OSes as it made my work difficult and I cursed Microsoft and its stupid designers every time I tried using these poorly designed OSes.
    I threw my Windows 8 DVD in the garbage and went back using Windows 7.
    I have been using Windows since 1993 and Windows 8 & 8.1 are definitely the worst versions I have used.
    I hope that stupid and stubborn Microsoft will release a new and properly designed Windows 9 ASAP.
    I hate touch systems and will never buy a monitor with touch use. I cannot use the horrible and painful touch monitors as they are not as precise as a mouse. Also, they are a pain to use as I have to keep my arm raised to use this horrible gadget.
    I am a desktop and laptop user. I do not use or like tablets.
    Microsoft made a huge mistake by designing these new Windows to cater both touch and non-touch users.
    Microsoft should have been smarter and designed 2 completely different versions of Windows 8 & 8.1, one for new touch users and the second for all existing mouse and keyboards users like me.
    I hate Microsoft for this huge debacle and mistake.
    Shame on stupid Microsoft.

  20. Eric Van Boven says:

    You do have to remember that when Windows 7 came out, tablets and phones were not like they are now. In addition, people were either stuck on windows xp with a few adventurers to Vista. Also, less people buying new computers now because of the tablets and phones. A 100 dollar tablet device can do what majority of people need it for. I find Windows 8.1 fine once you spent a day with it. It makes being in the desktop (windows 7) less boring. Windows 8 apps are nice for when having to reimage.

    • Gill Bates says:

      Windows XP worked. They just need to improve upon it where they could.

      Vista was garbage. A result of years of in-fighting and a watered down version of what they promised it in Longhorn. It was really late and had about 20% of the features Longhorn was supposed to have. It was broken and bloated.

      Windows 7 was vista finished. It works great.

      Windows 8 is a joke of a response to Apple and its world of touch devices. The OS X (non-touch) on computers and iOS on touch devices is the correct approach.

      • dbcontext says:

        There are aspects of Windows 8 that make sense irrespective of touch or non-touch devices:
        1) App Store - downloading software without risking imploding your PC with crapware.
        2) One click app download and install
        3) One click app uninstall
        4) Clean uninstallations without leaving thousands of traces in the registry
        5) App notifications

      • psycros says:

        All of which should be part of the desktop Windows experience. The registry was the worst idea in computing history. A universal update and notification system is a no-brainer for any OS, and yet Microsoft insists on tying these improvements to a touch UI that doesn't work on the desktop.

      • Info Dave says:

        ActiveX would be a close #2, except that Microsoft finally saw the error in its way.

      • symbolset says:

        I beg to differ. The worst idea in computing history was autorun.

      • Steve Sadler says:

        There are aspects of Windows 8 that DON'T make sense irrespective of tough or non-touch devises:

        1) App Store - preventing users from buying what they want from where they want it. Nobody can sell you an app without Microsoft getting their cut.

        Computers and programming are hobbies of mine (since the 70s). I was looking at writing some Metro apps for friends and for myself (since most of the current apps ARE crapware) but there's no way for me to load them onto my OWN machine without going through the Microsoft store. This is pretty much going to limit my programing to desktop applications.

      • dbcontext says:

        Agreed 100% regards your second point. Side loading should be an option.

        I started programming at 8 years of age, bought my first book of Quick Basic at 10 years, and programming is still my full time hobby.

        I still haven't bothered doing any serious Metro programming. Tried one program, connecting to Azure SQL database and did not have to go through Microsoft Store to run. Installing it on friends' machines is another matter of course.

        As regards your first point - well companies are still selling desktop software, so it's not true that "Nobody can sell you an app without Microsoft getting their cut."

  21. I think its obvious! Microsoft needs to make two OSes. One for PC's with a mouse and no touch screen and one for tablets and touch screens. Windows 8.1 can continue on tablets but they should consider creating a 7.5 for older PCs. Or maybe Windows 9 needs to address all of this. Older PC's with a mouse DO NOT NEED the modern UI.

  22. Samwise Galenorn says:

    I'd like to see a current comparison of Windows 8/8.1 vs Windows Vista. Windows Vista had a huge disadvantage compared to Windows 8/8.1 because Vista required a whole new computer, where Windows 8/8.1 doesn't. And yet, Vista outpaced/outpaces Windows 8/8.1 over similar time periods.

    • Info Dave says:

      Windows 8 actually trailed Vista adoption until just a few months ago. This, according to Net Applications. Windows 8 and Vista have followed a similar path. Windows 7 has a better than double the rate of adoption on Windows 8 and Vista.

      • Samwise Galenorn says:

        I realize that, but now that the stats show that Windows 8/8.1 has leveled out, how is Vista compared to Windows 8/8.1?

      • Info Dave says:

        Actually, Vista flattened out a couple of months before Windows 8. Maybe that's why Windows 8 has surpassed it.

        Having said that, you have to be careful about looking Net Applications data too closely. It appears to be heavily massaged and month to month fluctuations can be misleading. Longer view, Net Applications seems to provide a good view of trends.

  23. chinch987 says:

    who cares!!!

    Win7 sales were in part boosted since it was highly regarded to replace "vista" which haters panned due to some driver issues but notably horrible early hardware that intel/hp forced MS to allow to be "windows certified" back in the day. (XP PC from HP/Dell "vista upgrade certified" with 512mb ram ). Yawn.

    • player911 says:

      Yea I agree. When Windows 7 came out, it was either Old XP, horrible Vista, or Awesome Windows 7. Everyone jumped at Win7. Plus Win7 is still by far my favorite Windows OS. Businesses are just now adopting Windows 7 into the work place. When you have 2 good OS updates one after the other, sales are sure to creep at some point.

      This is like Xbox sales. Complaining about declining sales when everyone in their brother has one already. Yea, sales will decline after a good long run.

      Microsoft should have never came out with 8 so soon. People were really liking Windows 7 and Win8 just came out way too soon. Windows 7 should have had a much much longer life before jumping the cuff.

    • symbolset says:

      Oh yeah. It was "haters" that killed Vista. Lol.

  24. Ric Frederick says:

    Most people forget that EVERYONE HATED Windows and the Mouse when
    they were first introduced around 1985/86 time frame. It took until 1995
    (Windows95) before Windows really took off.

    What Microsoft has done is simply add a new way to access the touch UI that
    was first built into Windows XP for use as a tablet with a stylus. As a
    Windows 8.1 user, Microsoft has simply traded a Start Menu for a Start
    Dashboard. Like the first version of Windows, it took a while for DOS
    users to get the hang of using a mouse. A similar thing is happening
    with touch. With 8.1, Microsoft has given the user the ability to almost
    completely eliminate the touch UI for keyboard and mouse like Windows
    7. The advantage over Windows 7 is the efficiency of the OS to load
    quickly.

    In ten years, when 8k touchscreens the size of walls are the norm, there will be fewer complaints about the touch UI.

    • illiad says:

      you are forgetting that PCs that OLD were so awfully bad in both graphics and power, that no amount of fancy interfaces would help!!!!!

      for those too young, that meant you a full range of FOUR colors!! and 320 x 240 was HIGH resolution!!!!
      it took those ten years for higher integration tech to develop, CPU speeds to increase, to say nothing about '640K should be enough for everyone' :O :O :O

      If you put win 95 on a modern pc - (that needs a mini-din socket each for keyboard and mouse - lack of these killed it, nothing else...) you would find it would go 2 or THREE times faster than win 7..

      • illiad says:

        Oh and wall sized touch screens???? you seem to forget that 90% of PC **workers** are sitting in an office, using MSoffice as a general secretarial role, or a method of logging enquiries and reports of customer support actions... and a large part of these are laptops, to enable transfer from site to site...

        The ONLY reason I see for a large touch screen will be the home, or big business, that prefer a small projector, for security and portability - even if a 'roll-up , foldaway' screen can be made, it will still not be as versatile as a projector the size of a large mobile phone, that uses a convenient wall to display - and even uses 'hand detection' so the WALL is the 'touch screen' !!

      • Steve Sadler says:

        The only people that have laptops where I work are the people that need to travel for their job. A pretty small group compared to the total number of employees.

    • aires69uk says:

      "In ten years, when 8k touchscreens the size of walls are the norm, there will be fewer complaints about the touch UI."

      Say what?

    • async2013 says:

      In 2 years when they release another os with the full start meu you will look hilarious by how much your fanboy comments sound.

      • S0MA says:

        typically this is when selective-revisionistic-amenesia sets in... although not to be confused with aspberger's syndrome. but its close. the follow up topic will likely be something about AI and the singularity.

    • Steve Kim says:

      Most people forget that EVERYONE HATED Windows and the Mouse when
      they were first introduced around 1985/86 time frame. It took until 1995
      (Windows95) before Windows really took off.

      The above argument is not true. When I was a student back in 1986, there were IBM PC labs and Mac lans at campus. There was no seat at Mac labs at almost all the time, but, there were plenty of seats at PC labs. Students love Mac because it is much easier to write reports and draw pictures at that time, too. The problem was with the higher price of Mac over PC, and PC sales were higher than Mac only becuase of prirce (not EVERYONE HATED Windows). EVERYONE HATED Windows because the Windows by MS was a crap.

      • S0MA says:

        no no. in order to win the argument, this person speaks for everyone!
        i mean, i hated it back then, right!? i think. i dont remember. this person says i did back then, it must be true!
        "easier to write reports and draw pictures at that time, too"
        exactly. and everyone running any engineering program was on UNIX.

        THEN MS started to care about enterprise/workstations and made OFFICE. the rest is history.

      • Info Dave says:

        And today, a new chapter begins. The Post-PC revolution.

    • DerpSlayer says:

      Terrible analogy. The jarring rush to Metro is unprecedented even for Microsoft. No past transition between Windows products even compares. And the difference in Windows 8 is it marked the first Windows where Microsoft intentionally crippled the ability to restore classic UI elements, preventing them from being able to make the transition at their own speed, not Microsoft's.

      There's a big difference between evolving something and killing something.

  25. Steve says:

    Long time MS advocate who is not liking win 8 and the entire win 8 UX. Give me the option of the start bar. None touch devices are not user friendly. Same ole argument :) + the world is adopting mobile at a faster rate.

  26. BajaPaul says:

    I am sure most of current Windows 7 growth is organizations moving from Windows XP since support ends April 8th, 2014. Probably a lot of individuals too.

    Microsoft didn't put the darn Start menu back in 8.1. Pro or con, organizations are not adopting Windows 8.1 because it's not there. The chart makes that fact crystal clear. If Windows 8.x had a Start menu, it would essentially be Windows 7 with the optional/touch Metro UI included.

    StartIsBack, and various other Start menu addons, solves the problem. But IT departments are not going to deal with these. So until MS relents, organizations are not going to adopt anything above Windows 7.

    • Nathan Scott Daniels says:

      I see no mention of a start menu on that chart. How does such a chart make the claim "organizations are not adopting Windows 8.1 because it's not there" so-called "crystal clear"?

      • DerpSlayer says:

        If you work in Enterprise I.T., it is very crystal clear why shops are avoiding Windows 8.x -- forced Metro, and lack of Start Menu so folks can get back to work. Enterprise has no particular desire to help Microsoft's goals of selling copies of Angry Birds Star Wars and launching tablets.

      • symbolset says:

        So you're saying you don't want your domain controllers to have Facebook and Twitter integrated? How retro!

      • S0MA says:

        oh hey, look at these options to opt-out of data collection in the W8 install. how nice of the MS to include these options... im so glad im paying for this. i know W7 never had this option, because nobody gave a flying fark about social-media-data, but im glad W8 takes care of all that for me. im so glad these 'improvements' are made to the interface and operating system. especially it helps me run my ANSYS simulation better, as well as CATIA...

        [snark]

      • S0MA says:

        " so folks can get back to work. Enterprise..."
        E X A C T L Y

    • neonspark says:

      And yet they are...

  27. async2013 says:

    The markets are changing Windows is irrelevant today. You can get more bang for your buck elsewhere. Period

    • S0MA says:

      engineers in the US only account for less 2% of the population but are responsible for half the GDP [~7trillionUSD]...
      but we can pretend like those numbers dont matter. that you are right about what is good for everyone, everywhere and that when you end with the statement "Period", that one should be commenting with any statement to the contrary...

    • neonspark says:

      HA HA HA HA. and that's why still sells over 100 million copies per year. If that's irrelevant, try this, not even the iPad can make such boast claim.

    • Dogma Hunter says:

      I wonder what your definition of "irrelavent" is.
      Considering windows 8's market share is larger then the entire linux desktop client and mac osx install based combined.

  28. async2013 says:

    Yep they messed up royally and are going to bring back the full start menu in years..

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/09/microsoft_threshold_start_menu/

    Time to say bye bye to the prehistoric Microsoft before they push another crap OS onto the populous after all that is what they will do.
    Back to the good old fragmenting the market totally contradictory to what the microsoft fanboys say

  29. wil_123 says:

    Using Windows 8,1 ONLY due to its Hyper-V feature and 2012 Remote Server Administration Tools could only be installed on Windows 8! Otherwise Windows 7 for sure even just to get the start menu backup from Microsoft. Metro is a big NO for me on desktop computer!

    • S0MA says:

      omg look out everyone! a power-user talking about logic!
      [random mumblings about how metro-touch is the future and everyone needs to get one board]

  30. internetworld7 says:

    Lol, Got Mac?

    • Nathan Scott Daniels says:

      Not if we didn't get an Art degree.

      • Jason Ivany says:

        Well Linux would be a degree in the sciences, so what does that make Windows? A degree in medieval chivalry?

      • rod says:

        I don't see the chivalry!

      • S0MA says:

        this is me alt-tabbing in an out of a game from and to CATIA and watching a movie...

        this is you hoping your video drivers will eventually be mature enough [in ten years] so you can game, run CAD, and watch movies like the windows wunderkinds have been doing since the dawn of MS... but its fun to pretend like the pseudo-linux-superiority lets you do anything except try to win ad hominem / comment trolling wars...

        all linux does is remind windows-users just how good they have it.

        linux is a degree is philosophy; a lot of great ideas, but no one ever really does anything or solve anything. they just keep talking about what would be good for tomorrow. they especially love to divulge how their ideas are superior and that their opinions are facts...

        windows would be engineering, literally and metaphorically and everything else is pissing in a bucket.

        [honorable mention to real UNIX workstations as civil engineering]

      • async2013 says:

        Its a good job somebody does talk about tomorrow as with your philosophy you would be alt-tabbing in windows for the next 50 years and paying an extortionate price for it.
        Most of the little tricks you use have been took from Unix/GNU/Linux/OSX anyway.

        All Windows does is reminds real computer users what a piss poor OS it is.

        Are you sat there typing on a windows computer and sending your message through a router/cable modem that runs gnu/linux? Of course you are. Again it is great that some people think forward rather than sideways or backwards like they do at Microsoft

      • neonspark says:

        Same argument, windows retains the desktop market. If it is so hated, why is it the platform of choice for over 1.5 billion users? Let me guess, you'll say they didn't choose. Well tough luck. I guess the same is true of android. It just comes preloaded, and gets championed all around as the mobile OS even though it is just a badly written set of device drivers. Whoever said the best OS wins never saw windows or android. This is the real world. What wins is not the best, but the best strategy. Windows and android figured it out.

      • async2013 says:

        Stupid argument. Since when did Android dictate to OEM's what they should sell and actively stuff them if they dared sell another competitor?
        The point is Microsoft paid OEM's (quite ok) to sell their windows OS's over the years what was not ok is that they actively sought to bring the companies down if they dared sell anything else.
        That is not fair competition. It seems Android / Apple has got there (on a whole) by just selling a product
        Microsoft struggle now because they have never had to compete hence the pathetic scroogled fallacy. It's sad to see but fully deserved after all they are the ones who were guilty of perverting the markets.
        A leopard cant change its spots.
        Its not the average windows users fault at all but they are missing out on the main idea of computers, that is freedom of use.
        It is not surprising that OEM are running away from Windows after all these years, they see a dead horse and too many possibilities (competition) in other areas as well. Great stuff now they dont have to rely on one dictatorship to keep them afloat

      • neonspark says:

        Linux is a degree on denial. Or rather hoping that saying the same thing will finally have a result: this is the year of the Linux desktop, one more time!

    • neonspark says:

      Start menu on Macs is great....

  31. Nathan Scott Daniels says:

    I'm flabbergasted how people are so worked up about the start menu. I, too, was really bummed when they got rid of it and, honestly, the start screen on 8.0 kind of sucked. But the screen on 8.1 is entirely functionally-equivalent to the start menu of old. Indeed all one must do is click the windows key on one's keyboard, type the first two or three letters of the application/file/setting one wants to access, and hit enter. This is, keystroke-for-keystroke, identical to Windows 7. In addition, the screen provides much more real estate for pinned applications than the menu of Windows 7. And (this is just an opinion) it looks pretty slick, especially if you set the background to that of your desktop.

    I honestly believe most of my fellow commenters who feign so much outrage over the start screen fall into one of two categories:
    1. Those who never liked Windows and thus have no legitimate complaints
    2. Those you never tried Windows 8 (or those who only tried it <1 month) and just want to fit in with the crowd

    Of course Windows 8 takes getting used to. It took me a good 12 hours to become 100% comfortable navigating with a mouse and keyboard. If your cerebral cortex is so damaged that you can't learn new things, indeed, perhaps Windows 8 isn't for you.

    • DerpSlayer says:

      Consider also that businesses don't want to waste lots of money of retraining costs and "12+ hours to get comfortable with Metro" for no tangible benefit. There's no business benefit to Metro on the desktop. Hell, Microsoft can't even be bothered to make a Metro version of Office -- it'll probably come out eventually, after all the mindshare has been lost.

      Here's the bottom line: Now was not the time for Microsoft to be polarizing. They're desperate to get their Metro based mobile offerings launched, I get it, but not at the expense of alienating longtime Windows users and enterprise customers.

      • S0MA says:

        this.
        especially when Office and enterprise software is their bread and butter. the last thing i want to do is be forced to use a touch-style interface in excel, dealing with thousands of data points for a matrix.
        its almost as if all the pro W8.1 people do not actually know how to do any work in/on a desktop.
        more ironic still, they push the argument that its about the learning curve, and how the detractors need to get with the program.
        'Windows 8 isnt for you'
        no, its not. not for anyone else in the 7trillionUSD engineer/defense category either, apparently.
        learning new things that are, basically dumb, doesnt mean that learning was worthwhile.
        i mean, look at all those liberal arts degrees out there.

      • neonspark says:

        You realize office and all the enterprise apps work and run the same way in win 8 right? There is no real change other than what happens when you hit the start button, and few people actually do this as most just launch from the desktop icon.

      • neonspark says:

        Oh but they will retrain them to use Macs and iPad or better yet Linux. Do you know how silly you sound.?

      • Dogma Hunter says:

        "There's no business benefit to Metro on the desktop"
        This is true to some extent when we think about traditional desktops.
        When thinking about windows 8 though, I don't think "traditional desktop". I think hybrid devices. Once you replace all desktops, laptops and tablets in an enterprice with such hybrids and docking stations however, everything changes.
        I think we will see future releases where additional options will be added to cater for the more traditional desktops (they will stay with us for some time to come, even if and when hybrids become mainstream - just for the power they can provide that hybrids can't). In fact, it seems to be planned for the next release already (codenamed Windows Threshold).
        Google and Apple are working their way up from phones.
        Microsoft is putting its pc in smaller packages.
        I like msft's approach better. I'm not interested in a giant phone. I'ld rather have a small pc.

    • neonspark says:

      I recall when windows 95 introduced the start menu. All the chicken littlest wanted 3.1's program manager.

      • Dogma Hunter says:

        To play the devil's advocate... The first release cycle of windows 95 did contain options to make it work more like 3.1
        Microsoft was very aggressive with 8's changes. Too aggressive perhaps. Probably the reason why Sinofsky was kicked out. I remember reading somewhere that heated discussions took place at Redmond with Sinofsky insisting on removing the start button and menu.

  32. Steve Kim says:

    Windows 8.1 is simply not worth paying $200 to upgrade from Windows 7.

    • jpowers29 says:

      It's actually only $119 and only worth upgrading if you want:

      Fastest Boot Time of ANY available Windows OS

      Awesome System Wide Search (with app searchingsupport)

      Amazingly easy and fast Share feature (though oddly no support for desktop sharing)

      Much Improved Network Management (data usage, metered network)

      Native ISO support (finally)

      Better Power Management (full charge lasted an hour longer on my Asus EP-121)

      Better File Explorer (with ribbon if you choose and the return of “folder up”)

      Better Task Management

      Better Device Management

      Seamless Cloud Integration (SkyDrive is actually pretty amazing)

      Picture Password

      Sync for PC Settings (this is great when you have multiple machines)

      USB 3.0 support

      The Windows Store for Modern UI AND Desktop apps

      PC Refresh and Reset

      Full touch support (This OS is killer with touch)

      New Application Platform and Modern Apps

      And, if you don't like the tiled launcher, you can download the old school style menu for free so it works like a way better version of Windows 7.

      • barely_normal says:

        All of your experience is not to be discounted, but is also personal, and not the norm with people I have interacted with - you are an outlier.

        Also, some of the things you refer to I can state flatly are NOT true - it depends on the hardware if 8 is faster booting than 7. In all 5 of the personal installs I have done in the past month, the boot time was longer with WINDOWS 8. [ and by more than a few seconds...much of this has to do with how fast the connection to the internet is for the machine in question]

        One or two of the things you mention some people do not give any importance to whatsoever - the Windows store being at the top of the list.

        Better task and device management? Where is the indisputable proof of this?

      • jpowers29 says:

        This is not just my personal experience. I have been deploying Windows 8 to small business and running my small business with this OS since it's release. I only clarify to point out I have used this OS extensively and for a wide variety of usage applications.

        I have upgraded countless machines and have not encountered your issue but have read about people having boot time issues due to driver problems. Windows 8 boot times have nothing to do with internet connection speed, not sure what you're talking about there. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406668,00.asp

        If you have used the new task manager, you would not even question its superiority to previous versions. http://www.techhive.com/article/241932/meet_the_windows_8_task_manager.html

        Device management: Real world example, by the time I am finished setting up a new Windows 8 machine, drivers for network printers are installed and operating. My business services are heavily based on the integration of network devices and Windows 8 discovers/installs those devices most of the time with no effort on my part. It's excellent.

        I wouldn't say my experience is "indisputable", but would call it a reliable source of likely outcome for my customers. As far as people not wanting modern apps or an app store, again, you don't have to use them. If an individual finds no benefit to a trusted store with both modern and desktop apps that are safe to install, so be it. Don't upgrade. My comment was to point out that to some, like me, Windows 8.1 is worth $119

      • async2013 says:

        all those could easily have been done with a windows 7 sp pack. why pay for a full os when the advantages are so small? Windows = rip off.
        Other OS's get those as a free upgrade why cant Windows? You are completely gullible.

        Oh hang on the windows kernel is so badly programmed it is beyond comprehension or are Microsoft just using you because they can? Either way complete Lemming

      • Dogma Hunter says:

        "Other OS's get those as a free upgrade "
        This is such a fallacious argument that is repeated ad nauseum.
        The truth of the matter is that there is no other OS that can be compared in this way in terms of prices. Because microsoft is the only company that actually sells an operating system.
        Google's OS's are paid for through adds.
        Apple's OS's are paid for through hardware sales.
        Linux is an exception as mostly an open source community effort with no single company behind it.
        There's no such thing as "free" in commercially developed systems.

    • S0MA says:

      ostensibly you are paying to 'downgrade'.

    • neonspark says:

      I'd argue any version of windows isn't worth upgrading to. It just comes with the PC given it ships every 3 years or so.

  33. symbolset says:

    They are ending sales of Windows 7. When XP goes out of support your options are Windows 8 and "not Windows".

  34. JoeS54 says:

    There is a relatively consistent pattern here. Whenever Microsoft tries to actually advance Windows rather than merely refining it, there are a lot of people who resist, sometimes for good reasons. Vista was a huge upgrade over XP, but it has issues that drove people crazy. Windows 8.1 is an exceptional OS - if you have a touch screen. If you don't, it's bound to look horrible to you. The problem of Microsoft's ubiquity is that they have a huge balancing act compared to other companies. They have to satisfy everybody all the time, or they get whacked for it. They get whacked for not innovating, but when they do people scream because things got changed. There are still people clinging to XP, which is crazy.
    I've always been an early adopter by nature. I had no problem with Vista, and couldn't understand why some people hated it. Windows 7 was a minor iteration in comparison, but it's solid. Having just bought a Surface Pro 2, I'm a huge fan of 8.1. But installing it on an older machine without touch is something I'm not sure I'll do. Long story short, there are always hysterics regarding anything Microsoft does.

    • S0MA says:

      migrating to an interface that is primarily touch and ostensibly less efficient to use, is not 'advance'-ing anything. selling the idea that the old things are, and always were broken, to sell this new, and yet not more efficient system is the joke.
      its not like i can build a better turbine in CATIA with touch. i cant do much of anything with touch capacity, with regard to CAD and windows 8.1; its moot
      you being a 'huge fan of 8.1' tells me you dont do much for this world that actually matters. you use and consume. if you do actually create, you do so with a mouse and keyboard.
      long story short, you are supporting regression and not PROgression.
      an argument could be made that my kb/mouse [logitech g700] + voice commands in W7 is vastly superior to anything you could show me that is sold as advanced and superior [in terms of marketing tactics] in W8.1.
      the real conversation is about selling tablets as workstations. i still need a workstation, a real one, to perform work in ANSYS and CATIA... anything that does not perpetuate that need for performance and efficiency is, by all engineering standards, backwards.

      • neonspark says:

        Windows 7 is a bet on the dying past. Win 8 is a bet on the inevitable future. To hold on to windows 7 is to hold on to irrelevance.

      • cory78 says:

        win 8 is a bet on a dead horse

      • dawgbone says:

        Honest question here...
        I have Win 7 at work and Win 8 at home. At work when I launch a new program I either have it pinned to the start menu or I hit the windows key and start typing the program name. At home I have it either pinned to the start menu or hit winkey+Q and stat typing the program name.
        My efficiency at launching applications with either one is pretty darn high. It's actually higher in Win 8 on my pinned programs because my mouse doesn't have to leave the middle of my screen (or take my hand off the mouse to use the arrow keys to toggle).

  35. maxxem says:

    Last time I installed windows 7 it was slower then a snail ... once I got 8 I never went back

    • barely_normal says:

      That has not been my finding with 5 installs of 8.X, and over 100 of Windows 7...you might want to investigate what is going wrong in your installs.

      • maxxem says:

        Yeah that was after sp2 for windows 7... Lol. I do understand people hate change.

      • barely_normal says:

        Not sure what you're talking about here, as there is no official SP2 for Windows 7. [Another one of those great MS ideas...not!]

      • maxxem says:

        Ok sp1 ..You know they had problems with windows 7 when it came... People complaining ...Like people love to do..

      • Cotten says:

        You know, it's interesting to read the replies to Win8 complaints in major site forums.... They all sound the same: "geez... old / slow / scared / incompetent people (like you) just don't like change, do they?" or "If you don't like Windows 8, you just don't 'get it' ". The marketing firms that MS hires to blanket these forums to blunt criticism of the Win8 abortion should put in some effort to diversify their strategies; the regurgitation of an obvious, over-played, corporate line is cringeworthy.

        When an operating system (or any new product version) is actually good, you'll get more of a balance of "haters" and "fanboys". Over the last year with Win8, it's been more of a balance of "haters" and "those that mock the haters". One would expect more replies extolling the virtues of a great OS, which Win8 -is not-.

        Maxxem, you might not be a paid marketing firm shill, but your post reads like it's right on message with the best of them.

        I know- why don't you tell us what's so wonderful about Win8 that sucks about Win7.

      • Dogma Hunter says:

        "why don't you tell us what's so wonderful about Win8 that sucks about Win7"
        Everyone has opinions. Here're mine in response to your question:

        - vastly improved boot times
        - better overall performance (at least, it feels a lot smoother and snappier to me)
        - vastly improved search
        - better multi monitor support
        - automatic syncing of user settings when used with msft account
        - when installed on x86 tablet, becomes a hybrid that can replace laptop, desktop and tablet
        - native skydrive integration
        - native iso mounting
        For reference: I'm an enterprise LOB software engineer using a surface pro which, at home, I hook up to 3 HD monitors (1 through the display port and 2 additional ones with a USB3 docking).
        My take is that win8(.x) absolutely shines on the right equipment (hybrids). There's nothing like it in the market today.
        My old desktop became a file/db/media/code repository server that remains on windows 7. 2 reasons for that:
        - I'm to lazy to reïnstall it all (I don't like upgrades, I want clean installs)
        - since it's just a server who's primary role is to be "up and running in the network", it doesn't matter much anyway. Even if I would upgrade it, I'ld put server software on it instead of a windows client.
        i'm not sure if I would upgrade it to 8 if I wouldn't have bought the surface pro. I certainly wouldn't be holding my breath for it. That desktop is a powerhouse, so the gains in performance wouldn't be very noticeable. The other advantages are nice, but nothing I couldn't live without on a traditional win7 desktop.
        For me, the power of win8 is all about the hybrid devices.

      • async2013 says:

        1..Any OS that doesnt boot half of the OS is going to boot faster. It's still slower than my Ubuntu box
        2..Very subjective, forums are full of performance lags
        3..Anybody that calls search a selling point is just plain sad
        4..Multi monitor support was fine with 7
        5.."When used with Microsoft account" not a plus a definite minus
        6..Absolute rubbish again forums are full of the abysmall windows tablet woes
        7..Again not interested in skydrive a service that is down too much
        8..this made me lol. Anyone with any sense still uses daemon tools which is far superior in every way imaginable

        As for your servers use something that is vastly more productive with a smaller energy footprint...Linux

      • Dogma Hunter says:

        1. Ok. Point remains. It boots faster then 7.
        2. It's called an opinion for a reason
        3. I wasn't listing selling points, read the first sentence of my post
        4. Ok. Point remains. It's improved in 8.
        5. If you say so. I like it. Cloud sync requires some type of cloud identity. Derp.
        6. are you sure that's not a hardware problem? because my surface pro takes on all 3 roles just fine
        7. and because you are not interested, nobody should be?
        8. If you say so. The native support does everything I need it to do: mount the occasional file when I need it. I have no use for daemon tools in 8.
        My server needs to run sql server, IIS etc. Why would I tinker with linux?

        " member of that IT band that ironically doesnt want to change"
        My customers tell me what to do. I don't dictate them what to do. They want .NET LOB apps written in ASP MVC, WPF, Silverlight and windows authentication. I just carry out assignments. They day they ask me to code for Linux or OSX is the day I'll do that. Go yap to them.

      • async2013 says:

        LOL none of your list is a concrete reason to upgrade, funny

      • Dogma Hunter says:

        LOL, I wasn't listing concrete reasons to upgrade, funny. Again, read my first sentence.

        "Serves to apply my comment about laziness and inability to change to better ways"
        'Better ways'? How would it be better for me to start using technologies that my customers don't want to use?
        Yes, I'm quite comfortable in the .NET stack and other windows technologies and I enjoy working with them. But the first reason I use them is not my comfort or "fanboyism". It's my customer's requirements.
        You can call it "lazy" or "inability to change" all you want. I call it working for my customers.
        Proactive? Last time I've checked, windows in enterprise still dominates with 95% while OSX and Linux are just insignifant blips on the radar with no signs of this changing at all.
        There's plenty of work for me for YEARS to come.
        Having said that, I do know how to code in Java. It's been a few years though.
        And then there's the platform agnostic html/js.
        Thanks, I'm covered.
        Lazy to change... lol. It seems to me that you rather want me to change just for the sake of changing.

      • neonspark says:

        Lol called out. Man credibility -100. change your nick.

      • maxxem says:

        The real truth is most of you cant handle the windows 8 change.. Because it hard to teach old dogs new tricks.. But I got news for you more then windows is about to change, old dogs

      • neonspark says:

        win7 is a bloated OS from the pc days. Win 8 is streamlined for low power chips on tablets.

    • neonspark says:

      Pretty much, win 7 huge memory footprint and slow start times... could never go back. Not to mention put win7 on a tablet, and battery life is measured in minutes....

      • TruthNotOUT says:

        Come on! 32 GB memory and I7 Intel run just fine with Windows 7. Windows 8 doesn't run faster.

      • Steve Sadler says:

        I agree, having an SSD as a boot drive and 16GB of RAM, I didn't notice a bit of difference in boot times and program launch times. Not that boot times are really relevant to me, I only boot my computer once a day.

      • thx1200 says:

        Well, yea, I mean if you get the most expensive hardware out there, you won't see much difference. But compare Windows 8.1 to Windows 7 on a modest hard drive with 2GB of RAM on an older laptop and it's night and day.

  36. Robert Davey says:

    I loved Windows 7 but absolutely hate what they've done to Windows 8 / 8.1. That was the push I needed to finally jump ship to Mac and after using OS X since May I will never look back. OS X has massively increased my productivity and is far more intuitive, fast, and useful as an OS than Windows. I'm actually kicking myself now for not moving sooner.
    I'm actually a Windows software developer so I still use Windows at work, but OS X is the only OS I use at home now.

    • neonspark says:

      Lol, how's the OSX start menu, or the mediocre device and app ecosystem which is dwarfed by x86. If you're productive on OSX, you're just not working hard.

      • Robert Davey says:

        I work extremely hard in both Windows and OS X, but I get far more done in OS X because it is much more responsive and stable than Windows. Although the selection of applications available for OS X is considerably smaller than Windows, the software that is available is, on the whole, far higher quality and has much better performance.
        As for your comment about a 'start menu' on OS X I'm not sure what you mean fully. OS X has Launchpad for browsing all your apps, or you can double click an app in the Finder window to run it, or you can type the name of an app into the Spotlight search and press enter, so the OS X 'start menu' is great thanks. I hope that answers your question?

    • TruthNotOUT says:

      I installed OS X, Leopard in a virtual box on a Linux based system - because I develop for many platforms.

    • Pokehuinq says:

      I do not understand how OS X vs. Windows can make you more productive? You do not do your work in the OS per se, but rather in a program running on the OS.

      • Robert Davey says:

        I had Windows 7 installed on a machine with identical specs (although the Windows PC had a faster hard drive than my Mac). Even so applications on OS X started faster and were more responsive. I've had my Mac Mini running non-stop since May and I've yet to have a single program crash. I only have to reboot it for major OS updates.
        Compare that to the Windows 7 machine, programs regularly freeze, crash, or are just not particularly responsive. It's also worth noting that 99% of my work is done in Microsoft applications (Visual Studio, Office etc) so they should be the most stable of all, but sadly they are not even close to stable. In fact we make a joke at work because Visual Studio crashes at least once a day on every developers machine, it's terrible.
        When you combine the stability and performance of OS X with the amount of tools OS X provides for power users out of the box and it's far more powerful than any Windows PC I've ever used.

  37. Brian Johnson says:

    Enterprise Web Application compatibility with IE 11 - That is all - Once that is caught up (another 6 to 9 months) then the Enterprise will fold into sales and all this talk will go away about Start Buttons. It isn't about looks, feel, or performance - it's about Enterprise buy in - that happens when IE 11 is compatible with the thousands of industry specific web apps out there.

  38. ms_t_rie says:

    Most corporations don't upgrade all their systems at once. They will start with a few, do a few more and keep moving slowly until the process is done. There also has to be some compelling reason to upgrade. Windows 8 hasn't offered any compelling reason to upgrade and it being SO different means you can't do as seamless of a roll-out. Particularly in an office where people will often just move to another PC to do something when their own is tied up. If the other PC isn't running something similar, it's rather jarring to switch mindsets when all you really wanted to do was continue the work flow.

    Yes, there are free start menu replacements that can make Windows 8 look more like Windows 7. But some business people distrust anything that isn't 'supported'. (yeah, I know, I don't get it either, but it is something I've run into) Also, the business applications are usually old ones they have been running for some time, they need to run the same in the new OS as they did in the old or productivity suffers greatly. Some business software takes years to develop and it is not designed to take advantage of a new OS.

    An individual can easily make the jump if they want to. A business can't move as fast. And won't move just for the sake of change.

    • neonspark says:

      More importantly, a TON of businesses upgraded to win 7 just now. They will make the investment pay off, likely skip 8 as they did vista, and then go to 9. Then skip 10 and go to 11. This is typical business driven growth.

      • TruthNotOUT says:

        Correct. One would not imagine that mayor banks still run very old IBM OS/2 OS - because they created whole system with and on it?

        One would think that Java, C++ and the like would have replace old COBOL? Nope.

      • Pokehuinq says:

        My company went to Windows 7 only approx. 6 months ago!

  39. rod says:

    If it's going to look and act like Apple, why not just go to an Apple system?

    • S0MA says:

      those in the multi-trillion dollarUSD defense market prefer to use machines that a) actually perform real engineering work and b) dont use proprietary connectors

      buuuuuut i can see where the koolaid blinds you to being historically revisionistic;
      me, being a multi-button-mouse-with-macros and a scroll wheel since the laste 90s, using CAD software that has NEVER been a remote inkling of a dream in the eye of a bearded douchehat in a turtleneck...
      we, microsoft/PC/non-apple users, utilize things like CATIA to make things like Curiosity and GPS satellites. you apple uses, make youtube movies and pretty pictures in photoshop.
      awesome. but hey, lets pretend that using apple products makes you a better person...

      you being a fruit kiddie impressed by everything a dead douche salesmen told you was 'the future of everything that ever will be and ever was. ever'

      equally, i wasnt aware the desktop OS apple was pushing had, a tile-based 10-input touch capacity.

      the lulz, on you sillycon kids is AMAZING

      summarily, apple users make pretty pictures of morgan freeman in their free time and non-apple users make MAVEN to study mars.
      [snicker]

      • PJ London says:

        Boy you are a touchy little nerd aren't you. Somebody pressed your "inferiority" button.

      • ms_t_rie says:

        They aren't using OSX nor are they using Windows for the real work in the defense department. Mostly it's UNIX and Linux. Curiosity runs on Linux, and it's using a PowerPC CPU. (that part I was surprised at honestly). So I could say Microsoft, what a joke in reply. (I don't think it is a joke though, but by your logic, it fits)

      • Pokehuinq says:

        I have worked in defense as an engineer for 12 years. It has been ONLY windows machines, nothing else.

      • TruthNotOUT says:

        That is true! To do real work you need compilers and software the Mac NEVER had.

      • Pokehuinq says:

        YOU ARE THE MAN!!! YAY

        Looks at those losers blindly voting down the TRUTH!

    • neonspark says:

      Because after decades single digit market share and overpriced pcs, apple pcs are dead.

      • TruthNotOUT says:

        Right! I bought recently a laptop with 32 GB memory and 2 TB hard drive and paid less than 800 USD. Mac? With the same options would have cost me 3000 USD and more. The only thing I like about Mac hardware is the thunderbolt which doubles the USB 3 speed, but my laptop also supports e-sata and gives me the same speed.

      • chiwheels says:

        Windows PC is cheap to buy - trouble is you get stung when you want useful software to run on it.

      • Pokehuinq says:

        Would you say the same about linux?

        Why not?

      • Apple product are not dead, the area viable tool for many people. Other not so, like me. I am a programmer and the tools for Windows is what I needed. Nothing an apple computer offers interests me. If I was a graphic designer, the apple would appeal to me, but I am not.

  40. johnusa says:

    Windows Start menu to return in Windows 8.2, story here:

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2070705/report-windows-start-menu-to-return-in-windows-8-2.html

    But it is coming in 2015. No, thank you Microsoft as it is too little and too late.

    • neonspark says:

      I hear the start menu on macs is great. Coming...2056

      • TruthNotOUT says:

        Well in the Ubuntu Linux you can integrate the Mac Desktop as a look alike and a working alike. Saves lots and tons of money.

      • neonspark says:

        And a training curve that is 100X more expensive than what it takes to train people on windows 8. The math just isn't on your side. It is more expensive to migrate, retrain, re-write and redeploy entire enterprise ecosystems, than to upgrade to windows 8. This is why the mac never breaks single digits market share.

    • Slavic says:

      Yes, it's a good news. But when it will happen, lot of fanboys will admire MS wisdom, completely forgetting how they were stigmatising the Start Menu before and were shaming the people who didn't like its absence :-(

    • Pokehuinq says:

      UMMMM Windows 8 has the start menu. Try right clicking on the lower left hand corner of the screen.

  41. Billy Beefcaked says:

    I have been enjoying Windows 7 Ultimate for years now, and I have zero desire to change.

    At this point I could easily see me riding 7 until 2020 when Microsoft no longer supports it.

  42. revybloke says:

    after my experience with windows 8, I went to Linux (Ubuntu),,never happier, wish i had found it earlier, great os, way better and faster then windows.

    • neonspark says:

      This is the year of Linux....er not.

      • Rogoraeck says:

        I have no argument! Stick to Windows 8.1 or 8.
        We live in a "democracy" & you have the right to be stupid!

      • Pokehuinq says:

        Did you vote for the current president :-( haha
        Yep you have your right to do so.

      • async2013 says:

        Define Linux...if you mean the kernel then I'm sorry but Linux already takes 60 something percent of the total OS market. If you mean GNU/Linux as in Ubuntu then yes. We would prefer it that way as it keeps the people that really shouldnt be using computers in the windows domain ie.dimwits

    • TruthNotOUT says:

      True! Linux is much faster than Windows and you can run Windows programs in its compatibility box. Moreover you can run a whole Windows/Mac system in a virtual box on ANY Intel based system.

      ...it is also easy to boot Ubuntu Linux from an USB stick.

  43. neonspark says:

    Nice try, but as most windows sales comes from pc sales, and due to the slow market, you can't expect even windows 7 to be released today and do as well as say XP. Times have changed, pcs last longer, you no longer have to upgrade as much.
    Make no mistake, windows 8 is outselling macs and has yet again left Linux in the dust. To compare it to windows 7 is to compare it to a different era. Either way, MSFT loosing to their own product is a victory when you think about it. And if windows 9 does better, well, they win either way.

    • TruthNotOUT says:

      You are wrong about Linux! Many people use it at least in the virtual World.

    • Rogoraeck says:

      Do you work for Microsoft??

    • async2013 says:

      So could you explain why windows 7 isnt flatlining too? Going by your pathetic thoughts All the OS's would be flatlining.
      No matter what you say it hurts Microsoft strategy when literally nobody wants to use Windows 8 over Windows 7. Their vision (albeit rubbish vision) is the ugly metro UI across the board and people not taking to windows 8 will affect everything from their vision to their bottom line.
      I fully expect Microsoft to stop selling Windows 7 soon (not supporting it) as pure FUD to force people onto Windows 8 more

      You use windows you get screwed

    • Discit says:

      The only reason there are as many windows 8 sales as there is, is Microsoft has a monopoly on the PC market, with many deals so it is the default OS you pay for when you get a new computer most places, whether you want Windows 8 or not. If it wasn't for the captive market, sales would even be worse, and Windows 8 is very likely contributing to the slowdown in PC sales as people realize they'd rather have windows 7 and spend the money on upgrades they actually want, like more RAM.

      • Interesting, so there is a viable option to Windows and Office today? The Apple version of office is far below par, Google office product, need I say more. It is ok for free software, but you get what you get for free. MS provides both consumer and enterprise solutions. Apple does not, Google chrome book is a joke.

      • cory78 says:

        interesting, ballmer said the same thing about iPhone.
        then apple surpassed ms capitalization in a few years, now there are more non-wintel machines online sold in 5 years than pc sold in 30 years, and ballmer was fired.

    • PC will not go away. Maybe consumer, but desktops at the office is her to stay. I cannot even imagine trying to get much work done on a tablet.

  44. TruthNotOUT says:

    Windows 8 or 8.1 has many flaws! Create a rescue or repair disk? Nope! Do an image copy backup? Nope! Show the installed programs in the start menu or show them at all? Nope! We don't need the Apps view, because we don't buy expensive touchscreen which get dirty and male function.

    Microsoft - what were you thinking?

    • thx1200 says:

      You can do a system image backup in Windows 8.1. I just did one last week. It's under Control Panel -> File History. Look in the lower left corner. You can also do just a system state backup from the command line. And finally, of course, you can backup only your user files and set up an easy schedule for it. Your rescue/repair disk is the Windows 8.1 install disk. For the "all apps" view, click the little down arrow button in the lower left corner of the start screen.

    • Pokehuinq says:

      From Windows 8 web site:

      The options for system recovery and making recovery disks in Windows 8 are a little different than in previous versions of Windows. If you want to make a recovery disk, go to create a USB recovery drive
      (you can also create your recovery drive on a CD or DVD), which can
      help you troubleshoot problems with your PC, even if it won't start. If
      you're having problems with your PC, you can try to restore, refresh, or reset it.

      So what are you actually talking about?

  45. Rogoraeck says:

    Windows 8 or 8.1 = Vista mark II

  46. leomul says:

    Windows 8 schitzofrenic behavior with two main views is just annoying. Take out that 'metro start' as a second desktop mode, put it as an optional windowed application instead. That will leave the windows classic mode, add a start menu like in windows 7, and it will be just perfect.

    Windows 8 is great, on a tablet, and can definitely serve as a good alternative to the galaxy and ipads. Just always remember, I need my PC for work, and my ipad to play, and even if there is some overlapping area, it doesn't mean I want everything for everything, it just doesn't work.

  47. Lewis Cowles says:

    I would like to wade in here and suggest that perhaps this is a release cycle issue. I don't mind the dropping of the start bar, but essentially it would have been nice to have the option to turn it on (maybe even download it from M$), so that they could monitor the effectiveness of the "start screen".

    I would also ask that they question the metaphor's that they use when developing in future because at no point in my life have I ever thought, want to find something, let's take up all my visual space with looking.... Think about it sat-nav's are tiny little screens for a reason, the same goes for the PC start bar, it should not be too large. Pin all your most needed stuff to the start bar, it is basically now just a massive quick-launch on Mac, Windows Vista+ and even some linux distro's are re-invigorating the approach of "pinning" things to a bar at the bottom of the screen.

    The last thing to get rid of is charms, not sure if anyone else feels this way but on mac I dread approaching the corners of the screen if spotlight is on and now in windows with the "charms", that are not so charming, and some linux's as well (cough unity), the idea is crap, everyone I know complains about the computer shooting some info out at them at the most in-opportune times so lets stop it altogether.

    • ms_t_rie says:

      You can disable any Hot Corners by going into System Preferences, Mission Control. Click Hot Corners and change all the drop downs to - (do nothing). Hope that helps for OSX :)

      • Lewis Cowles says:

        thanks, I have de-activated a while back it just really bugs me that someone programmed such poor behaviour. You can also disable charms bar in windows8 & 8.1, but it is unfortunately not in the easy to reach settings...

  48. Hans Zijlstra says:

    Bad interpretation of the graph. draw a line from july to november and the rate of 8 sales is increasing.

    • Ben C says:

      So you don't think it's significant that the last 3 consecutive months have seen a progressive slowing of increase in market share, to the point that it barely increased at all in a month?

      I'd say your interpretation is bad, because it masks this progressive slowdown of uptake.

      • Hans Zijlstra says:

        No, I reason differently. There is apparently a steady increase in windows 8 market share from October to July. Then a sudden acceleration from July to September. This is then followed by a compensating deceleration from September to November. Likely this trend continuous until about February when the market share reaches 9% and the normal pace of increase is resumed. It may even increase if people start buying christmas computers. That the rate of increase of 8 is slower than that of 7 may comes from the fact that business needs to upgrade but can do without 8 for touch screen.

      • Info Dave says:

        You are analyzing the data way too closely. Net Applications heavily massages their data. There are zigs and zags that don't make much market sense. Over time, you can begin to see trends, but looking too closely will result it false analysis.

      • Hans Zijlstra says:

        Well, I don't know. Since the current operating systems do not last years, what else can we do than analyze on the scale of months.

      • Pokehuinq says:

        Windows 7 was release 4.5 years ago, you'll notice that is, in fact, "years", with an 's'.
        Windows 8 went RTM 16 months ago, already more than a year.
        and I'm sure you know how long Windows XP has been around and in use??!!!

      • Hans Zijlstra says:

        I was not yet born when windows XP was released ;)

      • Hans Zijlstra says:

        Interesting graph! You have a point. Certainly it shows that you must be careful to judge the sale data of windows 8 for such a short period as in the statista graph..Would be nice to see the curves against the calendar, in order to see how one launch influences the other.

      • Info Dave says:

        Here you go:

        http://info-tran.com/WindowsVersion.png

        Interesting to note that Windows 7 is the only OS version that did not immediately fall with the release of the new version. This includes OS X and Android.

      • This was leading up to Windows 8.1 launch and a whole slew of new devices. I would like to see what apples numbers are just before a launch of a new device.

      • Ben C says:

        Apple's launches are enormously highly anticipated, unlike Microsoft's Surface launches, and therefore more likely to affect pre-launch sales; also, isn't the vast majority of Win8 market share in desktop or laptops, rather than "devices"? Furthermore, if you buy an iPhone 5 just before the 5s comes out that's that, but people buying Windows 8 just before 8.1's launch would quite likely have know they would be able to upgrade for free when it launched.

        All in all, I remain to be convinced by this argument to explain the slowdown, but it will certainly be interesting to see if the pace of uptake recovers from November onwards.

    • Pokehuinq says:

      Yeah "The stats don't lie" is a quick attempt to pull the wool over the readers' eyes. The RAW stats do not lie, but the interpretation can be made to look any way you want. Any salesperson knows this.

    • Seriously, did you understand the title and graph?

      It IS increasing, at such a slow rate, that is what it is about.

  49. nportelli says:

    Win 8 adoption is slow because of the shit computers manufacturers are trying to sell.

    • cr_buck says:

      Funny you say that because I see people dropping $700 on an iPhone only to complain about the new $300 laptop they just bought runs like crap.

      • Info Dave says:

        You get what you pay for. I know people that don't see anything wrong with a cheap POS laptop from Best Buy. To each his own, I guess. Or, ignorance is bliss.

  50. Pokehuinq says:

    If you are going to brainwash readers that Windows 8.x is a tiled, touch operating system, then what do you expect. I have been using Windows 8 since beta, on ALL of my machines, and have never even used it on a touch screen system, primarily using the "windows 7" style UI. I still do not see what the issue is. I have had some pretty smart IT guys tell me, "don't get Windows 8, it will break all of your games", or "You can't use windows 8 without a touch screen", both of which are completely untrue, but the masses will easily believe anything they are told.

    • I fully agree. Two of my systems are not touch systems the other (Surface Tablet) is. I find no issue using Windows 8 at all. There are some odd quirks, but there were many in Windows 7 too. Get use to it, it is not going away. There are a couple of youtube videos that demonstrate the shortcuts that ease transition.

    • cr_buck says:

      I'm in IT and I've run not the same problem with many IT staff. The haven't even evaluated 8 and just trusted some journalists to tell them what works. Once I showed them they would typically be surprised that the change is that small. Even then they still wouldn't use it because they said the read somewhere it was bad. Of course that type of IT staff will likely lose their job in the end because they don't keep retraining and are still "checking out" Windows 7. I don't go to a doctor who uses bloodletting as their procedure for curing things and I sure am not going to trust IT stuck 10-15 years in the past.

  51. Robert Lindabury says:

    Yet another stupid-ass headline to get you to read some tool's bullshit opinion. I'm so tired of the Windows 8 bashing by these people calling themselves "authors".

  52. marcohern says:

    Windows XP was so good it was hard to beat.
    Windows Vista was too slow, rather stay with XP.
    Windows 7 was basically an optimized and faster Vista, like XP only prettier.
    Windows 8... now why the hell would I switch? gimme a good reason?

  53. Devon Kruggel says:

    I don't know if Windows 8.x is really that bad. There's pros and cons to every piece of software out there. Heck nothing is ever going to satisfy everyone. Lord knows I've written a few pieces of software in my time that people thought were pure gold and then someone else looked at it and thought it was a nugget of something else.

    I love Windows 7. I had Vista and couldn't dump it fast enough. I've tried 8 and 8.1 and the culture change Microsoft forced onto the desktop world was a bad idea. Good UI design is about working with the culture at the time and gently nudging it every so often. Ultimately this lesson was wholly missed by Microsoft. What do 99% of Windows users today do to get at something? They hit the start button. Sure we've all heard this but 8 totally messed that up. It was a culture shock and stuff like that, including that, is why you see Windows 8 and 8.1 not reaching their potential.

    I got an iMac this year. More expensive than a traditional PC. I have to tell you side by side my iMac to my PC I like my iMac better. It's smoother, simpler, I have yet to have it crash, and things run better and faster on it. I've got a pretty smoking PC too.

    I'm hoping Microsoft gets 8.2 right or I suspect, over the long term, Microsoft will see a decline in its market share. Probably a large one at that.

  54. ddearborn says:

    Hmmm
    Look at the adoption rate at the fortune 1000 companies. Companies at this level have entire IT departments which independently test and verify major changes like operating system upgrades. They are on the whole a fairly good metric for judging the merits of new hardware and software in their respective environments. The adoption rates at this level have been VERY slow. Microsoft is hoping to force upgrades by quickly ending Windows 7 sales. The bottom line is that Windows has become a bloated, overly complex, incredibly inefficient resource hog. It really doesn't matter how it compares to windows 7 because it has the same failings.....A dog is still a dog even if it is slightly better than the previous one.

    • cr_buck says:

      That's strange that you say that because Windows 8 is leaner and faster than Windows 7. Once I have explained the small differences between 7 and 8.1 people are fine with it although I wish I could disable the charms for desktop mode with a mouse. That said, people want an OS that automatically understands a new peripheral they buy without them doing anything and Windows 8 does that pretty good. Dormant code for drivers and services on standby is hardly considered bloat when it is not in memory. If you are talking about free memory there is a lot of documentation about that change in that concept as of 7 to improve performance. Free memory is wasted memory. As for corporate adoption rates, they are historically slow as many companies are still using Windows XP and still considering Windows 7. Many ATMs use Windows XP embedded to this day as well as things like price scanners at stores. I chuckle when I go to Target and see them still using resistance touchscreen gizmos running Windows Mobile/CE. Big business is rarely a good indicator of anything except when something has gone mainstream because the have a lot more at stake in a change and are risk adverse. Many times they keep equipment until it costs them money. Until Windows XP starts hurting corporations in their wallet they won't change. Cobalt is a perfect example. It works good enough so companies don't want to expend the capital to change. No OS is perfect but Windows 8 isn't the apocalypse some make it out to be. It just still needs refinement like all things but it is following a market change and that market is still maturing.

      • illiad says:

        yeah, yeah... if you want it lean and fast, put WIN95 on it!!!

        **even** that is more functional than win8... >:(

      • cr_buck says:

        Yeah and the watch it crash every few minutes or when you install a program because of lack of memory isolation or protection of system files. Sometimes I miss Windows 3.1 though. I tuned it once on a system to go from cold boot to ready in 7 seconds flat without any fancy stuff like an ssd. :-)I would like to see Windows 95 or even 95 OSRB have more functionality than 8. I'm thankful I don't have to administer or look at that anymore. Brings back too many memories of constant fiddling to keep it working.

      • async2013 says:

        Some refinements you say? That is a complete no no for a lot of users and businesses to contend with when sold before real testing hence THE CRAP SALES

      • cr_buck says:

        Nice. Attack the writer instead of addressing the content.

        Care to share a product you have found that was ever released perfectly refined? I've never seen one. There are just too many variables and too many varied tastes to please.

      • marcohern says:

        I dont think Win8 is bad, I just don't think its worth the $1,2 Million COP (about US $550) i have to pay to get it. MAC updates are free or cheap, Linux updates are free, Windows 7 is..well.. OK. Why pay to fix something that isn t broken?

      • cory78 says:

        you actually pay to break what is fixed - re-certify compatibility of hw and sw, re-train users, re-betatest the system for ms getting a *itload of hurried updates, get a messy phone UI badly glued before the desktop, get dysfunctional metroapps instead of existing integrated ms software which used to work far better, etc.

  55. Zak McKracken says:

    I wiped it and reinstalled Win7 after getting ridiculous blurred text on most windows.

    • JoeS54 says:

      I'm sorry you don't know how to install a graphics driver or adjust display properties. The rest of your life must be really hard.

      • illiad says:

        he knows... just cant be buggered, if the software is THAT stoopid!!! I NEVER had that problem, worst was getting 640 x 240, but at least you can SEE the ^%£^%$!!!

      • marcohern says:

        Drivers??? what the hell are those???... o wait! I think I remember... those things still exists?

      • Zak McKracken says:

        Hehe you're a funny troll! I've been building PC's since probably before you were born, kid.

  56. bwana says:

    I suspect we will never install Win 8++ in our corporate environment. It simply does nothing over the familiar UI of Win7! Besides we've just got the last of the problems with moving off Win XP resolved in Win 7. Don't need the additional cost to debug yet another OS.

  57. Martin Payne says:

    This isn't really an apples for apples comparison. Windows 7 got a kickstart that Windows 8 didn't. Windows 7 was launched in an environment in which a sizable number of users had migrated from XP (launch date 8/01) to the shiny new Vista (launch date 11/06). Vista was such a disaster that nearly every user migrated to Windows 7 (launch date 7/09 (only 20 months after Vista)) as soon as they could.

    In contrast, Windows 7 is quite a good OS, so many users are happy to stick with it.

    • nilst2011 says:

      Vista wasn't a disaster with the right hardware, and it became very stable with SP2.

      Windows 7 is some buggy crap, just like Windows 8.x !

    • cory78 says:

      you are ignoing w8 had far more kickstarts than w7:
      unprecedented multi billion dollars ads and discount campaign, 1.5 initial budget only for ads, 1b writeoff for discounts, and more
      unprecedented attempt to expan in ultramobile market, practically doubling the size of potential market
      unprecedented second launch of a service pack hyped as new version just one year after
      launch of metroized office
      launch of dedicated product lines brand, surface
      much hyped fud on xp retirement.

      w8.x failed to take off notwithstanding the best attempt from ms.

  58. async2013 says:

    Man you read stories like this and the comments are full of Windoze fanboys tripping over each other to not sound fragmented. They go on about other systems being fragmented when their pride and joy is the worst culprit leading their users to such hilarious retorts.
    Windows will always be known as the OS for dimwits and it is no wonder Microsoft get away with all sorts because their users just have no clue what they are doing to them

  59. Dean Erling says:

    This really isn't a shock. IT departments tend to skip every other version of Windows. It is too expensive to implement every major release. I know it isn't universal but if you look at the history of windows: Windows NT, Windows XP, and Windows 7 were widely adopted. Windows 2000, Windows Vista, and now Windows 8 were not. If the trend continues, the next release of Windows will be more widely adopted. It is all much ado about nothing.

    • nilst2011 says:

      Windows 2000 were widely used where i worked. It was mainly a NT4 Server with Windows 2000 clients.

      As a homeuser i used Windows 2000 Pro as a gaming platform, it worked great.

  60. Whatever happened to the Windows brand? They seem to lack vision and true innovation. Microsoft is in need of some cool and hip young engineers to bring much needed pizzazz back to their brand. They seem to be living off past accomplishments, and that my friend is a death nail for a tech company.

    I have news from very reliable sources that Amazon will soon be disrupting the game set market with a new insightful cheaper and better game console. Watch out Xbox and Sony-playstation.

  61. pforbes says:

    Microsoft has tried to use the same dress for a slim and young girl and a fat old grandmother. Each kind of devices has its own needs and they should have kept the Windows 7 path for PCs leaving the touch and the Modern UI for mobile phones and tablets only.

  62. Dean Vukovic says:

    Microsoft has lots of work to do for windows probably 8.5. First they need to fix interface which most users hate, second return and improve it Start Menu, remove Start Screen and create 2 OS- one for desktop and one for Smart Phones/Tablets, bring real desktop features, update and improve desktop icons, improve a lot Control Panel with real and better interface like XP had not white interface ,remove Windows Defender so it doesn't come integrate with Win 8/8.1 and that PDF Reader as well Return back real Start Flag of Microsoft, My Computer explorer should be improved as well as the interface there as well, return back in Recycle Bin when you delete file do ask you do you want to delete a file not that you have to do that manually and other things which Ms needs to do if they want to win users with new OS.

  63. Alice says:

    Why aren't people upgrading to 8.1? Simple, most of the people on the internet don't understand how to do it, as it's not a simple update like the automatic updates. If they screw up their computers, they will have to pay techs big bucks to fix it and that's money most don't have. I won't update either. If it's not broke, don't fix it. I see Microsoft losing money on this fiasco.....we shouldn't be forced into an upgrade that doesn't work.

    From what I've read on the net, those trying to download from the store are having the problem.

    Will Microsoft give us new computers if we can't fix what is messed up? No....

  64. Jeff Jenkins says:

    Actually "The stats don't lie" is a load of crap. The author is either uneducated or pushing some alternate agenda.

    Windows Vista was a huge flop. When windows 7 came out users jumped ship from Vista to 7 in droves. Other than the new Metro UI, Windows 8 offers little significant improvement and enhancement on its predecessor. Many users find it difficult to use the Metro UI without a touch enabled display. These factors are the primary reasons why you don't see people jumping ship.

    Windows 8 isn't a flop compared to windows 7, it just didn't get the "Vista Bump". I'm not sure how this author was able to write in a technology section, but he should go back to children literature.

  65. Shezz Guyzz says:

    Microsoft does not love you but loves your money...

© 1998-2020 BetaNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy.