Pathetic bul***** from Neowin as usual:
At what point do we stop blaming Microsoft and start blaming the vendors who failed to capitalize on the true value of Windows 8? Microsoft does not make a laptop or a desktop, but only a tablet (which the IDC does not appear to count in its calculations), so for an item to sell, it requires a vendor to build desirable products using Microsoft’s software. If there are few desirable products on the market, then the market will contract, as consumers have no reason to spend their disposable income.
The IDC took a slanted view to the numbers it was seeing and tried to justify them by only looking at one side of the equation. The market is a complex arena of vendors of hardware and software and if one party comes up short, then the entire ecosystem will suffer. But to point the finger only at Microsoft when Lenovo bucked that trend seems a bit biased and reckless by the IDC.
Thanks for continuing to fill us in on the Neowin Follies!
The argument above makes no sense. Exactly what new hardware does that poster think would "capitalize on the true value of Windows 8"? Desktop PCs with touch? Laptops with touch? Well, they're out there already, and they're hardly setting the world on fire.
Anybody with a brain can figure out that this "touch" thing (the salient new feature in Win8, for whose sake the Metro abomination was conceived) is awkward and bound to get real tiring real fast. And anybody with a hand will figure it out soon enough afterward. Moreover, due to the touch feature the hardware is more expensive. So, we have the following formula:
"Unnecessary feature to be used when you want sore muscles" + "more expensive hardware to accommodate said feature"
which hardly adds up to a winning combination. What's so difficult about this to understand?
Metrotards are running wild & crazy!
Only reason OEMs are screaming for fixes, is because of people like you who are spamming threads like this and the entire internet with "WINDOWS 8 SUCKS" while having no clue what the hell you are talking about.
The changes are much, much less radical then from MSDOS to Windows 1/2/3 or from 3.11 to 95.
Mainly because THE DESKTOP IS STILL INTACT. The button is gone, few new features are added (please take good note of the word added) and the Start menu has been combined with the Desktop into a Start Screen (Both functionalities have been with us on Windows for almost 2 decades now, and the only thing they basically did... is combine it).
Barking up the wrong tree. What matters isn't whether the changes are "radical," but whether they make things better
easier or harder, more powerful or less powerful.
In the case of Windows 8, we know that the Start Screen lacks certain features of the Start Menu (such as "Recent Items") and that, if you open it, it obscures everything on the Desktop. Also, by default, Internet Explorer from the Start Screen lands the user in the feature desert of Metro IE. Moreover, when scanning the program listings it's visually easier to read a column of short lines closely packed in the corner (as in the Start Menu), than to read several rows of spread-out tiles of different sizes all across the monitor screen. These changes (among others) make the Start Screen less powerful and harder to use than the Start Menu, which boils down to a worse
You would think they have been raised in North Korea.
They have no idea how a market works. Even if what this tard says would be true, fact is that these "additions" p*** many people off, and thus hobble sales. This means that these additons must be removed or made optional.
Edited by JorgeA, 11 April 2013 - 05:41 PM.