Adinnieken said:
I disagree. The changes made to the OS aren't just for the benefit of tablets or mobile phones. The changes to the task manager, to Windows Explorer, offer no benefit to mobile devices.
I don't disagree that as a UI the Windows 8 desktop has a functional disconnect between the Metro UI and the Explorer UI, nor will I argue that Microsoft doesn't have a long way to go before that chasm is bridged. But I disagree that Windows 8 is necessarily slow. Does Windows 8 require relearning, absolutely. I have been using the Explorer UI since Windows 95 was in beta. I helped mold that UI over the years into what it has eventually become. So, yes I'm fully aware of the challenge the Metro UI creates and the relearning it forces upon users. However, once uderstood, Windows 8 doesn't represent a significant challenge for users. The problem is that the UI has changed and that users want backward compatibility in the UI. Not that the UI nor the operating system doesn't work.
That being said, there was nothing significantly wrong with Windows Vista. The problem with Windows Vista had to do with the memory requirements, memory requirements which didn't change with Windows 7. The only thing that changed between Windows Vista and Windows 8 is the fact that memory became cheaper and more plentiful, Windows device drivers became updated for the new driver model, and hardware performance increased. To emphasize this, the Aero Ui of Windows Vista went from being a component of Windows Vista Ultimate to a standard component in Windows 7. The reason it wasn't a standard component was because of the limitations of both memory and GPU capabilities at the time. Capabilities which somehow disappeared between the time that Windows Vista and Windows 7 were released.
The major problem with Windows Vista beside the failure of the technology meet the needs of the OS was the fact that the OS consumed 100% of the memory. As I've stated elsewhere, this was because the original intent was to include a SQL-based file system called WinFS. Like SQL Server, the OS consumed 100% of memory to ensure the OS had sufficient resources for the file system server. In turn, the OS would relenquish memory as applications needed it. This was a fundemental change to what people were used to. Between Vista and Windows 7 there were few performance differences.
For people who actually used Windows Vista through SP2, and whose hardware was supported by the OS and worked well with the OS, it worked just as well as Windows 7. Me, personally, I liked Windows Vista better than Windows 7. Your suggestion that it was the same as Windows ME isn't even an accurate one.
Windows ME was an attempt to bridge the the DOS-based Windows 9x with Windows NT. It failed because there were fundemental flaws in the OS itself. It was a consumer ONLY OS. You couldn't network it, and businesses couldn't license it. It offered poor support for Windows games and even poorer support for MS-DOS games. It required those upgrading to buy completely new system utilities. And the worst part about it was given time, the OS functionaly got worse. It offered none of the self-repairing benefits of NTFS, it lacked both full forward and backward compatibility, and given the Windows 2000 was released approximately the same time it Windows 2000 Professional represented a better, more stable OS option.
Windows Vista, by comparision had none of the challenges Windows ME did. The majority of applications compatible with Windows XP were compatible with Windows Vista. The majority of hardware intended for Windows XP was compatible with Windows Vista. Besides anti-virus utilities, which hadn't been backward compatible with prior versions of Windows since Windows 98 or Windows 2000, and older software and hardware designed for previous versions of Windows but still compatible with Windows XP. With the exception of Nvidia graphic cards, Windows Vista was a solid, stable OS from day one until the release of Windows 7.
Windows 8 doesn't have the same challenges that Windows ME did. Windows 8 is solid, stable. Yes, the OS requires users to relearn but it works. To exemplify this fact, Windows ME was Windows 4.9. There was no version that ever continued the 4.0 kernel. It was abandoned. Windows XP was built upon the Windows 2000 (Windows 5.0) kernel, and Windows 7 (Windows 6.1) and 8 (Windows 6.2) are both built upon the Windows Vista (Windows 6.0) kernel. Even Windows 8.1 (Windows 6.3) is built upon the same kernel. So, in terms of an OS no, Windows Vista isn't a failure and neither is Windows 8. Microsoft if anything has double-down with Windows 8.1 and hasn't abandoned any aspect of Windows 8.
|
A significant majority of the changes made to the system offer no tangible benefits to (non-tablet, touchscreen PC, etc users). Did they give PC users a bone or two? Sure.
The problem is that the Metro UI is such a chasm between the previous Windows framework that it made absolutely no sense to force it into the same room with the previous Windows UI. It's Microsoft's response to Apple. The problem is it was done in a typical Microsoft fashion. There is now, 100 ways to skin a cat between the Metro UI and the standard Windows UI.
This is another problem with Microsoft's logic. A lot of people (And I would venture most) simply want an operating system that is relatively easy to use (Microsoft already has this formula down pat, which is a big reason why they shouldn't have unnecessarily forced it upon PC users), doesn't hinder system performance and improves on all of those performance things that normal people don't see. Microsoft needs to start refining Windows performance far more than it's gloss. They should have released a mobile version / PC version until they identified how to relate the two ecosystems better, or at least had a better sense for where the industry is headed.
I don't care about necessarily the specifics but Vista from an end-user perspective had plenty of the same challenges that ME or any other failure of an OS had. It didn't work for them, at least not well. Whether it was a lack of drivers, or things simply "not working", the results for an end user are the same.
Windows 8 could have been 'okay' without a half-assed, hodge podge marriage with Tablets/Touchscreens. It's essentially that simple. It simply doesn't work well for either environment. (A PC user or a Tablet one). In my opinion, Microsoft more than ever needs to focus on performance and making things 'work' rather than trying to re-invent the wheel on the PC side. Microsoft's gravy is UI familiarity at this point and any idea that tries to rapidly divert from that is simply a bad idea from a business standpoint. Windows 8 was a rapid diversion and gives the user the feel of a cheap experience.
