not really.

first of all they need to sell phones, as far as I am concerned my phone interface is android.

iphone and android are the 2 big sellers.

secondly my phone can communicate with my pc already via usb cable.

I have not heard any valid reasons why the fanboys of windows 8 think business's will use it.

which customers have asked for the desktop OS to be dumbed down and made harder to use? none that I know off, and certianly no business licence holders know off.

also AEP, despite what you say its very evident windows 8 is primarily designed for touchscreen control. Its interface is suboptimal for mouse use.

AEP, despite what you say its very evident windows 8 is primarily designed for touchscreen control. Its interface is suboptimal for mouse use.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I find it just as easy to use with a mouse as 7 (mind, I've never been afraid of the keybord).

Businesses like to be able to control their computers centrally. Windows 8, together with Server "8", offers considerable enhancements in this restpect. If I were still specifying server and desktop OSs for a large corporation I would be looking to migrate to both versions of 8 within the next two years. I am sure that many IT managers in similar positions will feel the same. Server "8", in particular, is the killer application and its natural partner is 8 on the desktop. This is exactly the situation we faced when Windows 2000 was released.

As for the Mom and Pop shops - thet will probably stick with 95 or XP, whatever they are currently using.

In reply to a post by AEP:

AEP, despite what you say its very evident windows 8 is primarily designed for touchscreen control. Its interface is suboptimal for mouse use.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I find it just as easy to use with a mouse as 7 (mind, I've never been afraid of the keybord).

Businesses like to be able to control their computers centrally. Windows 8, together with Server "8", offers considerable enhancements in this restpect. If I were still specifying server and desktop OSs for a large corporation I would be looking to migrate to both versions of 8 within the next two years. I am sure that many IT managers in similar positions will feel the same. Server "8", in particular, is the killer application and its natural partner is 8 on the desktop. This is exactly the situation we faced when Windows 2000 was released.

As for the Mom and Pop shops - thet will probably stick with 95 or XP, whatever they are currently using.

It doesn't matter what the IT departments or managers want, the money to pay for any investment project would have to be approved by the finance director and to get any money out of them for a capital investment there would have to be a huge compelling case as why you NEED to move to these systems, currently there would have to be significant cost savings and possibly even a buyback in 3 years or less.

But given that most businesses are not technical based and their systems are seen as something to get the job done I would expect most finance directors would refuse the money (and if not the finance directors the banks would most certainly would), times are exceedingly hard, companies are using the ecconomic climate to shed staff and large amounts of IT purchasing just do not fit in with most business plans at the moment.

Perhaps I worked in an unusual company, but there IT equipment was written off after, I think it was, 4 years and was then automatically a candidate for replacement. Budgets took account of this.

But then, I did work for one of the most successful companies in the publishing world; they are still expanding and acquiring those companies who didn't appreciate the importance of IT. It helped that, as in many of the foremost corporations, the Finance VP was also in overall charge of IT.

It all depends on whether corporate IT is seen as an empire in its own right (which leads to things like the rolling three or four year upgrade treadmill, which always comes with massive costs but rarely comes with visible justified benefits) or whether IT is seen like any other aspect of the business, where costs and investments need to be justified with real benefits before they are authorised.

All I can tell you is that it worked well in my company. IT was recognized as being an important component (nowadays, particularly in publishing, arguably the most important component) of business. Rather than getting involved in politics the setup allowed for upgrade of equipment without argument.

It is no coincidence that the vast majority of companies who suffer a serious failure of their computer systems go out of business within a year. Successful companies recognize the vital importance of IT; it is those successful companies that will determine the success, or otherwise, of Windows 8; the cost of the upgrade will be a minor factor for them.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The company that I worked for is now one of the largest and most successful in the sector. Less computer-literate publishers are now just a part of the Xxxxx empire. To make money you have to invest in the infrastructure.

Not disagreeing at all with the specifics wrt publishing. I have some limited+distant experience as a supplier to the CTP side of print+publishing, where being best and fastest had obvious advantages, and I assume that technology is equally important in some other parts of publishing.

I also know many areas of business where there is no need for the latest greatest desktop company-wide, where the time+money spent on repeated company wide rollouts is largely money wasted. It helps the IT Director think he's important because his budget is ever growing, but actually his unsupervised spending can sometimes be a drag on the business at large. I've seen plenty of those.

The Vista disaster, and the number of companies consequently still running XP, has helped many companies understand that they do not necessarily have to keep up to date, and that there are actually risks as well as inevitable costs and potential benefits in the routine upgrade rollout philosophy.

To make money you have to invest in the infrastructure.

Indeed so. But whether the upgrade cycle is an investment or a waste of money is a company-specific decision that needs to be actively considered not just passively accepted "because everyone else does it and Dell offered us a good deal"

the vast majority of companies who suffer a serious failure of their computer systems go out of business within a year

True, but a different discussion to this. It indicates that planning is essential; it does not support the case for routine unnecessary upgrades.