Windows 8 Sales

Microsoft have announced the first month's sales figures for Windows 8. 40 million - Windows 7 sold 60 million in the first 10 weeks. And, to put those figues into perspective, the total sales of its only commercial competitor on the desktop, OS X, are 66 million. So in another month or so we can expect there to be more Windows 8 users than OS X ones.

Not bad for an OS that some are writing off as a failure.

I got windows 8, but got fed up of it after 2 weeks, so now gone back to windows 7, I have stored windows 8 on a DVD and the external drive just in case I go back to it one day.


40 million? um, i have my doubts to be honest and even if it is, would they have sold that many if the Os was at the same price was windows 7 was?

My windows 8 cost me, well not me, but cost someone £25, windows 7 was a lot more than that.

40 million? um, i have my doubts to be honest

There are laws about this sort of thing. A company official wouldn't be allowed to make that statement if it were untrue.

In reply to a post by AEP:

So in another month or so we can expect there to be more Windows 8 users than OS X ones.

Not bad for an OS that some are writing off as a failure.

A somewhat disingenuous comment... PCs have a much larger user base than the Mac.

Well yes, Bill. That's the point that I am trying to make. PCs, which almost exclusively run Windows, have a far larger user base than Macs. So it is very difficult for any version of Windows to fail. It's all a question of TCO.

But that an OS that has been out for only a month, and is being labelled a "failure" by some, has sold nearly 2/3 as many copies as the highly successful OS X ever has is significant.

In reply to a post by AEP:

40 million? um, i have my doubts to be honest

There are laws about this sort of thing. A company official wouldn't be allowed to make that statement if it were untrue.

Maybe so, but there are ways to manipulate the figures.

A article here may be interesting.

There'll always be a fair-sized initial take-up of pretty much any "improved" OS (whether the adjective is justified or not), it's staying power that matters.

I agree that it's too early to call Win8 a failure (and like you, I don't really suppose it will be), but by the same token it's also too early to call it a success...

Post deleted by flippery

it's staying power that matters

That's not really an issue with Windows. Most sales are with new PCs and it is only a small percentage of users who have the inclination to downgrade to a previous version or install an alternative OS.

As long as the desktop exists (and I think predictions of its demise are very much exaggerated) Microsoft have a captive audience. Now if Apple were to make OS X available for conventional PCs there would be real competition. But that isn't going to happen; they just don't have the resources or experience to support the OS on anything but a very restricted range of hardware. Let's face it, you can't even install Mountain Lion on Macs more than 5 years old. I would be very surprised if you couldn't install Windows 8 on any PC less than 10 years old, and probably on older ones too.

Edited by deleted (Wed 28-Nov-12 09:37:27)

Windows 8 is aimed not just at desktop systems, where sales are falling, but the mobile system such as Ipad as well
It is therefore unfair to compare windows 8 with OS X unless you bring the Apple IOS into the equation.

Not really. As there were no, or very few, Windows 8 tablets or phones available at launch (actually, that's Windows RT rather than Windows 8) it is hardly surprising that sales there are relatively low. I think you have to give it six months or a year for that market to be established before you could make a sensible comparison. The desktop market, on the other hand, is long established for both Microsoft and Apple so the comparison there is relevant.

I think current estimates of iOS sales are somewhere in the region of 400-500 million over its lifetime. That's 5 years worth of sales. Even there I think 40 million in 4 weeks compares quite well. But I don't think it's a relevant comparison until Windows RT on mobile devices has had time to establish itself.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Most sales are with new PCs

Precisely, and imo those sales should be discounted in judging the success or otherwise of Win8- the buyers don't have a realistic option. It's a bit like calling income tax a success because (nearly) everybody pays it

I'd apply the same criterion in the Mac world, I'm not sure I'd class Lion (and Mountain Lion) as a success. For those who had the choice, I get the real impression that a fair proportion of Snow Leopard users looked at it carefully and, like me, decided to stay where they were!

It's a bit like calling income tax a success because (nearly) everybody pays it.

But Income Tax is a huge success! It does the job it is intended to very well and brings in a huge income for the State. You might not like it, but that's another matter.

Talking about what's fair or not, and whether the buyers have a realistic option, is irrelevant. This is business.

You keep backing up my point. Windows 8 will, ipso facto be a success because of the near monopoly that Microsoft have of the market. Fair or not doesn't matter; that's just the way things are.

Nice piece in the Guardian today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/27/win...

It seems that MS may be counting things differently since win 7.

Also the 40 million figure may be also including sales to PC manufacturers which certainly won't be out there.

That is backed up as Net Applications are saying that there is less than a thrid of windows 8 machines in use than there was win 7 at the same point.

I don't think there has been the buzz about win 8 that there was around 7.

I remember when all the UK pre-order copies of win 7 sold out in a few hours 4 months before launch and there was shortages for months after launch.

Also win 7 AND win 8 are not de-facto successs, there is apparently over a BILLION PC's in use worldwide according to Dell a couple of years back.

Seems that the vast majority of users are still sticking with XP and older and will do until they are forced to move.

Seems that the vast majority of users are still sticking with XP and older and will do until they are forced to move.

All the available statistics say that you are wrong. So on what do you base your assertion that XP and older systems are more popular than Windows 7?

In reply to a post by AEP:

Seems that the vast majority of users are still sticking with XP and older and will do until they are forced to move.

All the available statistics say that you are wrong. So on what do you base your assertion that XP and older systems are more popular than Windows 7?

It is interesting that the link you posted has caveats and consitions stating that the statistics collected may not be reliable.

Quote:: "Information about operating system share is difficult to obtain, since in most of the categories below there are no reliable primary sources or methodology for its collection"

The Article even states in 2010 75% of enterpeise PC's were running Windows XP.

The headline figure that the article shows is just based on Wiki's own sampling and may not include the many enterprise based PC's that do not visit there.

If as many of those enterprise PC's went from win Xp to 7 MS would have certainly been shouting about those sales.

Given that XP has been out for over a decade, Enterprise systems are STILL being shipped with it on, My brother has just placed an order for another 2000 of them at his place of work.

It would take a massive spike in sales for win 7 and 8 to overtake XP.

Although it is interesting of a very small amount of people who are overly aggressive in their defence of win8 and seem to take every slight about the OS as against them.

No matter what the figures say unless win 8 sales pick up fast, it will be replaced very quickly by MS.

It is interesting that the link you posted has caveats and consitions stating that the statistics collected may not be reliable.

If you've got anything better then post it. You're the one who made the questionable assertion.

If you atually look at the article it gives four different sets of statistics from four different sources. All of them show more Windows 7 installations than XP. I'm inclined to believe them.

No matter what the figures say unless win 8 sales pick up fast, it will be replaced very quickly by MS.

It depends upon what you mean by "very quickly" (I'd say that meant 6 months at most) but I'm prepared to wager any amount that you care that you are wrong.

I'm sure stats can be used to show anything.

I've got a laptop with Win2K, PC with XP and another laptop with Win 7 and no one has asked me for my input.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

My windows 8 cost me, well not me, but cost someone £25, windows 7 was a lot more than that.

According to a couple of people on The Register there was a £14.95 offer for a while.

There is a £14.99 offer if you have bought a Win7 PC/ Lappy recently

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

My windows 8 cost me, well not me, but cost someone £25, windows 7 was a lot more than that.

According to a couple of people on The Register there was a £14.95 offer for a while.

The same thing they did with vista from Xp, if you got a newish laptop or pc with windows 7, you can upgrqade to wi9ndows 7 for £14.95.

I did that with my laptop a few years back, updated from Xp to vista for about £14, then after a month i went back to Xp, vista was awful.

I still got the vista disk and i suppose I could put it back ont he laptop if I want to, but to be honest, i prefer Linux on it, not that I use it that often.

I've seen the 40 million figure comprehensively trashed on the basis that the vast bulk of that was made up of OEM sales for machines that haven't been built yet or enterprise purchases where 8 is the default, but where the buyer has the right to (and almost certainly will) install Windows 7 instead.

Better guides are what has happened to the PC/Laptop market, where there were hopes that people were holding off buying hardware until 8 was released. Well, the numbers are in now for the US and PC sales there have actually declined 21% compared to the same period last year. Another measure is net penertation (the numbers of people actually using 8 online). At 1% that's less than a third of the penetration 7 had at the end of the month after its release.

I think that there is now little doubt that Windows 8 is a lemon. Moreover, with reports that Windows 8 tablet sales are 'non existent' and of Acer having now 'delayed' release of them indefinitely and even Microsoft halving their own orders for Surface it looks like RT is also an unmitigateable disaster.

Balmer having more time to spend with his family in 2013 is looking almost certain at this point.

Edited by Desmond (Sun 02-Dec-12 18:31:51)

In reply to a post by Desmond:

Better guides are what has happened to the PC/Laptop market, where there were hopes that people were holding off buying hardware until 8 was released. Well, the numbers are in now for the US and PC sales there have actually declined 21% compared to the same period last year. Another measure is net penertation (the numbers of people actually using 8 online). At 1% that's less than a third of the penetration 7 had at the end of the month after its release.

I think that there is now little doubt that Windows 8 is a lemon. Moreover, with reports that Windows 8 tablet sales are 'non existent' and of Acer having now 'delayed' release of them indefinitely and even Microsoft halving their own orders for Surface it looks like RT is also an unmitigateable disaster.

If sales are this bad then it could be the last operating system released by Microsoft or is this being too pessimistic and perhaps Windows 8 sales will improve over time ?

The last operating system released by Microsoft? You're joking, right!?

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

The last operating system released by Microsoft? You're joking, right!?

No.

I saw an article on Click saying that as so many people use androids, smartphones, etc for internet access that the PC and laptop market will just die making it not commercially viable for Microsoft to put in the R & D costs.

But how much does that personal sector account for compared to the massed corporate desktopiary?

The sales probably include gullible cheap upgrade customers, the upgrade cost like £25 from win7 to win8. Considering that win vista to 7 upgrades initially cost somewhere in the region of £100.

BBC Click? The program with nonsense facts and a bunch of prats as presenters? Next you'll be telling me Rory Cellan Jones claims he knows how to turn a computer on ;p

That sounds like The Gadget Show. Which is on Five.

I think 8 on PCs has now developed a well earned reputation for being pointlessly different, inefficient, confused, confusing and plain pig ugly. If the cosmetic and interface changes had actually made Windows easier to use or brought users substantial advantages over Windows 7 then I'm sure people would be busy buying it. The fact that 7 is familiar and thus easier to use is the prime reason people are sticking with it (and why many have stuck so long with XP). There may be huge under the hood advantages to 8, but that is not what people notice. They notice things like the fact they seem to have jost all their apps or that they have to learn a whole new set of conventions involving three, four or more clicks to do something they used to be able to do with two.

The problem for Microsoft is that they have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to PCs. They can't go backwards to something users might feel more familiar with without that being seen as a humiliating admission that they got it profoundly wrong. If they try to go forwards they will only be creating something even less familiar. It might be better, but that will be a hard sell for users who didn't buy 8 because it was too different.

Edited by Desmond (Mon 03-Dec-12 07:32:54)

I remember exactly the same arguments being made when Windows 3, Windows 95, the Mac, and OS X were first released. Those who had memorized all the control commands in WordStar just couldn't see the point of these new fangled, mice, menus, and windows. But, whilst it is true that a few people do have difficulty with new paradigms, most are pretty sensible and soon get used to change. And youngsters who never used the old systems wonder what Grandpa is grumbling about when he goes on about "the good old days".

Rumours of the demise of Microsfoft are greatly exaggerated.

Rumours of the demise of Microsfoft are greatly exaggerated.

Time will tell and it is far too early to call on this one.

In reply to a post by gomezz:

That sounds like The Gadget Show. Which is on Five.

That as well.

I've not forecast the demise of Microsoft. I have forecast the Mr Balmer will be spending much more time with his family though.

In reply to a post by Desmond:

I think 8 on PCs has now developed a well earned reputation for being pointlessly different, inefficient, confused, confusing and plain pig ugly. If the cosmetic and interface changes had actually made Windows easier to use or brought users substantial advantages over Windows 7 then I'm sure people would be busy buying it.

Yes I agree.

I have no intention of buying Windows 8 and not just because I wouldn't be able to use the new Metro interface as I haven't got access to touch screen technology.

The Metro UI supports legacy mice.

Win8 works perfectly fine without touch. As it happens, I think Windows 8 is far easier to use than OSX.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The Metro UI supports legacy mice.

Not much of an incentive to upgrade from Windows 7 though !?

I think it looks drab compared to Windows 7

In reply to a post by Pipexer:

Win8 works perfectly fine without touch. As it happens, I think Windows 8 is far easier to use than OSX.

I've never used OSX

I saw an article on Click saying that as so many people use androids, smartphones, etc for internet access that the PC and laptop market will just die making it not commercially viable for Microsoft to put in the R & D costs.

The thought of being condemned to watching postage stamp sized screens on machines I cannot build or upgrade myself is very depressing. Windows XP was good ... but come on ... once you've used 7 for a while going back to XP would be like going back to side-valve engines. So far I've been impressed with Windows 8 once you've made it look how you want it (and no, touch screens on a desktop are NOT practical, anybody who has ever worked in a school will know that.)

The Metro UI supports legacy mice.

So does my cat.

Win8 works perfectly fine without touch.

So does a lot of Win7. However, wasn't the biggest criticism of WIndows 7 and touch the appalingly bad way Office worked with touch? MS's solution was TIFKAM and no change to Office.

Works best with a wheel mouse, but is there any other sort nowadays? Like OS X, it works better with newer computers. Unlike OS X, it works on computers more than 5 years old.

Clearly you lack even basic abilities

Yes APE, there are mice out there with no wheels.

Here are some examples

You have this irrational fear of Apple for some very strange reason and yet you claim to own a number of their products.

Most odd.

my opinion is its a failure on useability on the desktop with a mouse.

marketing and commercial success however a different story.

whilst it is useable with apps like 'startisback' it still has weird issues with certian windows looking out of place on the desktop and other features removed.

I think tablets are a poor product but they sell well as well, they sell based on gimmick and novelty, microsoft realised that and jumped on the bandwagon.

I brought 2 win8 licenses purely because the upgrade deal expires early 2013, I expect at some point in the future there will be a reason for me to have to use win8 so I brought ahead of time. But I am not using those 2 licenses at the moment.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 04-Dec-12 08:56:08)

In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The Metro UI supports legacy mice.

Not much of an incentive to upgrade from Windows 7 though !?

I think it looks drab compared to Windows 7

That's the new look MS is using. Remove most of the colour, tone down what's left. Take away shadows. They left a lot of colour on the Start window but a lot of applications have been drained of life. It's another thing I don't understand about Microsoft.

Edited by Andrue (Tue 04-Dec-12 08:56:35)

Post deleted by billford


Reason- filter evasion

Edited by billford (Tue 04-Dec-12 08:59:45)

and he is praising a product which has copied apple

In reply to a post by Andrue:

... a lot of applications have been drained of life. It's another thing I don't understand about Microsoft.

It's not just MS and seems to be the trend... the latest version of iTunes is rather more stark than the last one.

In particular they've removed CoverFlow which, whilst I'll concede provided little if any extra real functionality, looked great

Do you think that the latest version of OS X works on computers more than 5 years old?

Simply stating a fact. Mountain Lion requires a 2007 or later Mac. No fear there, rational or irrational.

w8 4 Windows 9.

Your fear is displayed in the fact that you keep bringing up Apple even in non Apple posts.

Or maybe it is just obsession.

He does tend to get his facts in a twist quite a lot, showing himself up regularly.

Do you?

And, who cares.

Reporting Windows sales is like reporting VAT on computers - in this country it's an effective tax. All the OEMs and Retailers switch from "Recommending Windows 7" to "Recommending Windows 8" overnight, and all the Win7 hardware vanishes from the shelves, presumably to be re-imaged.

That's very true. As you say, Windows has become so successful that it has an effective monopoly. So it is rather foolish to talk of any new version of Windows "failing". It is, be definition, going to sell well.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Do you think that the latest version of OS X works on computers more than 5 years old?

no idea and do I care? no.

I dont even know why microsoft even feel the need to copy apple as apple are irrelevant on pc's.

I dont even know why microsoft even feel the need to copy apple

I can see where you are confused.

I know that it doesn't. And, I guess, someone with a 6 year old Mac might care. Even Macs last longer than that.

By default rather than definition, and that will not last long.

Post deleted by billford

Well I will agree with your point that Macs have a far greater lifespan than the junk spewn forth by PC makers. It is good that you finally conceed this.

And you will even conceed the fact that Apple took the decision to move onto the Intel platform wisely, although you would as ever much rather live in the past.

You may be happy with a 5 year old, outdated PC, most Mac users are more choosey and wish to stay upstream of technology.

Keep the personal stuff out of here.

They see the need as their OS (in particular) and software (in general) is severly lacking, and, they have a prominent history in trying to copy others rather than innovating themselves.

Bill Gates, and M$ as a whole are not the saints you try to paint them to be, and have indeed spent most of the past 20+ years stealing from others and profiting from doing so.

In reply to a post by NaNook:

They see the need as their OS (in particular) and software (in general) is severly lacking, and, they have a prominent history in trying to copy others rather than innovating themselves.

Bill Gates, and M$ as a whole are not the saints you try to paint them to be, and have indeed spent most of the past 20+ years stealing from others and profiting from doing so.

Nor was Steve Jobs a saint. The GUI on which both OS are based was developed by Xerox
Apple also licensed software, on which windows OS is based, to Mirosoft.

In reply to a post by NaNook:

You may be happy with a 5 year old, outdated PC, most Mac users are more choosey and wish to stay upstream of technology.

Wut?!? Apple are notoriously bad at keeping up with, or even using, the latest technology.

They really know how to make pretty PC's though.

most Mac users are more choosey and wish to stay upstream of technology.

Complete twaddle!

In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

No.

I saw an article on Click saying that as so many people use androids, smartphones, etc for internet access that the PC and laptop market will just die making it not commercially viable for Microsoft to put in the R & D costs.

There are going to be plenty of laptops and desktops around for a few years yet and they are still producing them.


Some people still need powerful machines, something that you can't get with a tablet. Try editing a large video project on a tablet or how about doing some desktop publishing or producing music. I am sure there are many other things that could not really be done on a tablet.


A lot of people that uses tablets just browse the net, have a peak at their facebook, watch the odd video and that is about it.

In reply to a post by CurlyWhirly:

I have no intention of buying Windows 8 and not just because I wouldn't be able to use the new Metro interface as I haven't got access to touch screen technology.

I said that as well and what have I got running on my desktop machine? windows 8. But I did not pay for it, someone else did that.

You don't need a touch screen for Metro, and if you want to by pass it yo can use something like classic start, which is what I have done.

I still think the metro screen is just not right for the OS.

In reply to a post by zyborg47:

Some people still need powerful machines, something that you can't get with a tablet. Try editing a large video project on a tablet or how about doing some desktop publishing or producing music. I am sure there are many other things that could not really be done on a tablet.

Such as large scale data entry where you need a decent tactile keyboard with a very basic desktop and monitor.

Right, so M$ never stole anything. Ok, if you like to believe that....

Yes, pretty machines that in general outperform Windows machines.

Good rebuttal.

Yes and you know a lot of people.

In reply to a post by NaNook:

Yes, pretty machines that in general outperform Windows machines.

If you say so. I'd guess that you don't actually work in the industry. You get less bang for your buck from Apple, that's just fact.

Just look at the current hardware offerings from Apple, price the components elsewhere, include build costs by a professional and you'll find your wallet much lighter if you still decide to go with Apple. Use the same budget from Apple for a new build and you'll have a computer that will outperform most manufacturer offerings for years to come. I built my home one 4 years ago with high specs, cost around a £1000, don't expect to have to build another one for another few years yet, hasn't struggled to run anything I've thrown at it yet.

Not to mention Apples ridiculous glossy screens, much prefer my Dell 27" IPS over the Apple Thunderbolt, you can actually see things on the screen without having to worry about room lighting.

OS wise, I really don't like the direction either are making at the moment, OSX has turned into a sales platform and 8 is heading the same way. I work on my computers, tablets are for leisure time.

No of course not.

In reply to a post by NaNook:

Yes, pretty machines that in general outperform Windows machines.

Depends on what the hardware is, no doubt a Apple that is using a I7 will out perform a windows machine that is have a I5 as it main CPU,.

TBH, i don't think there is a awful lot of performance difference if both machines have the same hardware, certainly if you compare OSX with windows 7.
some of the software for the MAC is nicer to use and may have some different features.

My AMD quad core 3.5Ghz machine is not that much slower at rendering a video than my friends I5 IMac, that is using the same software Adobe after effects. Strange really as her machine got hardware rendering, mine have not as my graphics card is pretty old.

I am not picking sides as I like apple Machines and the OS, but I still like my windows 7 machines, ok it is windows 8 again at the moment. i also like Linux and as I said before, if I could get a decent video editor and effect software for Linux, I would change over tomorrow, ok not tomorrow as I need a bit of time to learn the software, but you know what I mean.

BTW, i hate Adobe stuff, but After effects is good for what it does, but as a video editor, I prefer Vegas. i also like final cut, certainly the new version which have back ground rendering.

In reply to a post by NaNook:

Yes and you know a lot of people.

Yes, a fair few, certainly enough people that just don't use their computer looking at facebook or browsing the net. Musicians, video editors,, graphic designers, all need pretty poky desktop machines. some got MAcs, some got windows based machines.

i also know people who uses tablets and they don't use their laptops or desktops much these days, but that is the way they do things.

For me, i love a desktop, powerful machines that can be upgraded, use a large screen. Can you stick a large screen on a Ipad?

Oh yes and games players, i know a couple of them as well and they use powerful desktop machines, with very powerful video cards, that got more power than a tablet got alone.

Try using a Mac one day rather than licking the shop window.

I suppose you have at least 1 friend on Faceache.

Don't use it, it is for feeble minded people.

Good to know you have a wide range of experience to draw from, of course, none of it personal experience.

In reply to a post by NaNook:

Good to know you have a wide range of experience to draw from, of course, none of it personal experience.

I use a MAC thank you very much, sure not everyday as I don't own one, but I use one most weekends and I been using one this evening.

I got personal experience of using Adobe after effects on the MAC as that is how I am learning how to use After effects. not a lot of difference in the way it works between the MAc and windows version. Also been using final cut this evening.

i don't get it, if I was saying that the MAc was a naff machine, useless and other stuff like that, I would expect you get a bit upset, but i am not saying that.
But i do think it is over priced mind you.

Well, you do get what you pay for.

whilst they day will come where pcs and laptops in their current format will stop existing, its not soon, it wont be tablets killing them, tablets arent good enough. They toys.

Yes the market is shrinking as touch devices are stealing certian parts of the market but it wont be killed by them.

My sister got a £400 tablet the other day and I have to say I found it a peice of junk, it was probably twice as heavy as my laptop and far less functional and awkrawd to use.

Not necessarily. Many branded goods are overpriced.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

whilst they day will come where pcs and laptops in their current format will stop existing, its not soon, it wont be tablets killing them, tablets arent good enough. They toys.

Yes the market is shrinking as touch devices are stealing certian parts of the market but it wont be killed by them.

My sister got a £400 tablet the other day and I have to say I found it a peice of junk, it was probably twice as heavy as my laptop and far less functional and awkrawd to use.

So what will kill them?
My take is that in years to come, homes will be built with a central computer at it's core, which is powerful enough to do many things at once and every room will have a keyboard and screen and maybe a mouse if that is still the way machines are used.
so there will be no need for each person toe have a computer as it will be one shared by all, but with enough CPU power, memory and storage to cope.

Tablets/laptops will just be somehting you use on the go, come home and sync data to your folder or what ever they will call it on the main computer.

i don't think it will happen in my time, well not for people like me, but I t will happen.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Not necessarily. Many branded goods are overpriced.

Like Sony products

Not sure why Sony necessarily but yes.

Certain TVs are cheap but do take longer to change channel. Sometimes if you pay a bit more then you get more.

OEMS are pretty much forced by MS tto take Windows 8, Probably thouse most users then Downgrade to Windows 7

Well I bit the bullet and bought the download for Win 8 to make a dual boot with XP. MS dont make it easy because they wont let you download the iso in XP. So I set up a Win 7 preview partition so I could get the iso to perform a clean install.

My main concern was transfering all my email archive over. I had to set up windows Mail in XP, import from Outlook Express then move the windows mail folder over to the Windows 8 partition after Setting up Windows Live Mail 2012 in Win 8. This worked well as I didnt want to start editing reg files for all my rules. Again MS dont make anything easy.

Having said all that I find Win 8 much faster to use and intuitive. I did download Pokki Start Menu (free) and boot to the desktop, but I do find myself Hot cornering to the Start page more and more as its really easy to use with the left and right mouse wheel scroll.

I dont like some of the Apps eg Windows Mail, full screen, and no support for pop3. I like to have a few windows open at once and keep an eye on them on the desktop.

I have also got some of my old 1998 apps to work like Wordperfect 10, which works better in Win 8 than XP which it was designed for in XP mode. Also if I need an XP to run in native XP mode I have downloaded VMlite and the XP mode from Virtual PC website for Win 7. This runs well and hides the main window while XP apps run in a little green box on the screen after VMlite has converted the download. So far I havent needed it. I was going to transfer my mail store from XP to VMlite XP and run Outlook Express 6 in a window but I decided to bite the bullet and import my Mail to WLM.

Also Windows 7 File recovery is nice. It has created copies of my Documents after I moved the folder and two system images, XP and Win 8. Havent tested the restore process but have read the articles on it and it seems to go smoothly according to some forums.

Any tips here for Win 8 feel free to pinch.

cheers

Tim

can i ask why you didnt upgrade to win7 but went to win8 instead from XP?

Cost.

Due to £ I'll need to wait for Windows Blue

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

can i ask why you didnt upgrade to win7 but went to win8 instead from XP?

Why would anyone upgrade to an "old" version instead of a new version when both are available?

because new isnt always better, I would think that kind of obvious.

Also my question was also related to why he skipped win7 when it was released.

He has answered it now.

I have personally stopped putting time into win8 I was coming across too many bugs and gui deficiencies, so my 2 win8 licences will remain idle until a killer app requires me to jump.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

because new isnt always better, I would think that kind of obvious.

In what way is Win 7 better than Win 8?

Are there only apps now and programmes have gone by the wayside?

Sort of re-branding excersize. Apps and programs coexist on the start screen and on my pokki menu. Full screen apps annoy me Pokki windowed desktop apps are great.

I've now dumped Pokki as it is too buggy with the start screen randomly at the bottom of the screen in the middle and a couple of other minor things and gone for the Free Sourceforge Classic Shell which has hundreds of options, a Win 98 skin, XP and Win 7 skins too and seems less buggy with booting to the desktop supported.

I've been using Classic Shell for a while now. was the best one I found.

I've now brought Windows 8 (x64)!

MS and Apple will I suspect end up streaming an OS to a basic processing box which facilitates connection of a monitor, keyboard, mouse and speakers in exchange for a monthly or annual subscription.

The way Office 2013 is being distributed is an example of this as is Office 365 and the Chromebook.


I've had to learn to use Win 8 in order to support it for the day job but personally I much prefer 7, 8's interface has been developed for those that care mostly about facebook and twitter which personally I cant be doing with.

To wade into the Mac and IBM PC clone debate the Mac chassis is undeniably well built and the machine has always excelled in the creative space as the OS leaves more of the hardware resource for the use of the applications but as the components in new Macs are now pretty much the same as a PC I really don't think they warrant the inflated price tag as what you are paying for is the chassis mostly.

In a PC config (and I'm running a 3rd gen i5) the CPU still requires a heatsink and fan but Apple's approach in most of their machines is to use the whole case as a passive heat sink and these get very warm, I wonder whether this will reduce the life of the CPU because it is not being sufficiently cooled.