Good job MS, you stabed yourself again: An Absolutely Terrifying Chart For Windows 8 sales - Polidicks

Didn't they learn their lesson with Vista vs XP?

[QUOTE=Xmeagol;43135879]people need to learn to build these things it's really not that hard managing a screwdriver and putting something on a socket[/QUOTE] You're completely right, but it will never happen.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43136034]I know, and you're absolutely right, but its not going to happen and Microsoft knows this. Thats why they're so quick to axe the OEM sales of win7, because they want win8 to succeed and the [I]only chance they have of doing that[/I] is by cramming it down the throat every new pre-built customer they can find.[/QUOTE] Actually, the End of Sales date is no sooner than Vista after Windows 7 or XP after Vista: [url]http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle[/url] XP was sold until 1 year after Vista's release, and Vista was sold until 1 year after 7's release. 7 was sold until one year after 8's release, etc. This seems to be common practice, so they're not "so quick to axe the OEM sales of Win7" - if they were, they would've stopped selling it the day Windows 8 came out. Like it or not, the end of Windows 7 sales is not because Windows 8 is selling in mediocre quantities, but rather just because Windows 8 was released at all.

Terrifying...? The idea of nuclear war is terrifying, a software company not doing as well as it likes off the back of a recent release is not terrifying.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43136190]Actually, the End of Sales date is no sooner than Vista after Windows 7 or XP after Vista: [url]http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle[/url] XP was sold until 1 year after Vista's release, and Vista was sold until 1 year after 7's release. 7 was sold until one year after 8's release, etc. This seems to be common practice, so they're not "so quick to axe the OEM sales of Win7" - if they were, they would've stopped selling it the day Windows 8 came out. Like it or not, the end of Windows 7 sales is not because Windows 8 is selling in mediocre quantities, but rather just because Windows 8 was released at all.[/QUOTE] Yeah I know, but a year isn't that long in terms of OS support, especially for Microsoft. Standard practice or not, a lot of people don't like 8 and they'll refuse to upgrade unless they have no other choice.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43136311]Yeah I know, but a year isn't that long in terms of OS support, especially for Microsoft. Standard practice or not, a lot of people don't like 8 and they'll refuse to upgrade unless they have no other choice.[/QUOTE] Support for Windows 7 hasn't ended, they just decided they will stop selling it to the general public (I'm not sure what you meant by "support" otherwise). They will probably still sell Windows 7 with volume licenses so they don't alienate enterprise customers, but other than that, this isn't at all unexpected.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43136311]Yeah I know, but a year isn't that long in terms of OS support, especially for Microsoft. Standard practice or not, a lot of people don't like 8 and they'll refuse to upgrade unless they have no other choice.[/QUOTE] Ehmm, Windows 7 is scheduled to have support until 2020? And what I just posted shows that this is completely standard support from Microsoft, so I don't really understand what you're getting at? My guess is Microsoft will make an exception for Windows 7 down the line, since so many are using it, but right now it's just getting standard support.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;43123856]I like how there's all this damn market research, but it doesn't take a moron to realize that for the average person, Windows 8 is not worth $100+ when they already have Windows 7.[/QUOTE] Should've bought it when it was $40 then. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=itisjuly;43134765]I assume (as I don't know) but game renders at full speed and then the desktop renders everything at 60 or whatever making the fps counter for game irrelevant. How much fps does the desktop report?[/QUOTE] The desktop on Windows 8 and 8.1 does 120fps for me. I have a 120Hz monitor. The difference when switching between 60 and 120 is very noticeable.

[QUOTE=paul simon;43136613]Should've bought it when it was $40 then. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] The desktop on Windows 8 and 8.1 does 120fps for me. I have a 120Hz monitor. The difference when switching between 60 and 120 is very noticeable.[/QUOTE] Which you should. If V-sync is locked, the framerate will be your monitor refresh rate. I'm pretty sure this had been a thing ever since Aero was introduced. Otherwise, you would get screen tearing everywhere. I'm sure even weak GPU's can render the desktop faster than 120 fps in most cases. :v:

I build and upgrade PCs for people as a side job. Maybe just 1-4 a month. I cannot possibly explain the amount of butthurt from people who find Windows 8's interface too wacky to use. Older folks have an even harder time and I've had to scramble to get money back to them because they "no longer want a computer". It's a god damn nightmare. And personally, the new interface they're using in the Office software? Yeah going minimalist with professional grade office software is [B]retarded[/B]. What the fuck were they thinking?

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;43128104]windows 8 was the update no one wanted but they made anyways[/QUOTE] No, everybody [I]wanted[/I] it but they didn't want what they were given. What MS should have done IMHO is just improved on the winning formula of Windows 7. Speed optimizations, more features like the native ISO mounting, new task manager etc. etc. rather than focus on metro. Heck, even a desktop app-store would have been nice (Desktop apps, not Metro apps).

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43134234]Stop selling and and stop supporting are two completely different things. It's more like Microsoft discontinuing the sale of the original 360 to get you to buy the newer version.[/QUOTE] Except they aren't going to have hot fixes, new features, and won't support warrantees anymore, meanwhile xp just recently lost their support and it was 12 fucking years old. It's literally Microsoft being money grubbing and forcing people to want to switch.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;43124158]It's not a business's fault that people don't like the product.[/QUOTE] It is when we tell them why and nobody fixes it.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43138028]Except they aren't going to have hot fixes, new features, and won't support warrantees anymore, meanwhile xp just recently lost their support and it was 12 fucking years old. It's literally Microsoft being money grubbing and forcing people to want to switch.[/QUOTE] Windows 7 will have mainstream support until [I]at least[/I] January 15th 2015, and will have extended support until 2020. Windows XP lost mainstream support in 2009 (not "recently" imo), and extended support will be gone in 2014. Windows 7 will get non-security related hot fixes until 2015, and security related hot fixes until 2020. I don't know where you got the idea that Windows 7 support is ending right now.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43138284]Windows 7 will have mainstream support until [I]at least[/I] January 15th 2015, and will have extended support until 2020. Windows XP lost mainstream support in 2009 (not "recently" imo), and extended support will be gone in 2014. Windows 7 will get non-security related hot fixes until 2015, and security related hot fixes until 2020. I don't know where you got the idea that Windows 7 support is ending right now.[/QUOTE] Except 7 is much more recently came out but is losing half of its support in just a few years compared to xp. That's a massive deal and you going around white knighting 8 just makes you look baised as fuck and blindly defending this terrible business practice, horrible excuse for an upgrade. If win 8 is so similar to 7 why didn't they just do an overhaul with a service package for 7. It's just Microsoft noticing they made an new os way too early that's way too similar/different to the last very much stable version. You do this in literally every win 8 thread and every time I point out how ridiculous Microsoft is being with this bullshit.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43138682]Except 7 is much more recently came out but is losing half of its support in just a few years compared to xp. [/QUOTE] Dude, stop comparing support time to XP. It is in NO way comparable. It was the one major exception in the entirety of Windows history. The difference was that there was a [b]six[/b] year gap between XP and Vista. There was a three year gap between Vista-> 7 and then 7-> 8. Of course XP had mainstream support for longer because it WAS their flagship OS for longer.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43138682]Except 7 is much more recently came out but is losing half of its support in just a few years compared to xp. That's a massive deal and you going around white knitting 8 just makes you look baised as fuck and blindly defending this terrible business practice, horrible excuse for an upgrade. If win 8 is so similar to 7 why didn't they just do an overhaul with a service package for 7. It's just Microsoft noticing they made an new os way too early that's way too similar/different to the last very much stable version.[/QUOTE] Dude, I didn't even mention Windows 8. But if you insist on shoving your ignorance in my face, let's look at Windows 8's support scheme and when it was released: [img]http://i.imgur.com/ToqHhxq.png[/img] Assuming that you're able to do basic math, Windows 7 is getting a little over 5 years of mainstream support ([url=http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle]Which is the standard if you cared to read a bit of this page) (October 2009-January 2015). Windows 8 was released in October 2012, and will lose mainstream support in January 2018, which actually comes in a 8 days short of Windows 7, not counting days added by leap years. You will also find that Vista likewise had a bit over five years of mainstream support. And let me just quote Microsoft for good measure: [QUOTE]Mainstream support—Microsoft will offer mainstream support for a minimum of 5 years from the date of a product's general availability, or for 2 years after the successor product is released, whichever is longer. For example, if you buy a new version of Windows and five years later another version is released, you will still have two years of support left for the previous version. Extended support—Microsoft will offer extended support for either a minimum of 5 years from the date of a product's general availability, or for 2 years after the second successor product (two versions later) is released, whichever is longer.[/QUOTE] Now, XP is different. There was 6 years between XP and Vista, twice as long as between Vista and 7. Microsoft kinda had to extend support for Windows XP, since it had a whole 6 years on the market (due to the complete reboot of Vista development half-way through). Personally, I suspect the same thing will happen with Windows 7, since it has been so popular. And Microsoft's schedule has been about one mainstream OS per 3 years since basically forever: 1.0 - 1985 2.0 - 1987 2.1 - 1988 3.0 - 1990 3.1 - 1992 95 - 1995 98 -1995 ME - 2000 XP - 2001 Vista - 2007 7 - 2009 8 - 2012 Hope that cleared it up for you. [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] Okay, FP won't let me edit. There should've been a [ /url ] there. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Demache;43138875]Dude, stop comparing support time to XP. It is in NO way comparable. It was the one major exception in the entirety of Windows history. The difference was that there was a [b]six[/b] year gap between XP and Vista. There was a three year gap between Vista-> 7 and then 7-> 8. Of course XP had mainstream support for longer because it WAS their flagship OS for longer.[/QUOTE] Except 7 is easily becoming the new xp and 8 is barely an upgrade from 7 unless you have a hard on for boot times and dx11. I mean sure I would probably get 8 if I needed an new os, but upgrading from 7 is idiotic for the most part unless you got it when it was $10.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43139371]Except 7 is easily becoming the new xp and 8 is barely an upgrade from 7 unless you have a hard on for boot times and dx11. I mean sure I would probably get 8 if I needed an new os, but upgrading from 7 is idiotic for the most part unless you got it when it was $10.[/QUOTE] And support hasn't ended for 7 yet, so I don't know what your complaining about.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43139371]Except 7 is easily becoming the new xp and 8 is barely an upgrade from 7 unless you have a hard on for boot times and dx11. I mean sure I would probably get 8 if I needed an new os, but upgrading from 7 is idiotic for the most part unless you got it when it was $10.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, and if Windows 7 begins to look like the next XP Microsoft might continue to support it? But if we go by the current rules set by Microsoft, it's getting precisely the support it should, when we compare it to other releases of Windows.

[QUOTE=Blackbird88;43134422]They should focus on more important features like that new filesystem they're supposedly working on that doesn't need to be defragmented anymore.[/QUOTE] that was supposed to come with what ended up becoming Vista :pwn: MS has Valve Time for certain things.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;43139564]that was supposed to come with what ended up becoming Vista :pwn: MS has Valve Time for certain things.[/QUOTE] Why don't MS just make it easier to integrate third party filesystems into their kernel? Sure there's thinks like CBFS ([url]https://www.eldos.com/cbfs[/url]) , but that's kindof hacky way of doing it.

Frankly the only way I would consider switching to Windows 8 would be if I had a good touchscreen monitor for my PC, or if I were using a tablet PC.

[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;43141176]Frankly the only way I would consider switching to Windows 8 would be if I had a good touchscreen monitor for my PC, or if I were using a tablet PC.[/QUOTE] Because you would use metro for more than 5 minutes a day, max?

A guy in my house was anti windows 8 but he needed to reinstall his pc. I set him a challenge of using win 8 without anything like "start 8" for 2 hours. End result is that is likes the os and prefers it over 7. Anyone who is bashing on 8 without testing it for 2 hours without using a start menu replacement can't really complain

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43135028]I should probably rephrase that. Yes, it's Kerbal Space Program. My point was that perceived dips in framerate inside the game corresponded to dips in Fraps' FPS counter. I can tell the difference between it running at 35 or 55, which - if we assume Vsync is always in place when playing in windowed mode - should both be seen as 30FPS (as far as I know, at least). Enabling Vsync in KSP also makes a visible change, so personally I'd say I can't confirm that Vsync is in place when playing windowed games. But of course, there's a good deal of subjectivity included in this test, and as such I won't deny that there could be Vsync enabled anyway. Also, I don't really have time to do extensive testing right now, like at all, and KSP is probably not the best example anyway.[/QUOTE] When VSync is on, it should be at monitor refresh rate, aka 60-70 or 120 if you have 120hz monitor. 30 fps is double vsync of 60 which as far as I know almost nothing uses. Can someone test at what fps the desktop is running? Really curious. [editline]11th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lordofdafood;43144369] Anyone who is bashing on 8 without testing it for 2 hours without using a start menu replacement can't really complain[/QUOTE] I used it with start 8 for more than 2 hours. A lot of other metro UI like settings and sidebar thingy are something I am not fond of at all.

I kind of prefer 8 over 7 if not only for the lightning fast boot speed.

Considering I had to grab a new OS recently (new CPU/Mobo, and too lazy to deal with MS support for 6+ hours to try and reclaim my 7 key) I went with Win 8. I had to grab classic shell since it just isn't comfortable on a desktop. (On my tablet PC Metro UI is great) The difference between 7 and 8 for me was like night and day in terms of performance. (though I also DID just get new hardware, but the hardware was tailored for Win8 in the first place) Also very important tip for anyone with Windows 8: Any time you install new hardware, discharge your RAM. (Unplug PSU, wait for a few minutes, plug it back up and power on) Otherwise you'll be faced with unusable USB ports or a failed boot until you discharge. This is because Windows 8 never actually powers off your mobo, there is always enough power to keep the volitile memory in your RAM in tact as Windows 8 stores as much system drivers and services in memory as possible to ensure the fastest boot possible. It pretty much makes having an SSD a moot point if you have 12+ GB of RAM.

[QUOTE=Rofl my Waff;43123873]From using windows 8, the only functionality I can think of that the common person will get out of it is easier file searching.[/QUOTE] You know what? That file indexing service used over 500 GB on a 1 TB drive. And the laptop was just out of the box.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;43138682]Except 7 is much more recently came out but is losing half of its support in just a few years compared to xp. That's a massive deal and you going around white knighting 8 just makes you look baised as fuck and blindly defending this terrible business practice, horrible excuse for an upgrade. If win 8 is so similar to 7 why didn't they just do an overhaul with a service package for 7. It's just Microsoft noticing they made an new os way too early that's way too similar/different to the last very much stable version. You do this in literally every win 8 thread and every time I point out how ridiculous Microsoft is being with this bullshit.[/QUOTE] XP was a special case. It's an oddity if you look at the OSes that came before or after it. And the reason for this oddity was the insane malware explosion that essentially slowed down longhorn developement as many people were quickly transfered over to SP3 which was more or less unexpected.