×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 Still Being Sold On Up To 93% of British PCs

timothy posted about a year ago | from the arbitrage-opportunities dept.

Microsoft 295

nk497 writes "The vast majority of PCs sold by British PC makers are running Windows 7 — not Windows 8. PC Pro spoke to several PC builders, with some reporting as many as 93% of recently sold machines were on the older OS. One company initially sold its PCs with Windows 8, but feedback from users soon changed that. Customers quickly began to specify systems with Windows 7, those with Windows 8 'took delivery and wanted to change back to Windows 7' – a process the firm described as a 'nightmare.' Another firm found success by installing a 'start menu' tool on Windows 8 machines, and others said the switch would have gone smoother if Microsoft has offered a Windows 8 tutorial or better explained the new OS."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

295 comments

That's because (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944403)

Windows 8 UI is ghastly. With Classic Shell though, you'll never need to load metro again, and then its just a fast Win 7...

Re:That's because (5, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year ago | (#42944449)

Start8Menu was the best "free" alternative for me. Stardock's Start8 is the best trialware one that I saw.

I tried Classic Shell but it aims to emulate the classic Windows 2000 and earlier Start Menu. I much prefer the more modern Vista/7 Start Menu, which my top two choices provide.

Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (1, Redundant)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#42944671)

Win XP was a win

Win Vista was a flop

Win 7 was a win

Win 8 is a flop

Wonder how Win 9 will fare ...

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about a year ago | (#42944929)

You mean Windows Blue [theverge.com] (yeah I'm kinda thinkin they shoulda stayed away from anything associated with BSOD) the new subscription based OS?

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (5, Insightful)

jonbryce (703250) | about a year ago | (#42944937)

Windows 2000 was also a win.

The ideas behind Windows Vista were sound, they were just badly implemented until about SP2. Windows 7 was Vista done properly.

The difference with Windows 8 is that the whole idea of having a single interface for both tablets and desktops was wrong. It's not that there are some annoying bugs that need to be fixed, the whole specification of it is flawed. For Windows 9, Microsoft will need to either go back to the drawing board, or alternatively release a Windows 7.1 that brings any new under-the-hood stuff to the Windows 7 UI.

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (1)

Sun (104778) | about a year ago | (#42945081)

Windows 2000 was also a win.

As were Windows 98, Windows 95 and Windows 3.1. Then again, Windows ME was such a big flop, that you really can't count it as just one flop.

The pre-Windows 3 versions were also total flops. Windows 3 was not a flop, but I'm not sure it was a hit, either.

Shachar

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (3, Interesting)

Adriax (746043) | about a year ago | (#42945119)

The pattern:

95- Crap
NT- Good
98- Crap
98 SE- Good enough
ME- Crap
2000- Good
XP at launch- Crap
XP after a near complete rewrite through service packs- Good
Vista- Crap
7- Good
8- Crap

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (4, Insightful)

Custard Horse (1527495) | about a year ago | (#42945123)

There is no harm in trying to look the same but the desktop overlooks the fact that hardly anybody has a touch screen monitor and not many people are likely to get one whilst they sit vertically on the desk.

It makes sense in a tablet or phone format but if you have a separate keyboard you may as well have a separate mouse and this makes the whole touch interface redundant.

Win 7 was, and is, great. It does what it's supposed to with some flaws but flaws that are easy to live with.

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#42945143)

Windows 2000 was also a win.

In terms of quality at release, Windows 2000 is unmatched by any other version of windows save perhaps 3.51. All the problems with Windows 8 seem to lie in the interface, which differentiates it from other hated versions of Windows. It's a shame Microsoft can't admit failure in a timely fashion.

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (3, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#42944941)

If MSFT keeps screwing with their licensing terms, ala Office 2013 for us folks who aren't connected all the time, I won't be buying it so no worries.

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945025)

I sware to God if one more person brings up the "Windows versions through the ages" argument again I'm going to go berserk! But some people like point out that this trend actually goes all the way back to Win 3.11. A controversial stance considering that between 3.11 and XP Windows was developed in two branches - 9x and NT. But if you look at the release dates for consumer versions alone and treat 98 SE as a separate release it adds up quite nicely.

Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about a year ago | (#42945115)

"I hate when people bring this up! But, it's an interesting topic, because blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
...blah blah blah blah blah... "
Perhaps I'm missing the irony of your post...

Re:That's because (4, Informative)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#42944927)

Classic Shell can emulate later versions, just check the options. I have noticed that when you search for something and don't find it or select the wrong thing it'll lock up Explorer though. Oh well, just another WER submission on Explorer. Not half as bad as not being able to delete Windows 8 store purchases from your history.

Re:That's because (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year ago | (#42945087)

Have a look again, [classicshell.net] because it's there - as an option.

I'd pick Win7 over Win8 any time. Hopefully Win9 will bring back much of Win7, including an upgrade/migration path from Win7 (are you listening, MS?).

Re:That's because (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945207)

Considering you can Upgrade to Win8 from WinXP, I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to upgrade to the next version of Windows from Win7.

I upgraded to Win8. I use ClassicShell and I love how I get to customize every little detail with it. I've had no real problems with Win8 to speak of simply because I did my homework on what I would need to get the desktop experience I wanted 'before' doing the upgrade.

Re:That's because (5, Insightful)

linebackn (131821) | about a year ago | (#42945375)

But this raises the question why should millions of customers have go to the trouble of installing a separate program just to get a sane UI. And how many actually will, or can.

What this story tells me is that Microsoft didn't threaten to break enough legs in the British PC sales market.

Nobody here in the US wants Windows 8, and the manufacturers know it. They just sell it to make their Microsoft monkey overlords happy. Customers be damned.

Re:That's because (1, Troll)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#42944681)

That's not enough, there's Metro poking its ugly head out in many places beyond the start menu.

Re:That's because (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944903)

I'm probably alone here, but I prefer the start screen over a start menu. If I'm using the mouse I find it easier to hit a large tile than a small row of text. And if I'm using the keyboard I press Win-key and type just like in previous versions.
The Win+x menu is also nice, although I'm sure there's a way to get that functionality on Win 7 as well.

I haven't found any useful Metro programs though so I can't comment on their (dis)usability on the desktop.

Re:That's because (4, Insightful)

linebackn (131821) | about a year ago | (#42945315)

And if I'm using the keyboard I press Win-key and type just like in previous versions.
The Win+x menu is also nice, although I'm sure there's a way to get that functionality on Win 7 as well.

Memorizing keyboard shortcuts? how 1970s. Do you also like to use WordPerfect for DOS? I bet you are so good you don't even need the PC keyboard overlays.

And this is a bad thing? (0)

Dave Whiteside (2055370) | about a year ago | (#42944425)

Win8 is just horrible win 7 is at least what vista should of been ....
XP is still tolerable but gets it support removed this year

Re:And this is a bad thing? (2)

jawtheshark (198669) | about a year ago | (#42944489)

Next year. April 2014.

Re:And this is a bad thing? (2)

chilvence (1210312) | about a year ago | (#42944765)

Tolerable? There is barely any practical difference between winxp and win8 to me, apart from the amount of money that was theoretically supposed to have left my wallet in between them in order to support the development of further versions of windows that I didn't need or ask for. Necessity being the mother of invention after all. The only way I even notice they are still making them is the artificial barriers they include in every new version in order to make people who don't slavishly fawn over them suffer. I have no idea how they manage to make so much noise and yet achieve so little.

Re:And this is a bad thing? (4, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#42944741)

Win8 is just horrible win 7 is at least what vista should of been ..

That's because W7 is the service pack for Vista. Also, the phrase is, "should have been".

XP is still tolerable but gets it support removed this year

XP is far superior in numerous ways to W7. What used to take seconds is now a long, drawn out process of burrowing deep into menus or worse, having to go someplace else to make a change to where you are currently at. Add in that setting a folder view is not consistent across drives, you can't see every program installed through the butchered Start menu or if you mistype a network path through the Search box you can't immediately retype but have to wait for the timeout to occur, and W7 is a classic example of why you never let programmers design your applications.

Re:And this is a bad thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945265)

XP/SP2 is great but SP3 added so many extra's that it's worse then Vista plus there's the fact that the XP-64 was shit. It was and is buggier then hell, lacks drivers for common hardware as no one was offering them - high end was decently supported but forget about most workstations and printers! Drivers simply weren't there even for most corporate printers.

Yes I do know what I'm talking about as I purchased a copy through the school. Tried it but it simply wasn't stable enough to be worth the agravation of BSOD's and other crashes. Hell the specs were a C2D with 4GB of ram so it should have ran quite well - the 32bit version sure as hell did.

Many think Vista was a failure and from an end-user stand point it may have been but from the standpoint of MS it did exactly what they wanted. Forced the many companies to follow the recomended best practices and not have their apps require admin privs when they don't need em. Remember how much trouble Nvidia had with stable drivers? And they even had help from MS to get them but it still took them over a year to get things right. How about the fact that HP didn't even support Vista due to the requirement of both 32 and 64 bit drivers until SP1. Annoyed the hell out of me that my printer (purchased after Vista was released) wasn't supported yet. That was a year after Vista. Saw that with a lot of hardware.

Re:And this is a bad thing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944853)

should have been

Re:And this is a bad thing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944873)

should of?

You actually say "should've", short for "should have". "should of" makes you look like a divvy.

Re:And this is a bad thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945521)

Give it a rest Grammer Nazis you understood what the poster said, do we really need three or four posts correcting his speech.

Re:And this is a bad thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945045)

I'm still on XP right now. Have no reason to ever switch to 7 or 8.
Any games that might come out in the near future will almost certainly target multiple OSes as more guides have become common for the games I care for.
The very few larger games that do will still run on XP in most cases.
The ones that don't? Oh well. Their loss since XP is still quite big now despite 7 and 8. (bigger than Apple and Linux installs for crying out loud!)
It isn't hard to support an older OS, there are a brazillion libraries out there that do it for you. They never change, the OS never changes, so it should never be a problem to keep it there. The ones that do keep the OS will likely be the smarter types or poorer types. One is a market you care for, the other you likely don't
So the minimum amount of effort in adding the backwards compatibility libraries is acceptable. In the cases where there might be problems, >70% of the times they will be capable of fixing it, either by their own knowledge or by Googling.

Windows 9, however, is likely something I would upgrade to if MS stick to the usual every other windows is crap method.
But still not till SP1, maybe even SP2.
And that is if Linux doesn't become more popular with game devs. If it does, I'm not even going near Windows again. Even for a perfect dream game.

I'm still happily making tools on XP right now, and I'm still making websites without care for anything IE since it is generally not crappy any more and I don't use much in terms of bleeding edge stuff, or even last version stuff. (CSS2, HTML4, JS...whatever the hell version we are just on)
And I have fallbacks for most features that I care about, some custom, some that have been tested very well by the community, so that (just like the gamedevs above) is all I care for supporting. In the case of a website, however, it will fail gracefully (given a good developer). In the case of nearly any game, it has 50 types of heart attack in 5 seconds. It is worse when error logs don't even get generated. That is just poor. (coughLoLdeveloperscough.)

That is all I care about, pretty much.

This thing is also locked behind security out the ass, and I have never had a virus in my entire time being on the internet since 1994~.
And I also like China, so don't hack me, kay bros? Sweet.

Re:And this is a bad thing? (2)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about a year ago | (#42945271)

So what is XP looses support ? We have 3 XP machines, they havent received updates in months, maybe years and still work 24/7. I would not be surprised to have them until 2015 or later, given no major hardware failure.

Vista 2 (4, Funny)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year ago | (#42944427)

The new name for Windows 8: Vista Part 2.

Re:Vista 2 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944731)

Vista Part 2 would be much less of a headache than Windows 8. There is no historical equivalent to the massive changes made to Windows 8. Nor has there been any desire on Microsoft's part to show that the desktop still exists. Only dancing Metro users are shown in the less than useless TV commercials.

Re:Vista 2 (2)

Kurast (1662819) | about a year ago | (#42945061)

The transition to Windows 95 from Windows 3.1 was huge, but they did a better job explaining the differences. I remember people wanted to change, the felt the newer version was better.

Re:Vista 2 (0)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year ago | (#42945097)

It really is like 'every other generation of MS OS sucks'.

Win 8 - disaster, major suckfest.
Win 7 - pretty damn good.
Win Vista - disaster, major suckfest
Win XP - great, eventually
Win 2k - ? I don't know, was this ok?
WinME - ahahahahaa
Win98 - really quite good
Win95 - first generation, kind of a struggle, not nearly as good as OS/2
Win 3.0/3.1 - great for its time
Win exec - offered pretty nearly nothing that other utilities/shells couldn't do better

Re:Vista 2 (1)

dc29A (636871) | about a year ago | (#42945289)

Win95 - first generation, kind of a struggle, not nearly as good as OS/2

Not nearly as good? That's like saying that your BBQ in your backyard is nearly as hot as the Sun. Win95 was a program launcher on MS-Dos versus OS/2 was a full fledged 32 bit protected mode operating system that ran many enterprise critical applications, like ATM machines.

Re:Vista 2 (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#42945461)

Even GEM was better than Windows Exec. However it was rubbish if you had a EGA (or even Hercules) graphics card. I knocked up a basic replacement in Turbo Pascal simply because I was fed up with it. Could probably have made tons if Microsoft hadn't come along with Win 3 at about the same time...

Re:Vista 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945467)

Windows 8: The Return of the Bob.

White People (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944435)

White people hate change.

Re:White People (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944987)

and black people hate change, and yellow people hate change, and red people hate change, and brown people hate change...

Re:White People (2)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#42945259)

and black people hate change, and yellow people hate change, and red people hate change, and brown people hate change...

But those lousy, change-lovin' purple people! They gotta go man!

Call out the purple people eaters!

I'm not switching. (5, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about a year ago | (#42944447)

There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.

First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.

Second, I don't trust any new product until it has been on the market for 18 months in order to get the bugs out. Developers know why, and the reason isn't developers (generally).

Finally, I distrust trends. They blow through, take your money, and blow out the other door. I trust reliability and paradigms that are time-tested.

As a lack of positive reason, I'm not sure what Windows 8 offers that Windows 7 does not. There are improvements; they look really neat. I'd like to play with them, on some computer I'm not using for work when I have lots of spare time to play around with it.

The computer is a tool for me. I use it to achieve other ends. Thus I'm not that fascinated with the OS and want it to "just work." Windows 7 does that, or an adequate job of it at least, on a wide variety of hardware.

Re:I'm not switching. (3, Informative)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year ago | (#42944609)

And then off course there is the nightmare of "secure" boot. I have seen professionals burn a few days over installing an OS that, according to the manufacturer, should be no problem. And this despite the manufacturer's support department tried its best. So if you order a new machine, order it with win7 pre-installed.

Re:I'm not switching. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944651)

I have the same theory with security updates, I only update 18 months after the patch is released. From my experience, things are really insecure out there, I can't imagine how bad it is for your people who have up to date security patches.

Re:I'm not switching. (3, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#42944713)

There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.

First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.

Yep. Win7 is the OS that made me switch my Deskop back from Linux. (That and the fact that ordering my new PC without Win7 wouldn't have been any cheaper thanks to the ridiciously low OEM prices)

Re:I'm not switching. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945363)

If you sell 90+% of your licenses at the low OEM price, and still make a hefty profit, it is not the OEM price which is ridiculously.

Re:I'm not switching. (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#42945007)

First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.

Uh, I'd submit that Windows 7 doesn't resemble anything like Window 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups other than having a window and an X button to close it.
I'd also say that Windows XP is deficient in a lot of ways, but I also agree that most of the features and functionality are well baked. This of course happened after Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 all were evolutionary so XP didn't miraculously have all of this built in. I purposefully forgot to mention Windows ME because, man that sucked as an O/S.

Second, I don't trust any new product until it has been on the market for 18 months in order to get the bugs out. Developers know why, and the reason isn't developers (generally).

Agreed, but if you're in the field of IT you owe it to yourself to try new things. If you don't like it, or there are problems report them. It's like that first time my mother gave me Okra at dinner. Blech.. I tried it once, never again! Never!

Finally, I distrust trends. They blow through, take your money, and blow out the other door.

No, that's Apple or the $10 hooker down on the corner.

The computer is a tool for me. I use it to achieve other ends. Thus I'm not that fascinated with the OS and want it to "just work." Windows 7 does that, or an adequate job of it at least, on a wide variety of hardware.

All well and valid points however with virtualization techniques, you should be able to spin up a desk top environment in no time. Change isn't always accepted and as my doctor says "Engineers are all OCD." So, we're all nervous when somebody wants to change things. I have a mixed bag of emotions to Windows 8. I've upgraded all of my systems. In general, it's faster but in other ways, it takes getting used to. I have one system, upgraded from Windows 7 that has 8 apps that won't run. They run everywhere else on my Windows 8 system, but not on this system. MSFT would like me to "refresh" my machine to fix them, that in and of itself is the root of why MSFT will fail, they forget as you're pointing out that people have comfort in stability and fixing the problems, not just resetting your world.

XP was rubbish until SP2 or 3. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945173)

But the touted benefit (smaller and faster than NT!) was nerfed by each SP. Indeed it seems the only reason why it was smaller and faster at RTM was because they left so much necessary cruft out.

Re:I'm not switching. (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year ago | (#42945189)

Uh, I'd submit that Windows 7 doesn't resemble anything like Window 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups other than having a window and an X button to close it.

Do you really need that much more? Do you think most users see much more than that, leaving aside the fact that the colors have changed (which normal users spot very easily indeed by comparison with techies).

Re:I'm not switching. (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#42945405)

So by that token DOS 6.22 was the shiznit? We should have packed up on things like Linux, Windows NT and the iterations of other operating systems? I mean I can't fathom an IPAD or any Android device running DOS 6.22 and running halfway reliably at all. I still have a 6.22 running in VirtualBox, I'm wondering if I can run Excel on that or maybe Oracle 12?

Re:I'm not switching. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945039)

People are so funny. In 5 years they will be saying I'm not switching to [whatever] because Win8 is blah, blah. They said the same thing switching from XP to Win7.

The fact is, Windows 2000 was the true last version of Windows anyone needed. It has been all fluff since then. Unfortunately it's not supported so you're forced to upgrade to at least XP to run recent software due to the API's not being available.

Up to? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944451)

Up to?

So, 0% of British PCs may be sold with Windows 7 on them?

That terminology bugs me.

Re:Up to? (2)

MarioMax (907837) | about a year ago | (#42944721)

Up to?

So, 0% of British PCs may be sold with Windows 7 on them?

That terminology bugs me.

From TFA:

Redford's Computer Planet isn't the only British firm struggling with the launch of Windows 8. One company told us that of the 1,459 machines it's sold so far in 2013, only 7% have left the factory with Windows 8 installed. A spokesman said that "Windows 7 fulfils the requirements" of its customers, and that driver issues and the unfamiliarity of the new OS was putting people off.

Win 8 and Vista = FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944457)

Heck we all know it was Beta from the gate.

No problem, it was worth a shot to see how far to take a touchscreen UI and it's not far.

Mac fans are disgusted with OS X10.7 and 10.8 too, losing Mac users left and right over it. (Mac sales down 16% verses PC's 9% year over year)

As a life long Mac user, I love Windows 7 now, especially since it's supported until 2020, whereas OS X versions only get support for a few years at best.

Good job there Microsoft, about time. Now onto Win 9...

I predict that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944473)

...Windows 8 is the new Windows Vista, and Windows 7 is the new Windows XP. Windows 7 will be run on the majority of machines untill Microsoft comes out with something better which may be sooner now that they are planning on switching to a 1 year development cycle.

Would be the same in the US (2)

jjsimp (2245386) | about a year ago | (#42944509)

if US manufacturers offered Windows 7. Unfortunately, no Windows 7 downgrade is offered with most PC manufacturers in the US. So, most people (average consumer) are relegated to using 8 as it is, using Start 8 or other similiar apps, or finding someone that knows how to install an OS on a computer.

Re:Would be the same in the US (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944655)

My brother (in the US) just ordered a PC from a manufacturer's website (discontinued model, inventory clearance, actually a decent deal).

Windows 8 was the default. Windows 7 was a $50 option (over 10% of the total price). He paid the $50.

Microsoft, are you listening? (Yeah, I didn't think so...)

Re:Would be the same in the US (3, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#42944957)

Of course Microsoft is listening.

They know that they can make regular people buy 2 OS' for each laptop. What else are lemmings to do? Install Linux? (Maybe in 2015 after Linux gaming takes off.)

It's like corporations buying PCs with OEM windows installed and then get wiped to install their Corporate image using another license. So each PC uses 2 licenses: OEM (non-transferable) and Corporate.

It's win-win times 2 for Microsoft. They can abuse their customers and still roll in it. They have a monopoly.

Re:Would be the same in the US (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year ago | (#42945233)

Walk over to the company's business line website. Plenty of new machines there with Windows 7 preloaded. Windows 8 Pro also has downgrade rights, just don't expect driver support from the vendor. Not a big deal as almost all the hardware in today's machines still had Windows 7 support, although I wonder if those fancy touch screens will work.

Re:Would be the same in the US (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#42945517)

Unfortunately, no Windows 7 upgrade is offered with most PC manufacturers in the US.

Fixed that for you.

Add some perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944545)

What happened when Microsoft released Windows XP? How long it took for British PCs to have it by default?

People will tell each other (1, Informative)

trifish (826353) | about a year ago | (#42944585)

And the outcome will be pow (Vista_type_disaster, 2).

Even an idiot would know that. This was hopefully the last desperate attempt by Microsoft to "leverage" their desktop monopoly to gain some mobile market share.

Don't get me started on why it's called Windows when I see all window-less full-screen apps from MS now on desktop (like the native MS PDF viewer). Just WTF, man. WTF.

Re:People will tell each other (2)

medcalf (68293) | about a year ago | (#42944663)

No doubt. I think MS would have been better off had they called their mobile OS "Metro" and left Windows for their desktop OS. Trying to blend the two is a disaster waiting to happen. Really, that's not even true, it is a repeat of the same disaster that has been happening to MS for a decade as they've tried to establish Windows on tablets and mobile phones, only now going in the other direction. Sane people create an OS that is suitable for the conditions in which it is to be used. MS creates an OS and decrees it is suitable for use in any conditions. At one point, they had the power to make that (mostly) stick. They no longer do.

Change the name (1)

mrprogrammerman (2736973) | about a year ago | (#42944601)

Microsoft needs to change Windows 8's name to Windows Mojave. People tended to like Windows Mojave even though they didn't like Vista which was the same thing.

Mojave was already used (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#42945435)

Mojave was already used for Windows Vista SP1. People tried Windows Vista after the initial hardware compatibility problems and other technical glitches in Windows Vista RTM were fixed, and by that time, it had become a perfectly acceptable Windows OS. There wasn't nearly as much UI change between Windows XP and Windows Vista as there was between Windows XP and Windows 8.

sorry windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944621)

'but i feel like i'm just too close to love you...'

besides i'm happier with you better looking sister wondows 7

This is not True (0, Redundant)

Toreo asesino (951231) | about a year ago | (#42944629)

Some places are still offloading old inventory but the vast majority of high-street retailers for example are selling all Win8. This is another Slashdot attempt at convincing everyone Win8 is terrible and Microsoft are doomed - it's been the same tired narrative for as long as I can remember, the only variables are the version-numbers of [product]. Flame away, my crimes of going against the group-think will not go unpunished I'm sure.

Re:This is not True (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944763)

Wrong! I just worked with a London customer who did a complete office machine replacement, and they *insisted* on Windows 7 for compatibility and ease of use, and to avoid a massive retraining task for their staff. And their kids' schools are doing the same thing.

Re:This is not True (1)

kenh (9056) | about a year ago | (#42944841)

Was this deployment large enough to qualify for Software Assurance with it's Win7 downgrade option?

I assume the school has Education Assurance, which also allows for Win7 downgrade.

Re:This is not True (3, Interesting)

mario64 (573112) | about a year ago | (#42944969)

The article is about PC builders who are installing Win7 at the customers request, not high-street retailers where customers are not given a choice. This is not Slashdot trying to convince everyone Win8 is terrible, it's PC buyers who are rejecting it when given the option.

Re:This is not True (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945149)

True. Because everyone I know is just queueing up to buy Windows Metro and not going 'WTF? I mean, WTF were Microsoft thinking?' the moment they see it.

7 still better then 8 (2, Funny)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#42944633)

Honestly, Windows 8 is a train wreck. Microsoft for some reason thinks that by completely redesigning the UI to a bulky, hard to use, non fluid system, that they would gain customers. They should of done a massive back end upgrade to 7 and called it 8 rather then put make up on a pig and call it a prom date.

Windows 8 nightmare (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944639)

I bought my mother an Asus "Ultrabook" for christmas as her old laptop had finally given out. It had a hard drive failure last week, and rather than send it in I decided to swap out the drive myself.

Never have I had more trouble attempting to reinstall something like I did with Windows 8. Previously, you could just get a windows ISO, punch in the OEM serial from the sticker on the case, and you'd be set. Now, everything is certificate based, and will only work with a specific OEM copy of Windows made for that machine, and NOTHING else. On top of this, ASUS wants $50 for the disc to reinstall windows.

This OS was a giant step towards appliance computing for Microsoft. If the next version is like this or worse, I'll deal with support issues for my family on Linux instead.

Re:Windows 8 nightmare (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#42944701)

so why not spend the $120 and get a win 7 download?

Re:Windows 8 nightmare (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944839)

I should have to pay twice for Windows? No thanks.

Captcha: Annoyed.

Re:Windows 8 nightmare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945047)

Previously, you could just get a windows ISO, punch in the OEM serial from the sticker on the case, and you'd be set.
 
I can't speak for anyone else but my experience is that HP OEM license on XP would only work with the HP OEM disks.

Re:Windows 8 nightmare (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#42945131)

Actually, this only ever worked on Windows 7, and I'm sad to see it go. With Windows XP, you had keys that only worked on disks you had to acquire from the OEM, but those usually weren't even included with the PC. With Windows 7, if you could get your hands on a retail Windows 7 disc, it didn't matter if you had bought a computer from HP, Dell, Acer, or whoever, the same key would always work. I wasn't aware they had gotten rid of this feature in Windows 8, but that gives me another reason not to like it.

Re:Windows 8 nightmare (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | about a year ago | (#42945305)

You should be able to manually install the certificate for Windows 8 OEM copies. Windows 8 brought out a very complicated OEM pre-activation system since the system used for Vista/7 was easily reverse engineered and used to avoid product activation.

Windows 8 (2)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year ago | (#42944643)

For the whole month i actually bothered to try it, it felt like my computer skills where impeded by a HUGE brain tumor which hindered and rendered painful each and every action. And someone still wonders why sane people hate it?

Apple influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944727)

For the whole month i actually bothered to try it, it felt like my computer skills where impeded by a HUGE brain tumor which hindered and rendered painful each and every action.

So it was like using a Mac then?

Wish Windows 7 price would go down (1)

Kinwolf (945345) | about a year ago | (#42944715)

I must say I got 2 Windows 8 licence because of the 38$ update price, but if Microsoft had offered Windows 7 licence for 50$ at the same time, I'd have bought 5 licences of it instead for future mahines. I'm having a real hard time liking the Metro interface.

New user experience (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about a year ago | (#42944759)

Having recently taken the plunge, the new user experience can be summarised as "swipe a bit, here's some corners, now don't drown". I really like the OS now I've had some practice, in both its content-browsing Metro guise and as an updated version of Windows 7 but they've made no effort to bridge the gap between the two in such a way that a confident use of one can get to grips with the other. It takes some real lateral thinking to see what the mouse or touchpad equivalent of a touchscreen gesture is.

It doesn't help that touchpad gesture support is uniformly terrible. A look at regedit suggests that scrolling support is mostly hacked in on a per-app basis.

I'll use Windows 7 until I can't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944761)

Having used Windows since Windows has existed, I only moved from XP because drivers were not available for new hardware.

I'll switch from Windows 7 for the same reason.

Change for the sake of change is a waste of energy.

Oh, and yes, I have paid DELL $100 more for the last three computers I've ordered, just to get Windows 7 instead of buying the cheaper, faster, and better Windows 8 computers.

Stable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944797)

Windows 7 is way better than Windows 8

Ah, statistics (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#42944799)

Windows 7 Still Being Sold On Up To 93% of British PCs

Good old "up to" - how many times have those two little words helped someone weasel out of a corner, or pull in punters from off the street.

PC Pro spoke to several PC builders, with some reporting as many as 93% of recently sold machines were on the older OS

"Some" is most likely journo-speak for "one." And it's probably one that caters to the hardened geek/gamer crowd, both of whom are going to be avoiding 8 for a while yet.

Re:Ah, statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42944985)

You know it's weird but I think I've read this exact comment up to a hundred times before. Deja vu!

Re:Ah, statistics (1)

Inda (580031) | about a year ago | (#42945237)

I call bullshit too.

I'm in the market for a small footprint PC and I really can't be bothered to build yet another one, so I've been hunting around.

Some "business" PCs still come with W7, but they're too big and powerful for what I need. All the major brick and mortar electric retailers in the UK (Tesco, Asda, PC World, Curries, John Lewis, etc, etc) are selling nothing but W8 and it's pissing me off. Big W8 posters on the doors. Salesmen who give me weird looks when I ask about W7. It's all bollocks.

I just want to look at the tower size and inspect the ports on the back, but it's going to be a blind internet purchase, I just know it. Bah.

Re:Ah, statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945455)

Reading the article makes it a bit more clear.
Yes, the 'some' does mean one. In fact, the builders mentioned in the article mention figures between 65% and 93% of Windows7.

It's nothing but the hipster vote (1)

BumpyCarrot (775949) | about a year ago | (#42944907)

This happens pretty much every update cycle. The new OS is still terrible and unfamiliar and incompatible, and the old OS still has good availability. The only difference this time is that somebody wrote an article about.

For the record: I'm an OSX, Android and 360 user. I don't particularly LIKE MS, but this is not the world-shaking revelation that the article and the rest of the comments are going to make it out to be.

Re:It's nothing but the hipster vote (1)

MarioMax (907837) | about a year ago | (#42945031)

This happens pretty much every update cycle. The new OS is still terrible and unfamiliar and incompatible, and the old OS still has good availability. The only difference this time is that somebody wrote an article about.

Strange, I don't recall this being the case with Windows XP and Windows 7.

Windows XP built on the NT4 kernel that Windows 2000 solidified, and added crucial Win9x software compatibility. It effectively replaced both Win9x and Win2k in one fell swoop.

While Windows Vista was widely panned compared to Windows XP (and for good reason), it was a technically better OS than XP; it just couldn't overcome the flaws. Windows 7 fixed everything that was wrong with Windows Vista, and rapidly displaced Windows Vista sales. 7 is also a better product than XP, though the system requirements are substantially higher. Most consumers that stubbornly held onto XP were because they didn't want to do a hardware upgrade, even though 7 is a much better OS.

Back at College (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42945057)

And they are still using Windows XP with Firefox 7.0.1!

My face when.
Windows 7 yes I understand, but XP? And I did a HNC computing course with them! Now I know why computer nerds are hated. I have gone back to become a Brick layer and Plumber, and they can stuff their ethernet cables up my pipes! I hope the conservative party are proud of themselves!

People buy more of a product they like ? (1)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about a year ago | (#42945219)

Ive seen here in the US how new pc sales have fallen faster than in a long time but look at the Best Buy and Office Max ads and you have no choice, everything is Win 8. People don't want Win 8, so they don't buy a new computer. At my work, for desktop's we have 5 Win 7's and 3 XP's. All of them working great, the XP's lack the hardware to goto Win 7 and since they serve their purpose just fine they are likely to be in use for several more years. Even with out security updates, with AVG free & Firefox with Ad Block Plus on them and we are good. The Win 7's computers we have will likely remain Win 7 for their entirety, no reason spend money to get something you dont like. Unless Win 9 is better, but I doubt it. Microsoft has thrown away their desktop OS sales, in hopes of getting people to buy a Windows phone & tablet since they look like a Win 8 PC. It wont be much longer before Google or someone else steps in swipes the desktop OS away from MS.

Julie Larson-Green (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#42945373)

Hey Microsoft.

She's not doing you any favors here.

First, that hot mess that is the Office Ribbon.

Now the flaming, shit-covered mess of Metro.

How many more fucked-up interface choices are going to come on her watch? Costing you customers each and every time.

You guys currently have the underpinnings of a decent OS.

But your UI choices lately have people wondering if you got a bad batch of crack.

Fuck XBox, Fuck Touchscreens Everyplace. Give the user back their productive UI, keyboard shortcuts and all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...