Creating the Windows 8 user experience

I see this as nothing less than a massive misstep by Microsoft. Trying to create a primary OS based on mobile devices is a great way to give market share to the companies that already own those spaces while giving up the one that you own. Microsoft even says that "some people" still need desktop PC's, then names 'video editors, financial analysts, scientists, gamers, PC enthusiasts…'...so everyone who needs to actually do work on a PC.<p>I get it - Microsoft thinks that they want the big market, and that the big market is content consumers. But 50% of Microsoft's revenue comes from Microsoft Office - and that hasn't changed. Furthermore, Google and Apple already own the market on smart phone OSs and nothing Microsoft has done in the past has shown that they have any ability to crack into that market.<p>So effectively, Microsoft wants to create an OS that abandons their core revenue base while going after one that has rejected them repeatedly.<p>At best, it's Windows ME. At worst, it's the rise of Linux and Apple as the future of the desktop.

The fact is almost every HP, Acer, Dell and Toshiba will come with it pre-installed. There is basically no way it will be labeled a failure, even if nobody uses it.<p>Remember Windows Vista was considered a great success (<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2130290,00.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2130290,00.asp</a>).<p>When you buy a generic x86 computer (any non-Apple x86, that is) you have 3 choices of OS: you can leave whatever came on the machine (most likely Windows), you can install a previous version of Windows you already had floating around or you can install any of the fine *nix-based OSs that will run on it. Most people opt for #1, some resent change (or just dislike what came with the machine) and opt for #2 and a tiny minority goes with #3 (me included).<p>That means I am part of Vista's and 7's success stories - I bought computers with them installed and never bothered to return the licenses, although I never used either. From a sales perspective, I'm a happy Windows user.

<i>Where Microsoft used to primarily focus on reducing memory consumption, now we are also laser-focused on improving battery life while still delivering a fast and fluid user experience.</i><p>If Microsoft's previos focus on reducing memory consumption produced prior versions of windows, their new focus on increasing battery life should produce Windows 8 tablets that last a half an hour, tops.<p>While I'm at it, in general, fuck Windows 8. The UI may be nice, but Microsoft is taking such a massive power dump on developers and users alike with this turkey that they have a tough road ahead of them if they want to even get within spitting distance of the iPad in terms of mindshare.

Windows 95 Media Player could do more than play wav files, you could certainly watch videos.<p>Also there was a lot of evolution between Windows 95 and XP that gets glossed over, as the internet became more important. XP, with some minor tweaks, could behave like a stabler version of 95/98 (I must admit that I stripped much of the chrome away for a few months, till I got more comfortable with the slightly different look and feel of the menus and task bar).<p>The also ignore one significant trend-following dead-end from the 95/98 era: Active Desktop- Vista wasn't the first time they headed up a blind UX alley.<p>Even with Windows 7, I think they overstate the differences with its predecessors: the Start Menu remains as important as ever.

I think that people here are too pessimistic in general about Windows 8.<p>Look at the current trends in computing. They're using those trends to influence this release. And I think that a lot of the design decisions (especially ones like "content over chrome" are really damn good).<p>It's going to be super interesting to see how this thing is received by non-techy people come the holiday season.