Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows HP Microsoft Operating Systems Upgrades

HP Brings Back Windows 7 'By Popular Demand' As Buyers Shun Windows 8 513

Posted by timothy
from the classic-coke-stockholm-syndrome dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Gregg Keizer reports at Computerworld that Hewlett-Packard has stuck their finger in Microsoft's eye by launching a new promotion that discounts several consumer PCs by $150 when equipped with Windows 7, saying the four-year-old OS is 'back by popular demand.' 'The reality is that there are a lot of people who still want Windows 7,' says Bob O'Donnel. 'This is a twist, though, and may appeal to those who said, "I do want a new PC, but I thought I couldn't get Windows 7."' The promotion reminded O'Donnell and others of the dark days of Windows Vista, when customers avoided Windows 7's predecessor and instead clamored for the older Windows XP on their new PCs. Then, customers who had heard mostly negative comments about Vista from friends, family and the media, decided they would rather work with the devil they knew rather than the new one they did not. 'It's not a perfect comparison,' says O'Donnell, of equating Windows 8 with Vista, 'but the perception of Windows 8 is negative. I said early on that Windows 8 could clearly be Vista Version 2, and that seems to have happened.' HP has decided that the popularity of Windows 7 is its best chance of encouraging more people to buy new computers in a declining market and is not the first time that HP has spoken out against Microsoft. 'Look at the business model difference between Intel and ARM. Look at the operating systems. In today's world, other than Microsoft there's no one else who charges for an operating system,' said HP executive Sridhar Solur in December, adding that that the next generation of computers could very well not be dominated by Microsoft." Also at SlashCloud.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP Brings Back Windows 7 'By Popular Demand' As Buyers Shun Windows 8

Comments Filter:
  • by Sockatume (732728) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:49AM (#46023901)

    1) Relabel Windows 7 boxes "Windows 8 Desktop Edition"
    2) Raise prices
    3) Profit

    • by Ynot_82 (1023749) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:52AM (#46023921)

      1) Relabel Windows 7 boxes "Windows 9"

      Fixed that for you

      • by Wycliffe (116160) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:23AM (#46024207) Homepage

        1) Relabel Windows 7 boxes "Windows 9"

        Fixed that for you

        You joke but that's pretty much how it is:

        Windows 98 -- Worked
        windows ME --Sucked
        Windows XP -- Decent
        Windows Vista -- Sucked
        Windows 7 -- Functional Again
        Windows 8 -- Sucks Again

        It seems to take them one generation to flush the problems out of each new release so windows 8 is basically "windows 9 beta"

        • by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:34AM (#46024347)

          win 8 = win 9 beta: sort of like Vista was win 7 rushed edition.

          I actually don't mind 8.1 with desktop enabled as the login. I installed classic shell and haven't seen the start menu (or needed to) since. The new task manager is nice sort of a middle ground between process explorer and the classic task manager. The file transfer dialog progress indicator is nice too. Just little polishes on top of what Win 7 has. Nothing worthy of going out of your way to upgrade but I wouldn't go out of my way to downgrade either.

          • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:48AM (#46024571)

            Vista didn't actually suck all that much if you used it for enough time... the real problem with Vista* was that it took a while for the prefetch service to learn which applications you used most frequently. Once it got a handle on what you liked to do with the system, it was actually fairly zippy. During the first couple of weeks with Vista, however, it was horrible. SP1 improved this, but it was still an unpleasant experience for its first few weeks.

            * -- that's aside from the obvious bits about driver incompatibility and the fact that they dropped an OS with a 1GB minimum RAM requirement (2GB for 64-bit) in an era when it was normal to see systems with 512MB.

            • by mjwx (966435)

              Vista didn't actually suck all that much if you used it for enough time...

              Stockholm syndrome starts this way. With enough exposure to their captors the captive begins to empathise with their captors, as Stockholm syndrome progresses the captive begins to assist their captors and in some cases, even starts to believe in their cause.

          • by Jeff Flanagan (2981883) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:05AM (#46024811)
            Win 8 is totally fine once you install 3rd party tools like Classic Shell to make it operate like Win 7. We really shouldn't have to do that though. We never should have had a tablet interface appear on our desktop machines in the first place.
            • by Chas (5144) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:44AM (#46025399) Homepage Journal

              Pretty much this.

              Win8 has some really concrete improvements under the hood.
              The biggest problem the OS has had was the idiotic decision to force people onto a tablet interface.

            • by torkus (1133985) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:50PM (#46026313)

              Win 8 is totally fine once you make it into Win 7 either by uninstalling 8 or installing enough add-ons to hide it.

              Seriously...MS screwed up by making such a drastic change to the UI that's been around for the better part of forever. While the under-the-hood changes did add quite a bit they could have left them under the hood and left the UI mostly intact. Tweak a few things to make them easier but...why start with a clean slate and recreate everything? Some things are so buried or just missing ... it's ridiculous. For home users it's not as drastic but business/enterprise? Do you know how difficult it is get get a secretary to click a different colored icon during an upgrade? Now you want one to learn Metro...I've watched people quit because of changes like that totally disrupting their work environment. Sad but true.

          • by epyT-R (613989) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:42AM (#46025367)

            The new task manager is nice? Are you kidding? There have to be close to 50 processes running on the machine, so why does it show a blank window in its default view? Terrible. In its more functional views, it wastes desktop real estate with that tons-of-white-space-and-large-font trend that's infecting everything.

            • by Cinder6 (894572)

              The new task manager is nice? Are you kidding? There have to be close to 50 processes running on the machine, so why does it show a blank window in its default view? Terrible. In its more functional views, it wastes desktop real estate with that tons-of-white-space-and-large-font trend that's infecting everything.

              The new task manager is loads better than the old one. It clearly distinguishes between windowed apps and background processes, shows more stats by default (in "More details" mode), has much better startup modification abilities, uses color to show resource usage, etc. etc. I welcome the whitespace, as it makes it easier to read the data. These days, with higher resolution monitors, space isn't as much as a premium as it was when the XP task manager (which is largely unchanged in 7) was made.

              Also, its defau

        • by rudy_wayne (414635) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:48AM (#46024559)

          1) Relabel Windows 7 boxes "Windows 9"

          Fixed that for you

          You joke but that's pretty much how it is:

          Windows 98 -- Worked
          windows ME --Sucked
          Windows XP -- Decent
          Windows Vista -- Sucked
          Windows 7 -- Functional Again
          Windows 8 -- Sucks Again

          It seems to take them one generation to flush the problems out of each new release so windows 8 is basically "windows 9 beta"

          Unfortunately, Microsoft has broken the pattern. You can go from XP to Vista to Windows 7 and each one is only a slight change from the previous version. Windows 8 however, is a horrendous piece of shit that changed things that didn't need to be changed, fixed things that didn't need to be fixed and broke anything that wasn't already broken.

          Relabeling Windows 7 as Windows 9 would be the best ting they could do.

          • by dbIII (701233)
            That pattern is broken from the start - 98 sucked until 98SE. If Win7 hadn't come out so quickly we'd have slightly fonder memories of Vista after the largest problems were fixed. I'd say XP didn't pull ahead of Win2k for at least a couple of years after release too.
        • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:48AM (#46024563) Homepage

          Windows NT - doesn't fit the pattern so people ignore it
          Windows 2000 - doesn't fit the pattern so people ignore it

          • not consumer OS's (Score:5, Informative)

            by Chirs (87576) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:05AM (#46024799)

            Win NT and 2K were "business" OS's, not consumer. They were also priced accordingly.

            • Re:not consumer OS's (Score:5, Informative)

              by torkus (1133985) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:57PM (#46026429)

              NT 3.51 wasn't really meant to be a desktop OS. It was aligned with NT 3.51 server and skipped all bells and whistles from the desktop side. They also were competing with OS/2 Warp

              NT 4 was a step forward - usable as a stable desktop with drivers to support peripherals but still aimed at administrators and developers who would eschew the bells and whistles for a more stable computer. Remember this was the time when a daily reboot was required for Win 9x

              Win 2000 was the first real attempt at bringing PnP and other consumer-oriented technologies to the business OS. It had it's faults but overall definitely worked.

              XP took that a step further and fully combined personal and consumer OS's.

              Back in the NT and 2k days...I don't think many consumers paid retail prices for their OS. MS basically allowed piracy to get market penetration and made plenty of money from businesses and PC resellers since they had the default (essentially only) OS.

          • by roc97007 (608802)

            Well.... yeah, because we're generally talking about consumer Windows. I was working in *nix support at a large company in 1996 when they migrated to Windows 95, and it was a ghastly experience. Something about every PC wanting to be a catalog master... or something like that... I don't remember the term exactly, but it caused horrible things to happen on the network, and the single Windows admin (they only had one, because Windows manages itself...) was tearing his hair out. He actually complained to up

        • Windows 98, Not so good.
          Windows ME, Broke the drivers
          Windows 2000, A good OS that does it jobs, Based on NT Kernel.
          Windows XP, Worked and was decent, however early in the game it got attacked by hackers like there was no tomorrow.
          Vista, It actually worked well... However the UI was too protective.
          Windows 7, A much improved
          Windows 8, Works just as well as windows 7... However too many people have and cant stand that fact that it is different.

          95, XP, Vista, and Windows 8 offered significant change to the UI,

          • I think Vista's real problem was that MS let PC manufacturers slap it on underpowered hardware. I used to get Vista laptops in with 2GB of RAM and integrated video, but they came from the manufacturer with all of the Aero Glass glitzy features turned on. The users would complain constantly about how slow they were. I'd upgrade them to 4GB and turn off Aero, and they were suddenly very nice machines.

        • by Stormy Dragon (800799) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @02:13PM (#46027451) Homepage

          Microsoft Windows: the Star Trek movies of Operating Systems

      • by lagomorpha2 (1376475) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:31AM (#46024307)

        Microsoft still has to figure out how to integrate Metro apps with Windows 9 or customers will complain and they will lose Windows Store revenue.

        Metro isn't just about merging tablet and desktop operating systems. It's also about moving people toward the Windows Store and a Microsoft Account. Skype for desktop allows signing in with a Skype account. Skype for Metro requires either a Microsoft account or merging your Skype account into a Microsoft Account, as do downloading many Metro apps.

        Microsoft is starting to realize that being just a software company in a shrinking market is a bad position to be in. They want to get people stuck in their Microsoft account/Microsoft app store/Bing/Skype/Outlook.com mail/Office 365 subscriptions in order to generate revenue off of people in the long term instead of just the initial sale. The large number of Chromebooks sold in 2013 was likely a wake up call - not only do they come with Google Docs which people are starting to use instead of Microsoft Office, but Microsoft Office actually can't be sold to those customers except for Office Web Apps through a live.com account.

        The types of devices that people are using is changing and Google/Apple/Microsoft all seem like they're trying to offer a total solution to customer needs that makes it difficult to leave one faction without losing your integrated e-mail/office software/messenger/phone/laptop/search ecosystem. Most people here probably don't particularly want those things integrated for various reasons but it does make things useful to the average consumer who prefers to use a touchscreen because a mouse is too difficult to use.

        • by rsborg (111459) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @03:44PM (#46028509) Homepage

          Microsoft is starting to realize that being just a software company in a shrinking market is a bad position to be in. They want to get people stuck in their Microsoft account/Microsoft app store/Bing/Skype/Outlook.com mail/Office 365 subscriptions in order to generate revenue off of people in the long term instead of just the initial sale. The large number of Chromebooks sold in 2013 was likely a wake up call - not only do they come with Google Docs which people are starting to use instead of Microsoft Office, but Microsoft Office actually can't be sold to those customers except for Office Web Apps through a live.com account.

          See, the difference between Microsoft and Google or Apple, is that people gladly and willingly signed up [1] for Google logins and AppleIDs because the products are simply that much better than the competition. The complaints are largely dwarfed out by by happy (or at least non-complaining) users.

          Microsoft's position for Win8 is completely compromised by Metro being a BAD idea on desktops. Had they executed this better, they could have delivered something that kept the goodness of Win7, but slowly put pressure on App devs (ie, sexy new interface/foundation classes only avaialble for WinStore release) to move. Even Apple with all their skill at app stores couldn't force all the Mac App dev to happen in the Store (and Mac devs were very interested).

          Just like a driver asleep at the wheel waking up to see a cliff oncoming (that was visible for miles had they been awake), and veering wildly to avoid falling off.. Microsoft is trying to force the situation, and losing it by over-compensating.

          [1] note: the whole strongarming of G+ onto the existing Google products is more Microsoft-ish - I wonder if that's due to all the ex-softies that joined Google?

    • Isn't that the rumored Windows 9, coming soon?

    • by bondsbw (888959) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:28AM (#46024269)

      In today's world, other than Microsoft there's no one else who charges for an operating system.

      Apple keeps all hardware in-house. They certainly do charge for the OS, they just build it into the price of the full system.

      Google is an advertising company. They don't seem to care much about anything except getting people to use their services to display their ads. If that means working on an OS they don't charge for, so be it.

      So Microsoft is the only one of these three whose business model is primarily software. And, as it turns out, Microsoft is becoming a devices-and-services company in order to more effectively compete with the above two... but only a fool (or a hater) would assume that such a large company can or should make that full transition overnight.

    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Windows 8 is a very good operating system in terms of stability and speed. It's the UI that throws most people off. And I think that's really because many, or most, of the devices it's being sold on don't have touch. Windows 8.1 is actually a really nice interface if you have a tablet or a notebook with a touch screen. I use it on my old notebook, because I was able to get a cheap license when they first released it. I'll admit it has some problems, almost all relating to the fact that the UI was reall
      • by TheLink (130905) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:55AM (#46024667) Journal
        Microsoft should know it is screwing up when many nontech people actually start using 3rd party start menus/shells, HP does this Windows 7 thing and Lenovo bundles an alternative start menu for their Windows 8 machines that one of my bosses actually thought was part of Windows 8!

        In the old days it was only us tech nerds who would use such stuff - everyone else would just make do with what Microsoft gave them and curse what the PC vendors added on.
  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:54AM (#46023941)

    HP has the pull to get MS to fix windows by 8.2/9 or maybe and this is a long shot get mac os X on there hardware.

    • by modmans2ndcoming (929661) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:57AM (#46023969)

      Read Paul T's column on Win Supersite. Windows 9 is going to have a start menu for desktop-centric uses.

      • by CdBee (742846) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:14AM (#46024129)
        I hope that means a proper menu with expanding options off it - not the 'fuck you' compromise in Windows 8.1 where a 'start button' brings up the supershitty touch interface
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Merk42 (1906718)

          What is wrong with the Start Screen vs Start Menu?
          The Start Screen can:

          • Fit more shortcuts on screen at once
          • No drilling through folders
          • Takes advantage of the whole screen (when do you ever need to see the active application and the start menu at the same time?).
          • by Luckyo (1726890) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:40AM (#46025319)

            It:
            1. Fits too much crap on your screen at once disorienting you.
            2. Doesn't function as a logical tree-style menu.
            3. Covers the whole screen.

            So you pretty much reworded all the bad things about it to sorta kinda make them appear to not be horrible. Well done. You will have a good career in either advertising or politics.

          • by JohnFen (1641097) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @03:39PM (#46028457)

            The Start Screen is, simply, the worst possible UI design I could think up while keeping it still technically usable.

            Fitting more shortcuts on the screen at once isn't a good thing. It just increases the clutter.

            Drilling through folders is a good thing. It lets you keep less frequently used stuff out of the way, but still easy to find when you need to find it. (And don't say you can just start typing the name of the program you want instead of drilling down. I don't know the name of every program I rarely use, so I'll still be hunting, but in a more difficult way.)

            Take advantage of the whole screen is a bad thing. It breaks my mental continuity and flow every single time. I don't want to switch completely away from the desktop to perform an operation on the desktop. That makes no sense at all.

            The Start Screen is 1/3 of what makes me hate Windows 8 (which I've been using daily for over a year now). Another third is the "hot areas" you hover your mouse over, and the last third is those damned charms.

            The problems with Windwos 8 are all centered around trying to make it both a desktop and a tablet interface. Those two are very, very different use cases and trying to cover them both in a single UI is guaranteed to make that UI suck in one case or the other (or both).

    • What's to fix other than the stupid metro interface?
  • Any non-business is just dealing with the Start Screen or installed Classic Shell.

    • Actually, if the sales numbers are to be believed, people just aren't buying new PCs at all.

      • Re:meanwhile.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:18AM (#46024161) Homepage

        Actually, if the sales numbers are to be believed, people just aren't buying new PCs at all.

        Pretty much exactly this.

        Except for RAM, the vast majority of PC users will never fully max out their machine. They won't even get close to what the CPU can do. Even 10 years ago when someone asked me what kind of PC they should buy, I would tell them to buy the oldest machine they can find with twice as much memory as they think they need -- because in my experience, lots of RAM contributes more to the longevity of a machine than loads of CPU.

        Nowadays, I think gamers and people doing heavy-duty work are the only people who need to be upgrading regularly.

        The latest and greatest is often not all that great, and the differences between the old and the new are incremental.

        For many many people, the PC they've had for several years now works just fine and doesn't need to be upgraded. For many more, a tablet will cover 90% of their needs 90% of the time (and, yes, that's a completely contrived statistic).

        Microsoft made crap tons of money over the years by people being on the upgrade treadmill and getting the latest version of Office. And that is no longer a compelling reason for most people -- I know I use more .doc files than I do .docx files, and I'm not sure I could name a single feature in the latest Office which is any different than the previous version.

        And, quite randomly since they mention Vista -- my main PC is a machine I bought in '09 with 8GB of RAM and 4 CPU cores running Vista, and with many TB of disk space. Having thrown a lot of resources at it, I've actually enjoyed Vista. On small machines it was a resource hog, but if you gave it lots of resources, it was actually pretty good in my experience.

        • Re:meanwhile.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by umafuckit (2980809) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:49AM (#46024583)

          Except for RAM, the vast majority of PC users will never fully max out their machine. They won't even get close to what the CPU can do. Even 10 years ago when someone asked me what kind of PC they should buy, I would tell them to buy the oldest machine they can find with twice as much memory as they think they need -- because in my experience, lots of RAM contributes more to the longevity of a machine than loads of CPU.

          This is probably true, but I don't think most people have realised this. Recently, when a colleague's Win 7 laptop started to run slowly she announced that it was time to get a new computer. Most people I know really do seem to believe that when a computer starts running slowly that is indicative of some sort of flaw that can only be repaired by a violent hardware change. It either doesn't occur them that a reinstall of Windows can fix the problem or they don't have the skills/confidence/motivation to perform the operation.

          • Re:meanwhile.... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by AthanasiusKircher (1333179) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:54AM (#46025559)

            Most people I know really do seem to believe that when a computer starts running slowly that is indicative of some sort of flaw that can only be repaired by a violent hardware change.

            Actually, many people I know really do seem to believe that when a computer doesn't do what they expect it should that is indicative of some sort of flaw that can only be repaired by a violent hardware change.

            "My email doesn't work anymore! Should I upgrade?" (saved wrong password)
            "I can't find the buttons I used to have! Do I need to upgrade?" (accidentally hid toolbar)
            "I can't hear any sounds on my computer anymore! Do I need a new one?" (volume on mute)

            This is particularly true of older people, who don't really understand anything about how a computer functions. I've heard of someone recently who thought a new computer was necessary just because she wanted to change her email address.

            So, yeah, when you have folks like this, there definitely is a much larger pool of people who would have no idea how to attempt an OS reinstall or how to "clean" their system to speed it up again.

        • Except for RAM, the vast majority of PC users will never fully max out their machine. They won't even get close to what the CPU can do. Even 10 years ago when someone asked me what kind of PC they should buy, I would tell them to buy the oldest machine they can find with twice as much memory as they think they need -- because in my experience, lots of RAM contributes more to the longevity of a machine than loads of CPU.

          The plural of anecdote is not data, but I figured I'd lend a me-too to support what you're saying --

          I have a gaming system. It's 2 years old. Core i5 2500k, overclocked at 4.8GHz, with 16GB of RAM. I bought it for $1000, 2 years ago, and haven't needed to upgrade anything. Not even the video card. It's currently connected to the TV via HDMI, with an xbox controller connected to it, and I play Steam games on the big screen with it. It'll be a while before it needs any kind of upgrade, in part because I've go

  • by tick-tock-atona (1145909) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:56AM (#46023957)

    Windows 8 is designed around a touch-screen interface; one that is a struggle to operate via a keyboard and mouse.

    For entertainment, a touch-screen interface is fine. But, believe it or not, people *still* do *real work* on desktop PCs. And for that use case, Windows 8 is a massive productivity downgrade.

    • by synapse7 (1075571)
      Half of the OS, at best, is designed around touch-screen interface.
    • by BobMcD (601576) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:00AM (#46024001)

      What I genuinely don't understand is - why break backward compatibility?

      Why not just layer touch on top of the existing UI?

      Then everybody wins.

      For example, there could be two ways to reboot your PC:

      1) Pull the side-window thing over, go to Settings, then Power, then Reboot
      or
      2) Click Start, click the Arrow beside Shutdown, then click Reboot

      One is better for touch (supposedly) and the other is what you're already used to doing.

      Does anyone know why this wasn't the method they went with?

      • Why are you forced to say "Siri" or "O.K. Google" to activate voice recognition?

        O.K. - maybe you're not forced, but it is certainly not easy to get past the default configurations...

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          Well, you're also not forced to use voice recognition.

          And, as to why, I assume they spent a lot of time making sure the voice engine could be certain to know when you are talking to it and tested the recognition under lots of situations for those specific phrases. That, and marketing wants to be sure the brand is out there in the wild.

          Presumably if you wanted to train it to respond to "Hey Asshole", it might take a little longer to be sure it's actually going to know you meant it, and the company might not

      • by 0123456 (636235) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:31AM (#46024305)

        What I genuinely don't understand is - why break backward compatibility? Why not just layer touch on top of the existing UI?

        Microsoft are desperate to get into mobile.
        No-one wants a smart phone with no apps.
        No-one wants to write apps for a smart phone OS with no users.
        Hence Microsoft had to push the smart phone OS onto the desktop so developers might think they'd have a market for their apps.
        Except no-one wants to buy a desktop PC with a smart phone OS.

        • by jafac (1449)

          Microsoft are desperate to get into mobile.

          WinCE.
          Zune.
          (. . . and Surface. . . )

          I think that there is some kind of deep, genetic predisposition for failure in the mobile market for Microsoft.

          And they're trying desperately to let that infect their successful desktop market. Good riddance, anyway.

    • My only complaint is the the Metro interface doesn't have a concept of a sub menu so everything's dumped on the main menu.
    • by CrashNBrn (1143981) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @01:16PM (#46026673)
      "Touch" would be pretty easy to emulate with a mouse - it would actually be better than actual touch.

      If Right-Click turns the mouse pointer to a "Hand" grabber: now moving the mouse left/right is the same as "touching the screen and dragging in a given direction".

      There is absolutely nothing that "touch" brings to the table that can't already be done with the tools we have: mouse, keyboard, and touch-pads/touch-pad mice. It's also only about 3 clicks to change the "Start-Screen" to an Apps-Screen... except its an either/or proposition. All-in-all it makes very little sense that we cannot set hotkeys or toolbar-buttons to actions like bringing up "normal-start-screen" or "apps-only" or "a folder with modern-layout/view."

      After all this time how is it that Microsoft doesn't "get" that customization of the interface is what makes MS different from everyone else.

      Instead we wind up with Windows 8, and Aero -- which many consider as the logical upgrade from the Win2K/98 look, as opposed to the Fisher-Price look of XP -- ripped out by its roots, instead of an option to the flat bland crap appearance of Win8.

      Not only does Win8 go off on it's on tangent in a number of respects, but it does away with concrete tangible concepts that Microsoft has iterated over since Windows 3.

      I'm sure everyone recalls the basic theming ability to choose 2 colors for the title bar, and have it blend. Win 8 takes that concept and shits on it. Text is flat, Title-bar background are bland, flat, shapeless non-dimensional pastel colours. I think if the dev's had of tripped out on acid we would of wound up with something better than the utter-disregard for users in Windows 8.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:57AM (#46023965)

    Let's call a spade a spade: the touch-screen interface SUCKS on a traditional desktop or laptop PC. It's not a matter of "trying something new". It's a matter of using the right tool for the job, and the touch-screen interface is the WRONG tool for this job. To be fair, the linux touch-screen interfaces don't belong on a PC any more than windows 8. They belong on phones and tablets.

    • Here's what I don't get: When I work with a phone or a tablet, I usually hold the screen at a certain distance, so that all the information displayed therein is on a fixed arc of vision. When I work on a PC, I sit in front of a screen. That screen may be big and far, or small and close, but, generally, it occupies more of my vision than a mobile screen does. It is therefore more tiring to scan items displayed all over the screen, which is why interface design (before Windows 8 screwed things up) put list-in
  • 'Look at the business model difference between Intel and ARM

    TFA didn't clarify what he meant by this. Maybe he meant the business models in the different realms, rather than the companies themselves?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:57AM (#46023975)

    Is HP providing an easy upgrade path from 8 to 7?

  • Smart Choice. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pmowry911 (309717) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @09:59AM (#46023987)

    My daughter is going to College in the fall. She is by no means tech savvy. But she was choosing a Cromebook with local storage instead of anything win8. And she likes a windows phone.

  • by jones_supa (887896) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:00AM (#46024007)

    adding that that the next generation of computers could very well not be dominated by Microsoft

    People make now these revolutionary statements, but they will forget fast. Behind the scenes, Microsoft is likely already fixing what sucks about Windows 8, including bringing the Start Menu back. After the release of next Windows, this little (extremely expensive) Win8 mistake can be swept under the rug just like ME and Vista. But something which Microsoft knows best is keeping their foothold of running Windows on every PC. I bet Ballmer and Myerson are just spinning around in their office chairs laughing and saying "no, Mr. HP, you will be running Windows".

    • by faedle (114018) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:14AM (#46024127) Homepage Journal

      While I agree that Microsoft will likely never "go away", to a large degree the statement that "the next generation .. will not be dominated by Microsoft" has already come true. The vast majority of new "screens" that people are viewing content on, surfing the Internet on, and generally "using" in their day-to-day life are smartphones and tablets. And Microsoft is being pummeled by Android and Apple. People are looking at what they used to buy laptops for and deciding "hey, I can do 90% of this with an iPad/GalaxyTab, and the 10% that I need to use a keyboard for my old laptop works just fine."

      Behind the scenes HP (and the other manufacturers) would respond to Microsoft by saying "look, Samsung is killing us. Apple is killing us. Let us sell Windows 7 or our next new product is a laptop that runs Android."

    • The current slow take up of Win8 has more to do with Moores Law running out. Previously companies would replace computers once they were 4 years old (Varies with the company obviously) because the new PC would be over twice as fast. Now that PC performance has stopped noticeably improving companies are waiting for PC's to break and then replacing them. So now all the PC manufacturers are feeling the pinch except those who've got fingers in the mobile phone/tablet market.
      • by 0123456 (636235)

        The current slow take up of Win8 has more to do with Moores Law running out.

        No,. it's due to Joe Sixpack going to their local computer store, looking at the screen of a Window 8 PC and going 'WTF is this crap? Where's Windows?' and going home.

        Business is far less impacted because they can just install Windows 7 instead. And they probably upgrade once the old PCs have been written off against their taxes, not when they wear out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gr8Apes (679165)

      Behind the scenes, Microsoft is likely already fixing what sucks about Windows 8, including bringing the Start Menu back. After the release of next Windows, this little (extremely expensive) Win8 mistake can be swept under the rug just like ME and Vista.

      Microsoft has already spent 2 years working on fixing W8 - you got W8.1.... not much of an improvement. It's not just about the start button. The random reorganization of menu structures forcing new training on users and admins is not considered worthwhile and is probably MS's biggest obstacle to overcome. Had the menu structures stayed the same, upgrading would have been a minor concern (both OS and applications such as Office). Office's changes were so great it was easier to move to another application th

      • you should be able to sledgehammer Win8 into shape by

        1 installing Classic Shell and setting up the start menu (win7 style)
        2 create a GodMode folder to uncover all the "hidden" control panels

  • by pklong (323451) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:03AM (#46024029) Homepage Journal

    You can still buy pre-installed Windows 7 on a Dell (business section).

    If Microsoft are determined to shoot themselves in the foot, by failing to let people have what they want then so be it.

    Philip

  • Hmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:06AM (#46024051) Homepage

    1) Why would you buy a PC from HP? The amount of crapware on the laptop we got for my wife several years ago was downright pathetic -- what should have been a fast machine was dog slow because HP has embedded dozens of things little more useful than Clippy ("I see you are near a wireless network, the HP Network assistant is here to help"). The sheer amount of garbage rendered the machine unusable without hours of disabling stuff. (In fairness, the mother in law's Toshiba had the same problems, because vendor builds suck.)

    2) Will Microsoft even allow this? I should think they'd be saying "nope, you can't sell those any more".

    3) Wow, Windows 8 much be a turd if people are going back to a four-year old OS. Someone missed the mark by a long shot.

    4) "adding that that the next generation of computers could very well not be dominated by Microsoft." From the numbers, it would appear that Android is well on its way to dominating the next generation of computers, even if people here don't think tablets are actually computers. Microsoft is no longer competing with Apple and Linux, they're competing with Google.

    • Wow, Windows 8 must be a turd

      . . . and it's a turd with a "touch" interface . . . so you have to "touch" that turd.to use it.

    • HP Business PCs come with FreeDOS as an OS option (i.e. Windows-tax free).

      Yes, their Consumer lines are garbage.

    • It's been about 8-9 years since I last bought a PC in a store rather than built my own, and the one I bought was HP. Why? They used really good quality parts. And the crapware they put on wasn't any worse than anybody else's, at least back then. Plus they used standard parts which was great, because it meant that you could buy off the shelf stuff to upgrade the PC and it would work instead of being locked into that evil world of having to buy parts only from the manufacturer because they used customiz
    • Why would you buy a PC from HP?

      Great question. Even if you format the drive and load a clean copy of Windows, you still can't get the HP crapware out of the firmware. You know, the one that blocks you from putting any wireless card you want in a laptop... The truly evil part is that they RSA sign the firmware so you can't modify the hardware whitelist away. Seriously, stay away from HP.

  • Windows 8 showed total disregard for the installed Windows 7 user base and is a travesty just like the stupid ribbon that was forced on upgrading Office users. Microsoft (ie Balmer) should have its nuts crushed. What a bunch of idiots.

    • by Grishnakh (216268)

      Even more idiotic are all the people that continue to buy MS products after all this. Yeah, it's pretty dumb when a company pisses off its customers by trying to force something on them they don't want. But it's much more stupid when customers keep buying their crap. This is what you get for making yourself reliant on a single source.

  • .. is Windows-XP back. Also by popular demand.
    How's that migration coming along for you??

  • too bad it's HP (Score:4, Informative)

    by slashmydots (2189826) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @10:42AM (#46024469)
    So someone brought back Windows 7 and it just happens to be the one with the lowest quality laptops with the highest failure rate since numbers were kept. They also are in the bottom 3 worst rated support quality. So to me, this is absolutely nothing. By the way, if you want a computer that doesn't suck, my shop has sold about 20 toshiba laptops from Toshiba Direct. They still have some systems with Windows 7 Home Premium that are built at the factory to order for around $400 with free shipping. They're quite nice too and fully featured. Why is there no "Toshiba brings back Windows 7" headline? Because they never actually stopped shipping it in the first place.
    • by Nethead (1563)

      Low quality laptops? What the hell are you talking about? We send people all over the world with HP laptops. The EliteBook series is a freaking trooper.

      http://www.notebookcheck.net/R... [notebookcheck.net]

      I don't know what low end you are buying but don't put all their laptops in one basket. We order these with 16GB RAM and 240GB SSDs. I've never had to have one returned for service that is under 3 years old. Like I said, these are traveling all over the world and used by on-site aerospace engineers.

      As far as support, I'

  • by JDG1980 (2438906) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:05AM (#46024805)

    The real question is whether this kind of push-back from OEMs will convince Microsoft to let Windows 9 users fully opt-out of Metro in favor of a classic desktop experience. Individual users are easy to ignore, but when OEMs (not to mention large businesses with volume licenses) are telling MS that Metro just isn't happening on the desktop, maybe they will have no choice but to listen.

  • by scorp1us (235526) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @11:11AM (#46024885) Journal

    Before you label this as another "year of linux on the desktop!" post, hear me out

    I have a retired neighbor that knows nothing of computers, but being retired he needs something to do all day. So with Vista, he uses the internet to connect to his car club and use email with his car club friends. He also uses websites with a fair degree of competency. He is so unsure of himself though, that he asks me hoe for help on a fairly regular basis with questions like "What happened to the little man?" (MSN sys tray icon, discontinued in 2013, replaced with Skype, and yes, that was another question) and "Where'd my icon go?" and plenty of other questions regarding the changing behavior of websites. He's got a very static view of things.A friend of his was also a victim of a virus that stole his banking into, so he was very concerned about that.

    So when he asked me what laptop to get, and being on fixed income, his needs were simple, and I didn't want to have to field questions about Windows 8, which would have been a nightmare. Dual mode? Charms Bar? Yeah right.

    So I set him up with Linux Mint 15 (Cinnamon) on a bargain laptop from Newegg that came with W8 on it. I pre-configured automatic updates for everything except applications (security and stability) and set the theme to the XP theme (He had previously used XP) very literally and let him have it. I got one question from him since. How to install solitaire. Stupid me, I forgot to show him the Software Center. Its installed now. I check in with him from time to time and he got a MyFi for it, and his girlfriend (also not very computer savvy, but better than him) configured the MyFi, and I never heard a peep. He's had it about 4 months now and only that one question. Not a complaint and no little men have disappeared.

    Year of Linux on the desktop? No, but for him it is.

  • by Honclfibr (202246) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:08PM (#46025761)

    This promotion actually made me go over and check HPs website out, only to be disappointed that the two laptops offered both had 1366x768 resolution screens. Come on HP. You outfit this Envy laptop with the latest i7 and 12GB of RAM, and then hobble it with such a lousy screen? I don't care what the operating system is, no sale.

  • Despite Metro (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrXym (126579) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @12:35PM (#46026093)
    I think I would still pick 8.1 over Windows 7. Metro does suck but it is tolerable and the OS is otherwise very stable and fast, even more so than Windows 7. Microsoft really fucked up though by treating mouse/keyboard/monitor users like second class citizens in an upgrade to their own operating system.

If at first you don't succeed, you must be a programmer.

Working...