I'm still unsure about it. I have an install and licence and have done for six months. I just have not got the wish to go though all the potential driver and re-learning related issues that go with a new MS OS.
Vista pissed me off no end, windows 7 was a welcome relief, but I fear Windows 8 is another Vista. A telling tale is my universities labs. Usually when any new MS OS is released the support team add it to the multi boot drive images. However, Vista has yet to enter a single lab. Why cant they just make something that works,rather than changing things just as they begin to get it right.
I remember when vista came in, it was soon removed because it caused so much network chatter, it degraded the performance of our networks. Apparently, Windows 7 was not much better in this matter, but by that time the network infrastructure had been upgraded.
One of the things I lament these days is that drop down menus have gone out of style. I still think they are one of the most screen efficient and logical ways to navigate the features of an application. However, I'm beginning to see them less and less.
The windows 8 packs don't come with manuals. Can it get any easier?
If you can use an android/iPhone, then you can use win8 - with or without swiping... you can easily get to desktop, move the mouse to the corners to see other menus, etc... I still develop using XP and didn't want to move OS because I have my setup - but I will be moving to Win8 if I can get WAMP working ok.
Oh - I lied about the drivers - I had to install my wireless card :)
My laptop has Vista and it's a terrible OS. I'm considering a fresh install of Win 7 as i hate Vista so much.
When i got my new PC 2 years ago it came with Win 7 preinstalled and i hated it at first as i was so used to XP but now i think it's better but i'm not upgrading to Win 8.
Microsoft have messed up with the launch of Windows 8, it's true, but most the people knocking it don't seem to have done more than try it for 5 minutes or are just Apple fanboys. I can understand businesses wanting to not upgrade just yet because it does take a bit of getting used to but if you're reasonably PC literate then it's not that much of a jump.
It's a bit of a change from the old way of doing things but "normal" Windows is still there and it's not that hard to avoid the Metro interface if you want to. As fogartylee says, if you've used a smartphone then it'll be quite familiar. I have to admit that I wasn't keen on the initial preview version but after getting my Samsung Galaxy S3 I really "got" the new way of doing things when I tried the full version of Win 8 later on. That and the fact they'd fixed a lot of stuff too!
Yes, there are some things about Windows 8 that are bloody annoying and features that are either seemingly missing or just totally missing (still getting to grips with a few things so I'm not sure) but on the whole I like using it. I even like some of the "apps" which has surprised me! :)
I think Microsoft are going to bring out some major updates to it fairly soon once they've got the Surface Pro out of the way. They'd be stupid not to. There has been a ton of bad press about it but it's still a pretty new release and it's nowhere near as bad as some people seem to insist on repeatedly saying. I think their main mistake has been in tailoring everything too much in favour of touch screen users and they do need to try and bring the balance back again as most people are desktop users with a keyboard and mouse. That really was an idiotic move by MS.
Current irritations/negatives: just got myself a Microsoft account and installed some test apps. Tried about 8 and ditched 7 of them because some were virtually the same thing but I was just seeing which one was best for what I wanted. I now find they're ALL permanently tied to my account and there's currently no way of deleting them off my apps list so eventually I could end up with hundreds of apps that are "not installed on [my] PC" because I tend to install a lot of things to try them out and then chuck 'em. Never been an issue in old skool Windows - once they're gone, they're gone. Keeping references to them forever is absolutely moronic and a bit like being unable to delete references to emails I've deleted five years ago but I know a lot of people are narked off by this so MS will hopefully sort this.
There's no option to just empty the deleted folder in one go in Mail. Again, an unbelievably stupid oversight but at this point I'm prepared to accept that a lot of the stuff is still fairly new and not quite polished.
There are probably a few other things but strangely the lack of a Start menu isn't really one of them. I may well get Start8 as it was useful when I was testing the earlier versions on Win8 but I've actually found that I'm not missing it too much currently. That might change, obviously. Powering down is a bit clunky but even that is becoming second nature really.
I guess haters just gotta hate really ;)
Overall: it's not perfect, far from it, but it's certainly no Vista - thank God! I'm also amazed at the number of people who have refused to move from XP to Win 7 - there are clearly a lot of luddites in the world. My mum's machine is still running XP and I find it like going back to the dark ages when I try and fix anything on it. Change isn't always right but things do have to progress whether we like it or not. The less you like it, the older you're getting! :razz:
Overall: it's not perfect, far from it, but it's certainly no Vista - thank God! I'm also amazed at the number of people who have refused to move from XP to Win 7...
Well the the guy who runs my local computer shop reckons it is another Vista, except they're trying to make it look like an iPad/tablet machine.
Also the reason why people are still using XP (myself included) is 'If it ain't broke don't fix it!'
I'd think that someone at Microsoft has worked out that, if they plug Metro wherever possible, there'll be a trickle down effect to their poorly selling tablets and smartphones from people who've become familiar with it when using a PC or an Xbox.
Sure, they know there'll be a backlash too from the people who don't want it, but they're presumably counting on this being the minor of the two effects.
Jimmo, apologies for indirectly calling you a luddite ;)
I use XP under virtualisation for a couple of very old programs that don't work under 64 bit Windows but I have to say that I really don't miss anything about it at all. I can understand people not loving Windows 8, fair enough, but Windows 7 is the "new" improved XP :)
I know exactly what you mean about "if it ain't broke..." but technology has moved on since the early part of the century and people would be complaining if operating systems hadn't.
I loved my Spectrums but I moved on to an Amiga eventually and then a PC. Likewise I moved from tapes to CDs and then... Oh, arse. Even I don't think MP3s are an improvement on CDs, they're just more convenient. Damn, damn, damn! Shot my own argument in the foot.
J
I know exactly what you mean about "if it ain't broke..." but technology has moved on since the early part of the century and people would be complaining if operating systems hadn't.
OK, so for the home user, or one man non enterprise developer what does it do better than XP SP2?
OK, so for the home user, or one man non enterprise developer what does it do better than XP SP2?
I'd say the main thing is security; particularly protecting the OS and file system from errant or malicious apps.
Most XP users ran their machines logged on as administrators, and one errant application could write/overwrite the entire filesystem (modifying DLLs, other executables, reading and writing system/serevice data and so on). Just look at how many (badly written) apps broke under Vista/Win7 because developers always assumed it was perfectly acceptable to store user data in \Program Files\ or \Windows\. Microsoft had to implement a whole layer of filesystem virtualisation to work around those broken apps.
Just look at how many (badly written) apps broke under Vista/Win7 because developers always assumed it was perfectly acceptable to store user data in \Program Files\ or \Windows\.
Nothing to do with crap o/s design in the first place :???:.
No, not at all. It was perfectly possible to configure XP to run securely, installing apps as administrator and running them with reduced privileges to prevent them having open access to the entire OS. The problem was that a great many apps (the majority, I would say) were badly-written and refused to run properly unless they had full root access.
The APIs for obtaining a user's "Documents and Settings" folder were always present in Windows XP, along with documentation for how to use them. It's just that most developers ignored them and assumed their apps could always be run as root.
I'd say the main thing is security; particularly protecting the OS and file system from errant or malicious apps.
Most XP users ran their machines logged on as administrators, and one errant application could write/overwrite the entire filesystem (modifying DLLs, other executables, reading and writing system/serevice data and so on). Just look at how many (badly written) apps broke under Vista/Win7 because developers always assumed it was perfectly acceptable to store user data in \Program Files\ or \Windows\. Microsoft had to implement a whole layer of filesystem virtualisation to work around those broken apps.
Absolutely, and don't forget that support for XP SP3 finishes in April next year. Have a look at this link to see what that means if you're considering still using it after that date.
"It means you should take action. After April 8, 2014, there will be no new security updates, non-security hotfixes, free or paid assisted support options or online technical content updates."
I think the hackers will find new exploits and target them as there will still be a significant number of PC's using XP. You'll be on your own, MS will not help you out.
I'd say the main thing is security; particularly protecting the OS and file system from errant or malicious apps.
Most XP users ran their machines logged on as administrators, and one errant application could write/overwrite the entire filesystem (modifying DLLs, other executables, reading and writing system/serevice data and so on). Just look at how many (badly written) apps broke under Vista/Win7 because developers always assumed it was perfectly acceptable to store user data in \Program Files\ or \Windows\. Microsoft had to implement a whole layer of filesystem virtualisation to work around those broken apps.
Anyone using and OS in admin mode without some kind of software protection deserves to get burnt.
I found my Kaspersky Proactive Security was pretty good at telling me what programs were attempting to do and blocking and prompting me about their errant or malicious actions unless I added them into the safe list. To be honest I've had far more problems per year since using Vista/Win7 than I had in the XP days. One of my pet hates is this whole signed driver malarkey which is Microsoft acting as a corporate protection racket. We won't block the use of your drivers and tell users they are potentially dangerous unless you pay us some money for a certificate. I run Windows 7 64 bit in test mode, just so that my unsigned drivers will work.
In anycase all that aside, besides improvements in the underlying security model. From a non security perspective (as this should ideally be invisible and under the hood) what does it do better than Windows XP2?
I can understand people not loving Windows 8, fair enough, but Windows 7 is the "new" improved XP :)
Windows 7 has improved in some aspects (I love getting back from a directory and appear from where I came, not at the top of the list, and also the behaviour when trying to do something with files already in use, giving you the chance of stop using it, then try the action again), and clearly worse in others. The default UI is confusing and takes too much space. Setting the classic theme helps, but it's still missing the Up button (I had to bring it back using Classic Shell). The search is truly atrocious (and I'm also using an external program for my searchs: UltraFileSearch). There are a few other annoyances, and there are also strange bugs suchs as your selection of files & folders getting lost after you sort the files (I've just read that disabling a certain feature using the registry editor, somehow fixes this bug. I'll have to try it). All things considered, the UI is not that bad, but it could do with a bit more polish.
As for Windows 8, I don't think forcing a touchscreen interface is a good idea for keyboard & mouse computers. And I've also seen this video:
They should change the name of Windows 8 to Window 8, because under the default Metro interface you can only have one window on the screen at once, well, it's not even a window, it's full screen.
Basically, functionality that Windows 1.0 had isn't present in Metro.
I have a 27 inch 2650x1440 monitor because I want to be able to see more than one program at once. Having a user interface that will only let you see one app at a time, and full screen, is just bad. It might be great on a 7 inch tablet, but it's terrible on a proper display.
C'mon, be fair. That's just for the new style "apps" as opposed to traditional "applications" that make up about 99.999% of all existing software that runs in Windows. All your old stuff hasn't suddenly gone full screen only. "Apps" are designed to be like mobile phone apps and it does kinda make sense that they're full screen. Besides, I think you can run two on-screen at once if you really wanted to... but I might be making that up / not really paid attention to some video on youtube properly as I've not tried myself.
Anyway, if you don't like 'em you don't need to use them. The desktop is still there and I've been happily having multiple Windows open in there like I've always been able to :)
That's been recycled since windaz 95' if a remember reet! :D
Anyway hoo! What Dole money ah want the c*nt for free! If it costs dole money then ah want the nash to pay for the whole f**kin' thing withoot it affectin' me drink money, er I mean gyro :D
What yee lookin' at eh? Has yer' hoose got f**kin' windaz eh? Cos' when aav been aroond it f**kin' wivven't have eh? Reet? ;)
Nothing to do with crap o/s design in the first place .
No, not at all. It was perfectly possible to configure XP to run securely, (..)
Doesn't matter - well chosen defaults are important. On older Windows versions, do a clean install, don't enter a password, and whenever a user turns on the machine, he/she is running with admin rights, and can install stuff just like that. That IS bad design. Default should be: turn on machine, be non-priviliged user. Want to install stuff: be asked for an admin password. Which (if implemented properly) reads as: no password given -> no chance of f**king up system files. Bonus points if regular user(s) have their own passwords too, but for convenience that should be optional.
The APIs for obtaining a user's "Documents and Settings" folder were always present in Windows XP, along with documentation for how to use them. It's just that most developers ignored them and assumed their apps could always be run as root.
Sure that's developer's fault. But that's also a fault resulting from those badly chosen defaults, and a system allowing such crappy designed apps to continue as normal.
They should change the name of Windows 8 to Window 8, because under the default Metro interface you can only have one window on the screen at once, well, it's not even a window, it's full screen.
Basically, functionality that Windows 1.0 had isn't present in Metro.
Windows 1.0 didn't do overlapping Windows either. And Metro supports two open applications (one snapped, one the main application). Or you can just use old fashioned desktop applications windowed as always.
In anycase all that aside, besides improvements in the underlying security model. From a non security perspective (as this should ideally be invisible and under the hood) what does it do better than Windows XP2?
Off the top of my head:
Support for 64-bit hardware (XPx64 was a complete abortion and barely compatible with anything)
Memory management that can work efficiently with > 1GB RAM (XP was designed for ~128MB and as a result zeroes pages far too aggressively, impacting performance quite heavily)
Support for newer hardware, USB3, SSD etc
One-click restoration of the default configuration. No more "reinstall the whole machine" just to get someone's PC back into a usable state
Better support for high DPI displays
Faster boot, suspend and resume
Much improved power management
Doubtless there is more, including the potentially more contentious areas such as UI improvements. YMMV but having had to go back to using Windows XP at work (since getting a new job) it's amazing how clunky the old interface feels at times compared with 7/8.
I can understand businesses wanting to not upgrade just yet because it does take a bit of getting used to but if you're reasonably PC literate then it's not that much of a jump.
Not quite right in my opinion.
Business doesn't want to upgrade because......
Retraining costs a fortune, half the users have problems with XP
Many business programs will not, for perfectly good reasons(1), ever run on Win 8.
In most cases the corporate licensing agreement will mean that its not just windows 8 you will be upgrading, you will need to do office as well.
Far too much of the system relies on internet access which will not be allowed in commercial circumstances.
With a shift from XP to Win 8 (which is the business reality, nobody ever really adopted Vista) Large amounts of back-office hardware and software will need restructuring and / or replacing.
Major corporate users, say 5000 users plus, have no incentive to undergo a massive shift in there IT systems in the middle of a recession.
It's a cost which cannot be calculated with any accuracy. Until you put it out in the wild you won't know half the problems even with extensive pre deployment testing. Big business IT systems are horrifically complex, playing with it on your home machine isn't quite the same.
Massive amounts of hardware will need very extensive testing and much of it will fail. If you ignore the hardware problems caused by having old hardware which hasn't even got Win 7 drivers let alone Win 8 drivers you have to consider the embedded systems(2) designed to talk to XP and the large amount of specialist business hardware which will not be updated for many years if ever. A lot of this stuff isn't just some old printer or scanner that needs a new driver its complex, sometimes one off, very individual bits of kit that will need firmware updates as well as complete new front end software, then needs re-certification as fit for purpose.
In many, if not all, countries the biggest business user is the government. In general governments are not known for IT competency and forward thinking. For example in the UK we are still working with contracts that demand that software must be compatible with Win XP and IE 6. Any sane person writing the contract would have demanded that the software be "insert world standards here" compatible which while still far from perfect wouldn't tie you to systems you know will be replaced relatively soon.
Microsofts mistake was Vista, business didn't like it and didn't adopt it, Win 7 was seen as what Vista should have been and is the system that most businesses are looking to upgrade to, Win 8 is now that far out of step no big business can really afford to upgrade, especially in mid recession.
I can see Microsoft having to fork windows development in the next version back to a desktop (business) system and a mobile system. The same as Apple do now. If the uptake of Win 8 is non existent in business then the cash cow of Office will also suffer.
Real business isn't anywhere near ready for Microsofts vision at the moment.
(1) Actually bloody awful, but unavoidable, reasons.
(2) I don't mean embedded systems as in some low power chip running a limited program type control system, I mean things like heating systems or site wide monitoring type embedded systems.
Comments
Vista pissed me off no end, windows 7 was a welcome relief, but I fear Windows 8 is another Vista. A telling tale is my universities labs. Usually when any new MS OS is released the support team add it to the multi boot drive images. However, Vista has yet to enter a single lab. Why cant they just make something that works,rather than changing things just as they begin to get it right.
I remember when vista came in, it was soon removed because it caused so much network chatter, it degraded the performance of our networks. Apparently, Windows 7 was not much better in this matter, but by that time the network infrastructure had been upgraded.
One of the things I lament these days is that drop down menus have gone out of style. I still think they are one of the most screen efficient and logical ways to navigate the features of an application. However, I'm beginning to see them less and less.
If you can use an android/iPhone, then you can use win8 - with or without swiping... you can easily get to desktop, move the mouse to the corners to see other menus, etc... I still develop using XP and didn't want to move OS because I have my setup - but I will be moving to Win8 if I can get WAMP working ok.
Oh - I lied about the drivers - I had to install my wireless card :)
It seems to work well with win7 drivers
When i got my new PC 2 years ago it came with Win 7 preinstalled and i hated it at first as i was so used to XP but now i think it's better but i'm not upgrading to Win 8.
It's a bit of a change from the old way of doing things but "normal" Windows is still there and it's not that hard to avoid the Metro interface if you want to. As fogartylee says, if you've used a smartphone then it'll be quite familiar. I have to admit that I wasn't keen on the initial preview version but after getting my Samsung Galaxy S3 I really "got" the new way of doing things when I tried the full version of Win 8 later on. That and the fact they'd fixed a lot of stuff too!
Yes, there are some things about Windows 8 that are bloody annoying and features that are either seemingly missing or just totally missing (still getting to grips with a few things so I'm not sure) but on the whole I like using it. I even like some of the "apps" which has surprised me! :)
I think Microsoft are going to bring out some major updates to it fairly soon once they've got the Surface Pro out of the way. They'd be stupid not to. There has been a ton of bad press about it but it's still a pretty new release and it's nowhere near as bad as some people seem to insist on repeatedly saying. I think their main mistake has been in tailoring everything too much in favour of touch screen users and they do need to try and bring the balance back again as most people are desktop users with a keyboard and mouse. That really was an idiotic move by MS.
Current irritations/negatives: just got myself a Microsoft account and installed some test apps. Tried about 8 and ditched 7 of them because some were virtually the same thing but I was just seeing which one was best for what I wanted. I now find they're ALL permanently tied to my account and there's currently no way of deleting them off my apps list so eventually I could end up with hundreds of apps that are "not installed on [my] PC" because I tend to install a lot of things to try them out and then chuck 'em. Never been an issue in old skool Windows - once they're gone, they're gone. Keeping references to them forever is absolutely moronic and a bit like being unable to delete references to emails I've deleted five years ago but I know a lot of people are narked off by this so MS will hopefully sort this.
There's no option to just empty the deleted folder in one go in Mail. Again, an unbelievably stupid oversight but at this point I'm prepared to accept that a lot of the stuff is still fairly new and not quite polished.
There are probably a few other things but strangely the lack of a Start menu isn't really one of them. I may well get Start8 as it was useful when I was testing the earlier versions on Win8 but I've actually found that I'm not missing it too much currently. That might change, obviously. Powering down is a bit clunky but even that is becoming second nature really.
I guess haters just gotta hate really ;)
Overall: it's not perfect, far from it, but it's certainly no Vista - thank God! I'm also amazed at the number of people who have refused to move from XP to Win 7 - there are clearly a lot of luddites in the world. My mum's machine is still running XP and I find it like going back to the dark ages when I try and fix anything on it. Change isn't always right but things do have to progress whether we like it or not. The less you like it, the older you're getting! :razz:
Also the reason why people are still using XP (myself included) is 'If it ain't broke don't fix it!'
Sure, they know there'll be a backlash too from the people who don't want it, but they're presumably counting on this being the minor of the two effects.
http://youtu.be/_ODFvy1mjoY
I use XP under virtualisation for a couple of very old programs that don't work under 64 bit Windows but I have to say that I really don't miss anything about it at all. I can understand people not loving Windows 8, fair enough, but Windows 7 is the "new" improved XP :)
I know exactly what you mean about "if it ain't broke..." but technology has moved on since the early part of the century and people would be complaining if operating systems hadn't.
I loved my Spectrums but I moved on to an Amiga eventually and then a PC. Likewise I moved from tapes to CDs and then... Oh, arse. Even I don't think MP3s are an improvement on CDs, they're just more convenient. Damn, damn, damn! Shot my own argument in the foot.
But anyway....... :-P
OK, so for the home user, or one man non enterprise developer what does it do better than XP SP2?
Most XP users ran their machines logged on as administrators, and one errant application could write/overwrite the entire filesystem (modifying DLLs, other executables, reading and writing system/serevice data and so on). Just look at how many (badly written) apps broke under Vista/Win7 because developers always assumed it was perfectly acceptable to store user data in \Program Files\ or \Windows\. Microsoft had to implement a whole layer of filesystem virtualisation to work around those broken apps.
Nothing to do with crap o/s design in the first place :???:.
*cough* erm... yes. Good point. ;)
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
The APIs for obtaining a user's "Documents and Settings" folder were always present in Windows XP, along with documentation for how to use them. It's just that most developers ignored them and assumed their apps could always be run as root.
Absolutely, and don't forget that support for XP SP3 finishes in April next year. Have a look at this link to see what that means if you're considering still using it after that date.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/endofsupport.aspx
"It means you should take action. After April 8, 2014, there will be no new security updates, non-security hotfixes, free or paid assisted support options or online technical content updates."
I think the hackers will find new exploits and target them as there will still be a significant number of PC's using XP. You'll be on your own, MS will not help you out.
Anyone using and OS in admin mode without some kind of software protection deserves to get burnt.
I found my Kaspersky Proactive Security was pretty good at telling me what programs were attempting to do and blocking and prompting me about their errant or malicious actions unless I added them into the safe list. To be honest I've had far more problems per year since using Vista/Win7 than I had in the XP days. One of my pet hates is this whole signed driver malarkey which is Microsoft acting as a corporate protection racket. We won't block the use of your drivers and tell users they are potentially dangerous unless you pay us some money for a certificate. I run Windows 7 64 bit in test mode, just so that my unsigned drivers will work.
In anycase all that aside, besides improvements in the underlying security model. From a non security perspective (as this should ideally be invisible and under the hood) what does it do better than Windows XP2?
Windows 7 has improved in some aspects (I love getting back from a directory and appear from where I came, not at the top of the list, and also the behaviour when trying to do something with files already in use, giving you the chance of stop using it, then try the action again), and clearly worse in others. The default UI is confusing and takes too much space. Setting the classic theme helps, but it's still missing the Up button (I had to bring it back using Classic Shell). The search is truly atrocious (and I'm also using an external program for my searchs: UltraFileSearch). There are a few other annoyances, and there are also strange bugs suchs as your selection of files & folders getting lost after you sort the files (I've just read that disabling a certain feature using the registry editor, somehow fixes this bug. I'll have to try it). All things considered, the UI is not that bad, but it could do with a bit more polish.
As for Windows 8, I don't think forcing a touchscreen interface is a good idea for keyboard & mouse computers. And I've also seen this video:
Basically, functionality that Windows 1.0 had isn't present in Metro.
I have a 27 inch 2650x1440 monitor because I want to be able to see more than one program at once. Having a user interface that will only let you see one app at a time, and full screen, is just bad. It might be great on a 7 inch tablet, but it's terrible on a proper display.
Anyway, if you don't like 'em you don't need to use them. The desktop is still there and I've been happily having multiple Windows open in there like I've always been able to :)
That's been recycled since windaz 95' if a remember reet! :D
Anyway hoo! What Dole money ah want the c*nt for free! If it costs dole money then ah want the nash to pay for the whole f**kin' thing withoot it affectin' me drink money, er I mean gyro :D
What yee lookin' at eh? Has yer' hoose got f**kin' windaz eh? Cos' when aav been aroond it f**kin' wivven't have eh? Reet? ;)
I wonder if there's a Scottish Version? You probably get it with a free bottle of buckfast:grin:
Yeah Microsoft Pisseder
Sure that's developer's fault. But that's also a fault resulting from those badly chosen defaults, and a system allowing such crappy designed apps to continue as normal.
Windows 1.0 didn't do overlapping Windows either. And Metro supports two open applications (one snapped, one the main application). Or you can just use old fashioned desktop applications windowed as always.
Off the top of my head:
- Support for 64-bit hardware (XPx64 was a complete abortion and barely compatible with anything)
- Memory management that can work efficiently with > 1GB RAM (XP was designed for ~128MB and as a result zeroes pages far too aggressively, impacting performance quite heavily)
- Support for newer hardware, USB3, SSD etc
- One-click restoration of the default configuration. No more "reinstall the whole machine" just to get someone's PC back into a usable state
- Better support for high DPI displays
- Faster boot, suspend and resume
- Much improved power management
Doubtless there is more, including the potentially more contentious areas such as UI improvements. YMMV but having had to go back to using Windows XP at work (since getting a new job) it's amazing how clunky the old interface feels at times compared with 7/8.Not quite right in my opinion.
Business doesn't want to upgrade because......
Retraining costs a fortune, half the users have problems with XP
Many business programs will not, for perfectly good reasons(1), ever run on Win 8.
In most cases the corporate licensing agreement will mean that its not just windows 8 you will be upgrading, you will need to do office as well.
Far too much of the system relies on internet access which will not be allowed in commercial circumstances.
With a shift from XP to Win 8 (which is the business reality, nobody ever really adopted Vista) Large amounts of back-office hardware and software will need restructuring and / or replacing.
Major corporate users, say 5000 users plus, have no incentive to undergo a massive shift in there IT systems in the middle of a recession.
It's a cost which cannot be calculated with any accuracy. Until you put it out in the wild you won't know half the problems even with extensive pre deployment testing. Big business IT systems are horrifically complex, playing with it on your home machine isn't quite the same.
Massive amounts of hardware will need very extensive testing and much of it will fail. If you ignore the hardware problems caused by having old hardware which hasn't even got Win 7 drivers let alone Win 8 drivers you have to consider the embedded systems(2) designed to talk to XP and the large amount of specialist business hardware which will not be updated for many years if ever. A lot of this stuff isn't just some old printer or scanner that needs a new driver its complex, sometimes one off, very individual bits of kit that will need firmware updates as well as complete new front end software, then needs re-certification as fit for purpose.
In many, if not all, countries the biggest business user is the government. In general governments are not known for IT competency and forward thinking. For example in the UK we are still working with contracts that demand that software must be compatible with Win XP and IE 6. Any sane person writing the contract would have demanded that the software be "insert world standards here" compatible which while still far from perfect wouldn't tie you to systems you know will be replaced relatively soon.
Microsofts mistake was Vista, business didn't like it and didn't adopt it, Win 7 was seen as what Vista should have been and is the system that most businesses are looking to upgrade to, Win 8 is now that far out of step no big business can really afford to upgrade, especially in mid recession.
I can see Microsoft having to fork windows development in the next version back to a desktop (business) system and a mobile system. The same as Apple do now. If the uptake of Win 8 is non existent in business then the cash cow of Office will also suffer.
Real business isn't anywhere near ready for Microsofts vision at the moment.
(1) Actually bloody awful, but unavoidable, reasons.
(2) I don't mean embedded systems as in some low power chip running a limited program type control system, I mean things like heating systems or site wide monitoring type embedded systems.