is Microsoft Irrevelent? Does anyone Care?

Try irrelevant. 

It could loosely mean no one cares.

Microsoft will never be irrelevant... nor will it go broke/out of business because Win 8 didn't charm as many users as they'd have liked.

Funny thing, I heard the same/similar questions being asked around the same period after Vista was released.... all the haters jumping up and down and saying it was the demise of MS.  Then Win 7 came out and it was the bees knees of all OSes... better than sliced bread.  Well I used both Vista and Win 7 in 64 bit, and frankly, there was little difference between them, just a tweak or two here and there, but still essentially the same OS underneath.

Hmmm, the human race, such a fickle bunch and so hard to please... and let's not introduce anything different... cos they're so afraid of change and fech that, resent having to use their grey matter to learn something new/different.  No wonder witches were burnt at the stake... they dared to show humanity there were new and better ways to do things.... and then humanity showed its inhumanity and murdered them for thinking outside the square/accepted norns.

To be honest, I am surprised mankind has progressed thus far, given its propensity to shoot new and innovative things down in flames.... and here we go again, another 'let's burn Microsoft at the stake' thread for the haters to jump on board... that is until Windows 9 hits the shelves and it becomes the "must have" OS of all time, beating even Windows 7 for popularity and sales, yet it is just a refined version of Windows 8 with a few extra bells and whistles... yet at core level, exactly the same underneath.

So what do I find irrelevant?  To a large extent, the human race... because it is too full of its own self importance and has little time to consider anything he/she does not consider directly beneficial to him or her.  So when I think of Microsoft, I think of Bill Gates and the great contribution he has given the world, not only as a tech entreprenuer, but also as a humanitarian and philanthropist who thought outside the square rather than bitch about change.

Both he and Hugh Hefner would have been burned at the stake if it hadn't been outlawed in 16th century Salem, yet these two men have done more for civil liberties and human advancement than any other two men on the planet.  So is Microsoft irrelevant?  Only if Playboy magazine and titty girls are as well..

Oh, and irrevellent is when a vicar has been defrocked for reading Playboy in the chloisters on God's time.

'irreverent' .... JAFOCHECK ...;)

Hmmmm..........and innocent men and women and children were burnt at the stake for being different by a counterfeit Christianity that twisted the truth in order to control and manipulate during the dark ages......but even so.....I believe that the human race will.....somehow......survive......despite appearances.......

3java3, please lose the religion stuff. It's irrelephant. It also irritates people needlessly.

MS's next step? Because Apple updates its OS free of charge, MS will have to do the same to stay competitive...in fact, if they make Windows 9 free, they'll probably gain back a tremendous share of the market since Windows machines are so much cheaper than Apple's. They can make plenty of money creating and selling apps.

3java3, go troll somewhere else please.

I didn't realize I was being a troll....I just wanted some feedback......I'm sorry I even started this thread......

3java3 I think they were referring to post number 4.

I think if MS keeps putting out operating systems like Windows 8 they might disappear someday. Windows 8 is great for some folks, but the majority of the public has said they don't like it judging by how PC sales have been.

I still have yet to give Windows 8 a fair try. Maybe after a new hard drive.

Kona's correct....;)

Yes, you are quite correct, sir.... but I had to go somewhere with the misspelling, didn't I.... and that seemed as good a place as any.

I think that was sort of the idea when Win 8 was heavily discounted early on in its shelf life... to attract larger numbers of users. Sadly, it did not achieve that goal, but I think a lot of that is due to negative press from so-called experts giving it the thumbs down.  They did the same to Vista and nobbled it with so-called reasoned logic/argument. Well I used Vista for years and it always worked for me.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.  I do not see MS actually making Win 9 free because it will need to regain some financial ground after the losses incurred on Surface 1 and Win 8 itself.  However, a heavily discounted release for 3 months or so would more likely be on the cards... accompanied by a very strong advertising campaign highlighting its features to every day users as well as the power users.  As for mimicking Apple with free OS updates, MS has already gone that route with Windows 8.1, and it's possible that before Win 9 is released, we could see Windows 8.2 and 8.3 released free of charge.

The other positive for Microsoft is the new CEO, with more of a background in tech.  Ballmer was never the right man for the job, and when he put Win 8's lead programmer, Steve Sinofsky, to the sword, he was more-or-less admitting to the public, and anyone else paying attention, that Windows 8 was a failure... all because of its lead programmer.  That was the wrong move and Ballmer should have supported Sinofsky to the hilt, and in doing so he would have shown the world that he stood by the product.  Instead he hid, much like a tot hiding behind its mother's petticoats, and virtually handed a 'Windows 8 is a dead set failure' to its detractors and others who wanted/needed it to fail.  Thing is MS is more resilient than that, and it will bounce back to produce a top-notch, much refined version of Win 8 when it releases Windows 9.

Mark, with all due respect, I don't think Windows 9 will be a "refined" version of Windows 8. I think Windows 9 will be a refined and updated version of Windows 7. Metro was a bad idea from the start.

Thing is, Terry, Metro is not the be all and end all of Windows 8.  In fact, Metro is just a glorified start menu to access your apps, etc, and if you use Win 8 with Metro disabled, you're already using a refined version of Windows 7, being that its faster and more stable, etc.  So, in using that logic, the next iteration of Windows [9] must be a refined version of Win 8.

As for Metro being a bad idea, maybe so in a non-touch desktop environment, but for tablets and phones, touch screens, it is brilliant and has a considerably more attractive UI than Android and/or Apple's IOS. 

OK how is Windows 8 more stable and faster? When I ran it on this system for a few days it was slower and more bloated than Windows 7.

I'm constantly reminded of a theme called LCARS when I think of Win8. I remember in the first thread made concerning Win8 I said something about using the 'touch' technology to replace the keyboard. Then RnD, bless his redneck self, discovered an app for trekkies and made a video of it. I still think its going to go that way. There are already solid state drives replacing the mechanical ones. As for Metro...meh...the UI might just be a precursor, albeit it an ugly one, to something a bit more user friendly not to mention better looking. There are already platforms that use 'touch', about the size of a coffee table, that interact with a wall mounted screen. IMO that would be the 'logical' choice. Now all someone has to do is define the 'logical' part. Not one of Microstuff's strong suits. Won't happen with Win9 or even 10 but somewhere along the line... 

touch on a standing monitor is crap. but i'd like this one:

just not sure whether i could afford it if that concept ever becomes reality.

Exactly what I said about Win7 when running Vista...... Jus' sayin'......

Windows 8 is a solid OS, imo - kinda reminds me a bit of my Vista experience.

In one post you said you didn't give it a "fair try", yet now you complain it was bloated or something.  Really, if you haven't used it extensively you don't know what you're talking about.

Metro isn't going anywhere.  They have a lot invested in it, and it's just not going to disappear in Windows 9.

Same here, I like Vista and had no real issues with it, plus I like Win 8 and think it is great to use.

Actually, Win 8 has the smaller ISO, meaning it is less bloated, for want of a better word, than Win 7.  My niece had similar problems running Win 8 to you, finding it slower and not as responsive, so she put Win 7 back on her machine.  I don't know why this happens on an occasional machine, because generally, Win 8 runs better/faster than previous Windows versions on the same hardware, so it's obvious some machines don't like it, but I think they're very few and far between.

If the general public is shying away from Windows 8 because of Metro, why would improving Metro help sales? The people want Microsoft to get rid of Metro, not improve it.

And most sheep wants Apple to do this or do that - but Apple doesn't give a flying fuck what they want.
Apple does what >Apple< wants.

MS is just adoping some of their tactics and improve Metro.
But really.... Who cares?!?

As long as we get the option to get rid of it - all's good.

I'm afraid somewhere down the line MS will strip away the desktop and force users to use noting but Metro.

Well, you just be afraid and leave the rest of us to be realistic, cause MS won't do that.

Famous last words my friend.

I think that would be another nail in MS' coffin, to be honest. It would be madness when so many desktop users have taken to Microsoft forums and feedback pages to express their dislike of Metro.  Moreover, Metro is not conducive to multi-tasking environments, meaning that businesses will not adopt Metro only OSes because it would hamper employee productivity and lose them money, and I can't see MS pissing off the corporate world like that.  And then there's regular users like me, who might want to encode a video; convert audio; render graphics; surf the net; check their emails; watch TV or listen to music.  A Metro 'only' OS would greatly inhibit users ability to have several apps all running at once and it just wouldn't fly in the real world.

The best Microsoft could do is make Metro an either or, and allow users to decide what's best for them.  I'm running Win 8.1 and very rarely see Metro.  I log straight into the desktop and generally remain there until I log off again.  However, every so often I will go into Metro because I find some apps useful and new ones are being released all the time, so it's worth a look occasionally to see what's going on in the world of apps; tech; news and entertainment, etc.  I call it my little desktop hiatus.. hehe.