TweakTown noticed WSJ writer John Dvorak wrote a skeptical article about Microsoft's Windows 8 operating system. Echoing criticism from journalists around the web, Dvorak notes the new operating system is based on the pipe dream that the unsuccesful Windows Phone user interface will turn into a success on the tablet, to such an extreme that people will demand it on desktops. Dvorak goes as far as to say that Windows 8 could be an unrecoverable disaster for the company:
Furthermore, he reiterates the idea that the Metro desktop is more useful, and wanted, on a smartphone or tablet rather than a PC. He points the issues with trying to use one GUI across every platform and the issues that not everyone will want that unification. Am I the only one that finds fingerprints on my screen to be rather annoying?
The potential for this OS to be an unrecoverable disaster for the company is at the highest possible level I've ever seen. It ranks up there with the potential for disaster that the Itanium chip presented for Intel Corp. It's that bad. I have no idea why Microsoft would take such an enormous gamble on its cash cow like this. Incremental changes were a theme at Redmond, Wash.; this is a radical departure.
What is this departure based on? It's based on the pipe dream that the unsuccessful user interface used by Windows Phone will turn into a success on the tablet - to such an extreme that people will also demand it on the desktop, so all the platforms can have the same look and feel.
Use Disqus to post new comments, the old comments are listed below.
Re: WSJ writer: Windows 8 shaping up to be unmitigated disaster by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 03:33:44 CEST
The interface could be continued on tablet and phone and some AIO touchscreens while still bringing a more desktop environment to the same OS for normal pc's. Win 7 was the refresh that was needed to make Vista palatable. Watch and see what happens to Win 8. It WILL unify the platforms but it will change form a bit too as they figure out what works and what does not.