[Windows 8 General] e.mote:
>Microsoft has always had multiple versions of Windows in simultaneous development

Parallel dev tracks have crossed my mind, but MS is in a state of upheaval with an entirely reorg'ed OS group, so anything is possible. Anyway, as the piece said, no code will be shown for Build. So, unless we see some substance, then I go with the pessimistic view. With MS' track record, being a pessimist is usually the way to go. We'll know in three months.

I've little interest in Win9, because as far as MS is concerned, the desktop is done. For actual desktop functionality, Win7 is roughly the same as Win8, and likely will be roughly the same as Win9. As was with 8 and 8.1, any work that MS does on Win9 will be to use Windows to better leverage mobile. My use of Windows only pertains to the desktop, not mobile.

So, unlike many Win users, I'm more interested in MS' plans for WP and RT, which will be announced at Build. MS' future in consumer computing hinges on how it plans to jump start its moribund phone and tablet markets. Whatever it does to its declared "legacy" platform is at best a holding action.

>in this case it's a discussion of software rather than hardware, that's not a fully valid analogy.

I'm referring to hardware sales of 8.1 boxes, not 8.1 upgrades. The April update to 8.1 may not be a damper on sales, but beating the drums on 9 will certainly have an impact.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how well or poorly 8.1 sells, other than for fanboys to fight over bragging rights. One can quibble over whether 8.x was a failure, but we can all agree it has not been the success expected of it. Win8.x's main goal wasn't to jump-start desktop sales, but to get MS a foothold in mobile, specifically to make RT viable, and create a competitive mobile ecosystem. This has not happened.

>As for the accuracy of WinSuperSite, I'd say it is, relatively speaking, pretty reliable...Care to highlight any examples of why Thurott is untrustworthy?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'll comment on it. First, to field FloatingFatMan's claim:

>>Important to remember that the Netmarketshare stat (3.6%) is of all computers including millions of Mac and Linux PCs worldwide. That means it is not 3.6% of 1.3 billion Windows users, but 3.6% of 1.6 billion computer users.

>>Computer Industry Almanac: Over 1.6B PC users

>>MS Says Over 1.3B Windows Users (July, 2012)

Using stats as an argument is full of pitfalls. The above is a good example. You are taking estimates (the first) and marketing claims (the second) and presenting them as facts. There are large uncertainties involved, you can't start doing math using combos of guesses, because of the multiplicative propagation of error. Anyone remember their sig figs from high school physics?

Anyway, the comparison doesn't jive. Net Market Share measures USAGE market share, per its FAQ:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/faq.aspx

whereas the above two sources refer to sales, not usage.

As to WinSupersite, I'd agree that P Thurrott and MJ Folley are usually reliable sources for Win info. This does come at a cost. For Thurrott, the cost is to become a blithering MS fanboy, with trite boostering articles for MS products, alternating with juvenile invectives against Google. These, mixed in with doom-ridden pieces (like the Win9 rumor) on the very same product touted earlier, makes one wonder if the dude isn't suffering from a dissociative identity disorder.

I don't hold it against him, as I understand this is the price for access (to MS sources). Thurrott's whole career is based upon MS products, and he is dependent on its good graces to continue his trade. The polemic pieces are red meat for beleaguered Windows fans who look to him as a flagbearer of sorts. As said, the pay off for the partisan antics is that his "inside info" is usually good.

I've watched Thurrott in a few of his weekly vids, and my assessment of him is as a knowledgeable techie with pretty reasonable views. Other than the occasional MS-good and Google-bad diatribes--which I view in the same line as ad pop-ups, ie to be ignored--his outlook tend to be grounded.

Edit: Speaking of MJ Foley, here's a good read from a link in one of her latest pieces. It's from former Windows Manager David Sobeski, on why MS lost the support of developers. Comments on FB from other devs and former Softies largely support his sentiments. I'd wager that this, more than Win8's humdrum sales, plays a large role in why the WinRT cupboard is so barren.

http://dsobeski.com