How much of that is because of pre-installed copies, particularly laptops? Very few actually use 8.x by choice, most actually hesitate from buying laptops because of Windows 8. 8.1 does the scummy move of trying to force you to use a Windows Live account. It wouldn't let me continue with the installation until I did so, then they hide the option to have an offline account. Honestly I don't like anything M$ did during Ballmer's reign of derp.

The fact that alot premade pc companies are switching back to win7 and or give consumers the choice to go with win8 or win 7 and people still rather use win7 apparently means nothing to MS.

Windows 8. 8.1 does the scummy move of trying to force you to use a Windows Live account.

say what now? wth why would i want to use that. Did MS not learn anything from what they TRIED to force feed the consoles world? and failed and backtracked with i 24 hours. IF this was the PC world of OS they would not of backtracked let alone in 24 hours MS is lucky that if people want to PC game or for that mater have PC 99% of all them use there OS. that is MS only saving grace in the PC world they control PC world of OS.

I use it and enjoy it by choice. Guess I'm the minority. There is nothing about it that bothers me other than Microsoft continuing to ignore minor features and details i'd like to see. Especially dealing with explorer navigation and stuff.

The only reason I switched to W8 from W7 is to get better performance in BF4. It was huge difference. I know it maybe stupid to do it because of one game but BF4 is the only game I play.

How much of that is because of pre-installed copies, particularly laptops? Very few actually use 8.x by choice, most actually hesitate from buying laptops because of Windows 8. 8.1 does the scummy move of trying to force you to use a Windows Live account. It wouldn't let me continue with the installation until I did so, then they hide the option to have an offline account. Honestly I don't like anything M$ did during Ballmer's reign of derp.

WindowsXP, Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 were all under Ballmer.... Win2K/ME were the last releases developed under Gates, even though they were actually released under Ballmer. So, basically what you're saying is you prefer Win9x/NT3/NT4 to NT5/NT6....

How much of that is because of pre-installed copies, particularly laptops? Very few actually use 8.x by choice, most actually hesitate from buying laptops because of Windows 8. 8.1 does the scummy move of trying to force you to use a Windows Live account. It wouldn't let me continue with the installation until I did so, then they hide the option to have an offline account. Honestly I don't like anything M$ did during Ballmer's reign of derp.

They don't force you but they sure hid the option to opt out of a Microsoft Account really well. Completely deceptive. With that said 8.1 is honestly fine. You can get it to operate similarly to 7 without much issue.

WindowsXP, Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 were all under Ballmer.... Win2K/ME were the last releases developed under Gates, even though they were actually released under Ballmer. So, basically what you're saying is you prefer Win9x/NT3/NT4 to NT5/NT6....

I thought Ballmer didn't have so much control until Gates officially left? Everything seemed to go down the toilet after that point.

I thought Ballmer didn't have so much control until Gates officially left? Everything seemed to go down the toilet after that point.

What I find most amusing is the number of people that criticized Windows 8 and claimed that it never would have happened under Gates. Yet 8 is essentially the culmination of everything Bill wanted for all those years. The guy touted touch input more than anyone, along with natural language, etc. This isn't even to mention the fact that Bill was the one who green-lit 8 to begin with. Microsoft had the Courier on one hand and Steve Sinofsky's vision for Windows 8 on the other. Ballmer wasn't sure what the right decision was so he asked Gates who ultimately decided on Windows 8 because it was aligned properly with Microsoft's other revenue generating products (Office, Exchange, etc). If Gates decided on Courier, 8 would have never tried to unify tablets and PC interfaces.

The key complaint is not what Windows 8 is, it's the whole strongarming that they've been attempting. Completely removing the code for the start menu and regular menus, trying to force the use of Live accounts, trying to force all that insanity with the Xbone. It didn't help that they removed the widgets/gadgets from their own website leaving a note saying they've moved onto apps for Windows 8, tough luck, go buy that. You're telling me Gates was the one who decided any of that? But on that note, after using a Surface tablet it really confirms to me that 8.x doesn't belong on any non-touchscreen device. Especially a desktop or work environment. Yet it wouldn't be such a problem if they left all the old options instead of trying to force the new way down everyone's throats. I don't know how long I've had my 8.x laptop now but at this point it seems like 8.x is not something I'll ever like.

I've been a long user of an Xbox 360, Windows Phone 7/8 and so I'm in the minority when it comes to liking and preferring Windows 8.x. Living amongst siblings I really like the integrated parental control features which have essentially been imported across from Windows Live Safety which is bundled in to the Windows Live package. I have no fear of them coming across a website they shouldn't. I also hear they are merging the OS for the Xbox One with Windows RT and possibly Windows Phone.

I thought Ballmer didn't have so much control until Gates officially left? Everything seemed to go down the toilet after that point.

Bill Gates stepped down as CEO and officially turned the company over to Ballmer in January 2000. He's retained his position as chairman of the board since January 2000. Gates never "officially left" MS. There are investors demanding that Gates be removed as Chairman, but since those investors only hold roughly 5% (combined) stake in MS, their demands are meaningless.

I also hear they are merging the OS for the Xbox One with Windows RT and possibly Windows Phone.

Windows RT and Windows Phone are being merged. Xbox uses the NT kernel, but doesn't run a full Windows build, so it would make no sense at all to merge it with Windows.

Bill Gates stepped down as CEO and officially turned the company over to Ballmer in January 2000. He's retained his position as chairman of the board since January 2000. Gates never "officially left" MS. There are investors demanding that Gates be removed as Chairman, but since those investors only hold roughly 5% (combined) stake in MS, their demands are meaningless. Windows RT and Windows Phone are being merged. Xbox uses the NT kernel, but doesn't run a full Windows build, so it would make no sense at all to merge it with Windows.

Lol, Gates himself owns 5% of the company

Lol, Gates himself owns 5% of the company

Ballmer holds roughly 4% stake in MS. The investors that are demanding Gates be removed as Chairman of the Board, are actually investment groups. Majority of the board supports Gates. The same investor groups want Ballmer removed from the board of directors as well. But again, their 5% combined stake doesn't give them enough votes to do anything. They need a majority vote from investors to force the removal of either without being blocked by members of the Board of Directors. Good luck getting enough investors to vote for Bill Gates being removed against the wishes of the board...lol

Ballmer holds roughly 4% stake in MS. The investors that are demanding Gates be removed as Chairman of the Board, are actually investment groups. Majority of the board supports Gates. The same investor groups want Ballmer removed from the board of directors as well. But again, their 5% combined stake doesn't give them enough votes to do anything. They need a majority vote from investors to force the removal of either without being blocked by members of the Board of Directors. Good luck getting enough investors to vote for Bill Gates being removed against the wishes of the board...lol

Lol yeah not gonna happen. Also, this just came up, funny enough: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/04/microsoft-closes-at-38-94-its-highest-point-in-13-38-years/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000591 Of course, when the surface losses are eventually actually accounted for, I'm sure they'll drop $10 or so for a quarter or two. But otherwise they're doing well.

Damn what if a big corporation like this would help with the suffering of famine in the world. Or any other big corporation for that matter... there's too little cooperation and unity in this world..

Damn what if a big corporation like this would help with the suffering of famine in the world. Or any other big corporation for that matter... there's too little cooperation and unity in this world..

Bill Gates donated 28 billion to charity over the years and still has a net worth of 72 billion. So freakin' rich.

Bill Gates stepped down as CEO and officially turned the company over to Ballmer in January 2000. He's retained his position as chairman of the board since January 2000. Gates never "officially left" MS. There are investors demanding that Gates be removed as Chairman, but since those investors only hold roughly 5% (combined) stake in MS, their demands are meaningless.

I knew he stepped down as CEO in 2000, but I thought he still had the final say until he was relatively inactive in recent years. I didn't know he hadn't parted with the company yet. My question remains the same though, who's idea was all that strong-arming?

I use it and enjoy it by choice. Guess I'm the minority. There is nothing about it that bothers me other than Microsoft continuing to ignore minor features and details i'd like to see. Especially dealing with explorer navigation and stuff.

Pretty much this for me as well.

Honestly, Windows 7 was the most successful Microsoft OS of all time. Any logical person would have continued to expand on what works, and not gone and try to re-invent the wheel. Theres a reason why pure desktop environments have endured for decades and will continue to do so.

Honestly, Windows 7 was the most successful Microsoft OS of all time. Any logical person would have continued to expand on what works, and not gone and try to re-invent the wheel. Theres a reason why pure desktop environments have endured for decades and will continue to do so.

Windows 7 is successful because Microsoft commands a vast majority of the marketshare, Vista was a marketing failure and XP was around for nearly a decade. If it wasn't the most successful Microsoft OS it would literally go down as the worst blunder any company has ever made ever, there was literally no way they could **** that launch up. As for expanding, yeah, tell that to companies like Blackberry, Kodak, Yahoo, Sun and all the other companies who sat on their golden thrones and failed to innovate. Worked out really well for them. Pure desktop environments were the only choice for decades. This is literally like someone saying "automobiles are going to fail, horse and buggy reign supreme" four years after the initial car was developed. Mobiles already surpassed desktops in 2006. They now outsell desktop hardware 2-1. As the power of mobile computing gets better and network infrastructure improves there will be no reason to have a desktop. Just a tablet/phone and a dock. Look I'm not going to pretend like the unified interface 8 employ's is flawless, it's not. But they definitely made the right bet. Desktops are going out the window and mobile is in. Every single person I talk to in the IT field here in the U.S. is basically already began shifting their customers over to more mobile oriented paradigms.