Apparently Microsoft was expecting Windows 8 sales to be much higher than they have been to date. No doubt this is at least partly because of doubts related to the new user interface, and partly due to general satisfaction with Windows 7, acknowledged to be the basis for Windows 8.

Update: Ars Technica looks at the available numbers and says it’s too soon to declare Windows 8 a disaster.

Update 2: The Verge reports that Microsoft is claiming they have sold 40 million Windows 8 upgrades in its first month.

Microsoft has traditionally been pro-consumer in terms of backward compatibility. They expended a lot of resources to make sure that new versions of Windows would be compatible with older hardware, for instance.

A rare exception to this was Microsoft’s failure to make DirectX 10 compatible with Windows XP. Given the huge number of Windows XP systems still out there when DirectX 10 was introduced in 2006 (and even now), this move almost certainly hurt everyone involved, including Microsoft, game developers and consumers. As a Windows XP gamer, I occasionally encounter games that require DirectX 10, at which point I put the box back on the shelf.

Despite claims to the contrary, it’s clear that a big part of Microsoft’s DirectX 10 decision was that they wanted people to upgrade to Windows Vista. I’m sure a few gamers upgraded Windows because of this, but to the vast majority it was just another stupid roadblock and a reason to be angry at Microsoft.

Game developers were left with a difficult decision. They could continue developing for DirectX 9, but in doing so they would not be able to use the new features of DirectX 10. They could develop two versions of their games, one requiring DirectX 10 and the other, compatible with DirectX 9, but this would add a lot of work and complexity to the process. Or they could stop developing for DirectX 9, but this would eliminate a huge potential market: Windows XP gamers. None of these choices are ideal. For the most part, DirectX 10-only game titles are still relatively rare.

Unfortunately, Microsoft has made a similar decision for DirectX 11: it will only be available on Windows 8. Once again, this decision is likely to do more damage than anything else.

When Microsoft introduced the ‘Modern UI’ on the XBox 360 a while ago, it seemed obvious to most people that the new UI was just an excuse to shove more advertising into the faces of users. It changed a perfectly functional, text-based navigation system into an attention-grabbing, image-oriented, and ultimately wasteful navigation system. Visual ads are much more effective than text ads, and the current XBox 360 interface delivers them relentlessly.

A bit of background: Microsoft has long been jealous of Google’s ability to make massive amounts of money through advertising. Microsoft has tried to emulate Google by mirroring the services Google provides with Bing, Bing Webmaster Tools, and so on. When the new XBox 360 UI – the one filled with ads – first appeared, Microsoft may have expected backlash from users. When no such backlash materialized, Microsoft must have decided they could get away with the same thing in Windows.

So, when Microsoft announced that Windows 8 would have the same interface as the XBox 360, I immediately assumed we’d be seeing ads in Windows 8. Sure enough, we’re starting to see reports of advertising appearing in the apps built into Windows 8.

But here’s the problem: XBox 360 users spend very little time looking at the user interface. 99.9% of the time, they’re looking at full screen content in the form of video and games. The interface ads barely register. That’s not the case with Windows applications, where most desktop users spend all their time. If I need to use a certain type of application, and I have a choice between one that shows me ads all the time, and one that doesn’t, guess which one I’m going to choose? Business IT departments are going to really hate this as well, and it’s going to be yet another reason for them to avoid Windows 8 completely.

The Australian site pcauthority.com has an interesting post about consumer confusion related to the retail version of Windows 8.

Microsoft has made significant changes to the way Windows is being sold. The resulting confusion has retailers claiming that the boxed copies of Windows 8 they are selling are full versions, not upgrades. In fact, they are upgrades. Anyone wishing to purchase a non-upgrade version of Windows 8 can either buy a new computer that comes with an OEM version of Windows 8, or wait until the new “System Builder” version becomes available. The System Builder version is not yet available, and pricing is yet to be confirmed my Microsoft.

The pcauthority.com article explicitly demonstrates that retail boxed copies of Windows 8 cannot be used for new installs. And despite the source being Australian, the same rules apply here in North America.

The latest in Ars Technica’s series on Windows 8 covers the basics of getting up and running with the new O/S. It includes some help with common problems.

The new O/S is apparently selling well, or at least better than Windows 7 did at this stage, according to Steve Ballmer. Of course, when Windows 7 appeared, the previous viable version (Windows XP) was not imminently losing support from Microsoft. Clearly, the huge number of Windows XP systems out there have to go somewhere, and it looks like a lot of early adopters are going for Windows 8. I’m sure the much lower upgrade price ($40 as opposed to $100) was a big factor in those decisions.

ARS Technica has an extended look at the use of Windows 8 in the workplace, specifically the Enterprise edition. Their conclusion? That upgrading to Windows 8 isn’t really worth the trouble, unless your existing systems run Windows XP. In other words, stick with Windows 7 if that’s what you’re using in your business. There are simply not enough useful new or improved features in Windows 8 Enterprise. Add to that the increased training costs associated with the new user interface, and it’s best to stick with 7 for now.

Yet another post from ARS Technica looks at the viability of Linux as a replacement for Windows on the desktop. They conclude that the arrival of Windows 8 is not going to drive people to Linux, as others have predicted, and that the big beneficiary is actually going to be Windows 7. I think they’re right. However, if the current push towards mainstream gaming on Linux goes anywhere, that may change.