Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 19:45 UTC
Windows So, I guess Apple set a trend three years ago when it announced the $29 pricing for Snow Leopard (insert patent joke here). Microsoft has just announced the upgrade pricing for Windows 8 Pro - and it's good. Every Windows XP, Vista, and 7 install, no matter the version, is eligible for an upgrade to Windows 8 Pro (download version) for just $39.99. The fine print: this offer only runs until January 31, 2013.
Order by: Score:
Only because Windows 7 is better
by Priest on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 19:54 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

I guess we'll see how they price future versions of Windows but maybe the reason 8 is so low is because of all the negative opinions of it.

Reply Score: 6

bryhhh Member since:
2005-07-22

+1; I won't be going anywhere near this OS.

Of the MS operating systems, I've used NT4, Win 2000, Win XP and Win 7, all of which have been great operating systems.

Windows 9x, ME, Vista were all terrible, and I see Windows 8 being added to that list.

They are trying to jump on the touch screen interface bandwagon. Whilst great on a small lightweight tablet/phone, it's not so good for desktops and laptops.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, right... Vista was horrible, but Vista SE (aka "let's do the marketing trick with lucky 7") is great?

(also, you really forgot how bad NT4, 2k, XP were before few service packs)

And nobody really tried touch in larger scenarios, it might very well end up quite awesome (when, for example, the display tech of MS Surface 2.0 - the table kind - gets inexpensive; but that would require "forcing" the devs a bit, so that the applications will be mostly ready; I guess that's largely what MS tries to do with "Metro 1.0" ...and BTW, Windows 1.0 hardly went anywhere - but 3.x and especially fourth were all the rage)

Reply Score: 2

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Win7 is a subset of win8; so, maybe you do not see any interesting thing that win8 offers, but it does not make it worse.

Reply Score: 2

quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Quite, if it wasn't for Metro, 8 is just a point SP for 7. Even so, if one could turn off Metro I'd upgrade. As is, think you'd have to be perversely masochistic to do so. Really can't understand this at all.

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

That's like saying that rotting cow carcass is a superset of steak.

Windows 8 doesn't give you the option of using the start menu or booting into the desktop.

Don't give me that Sinofsky BS about it being the same Windows. The same Windows doesn't dump all my shortcuts onto a single screen.

Reply Score: 3

OSNevvs Member since:
2009-08-20

"The fine print: this offer only runs until January 31, 2013."

[...] this *upgrade* only runs [...]

LOL

Reply Score: 1

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

I guess we'll see how they price future versions of Windows but maybe the reason 8 is so low is because of all the negative opinions of it.

A company proves its right to exist, by charging a fee for their products. Lowering prices is a sign of weakness. High prices are a sign of strength.

This low price shows that MS is hesitant on Windows 8. The next Windows can not be sold for a much higher price, there will be an outrage.

Reply Score: 2

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

++1 to that too!

After running the beta releases for some time now, my opinion is that they are going to have to nearly give it away for people to upgrade. No start menu, really?

Is this Windows ME 3.0 or Vista 2.0? The negatives on Vista are far less then what I have heard from virtually everyone that i know that has tried 8.

At least make an option to keep the windows 7 way of operating if you are installing on a desktop with mouse and keyboard.

I will get the upgrade simply so I can support my customers but it will not replace windows 7 for me.

Reply Score: 1

Downgrade right to Win7 Pro?
by Victor.Drake on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 19:57 UTC
Victor.Drake
Member since:
2012-01-11

Does the Pro Version come with a downgrade right to Win7?

Im still in charge of a fleet (~30) XP machines, needing an upgrade to Win7 soon. 40€ a pop for Win7 sounds ok, though I am not interessted in Win8 at all.

Changing Win7 to look like WinXP Classic = Win2k is already enough efford, with Win8 it is probably impossible.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Downgrade right to Win7 Pro?
by Nico57 on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 22:03 UTC in reply to "Downgrade right to Win7 Pro?"
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

Sounds like a nice option!

Why do theses XP machines *need* a Win7 upgrade anyway?
64-bit support?

If your XP licenses are actually downgraded Vista licenses, there's another option: you can downgrade Vista to XP64.
That's quite an upgrade actually!

While XP64 was never massively used, hardware support is still quite good.
Thanks to its success on the workstation market and its shared codebase with Windows Server 2003, graphics and networking support is top notch.
The only 2 problematic device classes I've had to deal with are embedded audio codecs (Vista64 drivers may not work) and USB wifi dongles from the XP era (upgraded drivers sometimes exist but can only be picked by Vista/7 from WindowsUpdate, and cannot be downloaded otherwise).

And of course, vendor support is coming to its end on April 8, 2014 (just like XP32).
Still, that's almost 2 more years to go.

Reply Score: 1

Spiron Member since:
2011-03-08

Reasons for upgrading to Win7 from WinXP.

1) Better Operating System with a better kernel, security sub-system, better programming API's.

2) Windows 7 is more standards compliant with IE9, Visual Studio 2010, and a base-level media player that DOESN'T suck.

3) More support in industry. Chances are that most companies are now going to charge you more to do trouble-shooting/support on WinXP machines. Plus if your department needs a new piece of tech, like a printer, more support for Win7.

4) (optional) Arguably easier to use. I know that there will be people that say it isn't but personally I find that I am navigating around my computer and programs faster than when I was on WinXP. One example is if I have 5+ programs open, not a rare occurance for me, and I want to launch my media player I just press 'WinKey+5' and that launches it from the position it is on on my taskbar.

Reply Score: 3

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Driver support for new hardware is also gonna be a problem in the somewhat near future for XP I can imagine.

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Security really is a lot better. UAC may annoy people but it has been proven to make life a lot harder for malware writers.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

XP 64bit is worse than XP 32bit.

Reply Score: 2

suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

In what respect? Drivers were the biggest problem in my experience. But other than that it was just like XP 32 bit except more robust.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It always fell apart for me after a few months and would refuse to shutdown and other odd things.

It is a bit of a running joke that XP64bit is a bit crap.

XP64bit runs worse than Windows 7 on my Dell D430 (2GB of ram).

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

XP64 is Server 2003 which at the core is better than XP.

I guarantee that any problems you had were driver related. They should have called it something else, the name gave it unrealistic compatibility expectations.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No it isn't driver problems

WHQL drivers for all my hardware ... I am still running the same hardware now (Intel Mother Board, Nvidia Graphics).

XP 64bit was half of this and half of that, which was the real problem, IMO.

Also after running Windows 7 and VISTA you really miss things like the prefetch working properly.

Edited 2012-07-04 07:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

XP 64bit was half of this and half of that, which was the real problem, IMO.


No it was Win2k3 with an XP theme. Win2k3 is a solid OS.

Plenty of gamers have benchmarked XP64. It doesn't have performance issues.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/windows-os-software/242891-xp-vs-vi...

I don't know your situation but it isn't the norm. Odds are that one of your 64 bit drivers is the problem. Windows 7 may run better but XP64 isn't crap.

Edited 2012-07-04 14:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Downgrade right to Win7 Pro?
by zima on Mon 9th Jul 2012 23:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Downgrade right to Win7 Pro?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

XP starts losing software support. And 2k3/XP64 weren't ever that great with it, or with graphics support (writing from a 2k3 box BTW; and sure, you can toy around with forcing the apps to run so on ...but it's silly to expect such approach in ~corporate settings)

It would be very much a downgrade from Vista, especially the present service-packed one (which is BTW adored by people under the VistaSE moniker, aka Win7)

Reply Score: 2

Comment by drcouzelis
by drcouzelis on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 20:26 UTC
drcouzelis
Member since:
2010-01-11

Windows 8 (yes, I've grown to like it, despite its many, many flaws)

Wait, what? I thought you said Windows 8 was going to bring about the Computer Apocolypse!

I have pretty much zero experience with Windows. In what ways have you grown to like Windows 8? Do you feel that Windows 8 is an improvement over Windows 7?

If you plan on writing an article on this topic then I'll wait. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Ah!
by Kalessin on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 20:35 UTC
Kalessin
Member since:
2007-01-18

But how much to downgrade? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ah!
by Sauron on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 05:21 UTC in reply to "Ah!"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

But how much to downgrade? ;)


And how much they paying me to install the crap?

Reply Score: 2

Yeah right ..
by Shannara on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 20:40 UTC
Shannara
Member since:
2005-07-06

Umm yeah ...

When I bought Windows 7 (family pack at costco), and went to upgrade to ultimate, Microsoft's credit card processor was offline for months. I never tried again since then..

... I wonder if microsoft is using a decent processor or not to allow these orders to happen ...

Reply Score: 3

Win 95 Launch
by Adurbe on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 20:50 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder if MS will go whole hog on the launch like they did for Windows 95.

Its as big a shift as 3.1 to 95 was

Reply Score: 3

Whatever.
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 20:56 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

After trying out the Windows 8 Consumer Preview a while back, I wouldn't "upgrade" to Windows 8 if Microsoft paid me to do it. That is, assuming I was even running Windows in the first place--which I don't have access to a recent version of, because it just costs so god damn much. And my upgrade copy of Windows XP Professional? Don't know where it went. And it's too bad because Microsoft was actually beginning to turn Windows Vista into something tolerable and usable again with the release of Windows 7. And then, they shit all over it with the very next Windows release.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Whatever.
by Nico57 on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 22:15 UTC in reply to "Whatever."
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

I believe Win8 has even more apocalyptic potential for MS than Vista did.
WinMe, Vista, now Win8. Practice makes perfect.
They'll manage to blow the head off eventually.

Reply Score: 1

I'll buy that.
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 21:14 UTC
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

I hope they have a household deal.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'll buy that.
by Priest on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 21:28 UTC in reply to "I'll buy that."
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

Have you tested Windows 8? Did your family do something to make you mad at them?

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: I'll buy that.
by quackalist on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE: I'll buy that."
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Smiled at that, just deleted Windows 8 Consumer Preview in favor of XP on an 'oldish' laptop that came with Vista. Almost got carried away thinking 'maybe' as I'm a sucker for 'bargains'...not that much of a sucker though! Besides, imagine in Rip-Off-Britain...

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'll buy that.
by Gone fishing on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 07:23 UTC in reply to "I'll buy that."
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

For $40 I'll buy (although it will be more in the UK). My family all use Ubuntu and that's my main OS. But I don't like Windows 7 much and I need to know my way around Windows 8.

I think Windows 8 may have apocalyptic potential, as it is arm twisting users in a direction they probably don't want to go. Win ME was bad, a poor bloated version of 98, with DOS removed, Vista was so slow, bloated and quite horrid. But neither of these attempted to change how Windows users, used their PCs in the way Windows 8 does.

Edited 2012-07-03 07:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Policy
by martijn on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 22:07 UTC
RE: Policy
by Adurbe on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 22:18 UTC in reply to "Policy"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Win 2000 - good!!
winXP - bad until a couple of SP

You missed out Windows ME - bad

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Policy
by martijn on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Policy"
martijn Member since:
2010-11-06

You're right. I means ME instead of 2000. I was talking about the consumer editions.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Policy
by zima on Fri 6th Jul 2012 01:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Policy"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

XP - just 2000 SE ...2k didn't get hit much, didn't get bad rep, mostly because it was less used and more in the pristine, innocent days before constant net connections, and/or in a tight ~corporate setups.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Policy
by Nico57 on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 22:20 UTC in reply to "Policy"
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

Win2k was actually quite a good workstation/server OS.
And WinXP had some difficult early years.

But yes there's an up and down trend at work here.
Like MS is playing rodeo with its customers: "Get... off.. our back already!!"

Reply Score: 4

RE: Policy
by BeamishBoy on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 02:05 UTC in reply to "Policy"
BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

Nonsense. Windows 2000 was - and still is - an outstanding operating system.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Policy
by lucas_maximus on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Policy"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It was a rubbish before Service Pack 3.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Policy
by Nico57 on Wed 4th Jul 2012 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Policy"
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

Rubbish is an overstatement.
But indeed, 3 networking bugs prevented me from using it before (one in the DNS resolver, can't remember the other ones).
All were fixed in SP3.

Coming from NT4, the refreshed UI (NT4 still had a lot of dialogs from the 3.x era), the added USB stack (!) and, later, Automatic Updates were nice improvements.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Policy
by lucas_maximus on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 13:41 UTC in reply to "Policy"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Vista was perfectly fine after service pack 1, People forget how bad Win XP RTM was.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Policy
by Nico57 on Wed 4th Jul 2012 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Policy"
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

Vista never was, and won't ever be fine.

It's still the same fat ass as on its first day.
It still favors trashing your disk over getting actual work done, and minds his own business instead of doing what you tell it to.
UI still... oh, I can't even talk about that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Policy
by lucas_maximus on Wed 4th Jul 2012 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Policy"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Vista never was, and won't ever be fine.

It's still the same fat ass as on its first day.


Well it was the first attempt at decoupling the huge number of components in Windows.

Actually Window Vista service pack 2, has pretty much the same code as Windows Server 2008.

It still favors trashing your disk over getting actual work done, and minds his own business instead of doing what you tell it to.


What are you on about? None of this happens.

UI still... oh, I can't even talk about that.


It is pretty much Windows Classic with a black Skin.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Policy
by Nico57 on Wed 4th Jul 2012 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Policy"
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18


"It still favors trashing your disk over getting actual work done, and minds his own business instead of doing what you tell it to.

What are you on about? None of this happens.
"
I've yet to see a single Vista computer that does not suffer performance problems. And dozens of them have passed through my hands.
Responsiveness is so bad that it makes your Core 2 Quad look like an Atom processor.


"UI still... oh, I can't even talk about that.

It is pretty much Windows Classic with a black Skin.
"
Sorry, I should have been more explicit.

There's nothing wrong with window decorations, that's just a matter of taste (though that stupid flashing progress bar really gets on my nerves).

But overall OS UI -- essentially control panels -- is a total crappy mess.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Policy
by lucas_maximus on Wed 4th Jul 2012 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Policy"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well I don't see the same performance problems, I been using Vista since RTM on a core 2 duo 1.2ghz ultra portable and 1GB of ram.

BTW, I run Visual Studio 2010 and Sql Server 2008 (developer version) and it might get a little laggy when alt-tabbing.

I also installed Vista on a 1.4ghz Athlon XP, with 1GB of ram and a Ati Rage 128 graphics card, works perfectly fine.

So I am sorry, either you have seriously mis-configured your hardware or you lying.

It isn't as slick as Win7, but it has been fine.

Edited 2012-07-04 14:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Policy
by ze_jerkface on Wed 4th Jul 2012 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Policy"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

LOL not this BS again.

Show us some benchmarks or show us that your opinions are based on hearsay.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by tanzam75
by tanzam75 on Mon 2nd Jul 2012 22:08 UTC
tanzam75
Member since:
2011-05-19

Apple makes most of its money on iPhones, which have 71% gross margins. Mac OS X is essentially a hobby in comparison.

[quote]
Apple's operating system licensing allows for several installs within a family - will this be possible with the Windows 8 Pro license? Also, can we upgrade our release preview installs?
[/quote]

Unless something changes from Windows 7, the answer is no to both questions. There was a family pack for Windows 7 that cost more. Beta versions of Windows have never been upgradeable.

If all you run is Metro apps, then upgradeability doesn't matter, because your environment travels along with your Microsoft ID. But I rather doubt this describes anyone here at OSNews.

Edited 2012-07-02 22:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by tanzam75
by lucas_maximus on Wed 4th Jul 2012 18:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by tanzam75"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Apple make money on the hardware, not the software.

Edited 2012-07-04 18:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

getitwhileitsnot
by ad.mx on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 02:10 UTC
ad.mx
Member since:
2012-07-03

$500 for a windows7 PC,
$40 to upgrade to windows8...
UPgrading again to a Linux distro... PRICELESS!

Reply Score: 0

RE: getitwhileitsnot
by moondevil on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 16:22 UTC in reply to "getitwhileitsnot"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

$500 for a windows7 PC,
$40 to upgrade to windows8...
UPgrading again to a Linux distro... PRICELESS!


Being the joke of the IT department while trying to plugin a beamer for the presentation, even better!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: getitwhileitsnot
by Soulbender on Wed 4th Jul 2012 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE: getitwhileitsnot"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

yeah, that's almost as bad has having your OS crash/freeze during the presentation....

Reply Score: 3

No thanks...
by Quake on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 05:09 UTC
Quake
Member since:
2005-10-14

After trying Windows 8, I'll gladly stay with Windows 7 and continue using Arch Linux.

Reply Score: 4

Smart move on their part
by dsmogor on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 06:47 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

but proving that they are themselves not believing W8 can stand on their own feet.
Whether end consumers (where the halo effect for WP8 they hope for is expected) would care about upgrading early is another matter. Making it significant would probably require quite substantial advertising campaign.

Edited 2012-07-03 06:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Smart move on their part
by ze_jerkface on Wed 4th Jul 2012 14:29 UTC in reply to "Smart move on their part"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

More like a desperate move.

Making the pro version cheap is an appeal to enterprise but the increase in user retraining would never cover it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they leave piracy checks out to inflate the adoption rate. But even pirates will be saying with 7.

Edited 2012-07-04 14:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Questions on Upgrade Paths
by Mr. Dee on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 06:58 UTC
Mr. Dee
Member since:
2005-11-13

Its a single install, which means, if you have more than one Windows installation, you will need to purchase multiple $40 upgrades.

Q: Will I be able to upgrade from pre-release versions of Windows 8 to the final release?
No.


Also note that the final release of Windows 8 will not support upgrading from any prior Windows 8 "Preview" release, though the migrate option will still be supported. In any upgrade scenario, you can run the Disk Cleanup Wizard to remove the previous installation in order to free up disk space. The download will also support boot from USB for a completely clean installation as well.

Whne it does the compliance check thouhg, it will look for a commercially released version (XP, Vista or Windows 7). So if you have been using the Consumer or Release Preview or even the Dev Preview, you need to reinstall commercially released copy of Windows that came with your machine.

Reply Score: 1

Last remaining Vista user
by wigry on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 07:26 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

Once upon a time I bought my first legal Windows License - Vista OEM 32-bit. Used it, and it worked. Then came along the preview of W7, installed the preview and was happy about it. It just worked but nothing spectacular - the way computers are meant to be. Then cam along the W7 release and soon after that the W7 preview expired and refused to run anymore. Didn't want to go out to by W7 license, as I had legitimate Vista DVD around, so I replaced the W7 preview with Vista and run it effortlessly to this day. If W8 upgrade is so cheap, then I might consider it, but Vista runs so damn well that I don't know if I bother.

Of course computer is now 6 years old already with 2GB RAM and NVidia 9600GT Video but it runs and I am happy with it. I don't really understand the problem that people had with Vista? Was it a HW issues of the early days? It runs like charm - no different from W7 which I use at work.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Last remaining Vista user
by Lennie on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 12:14 UTC in reply to "Last remaining Vista user"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The Service pack 1 really helped Vista, I wouldn't be surprised by your story that when you installed Vista the second time you also installed the service packs.

Vista without any service packs is the one with most if not all the problems.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

XP RTM was worse than VISTA.

Reply Score: 2

Similar to Windows 7
by Chrispynutt on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 08:18 UTC
Chrispynutt
Member since:
2012-03-14

I picked up two copies of Windows 7 HP when it launched as they were on offer for £60 for full retail.

Don't think I want the backward step to Windows 8 as I don't even own a laptop these days. Let alone a touch screen one.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Similar to Windows 7
by Kroc on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 10:51 UTC in reply to "Similar to Windows 7"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I’m wondering how much full retail Win 8 will be; they don’t seem to be saying...

Reply Score: 1

Not sure..
by nej_simon on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 08:25 UTC
nej_simon
Member since:
2011-02-11

I other cases I would have picked up a license just because $39.99 is so cheap. But since i think W8 is such a bad OS i wonder if it's worth even that. If they where handing out licenses for free I would probably get one just to play around with.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not sure..
by wigry on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 10:20 UTC in reply to "Not sure.."
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

Thats what the preview is for

Reply Score: 1

"Upgrade"?
by bolomkxxviii on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 11:14 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

How is Windows8 an upgrade? I use a Windows7 box as a DVR. I like Windows Media Center and it just works. Microsoft has decided to remove it from Windows8 but if you buy a high end version of Windows8 they will do you the great favor of selling you Windows Media Center. No thanks. I thought "upgrades" were supposed to ADD features, not take them away.

No sale to me.

Reply Score: 2

RE: "Upgrade"?
by tanzam75 on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 16:36 UTC in reply to ""Upgrade"?"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Read the article.

And if you want, you can add Windows Media Center for free through the “add features” option within Windows 8 Pro after your upgrade.

Reply Score: 2

The Microsoft vision
by dgun on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 13:11 UTC
dgun
Member since:
2009-11-23

Metro will be paired with an app store, so that explains the $40 price. Microsoft loves to play follow the leader and they've watched closely as Apple, Google, and Amazon have all used their operating systems/devices to sell software and content through an app store. They think they can do the same with Windows, lol. And of course it will backfire and they will scramble to release Metro SP1.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Tue 3rd Jul 2012 18:24 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Seems like a good deal, $40 is quite cheap and I would be willing to upgrade my Windows 7 workhorse at the end of the year after confirming both SQL Server 2005 and 2008 work properly on the platform as well as a Virtual Box (I need a XP64 environment for .NET 1.1 stuff) with the final release.

Reply Score: 2

Not worth -$40
by ze_jerkface on Wed 4th Jul 2012 06:22 UTC
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

I get free copies of Windows through work and I won't be installing this crap. You couldn't pay me $40 to install it.

Windows 7 is the next XP. Windows 8 will be usable by SP1 but like Vista no one will care. The only upside is that Ballmer and Sinofsky will be gone.

Reply Score: 1

coreyography
Member since:
2009-03-06

I'll probably go for one copy at first, just to see if Microsoft has slimmed Windows down any to make it run on phones and tablets. That will also tell me if I can tolerate Metro, or replace Metro with a more usable (on a PC) desktop. In a way also I think of it as amortizing the egregious prices Microsoft was charging for windows 7.

I don't know that I'll use it, though, or migrate my other Win 7 instances, if it hasn't lost any weight, or doesn't otherwise give me a good reason to. Microsoft's trend of dumbing down the Windows UI makes it harder to find more obscure configuration settings and fix things when they do break, and it drives me up a wall. Win 8 looks like a continuation (or maybe gross exaggeration) of this trend.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Win 8 works well in a Virtual Machine with 12mb of Video ram @1024x768 and 1gb of ram and 1 processor.

According to a friend of mine it will use as little as 300mb of memory on bootup (vanilla), that is less than some Linux distros and Windows XP after SP3.

Whether you like Metro or not is another thing entirely.

Edited 2012-07-04 18:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Wed 4th Jul 2012 18:55 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

** cockedup reply **

Edited 2012-07-04 18:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

$40?
by csynt on Thu 5th Jul 2012 08:42 UTC
csynt
Member since:
2006-03-19

torrent and "Loader" .. priceless

Reply Score: 1

Slaping PC maker in the face
by AlienSoldier on Thu 5th Jul 2012 17:05 UTC
AlienSoldier
Member since:
2010-02-26

One of the cheapest way to get a new Windows was to do hardware change at the same time. This allowed to keep PC hardware cheap selling high volume.

Now there is no incentive to upgrade the hardware. If i was a PC maker (like DELL, yes they are still a PC maker whatever they say) i would really find a plan B from Windows as M$ don't work in their interest anymore. Probably a big signal that they want to move away from x86.

Reply Score: 1

Is it worth the money?
by dimitri.hrusha on Fri 6th Jul 2012 08:42 UTC
dimitri.hrusha
Member since:
2012-07-06

Do you think that Windows 8 will be worth paying for? I downloaded a beta version and it is disappointing.

It runs very slow compared to the previous version and their new "built-in" antivirus is not of an "antivirus" level. I downloaded vikingpchealth and got at least 5 trojans detected!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by NuxRo
by NuxRo on Sat 7th Jul 2012 15:47 UTC
NuxRo
Member since:
2010-09-25

For this kind of money you can get a self-supported version of RHEL.

Reply Score: 1