Microsoft is currently presenting Windows 10, and they unveiled that it will be a free upgrade for Windows 7 and Windows 8 users (and for Windows Phone 8.1 users).
Beyond this, Myerson shared Microsoft’s vision for Windows as a service, not just an operating system. A big part of that is Microsoft’s new commitment to keep devices consistently updated throughout the “supported lifetime for the device.” It sounds like that means those upgrading from Microsoft’s older versions of Windows will consistently receive updates to keep it as up-to-date as possible. Myerson noted that this will let developer “target every single Windows device” when they build apps – anything that makes it easier for developers to reach more users will certainly be appreciated by both the developer community as well as end users.
Sounds good to me. The idea of big, monolithic releases is archaic.
That’s excellent news. It’s also further evidence of the growing distance between Nadella’s vision for Microsoft and that of Ballmer and Gates.
And Cortana on the desktop? Yes, please!
Edited 2015-01-21 18:04 UTC
Maybe free for the first year, but that “service” won’t be free after that. Comparisons to Apple’s model don’t wash. Apple makes money from selling hardware. Microsoft makes their money selling software. They can afford to give it away for a year to get everyone hooked, but then the annual/monthly payments start. I am not saying their software/service isn’t worth money, I just don’t want to make perpetual payments. Once you have all your “stuff” in Microsoft’s camp it will be very hard to get out.
Yeah, it’s obviously a hook for a walled garden. Just as Cory Doctorow described in his presentation on the “attack against general purpose computing”.
I’d say more than anything, Windows needs a walled garden:
http://www.howtogeek.com/198622/heres-what-happens-when-you-install…
It’s getting to the point where you can’t install ‘free’ apps anymore without 500MB of foistware included. So I am in favor of this, on the condition that we can also side load when needed.
And remember, since nobody is really writing desktop apps anymore, your alternative to this is basically running most of your apps in a web browser, which is even MORE of a walled garden than what is being proposed here.
Edited 2015-01-21 19:08 UTC
download.com is truly a trainwreck. But we’re geeks enough to avoid it, to know better, aren’t we?
For the unwashed masses… I’m too young to care, but too old to be a revolutionary.
Well, that’s only an example of how bad things have gotten. Even without download.com, I’m pretty much hesitant to install anything that’s ‘free’ and isn’t open source these days, for fear of what hell will be unleashed on my system.
And even the open source apps can be trouble if you download them from the wrong place. Yeah, this is probably something us geeks can avoid, but I’d love for my family and non-techie friends not to have to deal with this shit anymore. It’s pretty much gotten to the point where if you want a hassle-free experience, you either need an iPad or a Chromebook – both walled gardens.
EDIT: I suppose Macs would do the trick too with its app store, but who the hell wants to buy one of those?
Edited 2015-01-21 22:59 UTC
There’s no indication that your “Free” Windows is only free for a year, then you have to start a subscription.
It reads like they’re giving it away for a year, then they’ll charge for new upgrade licenses, not forcing people on a subscription.
The idea being, to repair their reputation after the Windows 8 debacle. OEM’s will still be paying for licenses on new computers, Server licensing is still huge, too. They have plenty of revenue streams to support giving away Windows for year before they start making new users pay for it.
There’s no indication that your “Free” Windows is only free for a year, then you have to start a subscription.
Yet!
Remember the modus operandi of drug dealers.
Free to get you hooked then bang. Pay them loads of dosh or you don’t get you fix.
As fas as I’m concerned, I fully expect MS to start to charge annual subscriptions for ALL updates.
However I will be will to say that I was wrong if it turns out Windows from now one will be a freebie.
But how will MS make money if they don’t charge for their software?
It won’t be free “from now on.” The upgrade will be free for a year before they start charging for it.
After a year, they will charge for the upgrade. They will also charge for new retail copies the entire time. They will also charge for OEM copies the entire time. And the various other corporate/site licenses.
Traditionally, upgrades make up only a small fraction of their total Windows licenses. They can afford to give it away.
And, they get their cut out of Windows store sales.
All their talk of “Windows as a hub to launch services” is really just spin. What they’re doing with the free Windows 10 upgrade is to help people forget the mess that was Windows 8.
Windows 10 is nice. The more people have it on their box, the less people will talk about Windows 8.
Windows 7 is nice ENOUGH. The more people have it on their box, the less people will talk about Windows 8 or 10.
Please understand that Metro or 10 won’t provide you with more throughput capability than previous Windows version. I still own a 2000 and XP box that just performs as well as day one. Beside some CPU burning in XP for update scanning/refreshing at boot time.
It is one thing to get Windows 10 upgrade for free, but do not forget you’ll have to re-buy/upgrade all your softwares to be “10 compatible” because of some “uncompatibilities”. That’s a hidden cost.
And the fact that in the first year the drivers won’t be stable and steady, early adopters will act like beta testers, like always.
Think about the whole ecosystem, remember the past, what it have cost you.
Actually Windows 8 does provide more throughput – disk management in particular improves drastically.
Couldn’t this driver improvement be back ported to Windows 7 without claiming architectural/security problem like with XP ? I mean, upgrading a whole OS just for ‘minor’ improvements like this is obnoxious.
Microsoft pretty much guarantees!!! that all hardware and software that works with Windows 7 will work with Windows 10.
“we do everything we can to ensure that existing apps “just work.—
“we are designing Windows 10 to have the same overall hardware requirements as Windows 7 and Windows 8, making it possible to run Windows 10 on your existing devices.”
The preferred deployment will actually be an upgrade (from 7 or 8.1) and not a clean-install.
Source: http://blogs.windows.com/business/2014/10/28/windows-10-making-depl…
Drivers will not be a problem, and with all the people already hammering on Windows 10 it is pretty fair to say THEY are the Beta-testers, not the people that will get the OS after the summer.
Windows 10 is going to be Windows 8.2 (kernel 6.4), a minor step forward from Windows 7 (kernel 6.1). It is not going to be a giant change like Vista was (from kernel 5.2 to 6.0)
Still, is that really all that necessary just to be able to browse the web, write letters and display forms connected to a database ? Isn’t this just “innovation” for the sake of forcing the market to upgrade hence to milk the cow on a yearly basis to generate cash revenue with not much “innovation” other than powerpoint slides claiming otherwise ?
I don’t see major improvements in usability since Windows 2000, beside the UI being crippled down. Really, it is enough for me, Microsoft should just focus on improving the underlying kernel and security, provide tech upgrades, but all the stuff around to force you re-buying all your software suit is bullying.
And I don’t care about their PR claims. Look here from another topic :
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/21/7863331/microsoft-project-spartan…
From the first demo image :
“Only browser with Cortana to get more done on the web”
Seriously, from the guys who made IE6 and lagged behind for years. To get more done about what ? Microsoft is full of this PR BS so I don’t care about their promises that will be rendered void or turn vaporware.
Edited 2015-01-22 16:16 UTC
Of course Microsoft is full of PR b*llsh*t. All these big companies are. It seems that as soon as you do PR you have to talk in a language that makes no sense.
But “it is enough for you” so why are you posting here? Why are complaining about something that doesn’t exist now, is free soon and there is no word on the future price or yearly-subscription. If what you have now is enough, just keep using that.
But I don’t think Microsoft has just been milking their OS (although they surely did. They earned WAY more from it than they invested back into it in). Microsoft improved the whole security model in every version of Windows and also improved the kernel majorly. The modern versions of programs are far more userfriendly, stable and feature packed while still being fast. The world has moved on since XP and it is now much better. A few tiny examples:
* Win+ArrowLeft (or right or up) to easily arrange windows
* WinKey+X for quick access to many system tools
* PowerShell, Dism, wmic for major powertools on the commandline
* Windows Store for Spyware-free, sandboxed software installations
OK for the improved kernel security, but again, key shortcuts that really justify a whole OS upgrade ? Why can’t they just added to XP ? Architectural incompatibility ? The way their OS is upgraded in big fanfare is a farce.
And I agree that, somewhat, they improved their OS. Otherwise they would have been rendered useless in a snap of fingers. Forced OEM installation or not.
Here’s my understanding: For the first year it’s free to upgrade from Windows 7/8. That’s to entice as many people as possible to switch, and as quick as possible. The upgrade doesn’t revert or cost money after a year, but after the free period anyone wanting to upgrade will have to buy Windows 10.
But that doesn’t matter much anyway; people buying new OS versions for old computers are only a small % of Windows sales. Most sales are to OEMs, and Microsoft isn’t giving away Windows 10 to OEMs.
They know the 12-month giveaway will cost them some sales though, and they hope to make it up with increased Office 365 subscriptions, other app sales, and increased mobile market share.
Who said anything about perpetual payments. Please don’t mistake your opinion with facts. All they’ve said so far is “It’ll be free for the first year for Windows 7 and 8.x users”
That’s it. Anything else is what you’ve added. It’s not official, it’s not leaked. It’s entirely made up.
Edited 2015-01-22 19:47 UTC
Even more than that, Microsoft has explicitly stated that Windows 10 would not be a subscription service.
My only question is if it will be possible to install Windows 10 with a Windows 7 or 8 key, or if I will have to install Win 7 + Win 8 upgrade + Win 10 upgrade.
But, otherwise, sounds like great news for everyone except for Vista users
I just jumped through hoops last night to do a clean install of 8.1 with an 8.0 key. It’s so annoying, especially because 8.1 is a “free” upgrade from 8.0, so why can’t I just install 8.1 easy with the 8.0 key? If I have to go 8.1 (or 8.0 if they destroy the current 8.1 workaround) to 10, it’s just another nail in the coffin pushing me away from windows. Will I be able to use the 8.0 key for 10 since it’s a “free” upgrade? I think I should be able to.
It doesn’t matter how good it is if it’s not easy to use, which in my use case includes clean installs, not upgrades.
I’ve done the same thing. It’s so irritating – knowing that they could easily make the experience better for their paying customers, but refuse to do so.
You can, although it’s not as straightforward as it should be. Basically, you download an 8.1 ISO from Microsoft’s site, and then use a ‘generic’ 8.0 key, which won’t activate the OS, but will let you install it. Then once installed, you use your genuine 8.1 key to activate. I found these instructions, along with the generic key, using a Google search.
Now, I’m not sure if there’s an ISO and a way to install Windows 8.1 Update 1 clean; I haven’t looked into it.
Note that this is even harder with an OEM version, ref https://www.aeyoun.com/posts/windows-installation-media.html .
Edited 2015-01-21 20:38 UTC
Hope it is not a forced upgrade through windows update for the users that does not want to upgrade.
Most definitely Windows 8 users shouldn’t be forced to pay for Microsoft’s mistakes. In my initial testing of the Windows 10 pre-release, I found that it pretty much addresses most of the complaints people had with Windows 8/8.1. It’s nice to see Microsoft listening to feedback and responding accordingly.
Back on the OneCore vision post, writing: “Also, it seems to me that MS should give up on Windows OS as a sell-able “product”. When Google is giving away their OS (ChromeOS & Android); and Apple isn’t charging for upgrades and that sort of thing, MS is a fool to think it can keep rifling through consumers’ wallets with each new upgrade.”
Certainly not my idea, but being a full-time Linux user with MS Stock, I’m more than a little gratified to see an official announcement. That’s great news. I was beginning to seriously regret owning their stock. The announcement shows an ability to grasp the current market. May not make them as relevant as they’d like to be, but I take it as a good sign. Nadella is willing to break with the old paradigm.
Edited 2015-01-21 23:22 UTC
The minimum system requirements for Windows 10 are the same as for Vista; they haven’t changed since 2006. Windows XP was being sold at least as recently as 2010, and any moderately capable XP-era PC could easily meet those minimum specs.
So why not give XP and Vista users the same free upgrade chance? How many of us could there even be remaining?
Windows 10 system requirements:
Processor: 1 GHz or faster
RAM: 1 GB (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
Free hard disk space: 16 GB
Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver
I’ve got an original XP machine sitting here with 4GB of RAM, a dual-core 2.8ghz processor, and DirectX 10 graphics…
Edited 2015-01-22 06:17 UTC
Just install Linux and be done with it, or pull out your wallet and pay up to Microsoft if you really want an upgrade to that creaky, rickety old bitrotten operating system. I can’t believe, here in 2015, people are STILL using that antique piece of shit–and even wanting free upgrades from it.
It seems that Microsoft benefits the most from people upgrading; they aren’t offering Windows 7/8 upgrades just ’cause they’re nice folks.
I would have likely upgraded at least one XP machine to Windows 7 long ago had their been an affordable upgrade path. My newer computers do run Windows 7, and I couldn’t be happier with it.
Linux? I’ve used most distros and get a kick out of it from time-to-time. But for a primary operating system, not gonna happen.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qp…
It looks like XP has finally dropped below 20%, so all of the “upgrade or die” scare tactics are working. Or else 15-year-old hardware is wearing out and being replaced.
Desktop Linux does have a bigger “market share” than Windows 98, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 combined. That’s gotta feel good.
I bet it does, greater market share than 3 OSs that have been unsupported and unsold for over a decade. Way to go Linux!
Linux is slightly older than Windows NT, which is the current base of Windows. I’m not sure what your rant is about, but if they are the same age, Linux must be just as antiquated, especially, as it is based on concepts going back to the late 6os, when Unix was first released.
Nice rant though
Edited 2015-01-22 19:51 UTC
So you didn’t buy Vista, which arguably was a good idea to skip
You didn’t buy 7, which was available for about 30 dollars as an upgrade when it just came out
You didn’t buy 8, which was available for about 20 dollars as an upgrade when it just came out
You didn’t buy/get 8.1 which was free.
You choose to stay on XP all that time because of some reason….
In the mean time, others were paying for Vista/7/8/8.1.
Guess who Microsoft considers a regular customer and wants to reward for their continuing business
And guess who Microsoft doesn’t want to write upgrade code for while giving away the result for free?
In the eyes of Microsoft Windows XP is FINALLY in the past. They are almost > 10 years and 5 kernels past that ancient OS.
I agree, people like me are not their most profitable customers.
I’m more than happy with the value and function I’ve received from both Windows XP and Windows 7. Absolutely not disgruntled at all. But if Microsoft wants to tempt me to upgrade to Windows 10, an upgrade that arguably benefits them more than me, they’ve got to waive a carrot.
You ignore that Windows XP was being sold at major retailers as recently as 2010, both as retail software packages and pre-installed on certain computers. That was just over four years ago.
Actual Windows 10 pricing has yet to be released, but there’s a limit to what I’m willing to pay in order to test hardware and software compatibility. A very low limit.
Why would they benefit more than you? i think you overestimate your influence on Microsoft.
XP still being sold in 2010? Only on some netbooks that were too low ram for windows 7 (“Sales of Windows XP licenses to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) ceased on June 30, 2008, but continued for netbooks until October 2010”).
You don’t need to pay at all to test hardware and software compatibility. You can just run the Windows 10 equivalent of this Windows 7 tool: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=20 or download a free Windows 10 trial
Edited 2015-01-23 15:55 UTC
I would have to be some sort of weirdo egomaniac to think that I personally have any impact at all on a large corporation’s bottom line.
But all Windows XP users combined? Together we make up 18% of the current desktop market share. That’s more than any other OS except Windows 7.
How would Microsoft benefit? The same reason they’re going to benefit from switching Windows 7 and 8 users: increased app store sales, increased cloud subscriptions like Office 360, and (they hope) an increased mobile market share.
The last sales by Microsoft to OEMs (except low-end netbooks) was in 2008, according to your quote, which I believe is accurate. But the XP-equipped OEM computers were still being sold retail after that.
I personally purchased Windows XP (OEM packaging) from a major retailer in late 2009, and I’m confident they were still available in 2010.
Edited 2015-01-25 17:55 UTC
You should have bough Vista or 7 in 2009 and used your downgrade rights to run XP if that is what you really wanted.
How would Microsoft benefit? The same reason they’re going to benefit from switching Windows 7 and 8 users: increased app store sales, increased cloud subscriptions like Office 360, and (they hope) an increased mobile market share.
People that still run XP (all 18%) are not the same people that are going to buy from app stores or pay a yearly fee for Office. And if you want to do that you can still get 10…just pay for it
Hmm, it’s 2015 and all we can look forward to is another iteration of an appaling Fisher-Price themed Windows.
The persons responsible for designing the Luna visual style and its unfortunate derivatives should be shot.
Even though it’s going to be free, I’m going the hackintosh road.
Alternatively, I hope that Papyros (formerly Quantum OS) will reach some mature state.
The Olive theme was pretty nice though, but I do agree that the Luna (blue/red) and Gray (gray/orange) themes were rather ugly and showed no professionalism. But the main goal was to attract broad consumers after the colored iMac sold the year before.
What I never understood was how they could release XP with a theming engine and during it’s long lifetime not provide any extra themes to replace the ugly default themes.
Every time I read a comment saying how fast and stable XP was a little voice in my head would chime in “yes, but really ugly”.
Aaah yes, patching uxtheme.dll and downloading user made themes, or buying WindowsBlind