Upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for only $39.99!

[commodorejohn]

As Ilwrath says, this is a desperation maneuver; evidently they've picked up on the fact that a lot of people are very, very Not Happy about the idea of being forced into using a tablet UI on a desktop or laptop, and hope that making it ultra-cheap will persuade them.

I really don't think it will, though. Microsoft obviously doesn't care about desktop users enough to give them an interface designed for their machines, which every previous version of Windows has, and cutting the price without addressing the complaint only sends a message to disgruntled users that "no, we don't think your concern is legitimate, but we're hoping we can buy your compliance." That's just damned insulting, that is.

It's not going to work. This'll probably snare a few people who were on the fence, but the majority of people who do not want a tablet interface aren't going to suddenly want a tablet interface just because it's now cheap. All this is really going to accomplish is netting them less money from the faithful who were always going to upgrade anyway. Good one, Microsoft.

[commodorejohn]

It doesn't matter how they price it, you'd still complain.

Well yes, that was my point. The people who are unhappy about the direction Windows 8 is taking are not going to be swayed by price when they feel like their real concerns are being dismissed and ignored.

[commodorejohn]

I really think Microsoft wants to encourage the upgrade cycle as quickly as possible.  I'm sure they'd love to splash some big sales numbers and get stockholders excited.  Also, I'm sure they'd like to lower that % of users still on XP before they totally drop support of it.

If Microsoft wants to lower the percentage of XP users, all they have to do is keep the price accessible, cut the minimum requirements and bring back the XP GUI/Explorer. But they've been steadfastly refusing to do any of that for three versions now, so I don't think it's likely.

Hell, they did that, I'd switch. I don't give a damn what's going on under the hood, as long as I'm not forced to put up with pointless rearranging of interfaces that were already perfectly fine because some concept department needs something to justify their budget with.

[commodorejohn]

It is shocking that 40% of Windows users are using a ten year old OS with no support.

It is a little unusual, but it's a very solid ten-year-old OS, and it doesn't have no support, yet. Again, if Microsoft would only quit screwing around with the UI, or at the very least allow users to fall back to all the old stuff (including the old Windows Explorer,) they'd probably get a lot of people to switch - they're just too stubborn to actually do that.

[commodorejohn]

There are a couple issues with Windows 7. First off, not everybody likes big thick borders with rounded corners and transparency and stuff. Yes, it's pretty, but I find that in normal circumstances, that just distracts and wastes screen space. (And not everybody is using 1600x1200 mega-screens, so a little space-waste adds up pretty quick.) That wouldn't be a problem if they'd included the "Windows Classic" skin from XP, but as far as I can tell there isn't a way to get 7 to drop the glitz.

The bigger problems, though, are in the mucking around with the way things work. The new Start menu is annoying (I like hierarchical drop-down/pop-up menus, thanks,) and you can't get the old one back without resorting to a third-party hack. Keyboard shortcuts have been removed from Explorer. You can't tell it not to treat HTML files and associated "_files" directories as a single file anymore (the first thing I turn off in any new 98-XP install.) You can't turn off auto-refresh/sort of open Explorer windows, which means I'd have to ditch a handy sorting trick that's served me perfectly fine since Windows 95. I could go on at length (and I have on another forum, so I'll just link to it, if you want an obsessive, exhaustive list.)

I know that fans of 7 will argue that this stuff is all an improvement, and I won't tell you that you're wrong for preferring it, but sometimes even objective, factual improvements just plain aren't worth the trade-off in familiarity. It's the same reason I don't use a Dvorak keyboard - maybe it would increase my typing throughput, but only after I'd spent who knows how long re-learning everything I already know on QWERTY, and it's just. not. worth. the. time.

[commodorejohn]

If you try to get used to it, you'd have noticed it's actually quite good. Although even Microsoft aren't suggesting that everyone should install the release preview on their everyday machine.

See, with XP, I didn't have to get used to it. It built naturally and intuitively on the things I knew from Windows 95/98, and let me switch off anything I found awkward. "You don't like it because you haven't tried to like it" is such a weak argument that you don't even hear moms using it to get their kids to eat their peas.

[commodorejohn]

Meh...  I think you're remembering with rose tinted glasses, because you like XP, now.  The level of bitching about XP in the early days was immense, too.  Yet everyone got over it, and loves it, now.  10 years ago, you had tons of people saying how they'd stick to 98SE forever.  I don't think you'll find anyone wanting to run that much, anymore.

I'm speaking for myself and nobody else, thanks. I wasn't thrilled about the increased system requirements of XP over 98/2000, but the interface was never a problem.

[commodorejohn]

Yeah, I've been experimenting with 2000 lately, and I don't find it any less capable for general use than XP. It's not without its inconveniences (lack of a WPA supplicant, unless your wireless driver provides one,) but that's more a function of its age; as far as design goes it's perfectly solid.

[commodorejohn]

I've replaced all my Windows installations with Windows 8, I like it.

...context? Sarcasm (Y/N)?

[commodorejohn]

What changed between XP and Vista being released is that lazy journalists started picking up online bitching and releasing it as news.

Didn't stop it from having a big impact on Vista's fortunes.

For delivering apps to consumer tablets then having everything go through the app store is actually a good idea. It's worked well for Apple, the alternative is Android and it's not really worked out too well there.

However making it hard to install unsigned apps is actually very important. Social engineering to persuade people to disable signing checks would make tablets very insecure.

Absolutely not. Windows is and has always been an open platform, at least in the area of third-party software development. We might all have a good laugh about "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" but the fact is that Ballmer was absolutely right, albeit in a completely apeshít way; any version of Windows lives or dies by its third-party support. Windows 95 was buggy as hell, but it captured developer loyalty quickly because it combined NT's easiness of coding (far less of a mess than Win16!) with a halfway-decent amount of backwards compatibility with existing software, and introduced DirectX, which made getting games to work on a variety of hardware much, much easier. Even Vista only saw a lot of what limited adoption it got because developers took a shine to DX10 and suddenly gamers had to switch if they wanted Bioshock to look as pretty as possible.

The Windows Store is a naked cash-grab on the part of Microsoft, at the expense of all of their third-party developers. Any talk about security is just obfuscation; they saw how much Apple was getting by screwing over iOS developers, and they wanted a piece of that pie. But the fact is that they're not Apple, they've never been Apple, and if they try to go up against Apple on Apple's home turf, they're going to find that they're not as good at being Apple as Apple. I think it's going to be their undoing. They want developers to switch to Metro and the Windows Store, so that they get more money, but they've left in the option for unsigned (i.e. old) software, because it would've been suicide not to.

Some developers might switch, but how many are going to decide that it's just not worth it? Some of them are already outspoken critics; Notch of Mojang has outright refused to take part in certification, and while Minecraft might not be huge in terms of purchase price and necessity, that means that every single Minecraft player who uses Windows 8 will be getting accustomed to non-Windows Store installation right off the bat. Other high-profile developers, like Valve, have expressed discomfort with the idea, and no friggin' wonder - you think they like being asked to bend over? Microsoft may very well have initiated their own developer revolt. Add to that the fact that Windows 8 already has more negative buzz before release than Vista did a year after, and who knows what's going to happen to it.

The open source developers will have to learn how to fund their hobby, because nobody else should be forced to subsidise it.

And screw you, too.

[commodorejohn]

I've not seen it, but supposedly there are arm desktop apps as well as what used to be called metro apps.

According to the Windows-on-ARM overview Microsoft published, desktop APIs on WoA will only be supported for the packaged Microsoft software (Explorer, IE, Office.) Because, you know, yay double standards.

[commodorejohn]

Yes, the RT ARM based devices such as surface can be locked because, well nothing but Metro Apps will run on the RT tablets anyway.  I suspect there is no legacy desktop on the Surface, because it would be useless, it only makes sense on the intel version.

The irony is that this was another blown chance for Windows to become a truly multi-architecture system and allow some variety in PC hardware design, just like NT/2000 back in the day. They've had an architecture-agnostic API for years now, and they clearly want to move into nontraditional hardware markets, but they keep screwing it up - first by doing nothing with multi-architecture NT outside the server market and pushing crappy WinCE (and descendants) on palmtops and other mobile devices, now by finally actually using the same API across multiple platforms, but intentionally nerfing it for anything other than tablet use by locking out the traditional desktop GUI.

I was actually hella excited for Windows 8, back when the first damn thing they announced for it was that it was going to be multi-architecture - man, I want computers to start branching out again. But then they went and showed us what Metro was going to look like, and my hopes, they were dashed...

[commodorejohn]

FALSE: There are over 5000 apps in the app store at the moment. From that site over 5200 are compatible with ARM based RT.

http://www.neowin.net/news/report-windows-store-now-has-over-5000-windows-8-apps

87 percent of those apps are free and 94 percent of the apps made for the x86 version of Windows 8 can also run on Windows RT.

I'm down with free-as-in-dollars software, but if 87% of what's in the Windows Store is free, then only 13% (688) are complex and/or good enough that the developers thought they could reasonably charge money for them. That says less "broad developer support" and more "shovelware," to me; I suspect a lot of Metro demo applications with things like stock tickers, etc. Interesting, maybe, but not what you buy a system for. (And nothing that's going to get Microsoft any revenue, either.) And of those 688 commercial apps, how many are productivity mainstays like Photoshop or other essential software? Are you going to buy a Windows 8 system and then find 4,500 free apps and 700 Angry Birds clones?

Also the only people stupid enough to buy an RT tablet and think it is a full PC capable of running legacy code should have bought iPad's in the first place. Though for 70% of internet users a facebook app, angry birds, fruitninja and bubble pop is all they care about anyway. Therefore Win8 already has "more than enough apps"

Contrariwise, why would anybody who needs what Windows RT offers not already have an iPad or Android tablet?

Though be honest, if Win8 is going on every single desktop sold there will be more Win8 apps then any other ecosystem in less than a year.

That's assuming that it is going on every single desktop sold - I don't know why it would be, when it's plainly not intended for desktop use at all. As far as I know Microsoft hasn't announced any plans to stop selling Windows 7 yet; even from the Wikipedia article, mainstream support is scheduled to end sometime in early 2015, and extended support in 2020 - and we all know how thoroughly the end-of-support has killed XP.

[commodorejohn]

No desktop GUI in Windows RT?

O'RLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GOyOqzLKRKg#t=73s



Though it remains to be seen if anything other apps can be used in desktop mode.

As I said earlier, only the packaged MS programs will be allowed to use it. (Unless, presumably, you jailbreak it.) Yes, it's still there, but they've nerfed it for anybody but themselves (because I guess it's all very well to stick third-party developers with the burden of converting their desktop software to Metro, but it'd just be too much work for poor lil' Microsoft to lead the way with their software.)

[commodorejohn]

By this argument all Android software is garbage since it is also free. Only Apple has been able to get users to pay for Apps thus far.

I'll have to submit on this to someone who actually has an Android device, but I've witnessed my (staunchly Android) coworkers agonizing over which game to buy, so I'm going to have to say that that isn't the case.

Also you are implying people are using their tablets for "serious work" They are $700 facebook machines. Good for taking notes and little else at this point. Would you run photoshop CS5 on an iPad? No you would use the FREE APP to make **** instagram looking pictures.

The problem is that I'm not the one implying that - Microsoft is. They want everybody to move to Metro, whether on the desktop or on a tablet, and they want everybody to get their "apps" from the Windows Store so that they get a cut of it. They're intentionally trying to blur the boundaries between tablet and PC because they think it'll make them more money - any confusion that results is their own damn fault.

And that still doesn't answer the question: does the Windows Store have its bases covered? If it goes to market with only piffly little tablet "apps," then good luck making any headway in the PC market, especially since it'll be competing against Windows 7 there.

This would have made so much more sense if it had just been "Windows for Tablets." Instead they're trying to have it both ways, and they're going to wind up shooting themselves in the foot.

Microsoft Office, installed on every single Win8 tablet, plus easy integration into corporate environments and virtualization support without having to pay licensingfees.

God Almighty, you think people are going to make productive use of Office on tablets? Look at that video - it's just a straight-up port of desktop Office! The guy has to stab at a tiny little menu option four times just to get it to recognize! "Easy integration into corporate environments" compared to other tablets, maybe, but it's still simpler for work purposes just to have a damn workstation or laptop. And weren't you just arguing that nobody uses a tablet for productivity to begin with?

iPad is an expensive toy to watch iTunes movies and play angry birds + facebook. Most Android tablets at least have removable storage unlike the iPad. So I take them more seriously than an iPad.

No argument there. But if these much-vaunted "average users" who spend 90% of their time being Facebook mall-rats and watching cats on YouTube want what the iPad and Android already have, why would they have held out this long for Windows 8?

In the end MS tablets will have more useful software on them then for reasons already stated.

More useful software on them than what? Than other tablets? Maybe. But you yourself have been arguing that nobody uses a tablet for work anyway. More useful software than a PC? Not a friggin' chance. Even PCs running 64-bit Windows versions with no 16-bit support have the last seventeen years' backlog of Win32 software to choose from.

This comment illustrates that you have not tried Win8. The "metro" start menu is basically the same as the start menu except it fills the entire screen. It is perfectly useable as a desktop OS.

Well, if you'll look, I did revise that - it's not intended as a desktop OS. Yes, you can use it as one, but it doesn't play to the strengths and capabilities of a PC at all. The Start screen is basically the same as the Start menu, yes - except that it wastes ridiculous amounts of screen space so that even for a Start folder with a moderate number of items you have to scroll through screens and screens' worth of oversized tiles. That's a thing that makes some amount of sense on a tablet - it's absolutely bogus on a PC. Metro is clearly designed for tablets and made to work with PCs as an afterthought.

People will be butthurt about it for a year or two and then they will be used to it.

Didn't happen with Vista - and that was a precedent-setter. People now know that they can make Microsoft listen to reason (somewhat) if they simply hold off on upgrading as long as possible.

Though I do lust after the surface. If anything I would buy a Surface Pro, but I'm kinda frugal so I probably won't. I will not upgrade my PC's to Win8 until I buy a PC as they work perfectly fine with the OS's they came with.

So even you, outspoken Windows 8 advocate, aren't actually that hot for it. Yes, Microsoft's fortunes are certainly looking good.