Upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for only $39.99!

[Ilwrath]

Not even Windows 3.1 was this inexpensive!

Yeah...  That's a deep discount, for sure.  I think it kinda shows how desperate Microsoft is for a new runaway hit.  They want some splashy numbers to throw around.  Their last two operating systems have had fairly slow uptakes, and Office 2010 uptake has been glacial, as far as I can tell.  Their biggest competitor is by far their own older products.

I wonder how it'll sell.  I think the low price will make it move.

I tend to think you're right.  Though it is interesting, selling the upgrade to Windows 8 from XP cheaper than the upgrade to Windows 7 is.  It almost admits that Windows 8 has less to offer desktop users than Windows 7, which isn't far from the truth, IMHO.

[Ilwrath]

It's more likely they are making it cheap to attract customers that would pirate it, if it were more expensive.

I'm sure that's part of what Microsoft is hoping, as well...  But, my guess is regardless of what they price they use, it won't make a big inroads into the pirate market.  I don't think much of the pirated Windows demographic pirates because they can't afford Windows.  At least not in the North American markets where this price is being targeted.

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.

As for Windows 8, itself...  I've used it quite a bit on a test machine.  I can't say I like that implementation of Metro very much.  It's pretty clumsy to have Metro AND a desktop.  Do one or the other, and do it right.  Two half-baked schemes grafted together doesn't make a whole.  However, at a price point that cheap... I might pick up a retail copy of it for said test box...  I can't say I've had any real problems with applications, stability, or performance.  It's W7 minus the messed up start orb, and plus a messed up tiles screen and wacky new preferences menus.  (shrug)

[Ilwrath]

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.

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 really liked Windows 7's interface.  Other than the retarded start menu that always needs expanding and extra clicks.  IMHO, the old fly-out menus were faster, more organized looking, and required less clicks.  Personally, I think a lot of people agreed with me that the new start menu was braindead.  Microsoft's own studies showed how start menu usage had dropped dramatically.  Unfortunately, they took this data as the green light to kill the start menu instead of fixing it.  Ah well...  That's Microsoft for ya...  They never met a problem they couldn't find a potentially undesirable solution to.  LOL!  

Personally, I would probably like Metro, if the implementation were somehow complete.  If the computer somehow functioned as a cohesive whole with the tile interface, I think it'd be a pretty interesting concept.  But as it stands, Metro just becomes a strange tile-based launcher for applications into the legacy desktop, which adds a lot of confusion.  Then, some applications will have both Metro and legacy versions...  Then you can end up with one Internet Explorer launched in Metro, one in legacy, and they can end up with different toolbars and viewable content in each.  d'oh!  My less skilled users will be completely befuddled.