Upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for only $39.99!

[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.

[commodorejohn]

No they don't. You missed out Windows Server 2012, which is the server version of Windows 8, and they aren't pushing you to move to windows store apps on that either (it's not called Metro anymore).

Okay, so the server version is exempt. Big frickin' deal. Are you going to be able to get the server version for home use? If so, is it going to be the same price as the home version? Because if it's not, then it's pretty clear where Microsoft wants users to go.
 
Also, they're not calling it Metro anymore, because of the tremendous amount of negative reaction to Metro, but it's clear that they haven't actually changed anything significant about it.

Forcing apps to be signed is the only way to save people from themselves. It worked out for Apple.

And how many other terrible things have been justified by saying it's "necessary" because people just don't know what's best for themselves? Vendor-controlled software distribution is a hideous idea and I don't give a damn if someone thinks it might help security. Security at what price? The freedom to run whatever software you God-damn please? No thanks.

It worked for Apple because Apple has spent decades creating a user culture that wants to be coddled and have their hand held and never once have to think about the fact that their computer doesn't run on magic and that they might sometimes have to understand it a little bit in order to keep it running well. (And even Apple has vulnerabilities, though they like to pretend they don't.) Windows users are not, fundamentally, part of the iOS user culture, and they never have been. Before that, they often weren't even Mac users. Windows users are used to having the freedom to do as they please, and when Microsoft arbitrarily decides to take that away, all the rationalizations about "security" in the world aren't going to hide the fact that their freedom is being stolen as part of a naked cash-grab.

You seem very upset about Windows 8.

That's because I am. You seem to think that that's a way to dismiss my arguments, as if the mere fact that I have an emotional reaction to it means that it's therefore not grounded in rational thinking. I'm upset about Windows 8 because it's another step taken towards the death of general-purpose computing and into a future where computers are mere appliances that are only allowed to perform a selected set of functions chosen by the vendor, which will be acting in its best interests with the user's as an afterthought.

I don't want that to happen, and I don't want to have to fall back on Linux to avoid it, either. Windows has been the only really open commercial OS for years now, with Apple slowly sewing up Mac OS X into as much of a closed environment as iOS. I don't want that to go away, but it's clear that Microsoft does.

[commodorejohn]

Joking aside, isn't this the sort of logical end result though? Apple is making filthy amounts of money, and a certain share of their reputation as "reliable" comes from a relatively walled in garden where they can control the number of moving parts. Microsoft would kill for a setup like that, and if the consumers (and you're always a consumer, never a user) basically don't care, that's what will happen.

Yes, it probably does seem logical through the lens of "MAXIMIZE PROFITS, MINIMIZE COSTS" isolated boardroom thinking. But it falls apart when you take even a cursory look at the types of people who use Windows, how they use it, and what they want out of it. There probably are people who don't care about using software that's not directly approved by the OS developer, but don't the tablet advocates like to ballyhoo the fact that all of them are supposedly moving to tablets? And there's a lot of people who do care about that.

Let the people who want a featureless Facebook slab go to tablets, fine. I'll look with mild distaste on them, but what the hell, it's no skin off my nose. For those of us who actually do use Windows for its vast selection of third-party software from any and all sources, though (and there are many more than Microsoft seems to think,) this is a catastrophe, and that's going to be reflected in the reaction of Windows power-users to this.

The average user doesn't want or need general  purpose computing, they want to post to facebook, skype (a Microsoft  company), watch videos, see their photos, they don't give a darn if the  thing is locked down, in fact they are happier because they never really  understood virus protection anyway.

You say that like it's an excuse for taking the capability away.

[commodorejohn]

You missed my point, you're not forced to use windows store apps on the home or pro version either.

Not yet, no, because it would be suicide for them to try that. But it's plainly the direction they want to go, which is why they've been telling developers outright that Metro is the future of Windows and they better hurry up and switch. As soon as they think they can get away with it, I guarantee you that Win32 is going bye-bye.

If by that you mean that they sold something locked down and while some people got a bit upset about it, the majority got used to the idea and it's actually worked out really well for them.

Yes it has - because they already cultivated a user base with a pathological fear of complexity. (But even they had to take advantage of introducing a new platform to  accustom its users to the idea, and they're only gradually moving Mac OS X  there.) Microsoft hasn't. They're trying to position themselves as saving the user from something a lot of Windows users don't need or want to be saved from.
 

You're right, I don't think your reaction is grounded in rational thinking.

If you think I'm irrational, why are you trying to reason with me? And on what grounds do you say my arguments are irrational?
 

I'm already running windows 8. I haven't used the windows store once. I didn't even create an account yet, so I actually can't. Microsoft haven't any control over what software I install. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that that's where they're going with this. Yes, they haven't gotten there yet, because even they could tell that it would be suicide to try and move to a closed model all at once. Microsoft clearly wants to move Windows to being a closed system, and Windows 8 shows which steps towards that goal they think they can get away with at present. If this succeeds, Windows 9 will push it still further, until such time as they feel they can jettison the old openness completely.

[commodorejohn]

Once again, Windows RT (on the Surface) is locked down, Windows 8 (on everything else) is not.

Not yet.

[commodorejohn]

So, could anyone a little more educated than myself about the issue please tell me your top 5 reasons (in descending order) to why I should pick up on this offer of $39.99 Win8 upgrade?

But TMHG, don't you understand? It's only $39.99! Yes, only $39.99! But wait! There's more! Order now and you'll also receive this genuine Ginsu steak knife absolutely free! Yes, you get the tablet-desktop-phone-XBox hybrid operating system of the future and the steak knife, all for the low, low price of only $39.99! Call now! Operators are standing by!

[commodorejohn]

Why develop for Windows 7 and below and when you can get tablets and desktops with Windows 8 development.

Because Win32 software will work on Windows 7 and on Windows 8 (and any future versions up to the point where Microsoft decides they can get away with killing it,) and Win32 is actually designed to be suitable for desktop use, as opposed to trying to cram tablet UI down users' throats whether or not they're actually on a tablet?

[commodorejohn]

I ask again - John, have you tried Windows 8?

I hate the tiles nonsense as much as anyone else and I will not be upgrading to 8, just curious if you have tried it.

No, I don't have a spare system that meets its requirements and I hate VMs. Have you tried it? Is there anything you get from hands-on use that makes these design decisions not incredibly stupid?

It is delusional to think they are going to kill the "install what you want" on the open Windows 8 (non RT) version.  Even Apple hasn't gone that gonzo yet.

It seems insane to me, too - but they've put heavy emphasis on promoting Metro development, they've outright locked the free version of Visual Studio into only building Metro apps, and simply, it's the logical extension of what they're trying to do. They're making these moves because they want a slice of Apple's "app-store" pie; the only reason to leave in a way around that is because they know damn well it would be suicide to try cutting it at this point in time. When they think they can get away with it, mark my words, it will be gone.

[commodorejohn]

You've been railing about this for months, if not an entire year or longer and you've never even tried it? :rolleyes:

Correct. I didn't have a spare system and I hated VMs then, too.

I ask again: is there some kind of mysterious revelation, incommunicable in mortal tongues, that is obtained by running the demo version that somehow makes these design decisions not horrid?

[commodorejohn]

The old article you linked looks quite wrong, or maybe MS changed their mind after. You can get Express 2012 for "desktop" right now:

http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/eng/products/visual-studio-express-for-windows-desktop

Hmm, okay. Thanks for the correction.

However there's no way in hell as a developer I will pay $49 for the privilege of providing a free app for it though.

Wait, are they seriously charging even for getting free software added to the Windows Store? Who would bother with that? And where the hell are those 4700 free apps coming from, then? Did they hire an overseas code farm to spend the last six months cranking out Metro apps so that it wouldn't be barren on release?

(Unless, of course, those "free" apps are actually "paid for by in-program ads" apps...)

[commodorejohn]

They should raise the entrance fee to $1,000 to keep the shovel ware out of the marketplace. The Apple ecosystem is choking on it.

Given that they're proudly announcing 4700 free apps, I think shovelware is what they're counting on...

[commodorejohn]

That's about how many apps are approved on the iOS app store every 10 days.

I assume there's a bit of hyperbole in there? Still, yeesh. Again I'm glad to have never gotten into iOS...

[commodorejohn]

You're being paranoid.
 
When it no longer makes financial sense to include backward compatibility then I can imagine they will drop it. I don't see that happening any time soon though. There is more chance of Microsoft abducting you and taking you to their Area 51 facility to perform medical experiments.

I really don't think I am. That's the logical conclusion of pushing Windows towards a closed environment; if this succeeds, I really think it's only a matter of time.

Millions of PCs with that w@nk OS will be sold just like 95/98/ME/XP/Vista/7 before it, whether we buy 'upgrades' or not won't make a difference to the balance sheet in the accountants office of M$ LOL

That remains to be seen. Vista already proved that Microsoft aren't as almighty as they think they are, and there's been more negative reaction to Win8 before release than Vista had a year after. I doubt we'll get to see a release-day scenario where nobody buys it (much as I'd love that,) but I don't think it's a given that adoption is going to be widespread.

On release date, donate the amount upgrading would have cost you to the EFF or your favourite linux distro

That's actually a great idea - though I'll be putting it towards either ReactOS (a hell of a lot closer to the Windows I want than this crap) or Haiku.

[commodorejohn]

Admitting you'd love nobody to buy it proves how biased you are.

Did I ever claim any kind of neutrality on this subject? No. No, I did not. I will freely admit it: I want this to fail, because it's a dangerous step in the wrong direction for what is currently the only really open commercial desktop OS, and it's also a bad design decision for Windows to try and target two wildly disparate devices with one UI. It's a bad idea all around, and it needs to fail correspondingly hard.

What you're doing here is conflating neutrality and objectivity to imply that, because I have an opinion at all, my opinion is "biased" and therefore valueless. By this logic, the only person whose opinion should be taken seriously is the person with no opinion at all, and debate is inherently pointless.

[commodorejohn]

And I can tell you with quite a bit of certainty that CommodoreJohn is certainly no linux fanboi

Damn straight. But that's another thread ;P

[commodorejohn]

No, you lack objectivity. I know that because your argument is flawed and only serves to back up your bias.
 
You're suggesting that you are entitled to an opinion that is provably wrong.

You keep saying that I'm wrong, but all I'm seeing, looking back over this thread, is you telling me that my predictions are wrong because they haven't come to pass yet. Well yes, that's why they're predictions and not statements of fact at present time. You may think they're highly improbable while I think the opposite, but there's no way to say that either of us is wrong on that count until we observe how things play out.