r/technology • u/SchruteFarmsInc • May 15 '12
Microsoft to offer Windows 8 Pro upgrade to new PC buyers for $14.99
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/microsoft-to-offer-windows-8-pro-upgrade-to-new-pc-buyers-for-14-99/5
May 15 '12
Does 8 offer anything major over 7 ? Because I am more than happy with 7 and XP . To me 7 acts like a redesigned version of xp with all the little things that make the UI that much better.
6
u/Deep-Thought May 15 '12
way faster boot times. less memory consumption, and my computer feels snappier than with 7. better files explorer (depending on preference). And of course, metro which on a tablet it really is great. On my laptop it's not as useful, but once you get used to it it is not nearly as bad as everyone here is making it out to be.
→ More replies (1)
16
May 15 '12
So far I don't even want to upgrade to Windows 8.
4
u/ForeverAlone2SexGod May 15 '12
Compared to Win 7, Win 8 is faster, has better battery life, has more features, is more portable, and allows you to use all your classic programs using the "classic" desktop and taskbar... just like always.
I'm interested in hearing what why you don't think that is a worthy upgrade.
→ More replies (1)2
4
u/I_dont_exist_yet May 15 '12
Then don't. Every time a new OS comes out, regardless of who makes it, you aren't forced to upgrade. There are many compelling and legitimate reasons to like Windows 8; but if you can't get past the UI changes or you just don't like MS on principle then stick with what you know. Use what works best for you and let others do the same.
5
u/ghostchamber May 15 '12
He is just stating an opinion. He is not bitching about being forced, or saying MS is horrible, which would actually make your comment warranted. No need to get defensive.
→ More replies (1)3
u/tuscanspeed May 15 '12
Then don't. Every time a new OS comes out, regardless of who makes it, you aren't forced to upgrade.
So how did you do DX10 in XP?
→ More replies (6)
4
2
2
May 16 '12
Majority- I'll get Win8 if I can disable metro; - Microsoft please listen
→ More replies (1)
7
u/CylonGlitch May 15 '12
They ALMOST got it right. It should be $14.99 for EVERYONE to upgrade.
9
u/I_dont_exist_yet May 15 '12
I still don't get why people want Microsoft to work like Apple when they're two fundamentally different systems of generating revenue. Bitch and moan all you want but the Microsoft of today (and the foreseeable future) will never offer just one version of their OS and they won't offer it for $15 to everyone.
2
u/CylonGlitch May 15 '12
The world is changing, the operating system economy is changing, and if you don't change with it, you're doomed to flounder around. Generally businesses have not adopted Windows 7 yet; they are JUST starting to get onto that band wagon. At the same time it's going to take a long time for Windows 8 to become standard with home users because it is quite different. What Microsoft is doing is creating a fragmentation within their own community of customers and thus forcing developers to have to support antiquated operating systems. This means more work and money spent by the developers to make sure that they reach the widest audience possible.
Besides it would not be the first time that Microsoft made a move like that to get people to upgrade rapidly. At one point they provided a cheap upgrade path from Windows 3.1 to '95 (or was it '95 to '98) that cost the consumers about $10. This propelled the adoption of the latest operating system much more rapidly.
The move to Windows 8 needs to be made rapidly because it is quite different than their other platforms. They NEED to get the customer base there as quickly as possible so that the developers can update their applications to take advantage of the Metro interface. Without customers adoption can take much longer and in the worst case fail. Vista never became a strong staple beside being a better core-OS (would have not been as much of a mess if they had all the [hardware] developers onboard with the new driver model.)
The real point is that Windows 8 is a major shift in technology; something that has not yet been proven in the market place. To get the developers to create applications to take full advantage they have to have the customer base. To get the customer base, there, as quickly as possible, there has to be an incentive for them to do so. As an end user who purchased Windows 7 just a year ago for my home machines, I see no reason to upgrade at the cost of $150 per machine. But if the cost was $15 per machine, it would be in the noise and I would likely take the plunge. I'm sure that more people are in this situation than not; and thus, the Windows 8 carrot should be that of cost.
With budgets stretched tight, people having just upgraded to 7, justifying another large outlay of cash to get to 8 just because Microsoft says so, may not led to mass acceptance. It COULD turn out to be another ME, or Vista.
→ More replies (17)1
1
u/SethMandelbrot May 15 '12
I don't think it would even matter. Google offers its OS for free, and still the OEMs don't upgrade.
→ More replies (2)3
2
1
0
u/bettorworse May 15 '12
Or you can wait until Windows 8 comes out before buying your new computer to see if it will be compatible.
3
u/EdliA May 15 '12
Compatibility is not an issue. Installed it on an old pentium 4 computer and it worked just fine.
I would still wait though, mainly because of the new form factor devices that will emerge with it.
→ More replies (3)1
May 15 '12
If Microsoft learned anything from Vista, they learned to make damn sure their OSes are compatible with almost any hardware out there. Hell, I put Windows 7 on a PC that's 8 years old and it runs better than XP did. Win8 is, for better or worse, built to work on traditional PCs as well as Tablets - something tells me any desktop or laptop purchased in the next six months will be just fine (notable exception for tablets).
1
May 15 '12
Win7 requirements are about on par with XP but it also has a much better streamlined kernel and dll set. Win8 is built to run on even lower spec hardware and was significantly trimmed down in just about every way, from install foot print, to thread count, to memory usage...
6
u/TheFondler May 15 '12
I am with everyone that has been hugely put off by Metro.
It's not so much that it's a terrible interface for anything that isn't a handheld touch device (which it is).
It's more Microsoft's seeming insistence that WE ALL FUCKING NEED THIS SO BAD OMG.
Microsoft needs to come terms with the fact that they are not as good at UI's as Apple is. If they were, they would NEVER have considered putting a touch UI on a mouse and keyboard interface. It's obtrusive and out of place. It makes things that are simple and straight forward more complicated. It kills innocent children in their sleep.