Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 22 Apr 2014.
Windows 9 to follow soon after?
As with Vista, I will be ignoring all flavours of Windows 8 with a distasteful look on my face in the same manner as if someone had just dropped a stinky fart in an enclosed space. It's time to purge the ghost of Sinofsky. Roll on Windows 9.
They should really adopt the model of buying 2 versions of OS, for example if you buy windows 8, you should get 9 for free when its out. If you buy 9, you should get 10 free when its out.
People use OS's for far longer now than what microsoft wants, so offering a 2 in 1 package would give them an incentive to upgrade early.
I'm looking forward to 8.2. 8.1 is already an awesome OS. Not too sure about the start menu though, I like the Start Screen and going back to a traditional menu seem to be back-peddling to keep the old farts happy.
I guess 8.2 is easier to say than 8 SP2.
Correct name for this: Windows 8 SP3.
Microsoft, can you now help me and give me the ability to make my original Windows 8 notebook BE ABLE TO INSTALL A DVD of WINDOWS 8.1 UPDATE 2 (Windows 8 SP3) with the key that it is in bios? Because I don´t think you know how many days (2) it takes to move Windows 8 from fresh to the latest updates... IT TAKES A ****ING LOOOOOT OF TIME.
Or... they should adopt their model of offering their 'non pro' OS upgrades for free. Commercial users who need to join a domain still get to pay but everyone else get to upgrade for nothing.
More people will upgrade, thus more users will be potential customers for software purchases through the app store.
Just look at the adoption figures for iOS and OSX. Both are free and easy upgrades and the vast majority of users upgrade because of this. Okay, it's easier for Apple to exclude non compatible configurations but MS already have the tech to do this.
MS holding onto the notion that 'average' PC users will ever be willing to pay for an upgrade from (say) windows 7 is crazy.
Just make 8.x free already!
I don't think they are going to force you to stop using the start screen, unlike how they forced people to stop using the start menu when they removed it. I would think if you prefer to use the full screen version of the start menu (aka The Start Screen) you will still be able to use it.
Can't you use one of the generic keys Microsoft provide and then enter the Bios key when it comes to activating, or change the key once you have installed via the DVD with 8.1 and the update ?
Couldn't have put it better myself . Lets hope they don't tell us they want us to do things a certain way this time or it will all end in tears
Companies should listen to what their customers want not try to force us into doing things their new and to be honest crap way. We like things the way they were done in Windows 7, just improve and make it faster and better without screwing it up please Microsoft.
..but Windows 7 was really just a re-skinned Vista with the bloat taken out, and Windows 9 will be a re-skinned Windows 8 with a huge slice of humble pie added..
And Vista was a re-skinned XP, that in turn was a re-skinned 98, and that was a re-skinned 95.
There hasn't been a major change in the way people interact with Windows since Win 3.1 even then the change from Win 3.1 to 95, it could be argued didn't change much.
There is far more to an OS than just the way it looks.
Windows 7 is where I'm staying, until I'm forced to upgrade...
The interface may have looked more or less similar, but there was a big jump from Windows 1-3 (which was just a GUI on top of DOS), to 95-98-ME (which was just about a separate OS from DOS), to XP which was basted on the NT kernel v5 (and didn't require DOS).
The jump from XP to Vista (NT 6) was pretty big from a technological point of view, but between Vista, 7 and 8/8.1 there's been little change, more just tweaks to the underlying OS. The changes to the GUI haven't really mirrored the changes in the OS, XP looked pretty similar to Win 9X, but underneath was a complete change. Windows 8 looks completely different to 7, but it really is just a reskin of a few areas.
@phuzz, Oh yea i totally agree, it's why is said "There is far more to an OS than just the way it looks." Sadly a lot of people look no further than the way an OS looks.
it still takes a bit of time, but it's quicker than downloading all the time, but cant you get yourself a copy wsus offline updater from here
Relax. Microsoft learnt the lesson and is offering StartScreen as an option:
Given Microsoft's ongoing problems with buggy updates, doing them more often is not going to make people more likely to want to use their products. At this rate, by the time they get the bugs ironed out of 8.1, 8.2 will be coming out as a "you must install this or we will give hackers root access to your computer" patch.
I'm also really unhappy about MS using the withholding of security patches, which are necessary because the OS is so insecure to begin with, as a way of dictating to users what they run on their machines. I'm really surprised we haven't seen a class action lawsuit out of this yet.
You're right about the bloat, but W7 is visually almost identical to Vista, so "re-skin" is the last word I'd use to describe it. No, I'd say W7 is basically a working version of Vista. As long as you don't count the pig's ear they made of Windows Explorer.
From what I've heard of W8 it does a lot of things right and doesn't have the visceral flaws that made Vista such a dog, so perhaps I was unfair to compare it to Vista. I think this time round I'd probably be happy with a re-skin since it's Windows 8's UI, and the UI alone, that's putting me off.
Yeah, because running the version of Windows you want is an entitlement . It's a God-given right, damn it!
Oh, wait, it isn't. Companies can just discontinue a product if they choose; must be a free market principle or something.
On the other hand, when you purchase a product it's reasonable that you can expect it to function in it's current form for a reasonable period of time.
This is the equivelant of a car manufacturer saying "now that you've had your car for three months, you must paint it blue or else your warranty is void. We'll give you be blue paint, but the painting process may break the car."
MS is essentially making updates, which once again are only necessary because their product was defective in the first place, contingent on the user accepting functional changes to the operating system. These aren't just bug fixes or security patches, these are major changes that you are required to consent to in order to keep receiving the support which you paid for when purchasing the operating system.
They are demanding an unprecedented amount of control over the customer's machine under threat of withholding support which was paid for.
I'm curious Nexxo (and others)... You seem pretty comfortable with allowing Microsoft to require you to accept changes to your computer. Where would you draw the line? How much are you willing to put up with before you would say no?
Separate names with a comma.