New Windows OS May Launch by 2013
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The costs are what stops many from upgrading; plus there may have to be training for the new features that are there for people who haven't used them before which costs more money and time. Heck most of my university still has Windows XP on them and they don't seem to be upgrading anytime soon.Fasckira said:
OT: Sorry Microsoft but I'll be sticking with my lovely Windows 7 for quite a long time. Although having a update every year seems good on paper if it is not free or cheap then people aren't going to upgrade. Not to mention the potentiality of screwing up backwards compatibility.
Well of course they are. Come on now. The precedent has been set by the gaming industry and the gamers who allowed it... Why WOULDNT they try to get in on yearly rehashes for the same thing only minus less customer value, usability and control. I mean honestly they should be ashamed of themselves for waiting this long.
/sigh
/sigh
To be honest, I'd say it's far more likely that Microsoft has seen the tepid response to Windows 8 and is trying to make a product that people will want to actually buy.
Man, I need to go buy a Windows 7 install disc quickly.
Man, I need to go buy a Windows 7 install disc quickly.
I think we might be reading too much into this, what this looks like to me is damage control for Windows 8.
MS is already having to cut back production of the ARM based Surface RT tablets (by 50%) as a result of low sales, and the Surface Pro is going to cost more than a Macbook Air without a keyboard and with only 64gb of storage. The RT version was the one Microsoft were hoping would push Windows 8 - despite it being software incompatible with the desktop version. If sales of RT are already bad then it bodes badly for the desktop version.
Put simply, if customers aren't buying it for the platform it's designed for - they aren't likely to buy it for another platform when they already have an arguably better OS already available in the form of it's predecessor. And if people aren't being exposed to MS's touchy-feely-for-the-love-of-god-don't-call-it-metro-or-we-get-sued interface on a touch platform, they aren't going to get a favourable feel for it.
So what we are likely looking at here is MS rushing out a de-metrofied version of 8, with the metro interface as a backup - or running metro apps in a window (oh please be this one, I want to experience he level of lol this will cause.) They might say "Oh yes this is what we plan to do from now on." But really they just want to bury Win 8/Vista 2/ME 3/MS Bob 4 and get back to feeding the average consumer a standard desktop OS instead to trying to make them use a touchscreen UI without a touchscreen.
MS is already having to cut back production of the ARM based Surface RT tablets (by 50%) as a result of low sales, and the Surface Pro is going to cost more than a Macbook Air without a keyboard and with only 64gb of storage. The RT version was the one Microsoft were hoping would push Windows 8 - despite it being software incompatible with the desktop version. If sales of RT are already bad then it bodes badly for the desktop version.
Put simply, if customers aren't buying it for the platform it's designed for - they aren't likely to buy it for another platform when they already have an arguably better OS already available in the form of it's predecessor. And if people aren't being exposed to MS's touchy-feely-for-the-love-of-god-don't-call-it-metro-or-we-get-sued interface on a touch platform, they aren't going to get a favourable feel for it.
So what we are likely looking at here is MS rushing out a de-metrofied version of 8, with the metro interface as a backup - or running metro apps in a window (oh please be this one, I want to experience he level of lol this will cause.) They might say "Oh yes this is what we plan to do from now on." But really they just want to bury Win 8/Vista 2/ME 3/MS Bob 4 and get back to feeding the average consumer a standard desktop OS instead to trying to make them use a touchscreen UI without a touchscreen.
Yes... but how much does it cost to buy if you're not upgrading from Windows 7? And for that matter, look at how much Windows 7 still costs to either buy or upgrade to.Mr.Tea said:
On Windows 8, I stand corrected.Mr.Tea said:
I would point out, however, that the MSRP for Windows 7 Upgrade is $119.99. That's for Home Premium; powers help you if you wanted Ultimate ($219.99).
One year of relatively low pricing isn't enough to indicate a trend, or predict whether it will set the standard or simply test the waters to find out what they can get away with.
Says the man who makes sweeping generalisations based on his bad experiences.Baresark said:
Yes, I appreciate some companies are stuck on XP or with shonky infrastructures - only two years ago I had to do work a few of the UK NHS PCTs that refused to upgrade from Internet Explorer 6/XP due to a certain web app they used and the cost of updating just being too great.
However. If you're the type of company putting in Windows 8 now onto all your end user devices and you have a decent infrastructure then updating a yearly OS will be nothing.
And yes, I do work within the IT world and very extensively at that.
Suffice it to say I'm not convinced this new pricing model is a certain lock for the future. And even if it's "only" $60 a year, there's nothing to say they won't, say, decide that you can't upgrade to 9 from Vista, or even 7. A yearly update is a great excuse to claim that the core code has changed too much in two versions to make an upgrade from the earlier versions possible. They could easily say: Buy the yearly change-over, or cough up for the full version and weep when you finally get tired of not being able to find drivers, Mack.Mr.Tea said:
And what happens to the support for the poor saps who decide to cling on to the older versions? There was a solid base for XP (particularly in the wake of Vista's missteps) to keep Big M providing support for the much-loved version. What's to say the new strategy, if true, isn't an excuse to declare older versions obsolete at a faster pace?
Such speculation may seem pessimistic, if not paranoid, I'll grant. But I'd argue there's at least as much ground, based on Microsoft's past maneuvers, to make a case for such tactics as to believe that a $60 is the new face of pricing rather than the bait before the switch.
That's weird, the part where you assume my experiences are bad. They certainly are not, they are actually very good. I just understand how prohibitive the cost of a yearly OS upgrade can be and how servicing almost 15000 end users can be a problem. I also don't see the advantages to doing it as as the act of simply having the newest software most of the time does not benefit the end user. But on that note, I do see you have had some of the similar experiences, so I do apologize for my sweeping generalization. But your generalization is, at very least, equally sweeping. I think my point also comes from the angle that Microsoft is not good at fixing issues within it's OS in a timely manner. It took almost a full two years a few Microsoft created applications to be compatible with Windows 7 without jumping through a long series of hoops (I am pointing at you Zune software (my personal experience)).Fasckira said:
