Only $ 40 to Upgrade to Windows 8

[EntityX]

I was reading this article today.

Microsoft: Windows 8 will go on sale Oct. 26

I was surprised to read that it will only cost $ 40 to upgrade to Windows 8 from XP, Vista and 7. And "People who bought a Windows 7 computer on June 2 or later can upgrade for $15."

[JuggaloBrotha]

It's probably going to be offered that cheap because even I have yet to hear of someone who actually wants to buy it.

[Nightwalker83]

Yeah, I received an email about it either today or yesterday.

[dilettante]

Don't worry, Windows 8 has its own Legion of Fanboys out promoting it. They'll be coming to a forum thread near you soon enough to tell you "you've been using your computer wrong anyway, and you don't need a Start Menu, etc. just run every program by doing searches for them."

Anyone seen the actual details of the "upgrade" deals? I already saw that $40 turns into something like $60 if you want a DVD. This deal turns into a pumpkin January 2013 or so, so I guess the online installs go away then entirely.

If you're on the fence and might want to install Win8 later you might want that DVD. Or perhaps the "online" install really means downloading an ISO image? If so I wonder if you could burn it now, then "upgrade" 3 machines from it sometime in 2014? Or...?

[dilettante]

Hmm...

Windows 8: The end of the full retail version?

Those who typically have wanted and needed full Windows product -- among them, do-it-yourself PC assemblers -- will now be able to buy a system builder license for Windows 8. Microsoft officials have said the DIY crowd and those installing Windows 8 in a virtual machine or separate partition will be able to purchase a Windows 8 Pro System Builder version. There's no official word so far on the price of that SKU.

There's a bit of confusion among some system builders because hints regarding the new do-it-yourself (DIY) system builder license for Windows 8 seem to imply that those purchasing Windows 8 this way will only be able to obtain five copies per system builder for commercial use. For smaller PC makers, sometimes called white-box vendors, this limit is impractical. This limit also could hit companies whose IT departments may want to build their own custom PC systems.

[SJWhiteley]

Hmm...

Windows 8: The end of the full retail version?

This is only reflecting what people actually do, anyway. There really is little reason to buy a full blown 'retail' OS.

Places like Newegg have sold 'system builder'-like licenses for a while, which are small license packs. It hasn't restricted larger, commercial, system builders from obtaining scalable licenses, or licenses with other terms (such as 'key free' installs). Such licenses are and have generally not been available through retail channels.

$40 does look like a decent upgrade price-point. If they can market Win8 to the current users properly, and convince them they need to upgrade, the cost isn't going to be a huge factor. However, the benefits gained from an upgrade are actually very few, especially for the average innernet user. I think Windows 7 only became prevalent because people either bought a new computer, and Microsoft removed XP from the market (so small scale builders had no choice but to use windows 7). Win 7 brought basically nothing to the table; the difference with Win8 is the perceived cross-hardware feature (i.e. tablet/phone).

[dilettante]

Places like Newegg have sold 'system builder'-like licenses for a while, which are small license packs. It hasn't restricted larger, commercial, system builders from obtaining scalable licenses, or licenses with other terms (such as 'key free' installs). Such licenses are and have generally not been available through retail channels.

Those licenses were never legal for individuals to use, though it never stopped too many people. Crooks are everywhere.

The change is that the old system builder license is gone, replaced by the DIY license.

[FunkyDexter]

Win 7 brought basically nothing to the table

I think what Win 7 bought to the table was mainly that it wasn't Vista.

Whether that was fair on Vista or not I've never really ben sure (it always worked fine for me) but, none the less, Vista had built up such a burden of bad feeling that people just wanted to move off it at the first opportunity.

I see the same happening with 8. Nobody wants it and I can't help tyhinking that many won't give it a fair shake even if it turns out to be the best OS MS have ever delivered (which does seem unlikely from what I've read). By 9 (or whatever else they call it) the market will probably hve matured to the point where:-
a. We'll all realise that tablets and touch-screens were nothing but a gimmick and MS will be able to adopt a less tablet-centric aproach or
b. We'll all realise that desktop PCs are dinosaurs and tablets are the way forward in which case MS will continue on their current path but it will seem much more apropriate.

MS are kind of in limbo at the moment. The handheld market is definitely on the rise so it's not surprising that MS want to position themselves to take advantage of that... but that does mean alienating their core desktop market. Whether or not that's a good strategy remains to be seen.

Madonna has successfully reinvented herself many times but I for one will never forgive Alice Cooper for going hair-metal.

[SJWhiteley]

I think what Win 7 bought to the table was mainly that it wasn't Vista.
...

"Windows 7: at least we have stopped kicking you in the nuts!"

[SJWhiteley]

Those licenses were never legal for individuals to use, though it never stopped too many people. Crooks are everywhere.

The change is that the old system builder license is gone, replaced by the DIY license.

And this is the point: the old (current?) OEM System Builder License - which doesn't have a particularly well thought out license - is being replaced by a license which falls in line with what people are actually doing (not that I've read the new 'DIY' license, so would reserve judgement to the meaning).

That is, hobbyists are skirting the intent of the current OEM agreement to build systems for themselves. It is unlikely the 'genuine' system builders will not be left hanging: they will most likely go direct to Microsoft and form an agreement directly, rather than obtain OEM licenses through a retailer. This is no great hardship for genuine system builders, but does add another task. Note, though, that this is speculation based on the change to the OEM/DIY licensing.

Regardless, Win8 suckzors! Long live the King! :P

[NeedSomeAnswers]

It's probably going to be offered that cheap because even I have yet to hear of someone who actually wants to buy it.

Thats about the most accurate statement on Windows 8 i have seen. It got lots of stuff in it i either A. dont care about or B. Really dont like.

I Wont be buying it, wont be recommending it and wont be installing it on any of my Families PC's as i can already imagine the amount of questions i would get about using it.

Oh and i wont be buying a Windows tablet either so i am hoping i can avoid this version of Windows altogether.

[JuggaloBrotha]

Thats about the most accurate statement on Windows 8 i have seen. It got lots of stuff in it i either A. dont care about or B. Really dont like.

I Wont be buying it, wont be recommending it and wont be installing it on any of my Families PC's as i can already imagine the amount of questions i would get about using it.

Oh and i wont be buying a Windows tablet either so i am hoping i can avoid this version of Windows altogether.

My personal reason for not being all that interested in it is that I currently have 2 Win7 desktops & a Win7 laptop plus an android tablet right now. I don't plan on replacing the tablet for the next 6 or 7 years & by then Win9 will undoubtedly be out by then. As for the laptop, it's my work computer & IBM says I have to have the IBM edition of Win7 on it, so I wont be able to put Win8 on it. Plus I do a lot of programming stuff and other things that simply will not be able to run as a little tile, I need a full desktop with a taskbar.

As for the desktop computers, I don't have touch screens (cant afford them & probably wont be for another 9 or 10 years at least, as long as they still work and video cards have dvi ports) & I do some coding (VS 2008 & 2010) on them, plus I play video games (Portal, Starcraft 2, etc) which all require me to be running a desktop anyways, so if I do install Win8 on them, I have 0 need for the Metro UI and will use only the classic desktop.

I've also heard that if you turn Metro completely off in Win8, you get everything but the startmenu. I heavily use the WinXP/7 startmenu right now & since Win8 doesn't offer any desktop side improvements compared to Win7, I simply see no reason to migrate to 8.

[thebuffalo]

I tried it out, and it sucks. Its an operating system for a PC or laptop, not a cell phone.... Microsoft is trying too hard to stay as the "best" computer software company. All these iPhones, they are getting scared. They need to stick to what they know, have you ever seen one of those Windows Phones? Garbage. Windows 8 was 100% based on everybody having a touch screen computer, and if Microsoft says it's not, they are lying, why else would it look like that? Fact is, nobody has touch screen computers, and the people who do, wish they didn't because they suck too.

[EntityX]

The only reason I'd be installing Win 8 is to test the software that I've developed and see how it runs on 8. That's why I presently have a triple boot system with XP, Vista and 7 so that I can see my software works ok with all those OS's. If it wasn't for that I'd stick with 7 for a long time since I'm quite happy with it and think it's the best OS that Microsoft has released so far.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I think what Win 7 bought to the table was mainly that it wasn't Vista.

Whether that was fair on Vista or not I've never really been sure

I tell you what ask anyone who worked on an IT Support desk when Vista came out, and they will tell you that it is very fair there were so many problems trying to upgrade PC's to it, they generally hate Vista.

Then there are other users who for whatever reason didn't have to go through that pain, maybe they bought a brand new PC which had verified graphics and sound cards or whatever and they generally seem to like it.

I personally dont see a massive difference between Vista & 7 apart from coming from a development background Win 7 was easier to verify our systems on and get them working than Vista.

[dilettante]

There were several things that made Vista a problem for people, including:

• Expectation of running a 2007 OS on 2001 hardware.
• Manufacturers slow to produce device drivers.
• Software vendors taking their time to catch up with Vista's new enforcement of development rules in existance since the 1990s.
• Some real flaws, some of which were fixed by SP1 and a few more fixed by SP2.

You can run into this even today with new hardware though. I have an Intel D2700MUD board that had no decent video drivers until about June of this year, and even the ones on their download site now don't install correctly (Windows shows a broken video device in DevManager and "missing or corrupt driver" as the reason).

Companies like Intel are getting really bad. They can't even get the specs list right on their own products. See D2700MUD where the photo clearly shows the 4 back panel USB ports despite the specs there saying there are only two!

[SJWhiteley]

There were several things that made Vista a problem for people, including:

• Expectation of running a 2007 OS on 2001 hardware.
• Manufacturers slow to produce device drivers.
• Software vendors taking their time to catch up with Vista's new enforcement of development rules in existance since the 1990s.
• Some real flaws, some of which were fixed by SP1 and a few more fixed by SP2.

You can run into this even today with new hardware though. I have an Intel D2700MUD board that had no decent video drivers until about June of this year, and even the ones on their download site now don't install correctly (Windows shows a broken video device in DevManager and "missing or corrupt driver" as the reason).

Companies like Intel are getting really bad. They can't even get the specs list right on their own products. See D2700MUD where the photo clearly shows the 4 back panel USB ports despite the specs there saying there are only two!

So the question is, will people tolerate the very same, enumerable, flaws that existed in Windows Vista? Is $40 worth the upgrade? Of course, this is assuming Win8 has those same flaws - which is a possibility.

Will Windows 8 run on 5 year old hardware?
Have manufacturers seen a difference, if any, between the Win8 driver model and Win7?
Are we adapting to the windows 8 MetroUI or sticking with 'ye olde desktoppe' apps (which begs the question: why Metro?)
Are MS going to get it close to right first time with few significant flaws out the gate?

Hmm. Thinking about it, this may be a big problem for Microsoft: that is, reducing the upgrade cost. This opens up the market to potential customers significantly (usually a good thing). But the MS track record for flawed releases - either by design or real bugs - will mean these flaws will be in the hands of consumers very quickly and may leave a sour taste, and push them to the competition.

[RobDog888]

Like others I dont see any real benefit for upgrading to win8. I dont have a touch screen either so no real point. Seems like every other OS is a hit while the others are a fail. Windows 8 is on the fail release version lol.

[FunkyDexter]

Expectation of running a 2007 OS on 2001 hardware.
Manufacturers slow to produce device drivers.
Software vendors taking their time to catch up with Vista's new enforcement of development rules in existance since the 1990s.
Some real flaws, some of which were fixed by SP1 and a few more fixed by SP2.

I think this probably explains why my Vista experience was fairly positive. I left it late so the service packs were out and manufacturers ahd caughtup withthe device drivers so alot of the early pain that people experienced was already gone by the time I got there.

Of course, this is assuming Win8 has those same flaws - which is a possibility.

This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said people wouldn't give it a fair shake. There's really no reason, at this stage, to believe that W8 will have the same technical issues as Vista... but we all really want it to don't we? We want it to fail. Sorry to pick on your quote there, SJ, it's just that it highlighted what I'm talking about quite well. You've only got to read the speculative articles out there on the net as well as forum discussions like this to see that we ALL want to see this ship sink without trace. I know I do...but I can't really justify why. Normally rational and professional techy experts are all out there declaring that the metro interface will be the death of business application development and the lack of a start menu will make for an impossible to use system... but we haven't really experienced the alternative yet, it might be fantastic. But I bet it won't be.

I think Vista experienced the same phenomenon. We'd all got so comfortable with XP that when this new upstart with silly telly tubby wallpaper arrived on the scene we were all determined that it would be rubbish, no matter what.