Windows 10 upgrade to be free

Meesared

Sonics2k wrote: »

PC Gamer myself, can deny. Windows 8 did have a few naggling problems at first but those are long since solved. 8.1 was very good for gaming for the most part too.

Seconded, absolutely no issues with games and Windows 8

diomed

Vista was such a disaster it made people wary of new Microsoft operating systems. Every session with Vista I was asked to download drivers.
I use 7 and won't be moving until there is similar, and demonstrably better.
Five minutes with Windows 8 was enough. No.
Do Microsoft ever ask users to try new systems before they release them?

anncoates

diomed wrote: »

Five minutes with Windows 8 was enough. No.

Please don't ever get a job in QA.

ARGINITE

It's a free upgrade for the first year, Microsoft intend on going with a subscription model for Windows 10. So after the first year you will have to start paying for it.

Akrasia

5 minutes with apple IOS makes me want to tear my hair out. (where's the feckin back button!) But plenty of people out there have learned to love it

You can't learn how to properly navigate any OS in 5 minutes unless it's exactly the same as the one before or an incremental update that introduces no new features.

Windows 8 had some pretty unpopular design choices, but the reasoning behind it all was to start the new generation of integrated universal operating system across every computing platform, Laptops, desktops, phones, tablets, media centers, gaming consoles, fridges, smart watches, self tying shoes....

Start buttons work great with a mouse, but touchscreens are fiddly with drop down menues so they were trying to wean us off them and the point was that once we were used to the new way of doing things, it would become second nature and no longer annoy us.

I think the microsoft designers have realised that people are capable of understanding multiple interfaces at once, and much prefer to have the best desktop interface on a desktop/laptop and the best mobile/touchscreen interface on smaller handheld devices rather than trying to force a compromise onto both types of platform. At the end of the day, what consumers really really want is cross compatability, and the UI is only a small part of that. Under the hood windows 8.1 and windows 10 are built specifically to allow this and we're all going to benefit from this in the future. (Google are doing the same thing with their chrome OS being compatable with android apps etc...)

Akrasia

ARGINITE wrote: »

It's a free upgrade for the first year, Microsoft intend on going with a subscription model for Windows 10. So after the first year you will have to start paying for it.

Absolutely not true. There is no way Microsoft would even consider such an option.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgamer.com%2Fmicrosoft-windows-10-will-not-be-sold-as-a-subscription%2F&ei=sbXAVOHZPIabgwS9kIDQCQ&usg=AFQjCNHS1kA6SKsAlENGluohwoAAmyR_vw&sig2=C7k9Q2AkKDmdVZnJ0FaChA

_Kaiser_

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Is this upgrade for exsisting users of Win8, or can even those who buy 8 in the next year, will they too get the upgrade?

Should do.. if the laptop shipped with Win 7/8/8.1 it should be eligible to upgrade to 10 for free within the first year of release

I see also users of windows phone 8.1 are also eligible, i assume this will depend on the phones ability to run it.

MSFT have said that all current Win Phone 8 devices will get it (preview builds available next month). Realistically any recent Lumia with WP8 will be updated

ARGINITE wrote: »

It's a free upgrade for the first year, Microsoft intend on going with a subscription model for Windows 10. So after the first year you will have to start paying for it.

No, I thought that too but it was clarified afterwards - see this post:

At its press event today, Microsoft announced that Windows 10 will be a free upgrade for Windows 7 and Windows 8 users during its first year of availability. There was some confusion, however, when Microsoft's Terry Myerson started talking about Windows 10 "as a service." Did that mean that after that first year of free availability, Windows 10 would cost an annual fee?

I asked Myerson for clarification after the presentation, and he confirmed that there will be no additional fees attached to Windows 10, whenever you buy it.
Myerson clarified that Windows 10 users will still get free updates and support for the lifetime of the OS, exactly like past versions of Windows (like XP and Windows 7's Service Packs, for example). There's no subscription model for updates or support or continuing to use the OS. Myerson's reference to Windows "as a service" simply meant that Microsoft plans to update the OS with smaller, more regular updates rather than the big, chunky updates of past Service Packs.

A year after Windows 10 is first available, it will no longer be a free upgrade for Windows 7 and 8 users. Microsoft will then sell Windows 10 the same way it has sold past versions of Windows. MS hasn't set a specific price yet, but Myerson said the price will likely be comparable to past versions of Windows. Windows 8 costs $120 on Amazon, for instance.

_Kaiser_

Akrasia wrote: »

Absolutely not true. There is no way Microsoft would even consider such an option.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgamer.com%2Fmicrosoft-windows-10-will-not-be-sold-as-a-subscription%2F&ei=sbXAVOHZPIabgwS9kIDQCQ&usg=AFQjCNHS1kA6SKsAlENGluohwoAAmyR_vw&sig2=C7k9Q2AkKDmdVZnJ0FaChA

They might.. but not yet. They've already done it with Office pretty successfully

For €10 per month you can get the latest version of Office with rights to install on up to 5 machines, extra OneDrive storage and Skype minutes.. not a bad deal really IMO.

I'd personally welcome a similar option for new Windows versions

ARGINITE

Akrasia wrote: »

Absolutely not true. There is no way Microsoft would even consider such an option.

Windows 10 will be free for existing Windows users running versions of Windows back to Windows 7. That includes Windows 7, 8, 8.1 and Windows Phone. Microsoft specified it would only be free for the first year, indicating Windows would be software that users subscribe to, rather than buy outright.

Source: Slashdot

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd personally welcome a similar option for new Windows versions

No thanks, not for me!

Akrasia

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

They might.. but not yet. They've already done it with Office pretty successfully

For €10 per month you can get the latest version of Office with rights to install on up to 5 machines, extra OneDrive storage and Skype minutes.. not a bad deal really IMO.

I'd personally welcome a similar option for new Windows versions

It's a non runner because the vast majority of retail consumers buy a laptop and consider the operating system to be just as fundamental as a hard drive or screen. Imagine if Dell decided to sell you a laptop but then made you buy a subscription for the use of the screen? Most consumers consider buying the OS as part of the price of buying the computer, just like buying the operating system of a washing machine is part of the purchase price.

It would be a PR disaster. Also, the logistics of dealing with all the complaints from people whose annual subscription is lapsed, but they have personal files and programs that they have paid for which are now inaccessable due to windows no longer working are huge, as well as the DRM issues which might require internet access to check the license status which would then piss off everyone who needs to use a laptop when they don't have internet access available.... There are lots of people who own laptops and only use them infrequently. How frustrated will they be when they boot up their machine and their subscription has expired... or 'microsoft live is not available, please try again later'...

Microsoft want people to move to their latest OS.The last thing they want is to release Windows 10 and everyone stays using windows 7 or windows 8.1

Peregrine

ARGINITE wrote: »

Source: Slashdot

I asked Myerson for clarification after the presentation, and he confirmed that there will be no additional fees attached to Windows 10, whenever you buy it.

Myerson clarified that Windows 10 users will still get free updates and support for the lifetime of the OS, exactly like past versions of Windows (like XP and Windows 7's Service Packs, for example). There's no subscription model for updates or support or continuing to use the OS. Myerson's reference to Windows "as a service" simply meant that Microsoft plans to update the OS with smaller, more regular updates rather than the big, chunky updates of past Service Packs.

http://www.pcgamer.com/microsoft-windows-10-will-not-be-sold-as-a-subscription/

Professey Chin

ARGINITE wrote: »

Source: Slashdot

There was some confusion, however, when Microsoft's Terry Myerson started talking about Windows 10 "as a service." Did that mean that after that first year of free availability, Windows 10 would cost an annual fee? I asked Myerson for clarification after the presentation, and he confirmed that there will be no additional fees attached to Windows 10, whenever you buy it.

http://www.pcgamer.com/microsoft-windows-10-will-not-be-sold-as-a-subscription/

Shrap

kingtiger wrote: »

am I don't agree, 8.1 is rock solid for me with games, never had a problem

anncoates wrote: »

I don't game to be fair, but I know people that do on 8.1 and I've never heard them complain.

Sonics2k wrote: »

PC Gamer myself, can deny. Windows 8 did have a few naggling problems at first but those are long since solved. 8.1 was very good for gaming for the most part too.

To everyone, I clearly specified 8 as opposed to 8.1. Never had a problem with the charms myself - I thought them a stupid gimmick but easy to learn. The problem (according to the computer technicians who fixed the damn thing) was that my son had not upgraded to 8.1. Don't ask me, all I know is that the "automatic repair mode" is a heap of sh1te. A person used to be able to plod through figuring out a booting problem even if they weren't an expert.

Drakares

anncoates wrote: »

Windows 8 isn't a 'mistake'. It's just a lot of people are too thick or lazy to take a few seconds to bypass the metro interface if it annoys them so much.

IT Manager here, not thick or lazy. Windows 8 is still an absolute pile of rubbish. Go install yourself openSUSE, Ubuntu or any flavour of Linux and you'll know what I mean.

Akrasia

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

They might.. but not yet. They've already done it with Office pretty successfully

For €10 per month you can get the latest version of Office with rights to install on up to 5 machines, extra OneDrive storage and Skype minutes.. not a bad deal really IMO.

I'd personally welcome a similar option for new Windows versions

Office is sold as a subscription because the high cost of buying an outright license was putting a lot of people off and because there are lots of alternative options for retail consumers who only use office for the odd document and could avoid the MS office suite entirely.

An operating system is a different kettle of fish. Microsoft's entire operation is built on the windows platform. They need people to keep using it because apart from hipsters, the majority of businesses and consumers consider Microsoft to be the default choice of operating system.

If you're buying a new computer and the salesperson tells you that you can buy this windows pc which requires an annual subscription, or this mac, or chromebook, which is 'all inclusive'. You'll introduce the idea that there actually is choice of operating system, and they will start to lose market share.

An awful lot of people know practically nothing about computers. They want something that can go on the internet and write emails and print out boarding passes for their holidays. A chromebook would suit a large number of these people, they just aren't on their radar.

Dravokivich

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I want our IT services to work. I want to be able to head into work in the morning and not have to experience delays in getting our suite of applications loaded. I want to have the same quality of service provided as we expect from a lift or a fast food outlet. Reliable, automated, available. If an issue occurs, then it should be sorted quickly. It's intolerable that the failures of the IT department should have an influence of what we need to do in the profit house of the organisation.

This is what I meant by "all encompassing IT."

I see things from the other side. It's very possible that the issues you face, are because the service you need wasn't properly provisioned internally.

I see it all the time with various clients complaining about similar things to you, but its due to their setup being under spec.

_Kaiser_

ARGINITE wrote: »

No thanks, not for me!

Akrasia wrote: »

Microsoft want people to move to their latest OS.The last thing they want is to release Windows 10 and everyone stays using windows 7 or windows 8.1

Agreed, but unless you buy a laptop every time a new OS is released (and it's likely that the release schedule will be more frequent as rather than service packs they'll release new versions like they did with WIn 8/8.1) you'll - possibly - need to fork out for the latest update every time

The option to subscribe to the OS as a service and just get these releases automatically would probably be welcomed by those who always want the latest and greatest. I guess it depends what happens to the old versions - Win 8 was pretty much abandoned as soon as the free 8.1 update was released for example. Will 10.1 be a similar idea? I'm guessing yes as they talked a lot yesterday about reducing the OS fragmentation and keeping everyone current.

Unless maybe they are going to maybe make incremental updates free like 8.1 and charge for major version changes (10 being the exception because of the negativity around 8.x)

Shrap

Drakares wrote: »

IT Manager here, not thick or lazy. Windows 8 is still an absolute pile of rubbish. Go install yourself openSUSE, Ubuntu or any flavour of Linux and you'll know what I mean.

I totally agree about win8, but can't get my head around any Linux. Don't you have to be able to write computer speak (code?) to get it to do anything different? I loved Ubuntu for a while, till whatever programme it was that used to control my sound decided it was no longer compatible with running my sound card and I ended up desperately looking through lists of add-ons or programs (whatever they are) to try and find one that didn't need me to be an IT manager to understand! Linux is very tough on people who's last computer speak lesson was pre-windows MsDOS (although I can still manage to use them ok).

Capt'n Midnight

YellowFeather wrote: »

I hate XP far more. Having to use it at the moment. I'd actually forgotten the blue screens of death.

Try this. Pretty much guarantees you never get a Blue Screen Of Death ever again.

http://www.petri.com/change_bsod_color.htm

if, for some reason you actually want BSOD's on demand this is what you need
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff545499%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

_Kaiser_

Akrasia wrote: »

Office is sold as a subscription because the high cost of buying an outright license was putting a lot of people off and because there are lots of alternative options for retail consumers who only use office for the odd document and could avoid the MS office suite entirely.

An operating system is a different kettle of fish. Microsoft's entire operation is built on the windows platform. They need people to keep using it because apart from hipsters, the majority of businesses and consumers consider Microsoft to be the default choice of operating system.

If you're buying a new computer and the salesperson tells you that you can buy this windows pc which requires an annual subscription, or this mac, or chromebook, which is 'all inclusive'. You'll introduce the idea that there actually is choice of operating system, and they will start to lose market share.

An awful lot of people know practically nothing about computers. They want something that can go on the internet and write emails and print out boarding passes for their holidays. A chromebook would suit a large number of these people, they just aren't on their radar.

Yes but in the scheme of things the client/desktop end isn't the main revenue draw. OEMs license it from them to preload it on their machines, Enterprises have VL agreements that are renewed annually and Server is licensed per seat/CPU as well.. that's where the money is.

How Joe Bloggs buys the next version of Windows isn't as important as the above but that's why I think they'll give those people the option to subscribe if they want to upgrade without buying new hardware

anncoates

Shrap wrote: »

To everyone, I clearly specified 8 as opposed to 8.1

Upgrading to 8.1 is free and a simple software update. I think my OS might have even flagged me to do it.

PropJoe10

foggy_lad wrote: »

same start menu as W7? why should I have to install some third party "crack" to get my pc/laptop to work the way it should/the way I want?

I assume you dont use Chrome or Firefox as your browser then, seeing as you apparently dont like "third party" applications? Its amazing how thick/lazy some people can be. Windows 8.1 is superior to Windows 7 in pretty much every way, if you take 1 minute out of your life to install Classic Shell. I've been using 8.1 for over a year now and havent seen any sign of the Metro crap in that time.

Sonics2k

Drakares wrote: »

IT Manager here, not thick or lazy. Windows 8 is still an absolute pile of rubbish. Go install yourself openSUSE, Ubuntu or any flavour of Linux and you'll know what I mean.

Former Ubuntu user myself, loved it immensely. However, it's not exactly an install and go OS is it? Your standard user, even quite a lot of experienced users like myself, found it an absolute nightmare to just use it. Getting everything set up takes ages, and half the time it's not as if you can simply install a program and go with it. That's the advantage to Windows and Macs.

Windows 8 isn't bad at all, the problem with it simply boiled down to the awkward Start screen which was a nightmare to use. 8.1 fixed all that and is considerably better than 7.

Shrap

anncoates wrote: »

Upgrading to 8.1 is free and a simple software update. I think my OS might have even flagged me to do it.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. You clearly didn't read my initial post.

Akrasia

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Yes but in the scheme of things the client/desktop end isn't the main revenue draw. OEMs license it from them to preload it on their machines, Enterprises have VL agreements that are renewed annually and Server is licensed per seat/CPU as well.. that's where the money is.

How Joe Bloggs buys the next version of Windows isn't as important as the above but that's why I think they'll give those people the option to subscribe if they want to upgrade without buying new hardware

Windows consumers have always had the option to upgrade to the latest version of windows, and always at a significant discount to the retail price.

Capt'n Midnight

Bongalongherb wrote: »

It is time that someone in the Redmond campus held up their hands and admitted that PC users actually prefer using things that feel like a PC rather than forcing them into a UX designed with their fingertips in mind.

IMHO the user interface change was totally unforgivable. Ubuntu users went through Destop Remix and Gnome 3 / Unity.

After Windows and Mac , Ubuntu is probably the biggest user base and Microsoft seemed to have ignored the reaction Ubuntu got. And that's on an OS where chaining your UI is trivial.

Or look at the UI used on Microsoft servers where people need to get work done rather than change for changes sake.

fitzy73_London wrote: »

MS are in deep doo doo.

If it weren't for server OS licenses, they would be fubared. And it is only a matter of time before savvy IT Managers realise that IaaS will save them a fortune.

LOL it's actually the CAL's that make money. And not Server CAL's

In the past it was cheaper to throw hardware at a problem so you could select a per processer license rather than a per client license.

Tony EH

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Anyway, why would any-one want to upgrade to an operating system that basically does the exact same thing as windows 7 ? why bother when the operating system does everything you need it to do. Is it out of boredom or something ?.

Out of all the operating systems I have used windows xp was damn fine and I still like that operating system, also windows 7 is as stable as you can get at this time, so I just don't see any point in upgrading to a smart-phone bloated system. Why any-one would want to is beyond me.

I'm getting the feeling that some folk of which purchased a laptop or desktop pc with win 8 pre-installed are just tolerant of it and will falsely praise this windows 8 concoction till the end of it's short life.

XP was easily the greatest version of Windows produced. I never had an issue with it. Installed and re-installed many times. Stable as fook.

I recently "upgraded" to Win 7, because a) some apps and games were no longer running on XP and b) Micro$oft withdrew support completely and apart from some issues, which turned out to be a bad stick of RAM, it's been running smooth as silk.

I see that Win 7 will be supported until 2020.

I might "upgrade" then.

In general, though, Micro$oft are releasing waaaay too many OS's because there are always a glut of egits that are ready in line to lap it up and most of the time, the new OS is barely an improvement on the last one.

In some cases it's a step backward, like Vista or 8.

anncoates

Shrap wrote: »

Thank you for pointing out the obvious

The thread appears to be crying out for people to point out the obvious.

RikuoAmero

A couple weeks ago, I built a Win 8.1 machine. It's just a light web browser/email/video playback machine, but so far, I haven't had any problems with it...and I'm a guy who for a long time said he didn't want 8, that it was going to be ****. I've gotten used to the Metro interface and the charms bar. It's not better than what 7 had, but it's not the apocalypse I and others had made it out to be.
Once 10 comes out, I'm upgrading it, and then I'll later build a new gaming rig with 10.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I'm still running vista, it works and does what I want and I have no plans to change it anytime soon. My desk top is running XP, again does what I want and need and I have no intention of upgrading.

Kev_2012

kingtiger wrote: »

any chance of an explatation on why you think win 8 is "sh1te"

It is an OS developed for touchscreen devices with no alternative for non-touchscreen devices, which is usually ends up on.

Also, as a software engineer, having updates run twice a day isn't very productive. Mac OSX and Linux are much better, for me anyway.

Capt'n Midnight

Sonics2k wrote: »

Former Ubuntu user myself, loved it immensely. However, it's not exactly an install and go OS is it? Your standard user, even quite a lot of experienced users like myself, found it an absolute nightmare to just use it. Getting everything set up takes ages, and half the time it's not as if you can simply install a program and go with it. That's the advantage to Windows and Macs.

LOL
On hardware that's over a year or two old it's pretty much a case of plugging a network cable into the PC , Pick your time zone, pick a username and password, and after you've let it do it's thing you can open and edit Word and Excel documents.

Most of the time you can install a program you know the name of by
apt-get install abiword

In the windows/Mac world you have to identify and buy the program first and then it's http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Next

Next> is that button software developers make you press repeatedly in installation wizards. This is because they want you to see as many mentions of the program's name as possible before you have a chance to use it. It also does an amazingly good job in annoying the user, which is the primary function of all commercial software.

Shrap

anncoates wrote: »

The thread appears to be crying out for people to point out the obvious.

Perhaps only experts like yourself should be allowed an opinion? Don't bother answering. I'm not that interested.

anncoates

Drakares wrote: »

IT Manager here, not thick or lazy. Windows 8 is still an absolute pile of rubbish. Go install yourself openSUSE, Ubuntu or any flavour of Linux and you'll know what I mean.

That's fair enough but the thread isn't about the merits of Windows versus the various Linux flavours.

It's about why - apart from the Metro interface/Start Menu 'issues' that can either be adapted to quickly or just bypassed forever with a few minutes configuration - for Windows users, 7 is supposedly so amazing while 8.1 is completely shit.

If people are just saying that the UI thing was a curve-ball and they hate change, fair enough but why is one supposedly so shit and the other so brilliant? I also work in IT and use 7 in work and 8.1 at home.

Akrasia

Tony EH wrote: »

XP was easily the greatest version of Windows produced. I never had an issue with it. Installed and re-installed many times. Stable as fook.

If it was so stable, why did you have to keep re-installing it?

Sonics2k

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL
On hardware that's over a year or two old it's pretty much a case of plugging a network cable into the PC , Pick your time zone, pick a username and password, and after you've let it do it's thing you can open and edit Word and Excel documents.

Most of the time you can install a program you know the name of by
apt-get install abiword

In the windows/Mac world you have to identify and buy the program first and then it's http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Next

Well yes Capt'n, I learned that while using it. My point is your standard user is not going to pick all that up. And no, a lot of programs will not run natively on Ubuntu or a lot of forms of Linux. Hell, even for gaming quite a lot of games will not run natively, but can be patched to play in some case, or you can dual-boot. Dual booting suddenly makes it a lot more bothersome for your everyday gamer who just wants to boot up their PC, load up Steam (which I know has an extensive Linux based selection), Origin, Battle.net or similar and get playing.

Hell, even updating your GPU drivers can be a bother when attempting to simply update a driver.

Ubuntu is great for an experienced or decent user, but quite often the sheer amount of other programs required to get it running superbly is overwhelming for a standard user.

That is where Windows shines. You simply install it, open Internet Explorer and download Chrome/Firefox and off you go. Software updates will sort themselves out without any input from the user. Done and dusted.

RikuoAmero

anncoates wrote: »

That's fair enough but the thread isn't about the merits of Windows versus the various Linux flavours.

It's about why - apart from the Metro interface/Start Menu 'issues' that can either be adapted to quickly or just bypassed forever with a few minutes configuration - for Windows users, 7 is supposedly so amazing while 8.1 is completely shit.

If people are just saying that the UI thing was a curve-ball and they hate change, fair enough but why is one supposedly so shit and the other so brilliant? I also work in IT and use 7 in work and 8.1 at home.

Precisely. I'm a home user, I've long stood by XP and 7. I briefly had Vista, hated it. I've dabbled in various flavours of Linux, mainly Ubuntu 14 and Linux Mint KDE 17, and my secondary desktop is Win 8.1. I thought that 8 was **** for a long time, but I gave it a try and surprisingly, I'm liking it. I got used to the new interface, just like I got used to the Linux interface (such as having to use the terminal, that was something I'd never really bothered with in the past thanks to the Windows GUI)

Tony EH

Akrasia wrote: »

5 minutes with apple IOS makes me want to tear my hair out. (where's the feckin back button!) But plenty of people out there have learned to love it

iZombies don't count as real people.

:pac:

Tony EH

Akrasia wrote: »

If it was so stable, why did you have to keep re-installing it?

I went through several machines over the last ten years.

Dravokivich

Tony EH wrote: »

I went through several machines over the last ten years.

You made a distinction between installing and re-installing which made it appear like you were talking about multiple installs on the one machine.

paulosam

Windows 8 was irritating to use for about 5 minutes until a bit of messing about to figure out how to avoid the start menu and get to the desktop, and to disable the annoying charm bar swipes. 8.1 is grand, find right clicking the windows desktop icon a lot handier than the start button too.

Most of the people I've heard complaining about it are idiots, or people who will seize any opportunity to moan about something (like that poster who had a rant about having to take 1 minute out of his busy life to install classic shell if he wanted to recreate the Windows 7 UI)

I have to use 7 in work, and find it so sluggish in comparison to 8.1.

ScumLord

Jaysus, this is great. I was just beginning to think about upgrading to 8.1. I'll take 10 for free no problem.

UCDVet

Windows 8 was designed to be a great tablet OS. And it is. I have it on my tablet and I love it.

I took it off my desktop because it's annoying as hell on my desktop. Maybe 10 will be better....

Duggy747

10 is quite nice, I only tried the 1st build but I liked it. Will return to it when the next release is out.

Meesared

Tony EH wrote: »

XP was easily the greatest version of Windows produced. I never had an issue with it. Installed and re-installed many times. Stable as fook.

I recently "upgraded" to Win 7, because a) some apps and games were no longer running on XP and b) Micro$oft withdrew support completely and apart from some issues, which turned out to be a bad stick of RAM, it's been running smooth as silk.

I see that Win 7 will be supported until 2020.

I might "upgrade" then.

In general, though, Micro$oft are releasing waaaay too many OS's because there are always a glut of egits that are ready in line to lap it up and most of the time, the new OS is barely an improvement on the last one.

In some cases it's a step backward, like Vista or 8.

People have a serious case of rose tinted glasses with XP, it had serious issues up till SP1 and even to a point SP2. It also was a serious resource hog, it took like a year before system specs for PC's caught up so they could run it decently. And don't even get me started on the abysmal 64 bit version of XP.

The_Valeyard

Screw windows7 VS Win8.1


What does anyone think of the Hololens?

I think it has merit, could be fun.

Grab All Association

Meesared wrote: »

People have a serious case of rose tinted glasses with XP, it had serious issues up till SP1 and even to a point SP2. It also was a serious resource hog, it took like a year before system specs for PC's caught up so they could run it decently. And don't even get me started on the abysmal 64 bit version of XP.

Exactly. Even for browsing it was ****ing slow. Vista had a lot of problem but IE didn't freeze all the the time. Best OS so far was 7 and 8/8.1 is just as when you get used to it.

Capt'n Midnight

Sonics2k wrote: »

Well yes Capt'n, I learned that while using it. My point is your standard user is not going to pick all that up. And no, a lot of programs will not run natively on Ubuntu or a lot of forms of Linux. Hell, even for gaming quite a lot of games will not run natively,
...
Hell, even updating your GPU drivers can be a bother when attempting to simply update a driver.
...
That is where Windows shines. You simply install it, open Internet Explorer and download Chrome/Firefox and off you go. Software updates will sort themselves out without any input from the user. Done and dusted.

Games are picky about what OS they run on, lots of windows users will dual boot to an older version even though the games need the latest hardware, again see my point about installing on stuff that's a year or two old (which is mainly about vendors not supplying linux drivers for their hardware)

As for simply opening IE to download chrome/firefox, if you don't have adblock installed the first hit in bing.com when you search for chrome is an ad for something called Chrome.install-set.com and for Firefox it's FreeFirefox.new-bestapp.com

"Internet Exporer , you had one job ...." Do Not Pass Go , Do Not Collect $200

Ubuntu isn't for everyone, but if your hardware is supported it's easier to install than windows, the fiddly bits are if you want to dual boot or install third party apps. Windows just looks easier because it usually comes pre-installed and doesn't play nice when dual booting with anything other than earlier versions of windows.

Software updates in the Linux world cover most apps too.

In the windows world I've to use windows update , oft times having to try again or delete temp files, I also use psecuina and filehippo updater, adobe, google, apple , java and a gansey load of other apps have their own updating services running in the background and you're never quite sure that they are all patches.

youreadthat

I use very few of W8 features on my laptop. I pretty much use every Windows OS like it's XP though!

Capt'n Midnight

Meesared wrote: »

People have a serious case of rose tinted glasses with XP, it had serious issues up till SP1 and even to a point SP2. It also was a serious resource hog, it took like a year before system specs for PC's caught up so they could run it decently. And don't even get me started on the abysmal 64 bit version of XP.

Not to mention that it swapped stuff out of RAM so aggressively that if you had more than 1GB of RAM you were nearly better off turning off the swapfile.

anyone remember 98 lite ?
trim the fat from windows 98 , use explorer from windows 95 and no more right clicking but it just flew along