People bring this up, but every time people try to do a comparison, it comes down to how you compare releases. I mean yes, Windows goes a long time between major releases, but then the service pack updates are far more often, and are free.
I think this is more "evidence" of MS adopting a more Apple-like release setup of cheap and often upgrades vs years between large releases.
Windows 8 Pro Upgrade
Why should I upgrade, I mean I like my win 7 Professional. Do not see any need at the moment. Also from what I have seen it looks like a touch screen system for a smart phone more than a PC OS 
Am I wrong here?
Am I wrong here?
This seems a great move - surely they make most money from Windows licences sold with new PCs anyway than the upgraders. And even though the differences between Windows 7 and 8 might not be huge for laptop/desktop users, remember this also provides a cheap upgrade route for all those stuck on XP or Vista. And thanks to the focus on lower power netbooks and tablets, we no longer have the situation where new versions of Windows have vastly higher system requirements (indeed, I'd imagine it runs much better than Vista on say 1GB machines).
My main laptop was bought in June, so I qualify for the $14.99 upgrade.
One thing I noticed from the preview was the ability to log in via an email, similar to how Android works - it makes sharing things across the Internet much easier. Windows 7 already introduced a lot of this - using Homegroups, and sharing via "Live ID" accounts, which is much easier to set up than the old fashioned Windows networking (I mean yes, I could do it, but your average user doesn't want to have to learn to be a sysadmin just to play movies to the TV). But you still have to manually associate your username with a Live ID account - Windows 8 seems to take this a step forward, and make it a lot easier. (If this means it's possible to seamlessly share things between Windows computers and Windows Phone devices, I can see that being a very cool feature. )
My main laptop was bought in June, so I qualify for the $14.99 upgrade.
Well the standard UI is still there. And the start screen IMO works well with mouse and keyboard as well as touchscreen. Of course, there's still the question of what Windows 8 brings for devices that don't have touchscreens - anyone know?
Why should I upgrade, I mean I like my win 7 Professional. Do not see any need at the moment. Also from what I have seen it looks like a touch screen system for a smart phone more than a PC OS
One thing I noticed from the preview was the ability to log in via an email, similar to how Android works - it makes sharing things across the Internet much easier. Windows 7 already introduced a lot of this - using Homegroups, and sharing via "Live ID" accounts, which is much easier to set up than the old fashioned Windows networking (I mean yes, I could do it, but your average user doesn't want to have to learn to be a sysadmin just to play movies to the TV). But you still have to manually associate your username with a Live ID account - Windows 8 seems to take this a step forward, and make it a lot easier. (If this means it's possible to seamlessly share things between Windows computers and Windows Phone devices, I can see that being a very cool feature. )
I'm on the edge of this. I don't feel any need to upgrade, so I probably won't, but on the other handle getting a Pro version would be nice when I do upgrade. I'll need to get a new PC anyway in about 6 months, so I might calculate the price and see if it's cheaper to buy a PC with Win 7 installed, and paying $40 to go to Win 8 Pro, or whether it's cheaper to just get Win 8 Pro directly. (The difference on Amazon between Win 7 Home Premium and Win 7 Pro is $90. The difference when customizing a PC on HP's website is $70)
From any version or from 7 pro ?
standalone or oem ?
You will be able to upgrade from any consumer edition of Windows 7 to Windows 8 Pro and bring everything along which includes your Windows settings, personal files, and apps. If you are upgrading from Windows Vista, you will be able to bring along your Windows settings and personal files, and if you are upgrading from Windows XP you will only be able to bring along your personal files.[/quote]
Any consumer version of Windows 7 to Win 8 Pro, apparently. I wonder if the 'consumer edition' means, "Not OEM discs", or whether it means, "Not big business mass licenses". I'd guess the latter... I'm using a Win 7 upgrade which I upgraded from a Dell OEM Windows Vista disc. I assume the Win 8 upgrade would be the same.
It would kinda defeat the point of the whole "upgrade your OS" if it only works for the 0.001% of consumers who built their PCs from scratch, and excludes all the OEM installs... but I don't know for sure.
Another thing that needs clarification, is whether it's any consumer version of Windows XP or Windows Vista - he said Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7, but then specifically mentioned any version of Windows 7, and didn't say what version of XP or Vista is needed to upgrade to Win 8 Pro.
Author
It would kinda defeat the point of the whole "upgrade your OS" if it only works for the 0.001% of consumers who built their PCs from scratch, and excludes all the OEM installs... but I don't know for sure.
not to mention a lot of people who do that buy OEM disks to begin with.
One day in the future, MS will then just flip the secure boot switch, and suddenly your computers are their computers. Class lawsuit following or not (which takes years), you'll not be able to run any other operating system (or software, thanks to Metro) in the mean time, unless they let you. Which means, if you pay them, directly or indirectly, and if they agree with the software that you want to run.
Paranoid much? ;)
There's already 2 Linux distros going to support secure boot and no reason why others can't follow. And part of the standard is that users must be able to disable it if desired, so no problem at all there.
Nah, don't think I'll be bothering with 8. There were compelling reasons to get off XP, Vista didn't cut it, but no reason for now to move from 7. The pricing is a good idea but as for encouraging people to migrate from XP (which I think is a major motivator behind it) it's of fairly limited appeal. Anyone buying a new machine will get 8 pre-installed, anyone running an ancient machine will be staying with XP, so that leaves a vanishingly small niche of people who have capable hardware but for one reason or another stuck with XP. And if that reason is app compatibility (I'm thinking business users with legacy LoB apps here) then they're even less likely to move.
I really hope the decrease the price of windows 7 right before launch, I would love a non OEM version of windows 7 professional but 300$ is just pushing the envolope a little too much for me :-/.
[quote name='samoth' timestamp='1341320969' post='4955277']
One day in the future, MS will then just flip the secure boot switch, and suddenly your computers are their computers. Class lawsuit following or not (which takes years), you'll not be able to run any other operating system (or software, thanks to Metro) in the mean time, unless they let you. Which means, if you pay them, directly or indirectly, and if they agree with the software that you want to run.
Paranoid much? ;)
There's already 2 Linux distros going to support secure boot and no reason why others can't follow. And part of the standard is that users must be able to disable it if desired, so no problem at all there.
[/quote]
Hardware vendors could also allow end users to install their own keys (Something i hope some of them will do as it would be nice to be able to run custom kernels with secure boot(it is a good feature so just disabling it isn't as appealing)
No reason to move from 7?
I disagree.
I will move from 7 sooner or later.
Question is: why should I pay... say 150 in a couple of years from now when I can pay 40 immediately?
My bank actually gives me close to 0 interest. So the 1 currency unit now ~= 1 currency unit 2 years from now (assuming no inflation, which is rather optimistic to say the least).
And thereby, 40 < 150.
Saving 100 is a good reason for me to upgrade right now. Anyone not agreeing with that clearly evaluates the risks potentially more expensive. I guess that's the case. It's not my case.
I'm not sure I get the whole problem with Metro. As far as I've understood, they're replacing icons with some small windows. I don't get this revolution vibe at all. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding everything but when I transitioned from WFW 3.11 to 95 I didn't have much issues. I expect VC++ to run just as it would now: i open windows and type.
I disagree.
I will move from 7 sooner or later.
Question is: why should I pay... say 150 in a couple of years from now when I can pay 40 immediately?
My bank actually gives me close to 0 interest. So the 1 currency unit now ~= 1 currency unit 2 years from now (assuming no inflation, which is rather optimistic to say the least).
And thereby, 40 < 150.
Saving 100 is a good reason for me to upgrade right now. Anyone not agreeing with that clearly evaluates the risks potentially more expensive. I guess that's the case. It's not my case.
I'm not sure I get the whole problem with Metro. As far as I've understood, they're replacing icons with some small windows. I don't get this revolution vibe at all. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding everything but when I transitioned from WFW 3.11 to 95 I didn't have much issues. I expect VC++ to run just as it would now: i open windows and type.
There's already 2 Linux distros going to support secure boot and no reason why others can't follow. And part of the standard is that users must be able to disable it if desired, so no problem at all there.As by the specification, the platform is initially in "setup mode", with no public key is installed. After the first public key half of the "platform owner" has been enrolled, it switches to "user mode". Except "platform owner" is really Microsoft, not you. It does not take any privileges or authentication to install their key, and that is just what Windows8 install does, without asking.
In "user mode", the platform only allows execution of signed software, and installation of public key halves that are signed by the already installed key. Which is a key controlled by Microsoft. You can clear the key by writing a zero key that again must be signed with the installed key. Which means you can only regain access to your computer if Microsoft lets you.
As an exception, the specification states "may also be cleared using a secure platform-specific", but in normal English this means no more and no less than "if some particular motherboard manufacturer implements a way of clearing it otherwise, it's not strictly uncompliant, but this is not covered by the spec".
So yes, I do see a problem with that approach. It doesn't really matter if a Linux distro supports secure boot as long as Microsoft doesn't sign their key. Yes, companies like RedHat will go to court for this, so what. It doesn't solve the problem (and takes months/years). It isn't even certain that a court rules that you must sign someone else's key (and, if you do, you can probably ask for a monetary compensation!). After all, why should you have the obligation to sign any random guy's key just because he wants it? The cunning trick here is that not Microsoft prevents someone else from running an installer or an OS, it's the BIOS. And you, the client, implicitly agreed with that by buying it, so you cannot even complain.
What if Microsoft revokes their key tomorrow because it has been "compromised" or because of a different reason? No problem for Microsoft, they just install the new key with Windows update.
Incidentially this could happen at inappropriate times. A key can be compromised at any time, what a terrible tragedy if it just happens three days after a competitor has shipped 20,000 DVDs to retail. Hey, it's not Microsoft's fault, keys do get compromised. Oh, and it wasn't Microsoft who absolutely wanted to sign this key in the first place, the competitor asked them to do it.
This would mean that the installer executable won't be allowed to run, and the entire bulk of install DVDs goes to the trash. Several weeks before the a new bulk is ready and in the stores.
I am not saying that this will happen (it probably won't to that extent), but you see that it is not at all without possible problems.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
