Windows 8 is terrible. Free is still too expensive. It's Windows 7 with reduced functionality and an app store. I've been using Windows on my work laptops for the last 4 years because I use the adobe suite, and it's been easier. I've been stuck with Windows 8 on my most recent laptop, and yesterday I finally decided to switch to Ubuntu. Good riddance.
"A free version of Windows 8.1? Those M$FT bastards are just trying to make more money!"<p><pre><code> -- 90% of responses that will show up here
</code></pre>
Anyway, Microsoft definitely needs to do something to eradicate the 29% of desktop users that are still using Windows XP which is a security disaster-waiting-to-happen.<p><a href="http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0" rel="nofollow">http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....</a>
Why are we not linking source articles? I thought we were just hating on aggregators a second ago.<p>This links to the Verge which repackaged the original ZDNet article: <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-monetization-dilemma-bundlings-not-all-its-cracked-up-to-be-7000026852/" rel="nofollow">http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-monetization-dilemma-bundlin...</a>
It sounds a like this is going to be a gimped money-grab like "Windows 7 Starter edition" (where you can't even change the wallpaper).<p>Meanwhile, the other two major desktop OSes are completely free. Upgrades too. The notion of paying for the basic software that makes your computer work is quickly becoming outmoded.
I use Windows 8 every day at work. It's not that bad as some would have you believe, but I like it less than Windows 7, and every release should be more enjoyable and better. I consider Windows 7 to be the best version of Windows ever. It has a pretty clean windowing UI, it's stable and secure and generally just works.<p>It's an OS that really appeals to MS's core audience. Why mess with it?<p>I have my Windows 8 machine set to boot straight to desktop mode, and I have the start menu back; so it's pretty similar to using Windows 7. But every now and then you accidentally open up an app or file in Metro mode, and it's a really disorienting experience when one of my windows is in metro mode and the other is in desktop mode.<p>The core issue of Windows 8 is that it tries to merge two pretty good UI concepts together, and in the process makes both worse. I like Metro as a tablet and phone UI. I like the Windows 7 UI for desktop computing. It's when you have to use Metro on a desktop or Windows 7 windowing on a tablet that it all goes to hell.<p>I would suggest that MS end this, and make Windows 9 the best traditional Windows it can. Aim it at businesses and people who want to use the same OS they use at work at home. Focus on networking and cloud support (take OneDrive even further), improving multithreaded support (make it easier for developers to harness 4-12 and more core computers) and improving the file system.<p>The UI concepts of Windows 7 are pretty good. You can iterate on the UI and add new features like Apple does with OS X, but there is no reason to get away from windowing for desktop computing. It's a conceptual model that works well, particularly for power users and work that benefits from multiple-monitors and multitasking.<p>Microsoft should then spin off Metro into its own OS without the Windows name, while still using the Windows kernel. This is what Apple does with iOS, and it works very well.<p>I use OS X at home, and think Mavericks is what MS should be aiming for, not Windows 8. Mavericks is the best desktop OS I've ever used, and, while I really like iOS, I wouldn't want to use iOS on my desktop computer.
That people are avoiding Windows 8+ is a side affect, it's not the problem. The problem is that developers have been (and are continuing to) fleeing Windows like it's the plague. The solution is to either radically make Windows more developer friendly or open source Windows. At the very least open source XP which you have no interest in supporting. Stick it on GitHub and accept pull requests.
I hope this doesn't involve intrusive advertising or tracking. Firstly we're all on a slippery path with that one but secondly can you imagine the increased burden of <i>family tech support</i>? When relative X turns up with a $250 windows laptop and wants the ads removed, its going to be painful to explain.<p>I imagine this will actually cause more harm than good to the brand.
Just updated Windows 8(#) to 8.1. What a bullshit (still)!<p>It's not a question of money (free) but of simplifying the experience. It's a bloody mess!<p>(#) Admittedly I didn't use Windows 8 often (mostly worked with Mountain Lion and Ubuntu 13.04/13.10 however I was a longtime Windows user before (Win98 to 7).
I could see the benefit being people who have to re-install or want to upgrade from XP/Vista can now do so for free - but wouldn't 9/10 of those people just buy Windows or pirate it anyway?<p>For non-technical people, is losing Windows XP customers to Linux even an issue for Microsoft?<p>They do have a good point about combating Chromebooks with a free version of Windows. Will it run efficiently on Chromebook level hardware? The Acer C720 is a Haswell Celeron with 4GB of RAM which should be plenty. I'd be concerned about the OS footprint on the SSD more than anything. 32GB vs 16GB would double the storage cost of the machine.
It would be interesting to see how "free" it will be.<p>I'm not sure how OSX is accounted, but I suppose it's now defined as upgradable software coming with the hardware, the same way drivers are just software for a device already paid.<p>Would Windows follow the same way of thinking and be free when bought OEM (as the article hints at) or have a really free tier that anyone could download for any hardware supported ?<p>It would be nice to have Microsoft let go a lower/barebone tier of windows and focus on a premium version and additional services (unlimited skydrive integration with automatic backups for instance) for profits.
Win8 was an attempt to convert from a desktop interface to a tablet interface. But the thing is, I'm still using a desktop. There's no way you can convince me to use a tablet interface on a desktop, especially when my monitor is not touch enabled. You can offer it to me for free and I would still politely turn you down. I already have Win7 on my current machine and it does everything that I require. Why exactly would I take a step back in interface design when I'm happy right now?
As I understand it, Microsoft needs to keep Windows everywhere so they can sell everything else (Office, Exchange, Server, SQL and Sharepoint).<p>Why don't they give Windows for free ?
I called it.<p>Here's what I said MSFT should do and it looks like they're on their way:<p>Have a free version of windows that sends back analytics, displays ads every now and then etc.<p>The normal version of windows that's for enterprise/government/the rest will get a significant price bump.<p>I made the mistake of not putting my prediction on the internet before the free version was released. Now we wait for the price bump.
Yet again, both Microsoft and Apple following in the footsteps of Linux. Got to love the articles like with headlines like these:<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/apple-ends-paid-oses/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/business/2013/10/apple-ends-paid-oses/</a>