PDA

View Full Version : Are you ready to fork out $40 for windows 8



irv
July 3rd, 2012, 03:52 AM
I personally don't want it and don't need it even if they gave it to me.

Windows 8 Pro upgrade set for $39.99, Media Center too (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57465416-75/windows-8-pro-upgrade-set-for-$39.99-media-center-too/)

UltimateCat
July 3rd, 2012, 04:19 AM
I wouldn't fork out 40 cents for it-

Every program that I use is open source and at any time I tried to install any open source program on Windows ( for example; GIMP) it consistently froze, needed to shut down or just had too many hang ups.

KiwiNZ
July 3rd, 2012, 04:35 AM
Yes I will

QIII
July 3rd, 2012, 04:50 AM
As long as it will run all of my needed Windows stuff and I can RDP in to it, sure.

I'll upgrade my XP box and leave my Win7 box alone.

VE6EFR
July 3rd, 2012, 04:50 AM
No. Ubuntu does everything that I need it to do so I won't be buying Windows 8 once it becomes available.

Retlol
July 3rd, 2012, 05:12 AM
The only time I use new windows versions (besides public beta's in a vm) is when I buy a new pc.

So no, I won't be upgrading.

phosphide
July 3rd, 2012, 05:14 AM
If it means I can upgrade my Vista machine, then yes I will buy.

JDShu
July 3rd, 2012, 05:17 AM
The interesting news is that it's only around $40 when previous versions of Windows were over $100. Microsoft's biggest competitor, as always, is Microsoft itself. They're trying to get content users of Windows 7 to move on to Windows 8.

Artemis3
July 3rd, 2012, 05:20 AM
I don't use windows anymore, so no. I'd rather purchase a machine without OS or any free alternative since i would probably install Xubuntu or another distro on it. But then i never buy complete machines but parts so it doesn't matter much. Portable things on the other hand, I'd rather have linux preinstalled or freedos, or such.

WalmartSniperLX
July 3rd, 2012, 05:28 AM
Possibly. I used only Linux operating systems (mainly Ubuntu and Fedora) for years, but I've recently switched back to Windows because of audio production software and hardware. Windows 7 works well for me right now, and I probably wont switch for a while since I'll have to migrate along with the industry and driver stability.

Artemis3
July 3rd, 2012, 05:42 AM
I've recently switched back to Windows because of audio production software and hardware.

Curious, what's wrong with Ardour (http://ardour.org/)(2) and the pro(sumer) cards (from M-Audio, Terratec & friends (http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Main))? Is Ubuntustudio (http://ubuntustudio.org/) useless?

Dr. C
July 3rd, 2012, 05:42 AM
Yes I will. I have not used Microsoft Windows any version as my primary OS for years, but I do keep current and old versions of Microsoft Windows to test my websites as most of my visitors still use some version of Microsoft Windows. I even get the odd DOS/Windows 3.xx visitor! IE is the killer application here and yes that even includes IE6. I also keep the latest version of Microsoft Windows around to keep current on the technology, including networking it with GNU/Linux.

At $40 for an upgrade from XP home to 8 Pro this is a very radical departure by Microsoft not only in the drastic price drop but also in allowing a third generation upgrade from XP to 8 and also from home to pro. One must ask the question: What exactly is Microsoft afraid of here?

WalmartSniperLX
July 3rd, 2012, 05:49 AM
Curious, what's wrong with Ardour (http://ardour.org/)(2) and the pro(sumer) cards (from M-Audio, Terratec & friends (http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Main))? Is Ubuntustudio (http://ubuntustudio.org/) useless?

Ubuntu Studio does an excellent job with supporting many high quality cards and interfaces. Ardour is amazing. I was using Ubuntu Studio for a while but I switched to a Line 6 interface that was not fully supported. It's mostly the way they handle licensing and authorization. And, ALSA and Jack aren't completely compatible [with the line6 interface] so my audio isn't being handled by the sound card (it works it on the onboard instead). I have not tried it for almost a year. I'm actually getting ready to partition my current machine to throw in F17 and I might try a similar setup as I had in UStudio to see how it works.

doorknob60
July 3rd, 2012, 06:58 AM
No, but I'm really glad they dropped the price. $99 for an OEM copy (not the standard retail or upgrade which is much more) of 7 Home Premium was way too much, $40 and $70 for a retail copy (might be the retail upgrade though, we'll see later), much more reasonable. I still won't buy it though, I simply don't need it. If I end up in the future needing it, maybe I will. I think Vista/7 can get the job done for me fine though.

Brimwylf
July 3rd, 2012, 07:02 AM
I don't find it all that expensive, and no Linux distribution can provide me with my Windows tools and work environment. Sure, there are alternatives, but none can match up. Settling for lesser software would cost me more than Windows in terms of productivity.
I make a living using tools that run on Windows, why wouldn' I give something back? But, I'm still not sure if I'll move to W8, W7 is enough for now.

Zukaro
July 3rd, 2012, 07:37 AM
If Windows 8 will be able to run Xbox360 games (from the DVD drive using an Xbox360 disk) then I'll buy it. Otherwise I have no use as Windows 7 can play all my games anyways (except my Xbox360 games of course).

Likely what I'm going to do is buy this thing (http://www.dealextreme.com/p/orico-floppy-drive-slot-4-groups-sata-hdd-power-switch-control-100399?r=88474882), then dualboot Windows 7 (or 8 if 8 can play Xbox360 games) with Ubuntu 12.04 (or some other distro). The reason I want to use that rather than how I've got it set up currently is because the current setup causes Windows to be unable to sleep (which is annoying).

click4851
July 3rd, 2012, 08:14 AM
No, I won't.

Grenage
July 3rd, 2012, 09:05 AM
I'm quite happy with Win7, but I'm sure some cunning DirectX/driver/update cut-off will eventually prompt an upgrade.

V for Vincent
July 3rd, 2012, 09:26 AM
No. I don't have anything against windows, but I find that I hardly ever use it. Pretty much stopped booting into it entirely thanks to newer versions of Wine and thanks to PlayOnLinux.

DoubleClicker
July 3rd, 2012, 10:07 AM
Microsoft didn't pay to licence my secure boot key, so it won't run on my machine.:lolflag:

Bigtime_Scrub
July 3rd, 2012, 10:48 AM
When I saw this and clicked the link I thought I could get the retail version of Windows 8 for $40. If I buy Windows I want the DVD set and to be able to install it on multiple machines. Instead this is a download version that is just supposed to be for upgrading an existing system with XP, Vista, or 7 on it. Waaaaay lame.

Besides has anyone even used Metro? I couldn't stand it. $40 is a reasonable price....but only if it was a full retail version.

xedi
July 3rd, 2012, 12:51 PM
At $40 for an upgrade from XP home to 8 Pro this is a very radical departure by Microsoft not only in the drastic price drop but also in allowing a third generation upgrade from XP to 8 and also from home to pro. One must ask the question: What exactly is Microsoft afraid of here?

My guess is this is due to two 2 reasons:

1. The controversial Metro interface might scare off users so a lower price might be necessary to compensate

2. Windows 8 will feature Microsoft's new app store. If they want to make money with it, they need customers and thus need more Windows 8 users. Thus the increased revenue there might exceed the losses they might get by the lower pricing.

irv
July 3rd, 2012, 01:16 PM
My guess is this is due to two 2 reasons:

1. The controversial Metro interface might scare off users so a lower price might be necessary to compensate

2. Windows 8 will feature Microsoft's new app store. If they want to make money with it, they need customers and thus need more Windows 8 users. Thus the increased revenue there might exceed the losses they might get by the lower pricing.

On #2: The old adage: Give them the bag machine so you can sell them the bags. In the long run you make a lot of money.

Paqman
July 3rd, 2012, 01:20 PM
Nope, I've only just migrated to 7 at home. Plan to skip win 8 and wait until:

The whole Metro/Aero mishmash develops a bit and beds in.
The Windows software ecosystem adapts to 1 above.
I'm forced to upgrade by 7 going EOL.


I only use Windows for gaming, so don't see much point in upgrading if I don't have to. It's just a platform, as long as it boots and launches my apps I don't care how old and creaky it is.

irv
July 3rd, 2012, 01:21 PM
I am surprised no one made comment on this:

And Media Center can be added "for free" through the "add features" option within Windows 8 Pro after the upgrade, according to Microsoft.
To me it's like saying We are selling you the car, and we will be throwing in the Engine free.

kurt18947
July 3rd, 2012, 01:30 PM
I keep a Windows partition but seldom start it, then usually just to run updates. I expect Win7 will be fine 'til 2020.

irv
July 3rd, 2012, 03:00 PM
I know I started out talking about a $40 Windows, but I couldn't help putting this one in between:

Microsoft finally admitted defeat on its aQuantive acquisition, writing off virtually the entire $6.3 billion deal yesterday, which will appear as a noncash charge in the next earnings report.
For Microsoft, It’s Not Just the Money Lost, It’s the Time, Too (http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012/07/03/for-microsoft-its-not-just-the-money-lost-its-the-time-too/)

jockyburns
July 3rd, 2012, 05:48 PM
Ubuntu Studio does an excellent job with supporting many high quality cards and interfaces. Ardour is amazing. I was using Ubuntu Studio for a while but I switched to a Line 6 interface that was not fully supported.

Ahh a Variax guitar user methinks. :guitar::guitar:

KiwiNZ
July 3rd, 2012, 07:48 PM
I am surprised no one made comment on this:

To me it's like saying We are selling you the car, and we will be throwing in the Engine free.

It's a good idea, add the features you want and will use instead of getting unwanted features by default.

VTPoet
July 3rd, 2012, 07:52 PM
I've been reading up on the upgrade "stipulations", and it looks like it's going to be a complete nightmare. At the Microsoft blog, it seems that even the Microsoft Employee is confused. And folks, stop calling it an upgrade. It's an "Upgrade Experience". Sort of like being a Sales "Manager".

Here's the thing: Apparently (unless the MS Employee is himself confused), it's not enough to have some Windows Discs lying about. You have to have a previous version of Windows installed. This means you can't do a clean install. You can't format your HD, then pop in an older Windows Disc for verification. This means, if you want to re-install, you have to not only keep your old discs around (which we all probably do anyway), but you have to re-install the older version of Windows first.

And this means...

Let's say you have some old Windows XP, Vista or 7 discs (Restore Discs which are nevertheless legal and licensed copies of Windows) but the computer or laptop was deep 6'd, you won't be able to use the upgrade because you won't be able to install Windows without the original PC.

So... all those users who only have system Restore Discs, but want to move their license to a new PC because their old isn't hardware compatible (let's say), are SOL. Also, to judge by the Windows forums, the upgrades are anything but flawless. I pity those people who use this upgrade, run into a glitch, and are told by MS that they have to purchase a support packages. All of a sudden that $39 upgrade is going add up to some real money.

This upgrade is the devil's handshake.

Edit: Oh yeah... I noticed that the original MS employee who posted the upgrade information never did get around to explaining how and whether Windows 7 family packs could be upgraded. My bet is that he doesn't know.

Paqman
July 3rd, 2012, 08:19 PM
It's a good idea, add the features you want and will use instead of getting unwanted features by default.

Not really Microsoft's "good idea" though. They've been forced to unbundle their software from Windows by some large and painful fines from the EU.

forrestcupp
July 3rd, 2012, 09:34 PM
Wow! I can't believe they're selling it this cheap. I wasn't even going to waste my time at all with Win8, but this is going to make me take a closer look at it.


If I buy Windows I want the DVD set and to be able to install it on multiple machines. Instead this is a download version that is just supposed to be for upgrading an existing system with XP, Vista, or 7 on it. Waaaaay lame.First of all, you can download it as an iso and create your own bootable DVD or USB. If you absolutely want the DVD package, you can spend an extra $15 and get it, which will still be less than what the regular price will be after the promotion. Secondly, you've never been able to use a Windows upgrade license to install on multiple machines. Nothing has changed from how it has always been.


$40 is a reasonable price....but only if it was a full retail version.You do realize that in the past, Windows upgrades have been a minimum of $99 for the current version, right? Windows 7 Home Premium was $119.99 for the upgrade, and $199.99 for the full version. Windows 7 Ultimate was $219.99 for the upgrade and $319.99 for the full version. I'm amazed they're selling this upgrade for $39.99.

Dlambert
July 3rd, 2012, 10:09 PM
Yes, I'd rather pay 40 now than 300+ later.

Bigtime_Scrub
July 3rd, 2012, 11:15 PM
Wow! I can't believe they're selling it this cheap. I wasn't even going to waste my time at all with Win8, but this is going to make me take a closer look at it.

First of all, you can download it as an iso and create your own bootable DVD or USB. If you absolutely want the DVD package, you can spend an extra $15 and get it, which will still be less than what the regular price will be after the promotion. Secondly, you've never been able to use a Windows upgrade license to install on multiple machines. Nothing has changed from how it has always been.

You do realize that in the past, Windows upgrades have been a minimum of $99 for the current version, right? Windows 7 Home Premium was $119.99 for the upgrade, and $199.99 for the full version. Windows 7 Ultimate was $219.99 for the upgrade and $319.99 for the full version. I'm amazed they're selling this upgrade for $39.99.

Yes I realize that Windows in the past cost well over a $100. I've never actually paid that much. I got XP and Vista for $15 each with a special student promotion back when I was in college. I got full retail versions of them.

What I am trying to get at is $40 is about what the full retail version is worth in my opinion. Still, this is just the upgrade version. You have to have Windows already installed to use it, and you better pray everything goes right. Doing a clean install is the best way to go. Not to pick on Microsoft though, I do upgrades on Linux the same way, with clean installs. It just works out better in the end.

Full retail version may be the better deal than this "upgrade" offer. It would be easier and cause less headaches.

rai4shu2
July 3rd, 2012, 11:21 PM
Pay for an OS? Good heavens. People will pay for anything, I guess.

Next thing you know, people will be coughing up $50 for a can of Fresh Air.

KiwiNZ
July 3rd, 2012, 11:23 PM
Pay for an OS? Good heavens. People will pay for anything, I guess.

Next thing you know, people will be coughing up $50 for a can of Fresh Air.

Of course OS's were not developed by anyone the same as air.

sammiev
July 3rd, 2012, 11:56 PM
It will come on my next laptop. So I can wait.

VTPoet
July 3rd, 2012, 11:57 PM
You do realize that in the past, Windows upgrades have been a minimum of $99 for the current version, right?

Not true. If memory serves, when Windows 7 was released they offered a "family pack" - three licenses for less than the price of one - and for an equivalently short period of time. The actual cost for three copies of Windows 7 was about $25 (each when divided) I think -- a much better deal.

Dr. C
July 4th, 2012, 12:06 AM
Not true. If memory serves, when Windows 7 was released they offered a "family pack" - three licenses for less than the price of one - and for an equivalently short period of time. The actual cost for three copies of Windows 7 was about $25 (I think) -- a much better deal.

This is a much bigger deal. We are talking in addition to the price of upgrading "home" users to "pro" and across three generations Windows XP to Windows 8. On another note the upgrade proceedure appears to be no different from the Windows Vista and Windows 7 upgrade requirements, and there are work arounds for those that have valid licenses and for whatever reason cannot install from a previous version of Windows.

VTPoet
July 4th, 2012, 01:21 AM
This is a much bigger deal. We are talking in addition to the price of upgrading "home" users to "pro" and across three generations Windows XP to Windows 8.

That's also not so clearcut. It sounds like a family pack can only be upgraded one at a time for 39.99 or 39.99 each. If it's the latter, then it's a worse deal than the Windows 7 upgrade which you can still buy for about 90 dollars.

"...each PC you have installed Windows 7 on via the Windows 7 Family Pack can be upgraded one at a time with the Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant for $39.99."

As for the fact that it's pro, probably only 1 out of every 1000 users has a clue as to the real advantages of pro. It's a non-issue.


On another note the upgrade proceedure appears to be no different from the Windows Vista and Windows 7 upgrade requirements, and there are work arounds for those that have valid licenses and for whatever reason cannot install from a previous version of Windows.

Not so. They are being quite clear that the previous version of Windows has to be installed.


"...a previous version of Windows needs to be on your PC to upgrade."

"[It] won't need your discs during the installation, but a previous version of Windows will need to be installed on that PC to proceed with the upgrade."

"if you are building a PC, you will want to purchase the Windows 8 or Windows 8 Pro System Builder product. Otherwise, you will need to install that retail copy of Windows 7 you already have and then upgrade. A previous version of Windows (Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7) must be installed on the PC you are wanting to upgrade."

Can't be any clearer. A previous version of windows must be installed on your PC.

viperdvman
July 4th, 2012, 01:31 AM
I might grab an upgrade version of Windows 8, just so I can test it out. And if I don't like it, I can wipe the drive and go back to Windows 7, no problem.

jpeddicord
July 4th, 2012, 01:45 AM
Not paying here, but only because I get it for free through my university.

$40 is pretty reasonable though.

jedispork
July 4th, 2012, 02:00 AM
Maybe I need to give it more time but I didn't like the metro interface. It made me feel weird switching from metro to the traditional desktop view. It was pretty but literally to flashy. I was interested when they mentioned cross platform play with friends on xbox but it will only be for a few turn based games so that was a turn off. Also it was somewhat of a hassle when I had to switch a windows key to a different pc before. Being a upgrade version makes things even more complicated if you switch out your mother board and processor.

It should be free. They are charging us to put a app store on our computer. If I get windows 8 on a laptop or something thats fine but I won't pay again for a separate copy. So many things are becoming less dependent on the o/s and run in a browser. Even some game services like onlive.

Dr. C
July 4th, 2012, 02:41 AM
That's also not so clearcut. It sounds like a family pack can only be upgraded one at a time for 39.99 or 39.99 each. If it's the latter, then it's a worse deal than the Windows 7 upgrade which you can still buy for about 90 dollars.

"...each PC you have installed Windows 7 on via the Windows 7 Family Pack can be upgraded one at a time with the Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant for $39.99."

As for the fact that it's pro, probably only 1 out of every 1000 users has a clue as to the real advantages of pro. It's a non-issue.



Not so. They are being quite clear that the previous version of Windows has to be installed.


"...a previous version of Windows needs to be on your PC to upgrade."

"[It] won't need your discs during the installation, but a previous version of Windows will need to be installed on that PC to proceed with the upgrade."

"if you are building a PC, you will want to purchase the Windows 8 or Windows 8 Pro System Builder product. Otherwise, you will need to install that retail copy of Windows 7 you already have and then upgrade. A previous version of Windows (Windows XP, Vista or Windows 7) must be installed on the PC you are wanting to upgrade."

Can't be any clearer. A previous version of windows must be installed on your PC.

Home vs pro is a big issue for many people because pro means the ability to connect to a Windows domain or a SAMBA domain for that matter. I have run into this issue while adminstering a Windows network at work. The solution was either upgrade to pro (XP, 7) or business (Vista) or install GNU/Linux.

The requirement for a previous version of Windows to be installed and activated for upgrades has been the case since Windows Vista. The "double install" work around and when it is legal to use was an issue also back then http://www.pcworld.com/article/174710/microsoft_says_windows_7_install_workaround_is_leg al.html

On a related note it is quite possible for someone to have upgraded a full version of Windows since the days of Windows 3.xx. If one relied on media for license verification the question becomes: Where do I insert that 5.25in floppy?

forrestcupp
July 4th, 2012, 02:59 AM
Not so. They are being quite clear that the previous version of Windows has to be installed.


"...a previous version of Windows needs to be on your PC to upgrade."

The person you quoted said that there are workarounds. The whole definition of a workaround is an unofficial method of working around the official limitations to get something to work. We all know what the official limitations are.

Dr. C
July 4th, 2012, 03:16 AM
The person you quoted said that there are workarounds. The whole definition of a workaround is an unofficial method of working around the official limitations to get something to work. We all know what the official limitations are.

IANAL

The legal (official) limitations are determined in order by:

1) The copyright and related legislation in your country
2) The software license agreement in this case known as the EULA

wilee-nilee
July 4th, 2012, 04:49 AM
I started with open source and rarely use the W7 pro I got for 25$ as a student upgrade but would pay 40$ in a second for W8.

Why not, a OS is a OS, without the fan loyalty involved in making decisions.

snip3r8
July 4th, 2012, 04:52 AM
Il fork out $19...for Mountain Lion

sffvba[e0rt
July 4th, 2012, 07:56 AM
$40 is a very reasonable price compared to the previous versions IMO (and it is awesome that you can upgrade from as far back as XP too). I won't be upgrading as I am very happy with Windows 7 at the moment.


404

vasa1
July 4th, 2012, 08:19 AM
Yes, I'd rather pay 40 now than 300+ later.
How do we know it won't get even cheaper?

Erik1984
July 4th, 2012, 11:27 AM
Don't think so, as Windows 7 will be supported till 2020. It might be not such a bad deal for XP users though (if the hardware is sufficient for Windows 8 ).

Paqman
July 4th, 2012, 12:41 PM
How do we know it won't get even cheaper?

We don't but it would be a bit weird no? This is clearly a bit of introductory pricing intended to stimulate demand.

forrestcupp
July 4th, 2012, 02:39 PM
Wow! I can't believe they're selling it this cheap. I wasn't even going to waste my time at all with Win8, but this is going to make me take a closer look at it.

Well, I took a closer look, and I haven't decided yet, but right now, I'm just not liking it. It seems like it doesn't add anything positive to the desktop experience, and it actually adds some negative. I really don't like the fact that there is no good way to see all of the Metro apps and desktop apps that are running at the same time. I've heard that there are a lot of performance boosts. But it just seems like the division between Metro and the desktop is just a big mess.

mike acker
July 4th, 2012, 03:48 PM
I personally don't want it and don't need it even if they gave it to me.

Windows 8 Pro upgrade set for $39.99, Media Center too (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57465416-75/windows-8-pro-upgrade-set-for-$39.99-media-center-too/)


Windows 8

no thanks

now that I know how windows is constructed and comparing w/LINUX it's GAME OVER

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

I have a Ubuntu machine up and running and am checking out software. looks like everything anyone could need is ready to use ;)

I've ordered a book from Amazon on Build Your Own Computer. I'm looking forward to this project but I have to figure out how to select matching components first. I know I need a mother board, RAM, CPU, Hard Disk, CD/DVD drive, case, and power supply but I have to figure out how to select a set of these that will work together.

vasa1
July 4th, 2012, 05:22 PM
http://betanews.com/2012/07/03/is-40-too-much-to-pay-for-windows-8/

BigSilly
July 4th, 2012, 07:14 PM
I wouldn't pay that for a desktop upgrade, no. Quite happy with Windows 7 if I have to use Windows. Maybe if I got one of those Surface things I'd happily use it, but not on my desktop.

codingman
July 4th, 2012, 11:29 PM
Windows 8

no thanks

now that I know how windows is constructed and comparing w/LINUX it's GAME OVER

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

I have a Ubuntu machine up and running and am checking out software. looks like everything anyone could need is ready to use ;)

I've ordered a book from Amazon on Build Your Own Computer. I'm looking forward to this project but I have to figure out how to select matching components first. I know I need a mother board, RAM, CPU, Hard Disk, CD/DVD drive, case, and power supply but I have to figure out how to select a set of these that will work together.

I may be able to help you with that build ;), please look at the date on that website though, i'm pretty sure that was from 2004.

Oh, and heck, if I were really going to get W8, I would fork over, hmm... let's see... how much? 3 cents.

Let Microsoft go on their Windows honeymoon.

Nixarter
July 4th, 2012, 11:59 PM
The interesting news is that it's only around $40 when previous versions of Windows were over $100. Microsoft's biggest competitor, as always, is Microsoft itself. They're trying to get content users of Windows 7 to move on to Windows 8.

Yep. I heard they locked out open programs... they are supposedly going to force people to pay them about $2 every single day if you want to run a program with windows 8. I've also heard that they force DELL and others who sell win 8 boxed computers to put physical mechanisms into the processors to stop people from running their own software, unless they pay microsoft $2 a day for each and every program. They called it signing or something. Would they really do something as under-the-table and horrible to their customers as extortion?

Paqman
July 5th, 2012, 12:37 AM
Yep. I heard they locked out open programs... they are supposedly going to force people to pay them about $2 every single day if you want to run a program with windows 8. I've also heard that they force DELL and others who sell win 8 boxed computers to put physical mechanisms into the processors to stop people from running their own software, unless they pay microsoft $2 a day for each and every program. They called it signing or something. Would they really do something as under-the-table and horrible to their customers as extortion?

Oooookay. You need to stop listening to the ranty tramp at the bus stop and do some reading for yourself.

Nobody is going to have to pay $2 a day to run anything. That would be $730 a year, no one would pay that.

OEMs are going to restricted on ARM so that only OSes that are signed will boot. Which I suspect is the source of this crazy rumour you've heard about "signing".

SirWhy
July 5th, 2012, 01:25 AM
I'm not going to bother with Windows 8, Windows 7 works fine for me when I need it and 8 just doesn't seem like my style.

However I can appreciate the price drop, are Microsoft learning that I don't want to pay 15% what my PC cost to build just so I can run steam properly.

Either way, no Windows 8 for me, even XP did me until a year ago.

cybergalvez
July 5th, 2012, 02:57 AM
yep I will. Mind you I only use windows (within a vm these days) if I absolutely have to, right now that is for a small handful of programs and netflix. I have two old XP licenses, and if I can upgrade them legally to win8 then why not

forrestcupp
July 5th, 2012, 02:02 PM
Well, I took a closer look, and I haven't decided yet, but right now, I'm just not liking it. It seems like it doesn't add anything positive to the desktop experience, and it actually adds some negative. I really don't like the fact that there is no good way to see all of the Metro apps and desktop apps that are running at the same time. I've heard that there are a lot of performance boosts. But it just seems like the division between Metro and the desktop is just a big mess.I got the latest download for Win8 installed in VirtualBox so I could actually try it out. I can't really get a good feel for it because I'm getting some graphical glitches from installing it in VirtualBox. But it looks like it's probably not as bad as I thought it was. On the other hand, I'm still not sure it's good enough to spend the money on. There are a few things about it that are awesome, and there are a few things that just make it a pain on the desktop. I even thought the new Start screen isn't as bad as I expected. It's not that much different of a concept than the Dash in Unity and Gnome Shell, that I'm already familiar with.

One thing about it is that there are certain fundamental things that you have to do that are almost impossible to just find on your own. Like in the desktop mode, you have to move your mouse to the hot spot in the upper right to do anything, but there is no indication that there is even a hotspot there. At least in Gnome Shell, it says "Activities" in the upper left so that you'll know to move your mouse up there. Also, when you start up your computer, it just boots to a screen with a pretty picture, and you're waiting for something to happen, and it never does. Finally, I clicked the screen and it went straight to the login screen where I could enter my password. There was absolutely nothing to tell me that I had to click the screen to get there. If you've never used Win8 or read about it, they don't make it easy to figure things out.

The way I'm leaning right now is that I would be happy to use Win8 on a new computer purchase, but I don't think it's worth spending $40 for an upgrade.


Yep. I heard they locked out open programs... they are supposedly going to force people to pay them about $2 every single day if you want to run a program with windows 8. I've also heard that they force DELL and others who sell win 8 boxed computers to put physical mechanisms into the processors to stop people from running their own software, unless they pay microsoft $2 a day for each and every program. They called it signing or something. Would they really do something as under-the-table and horrible to their customers as extortion?
Wow! You're not serious, right? :lol:

mamamia88
July 5th, 2012, 04:42 PM
Wait it's upgrade media so it means you have to have windows 7 installed first? Why don't they stop confusing people and sell one version for $40? If I need windows $40 seems like a fair price for something you will use daily for years.

Grenage
July 5th, 2012, 04:47 PM
While I don't disagree, I always find it funny when folks balk at £50 for an OS, but will happily pay similar for a game.

Good operating systems are easy to make, so naturally it should cost the same as Winzip...

nec207
July 6th, 2012, 04:17 AM
It is funny no one has posted any youtube videos here of windows 8 or any screenshots.

critin
July 6th, 2012, 04:40 AM
Yes, I certainly intend to, at least on one of my xp's. I installed it, didn't like it, took it off, changed my mind and installed again--after giving it an honest testing I'm beginning to like it. I've had no problems and have even got it to network with my xp's and ubuntu's.

I work from the desktop, just like I do with ubuntu unity (classic mode) I had to work with unity at first too, and didn't like it-- now I wish my machine could actually run the unity desktop.

Mac is offering upgrades for less, so Microsoft did too. About time they offered a real deal.
Oh, and I always run open source apps and programs--I never buy those. So far everything works as well as they do on XP.

critin
July 6th, 2012, 05:18 AM
Yep. I heard they locked out open programs... they are supposedly going to force people to pay them about $2 every single day if you want to run a program with windows 8. I've also heard that they force DELL and others who sell win 8 boxed computers to put physical mechanisms into the processors to stop people from running their own software, unless they pay microsoft $2 a day for each and every program. They called it signing or something. Would they really do something as under-the-table and horrible to their customers as extortion?

Rumors?

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/compatibility/en-US/CompatCenter/ProductViewerWithDefaultFilters?Architecture=X64&CurrentPage=0&TotalPages=-1&ShowCriteria=10%20Results%20Per%20Page&SortCriteria=Relevance&IsSearchWithinFilterAvailable=False&FilterByCompatibility=ALL&TextSearch=libre%20office&AbsolutePage=-1&LastRequested=13&LastSearchTerm=libre%20office

critin
July 6th, 2012, 05:34 AM
Oooookay. You need to stop listening to the ranty tramp at the bus stop and do some reading for yourself.

OEMs are going to restricted on ARM so that only OSes that are signed will boot. Which I suspect is the source of this crazy rumour you've heard about "signing".

You can disable the 'secure boot' if the computer manufactures have allowed it. Microsoft allows it but has left it up to the comp makers. Check before you buy a certain brand.


http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx

Dr. C
July 6th, 2012, 07:28 AM
You can disable the 'secure boot' if the computer manufactures have allowed it. Microsoft allows it but has left it up to the comp makers. Check before you buy a certain brand.


http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx

No Microsoft does not give the manufacturers the choice. On x86/AMD64 the end owner can disable secure boot and / or install thier own keys. One ARM the end owner cannot disable secure boot or use untrusted by Microsoft bootloaders. The source of the rumors is Microsoft it self. http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/D/F/ADF5BEDE-C0FB-4CC0-A3E1-B38093F50BA1/windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf This was changed after the blog post.

irv
July 6th, 2012, 04:20 PM
I just ran across this article: More reasons why I think the Surface Windows 8 will be a boo-boo! (http://tech2.in.com/opinions/tablets/more-reasons-why-i-think-the-surface-windows-8-will-be-a-booboo/322262)
and it got me to thinking about pads and tablets, which includes the surface with win8. I got to be honest with you, my wife and I have a table, and the only thing we use it for is reading. My wife hated computers so that is why I got her one, and I thought I might like one also. Little to say, she now has a Chromebook and the only time I see here on her tablet is when she is in the car reading while I am driving somewhere. I believe the tablet is a nice tool, but not for everyone. And I feel Win8 will be a nice OS for some, but not everyone. Win8 has to come really close to my Ubuntu with Unity before I would ever think of switching.
There are a lot of Linux user that don't use Unity as a desktop, so why would they like win8? It kinda looks like win8 is trying to acts like Unity. Windows was always one to try to copy someone else. If you don't believe me go back and study history how Billy Gates got started. (Back in the days of DOS and IBM).

forrestcupp
July 6th, 2012, 04:49 PM
It kinda looks like win8 is trying to acts like Unity. Windows was always one to try to copy someone else. If you don't believe me go back and study history how Billy Gates got started. (Back in the days of DOS and IBM).

While it's true that they have copied or bought technologies in the past, I think this time it's Windows Phone 7 that they're copying and trying to make it more user friendly. Metro is quite a bit more like Windows Phone 7 than it is like Unity.

But if you want to talk about copying, Unity kind of copied the new paradigm that Gnome was putting into place with Gnome Shell, only they made a few changes to satisfy their own wants.

irv
July 6th, 2012, 05:00 PM
While it's true that they have copied or bought technologies in the past, I think this time it's Windows Phone 7 that they're copying and trying to make it more user friendly. Metro is quite a bit more like Windows Phone 7 than it is like Unity.

But if you want to talk about copying, Unity kind of copied the new paradigm that Gnome was putting into place with Gnome Shell, only they made a few changes to satisfy their own wants.

The Gnome Unity thing could be true, but I tried both, and when with Unity because I felt the development of Unity was going to go faster and have more to offer in the long run. I am really liking the dash and all the things I can do with it. (Just installed the News lens and loving what it can do.)
Didn't want to get to far off topic, but just wanted to mention this fact.

forrestcupp
July 6th, 2012, 05:52 PM
The Gnome Unity thing could be true, but I tried both, and when with Unity because I felt the development of Unity was going to go faster and have more to offer in the long run. I am really liking the dash and all the things I can do with it. (Just installed the News lens and loving what it can do.)
Didn't want to get to far off topic, but just wanted to mention this fact.

Yeah, I'm not going to say one is better than the other, because that's pretty subjective. I was just saying that Gnome Shell was what started that trend.

codingman
July 6th, 2012, 08:32 PM
Yep. I heard they locked out open programs... they are supposedly going to force people to pay them about $2 every single day if you want to run a program with windows 8. I've also heard that they force DELL and others who sell win 8 boxed computers to put physical mechanisms into the processors to stop people from running their own software, unless they pay microsoft $2 a day for each and every program. They called it signing or something. Would they really do something as under-the-table and horrible to their customers as extortion?

:lolflag:

In your dreams Microsoft!

They think they can get the world to give them all their money by holding hands and singing.

critin
July 7th, 2012, 07:55 AM
No Microsoft does not give the manufacturers the choice. On x86/AMD64 the end owner can disable secure boot and / or install thier own keys. One ARM the end owner cannot disable secure boot or use untrusted by Microsoft bootloaders. The source of the rumors is Microsoft it self. http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/D/F/ADF5BEDE-C0FB-4CC0-A3E1-B38093F50BA1/windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf This was changed after the blog post.

Thanks for the link--you're right. Even if I could manage to boot 8 it seems I wouldn't be able to load and see it. I don't know why they're offering this special to XP'ers since their graphic drivers won't be able to run. I doubt if the new drivers would work even if I could get them. I don't plan on buying a new machine anytime soon, so it looks like I'll be saving my 40.00 after all. Ah well, I'm not too disappointed.



Windows 8 also introduces features and capabilities that require graphics driver changes. These incremental changes range from small changes such as smooth rotation, to large changes such as 3D stereo, and D3D11 video support. The WDDM driver model that provides these Windows 8 features is referred to as "WDDM v1.2".

WDDM v1.2 is a superset of WDDM 1.1, and WDDM 1.0.
WDDM v1.2 is required by all systems shipped with Windows 8. WDDM 1.0 and WDDM 1.1 are only supported with legacy devices on legacy systems. The best experience and Windows 8 specific features are only enabled by a WDDM 1.2 driver. A WDDM driver that implements some WDDM 1.2 required features, but not all required features will fail to load on Windows 8.

For Windows 8, XDDM is officially retired and XDDM drivers no longer load on Windows 8 or Windows Server 2012.



http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...nts-system.pdf

XDDM are on Vista--I'm on XP's.

forrestcupp
July 7th, 2012, 02:23 PM
Thanks for the link--you're right. Even if I could manage to boot 8 it seems I wouldn't be able to load and see it. I don't know why they're offering this special to XP'ers since their graphic drivers won't be able to run. I doubt if the new drivers would work even if I could get them. I don't plan on buying a new machine anytime soon, so it looks like I'll be saving my 40.00 after all. Ah well, I'm not too disappointed.



http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...nts-system.pdf

XDDM are on Vista--I'm on XP's.
The only thing that carries over from an XP upgrade is your personal files. You have to redo all of your settings and drivers. When you install Windows 8, you will get the proper Windows 8 drivers for your video card.

There are plenty of people out there running XP that have hardware that will work with Windows 8. But as always, you have to check first to make sure you satisfy the minimum requirements.

critin
July 7th, 2012, 07:52 PM
The only thing that carries over from an XP upgrade is your personal files. You have to redo all of your settings and drivers. When you install Windows 8, you will get the proper Windows 8 drivers for your video card.

There are plenty of people out there running XP that have hardware that will work with Windows 8. But as always, you have to check first to make sure you satisfy the minimum requirements.

Thanks. I'm dual booting XP with the Win8 release and both work just fine; I suppose that means the driver is working. lol I've done so much reading of 'contrary' contradictory info I'm becoming confused.

The new 8 will boot from UEFI which it isn't now. I can't reinstall XP (no disk) so the only way I can dual boot will be if I can disable UEFI. (which I can't do until after the install) Catch 22?

Nixarter
July 8th, 2012, 11:43 AM
Oooookay. You need to stop listening to the ranty tramp at the bus stop and do some reading for yourself.

Nobody is going to have to pay $2 a day to run anything. That would be $730 a year, no one would pay that.

OEMs are going to restricted on ARM so that only OSes that are signed will boot. Which I suspect is the source of this crazy rumour you've heard about "signing".

http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/D/F/ADF5BEDE-C0FB-4CC0-A3E1-B38093F50BA1/windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf

(linux/FOSS-based analysis)
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/free-software-foundation-petitions-against-wi

Read it for yourself.

The cost of signing is several hundred bucks for the simplest version, and they are apparently going to force all programs to be "signed" to run on it. Signing actually doesn't do anything... there is no process as it implies, and it is just as easy to sign a virus as anything else. It's just like the BBB. A+ rating? OK, all you have to do is pay their fee and you get your rating. People did it with terrorist organizations to get their A= BBB rating just for example, and it worked. It's all BS excuses to make more money (directly, obviously, and indirectly as stopping innovation). If you have to pay so much money just to RUN your program... it makes it very hard to do for free. It's not just a matter of time donated anymore.

They did it a while back with 64-bit versions of Vista and later. It took me hours and HOURS to find workarounds to get simple things like rivatuner to work on Vista64. It took convoluted workarounds with special modified bootloaders to get it and other programs to work correctly. ... but if the new microsoft "regulations" hold true, those will no longer work.

Like the iPhone and related closed devices, workarounds will likely come about, but I cannot bring myself to support a company with such wretched ethical issues.

Cheap win 8 a deal? More like a wolf in sheep's clothing imho

forrestcupp
July 8th, 2012, 12:49 PM
Microsoft has had signing for apps for a long time. That is nothing new. If an app doesn't include signing, all you have to do when you install it is click a button that says "Yes" when it asks you if you want to allow it to have access to change your computer. Not only that, but it's pretty easy to find generic signature strings on the internet that you can easily plug into your app and not even have to worry about it.

App signing isn't new. What's new is they're going to be requiring signing for things that run at boot time.

codingman
July 8th, 2012, 02:46 PM
Microsoft has had signing for apps for a long time. That is nothing new. If an app doesn't include signing, all you have to do when you install it is click a button that says "Yes" when it asks you if you want to allow it to have access to change your computer. Not only that, but it's pretty easy to find generic signature strings on the internet that you can easily plug into your app and not even have to worry about it.

App signing isn't new. What's new is they're going to be requiring signing for things that run at boot time.

Heck, the 1 of 101 reasons I use Linux. :D

Nixarter
July 9th, 2012, 02:59 AM
Microsoft has had signing for apps for a long time. That is nothing new. If an app doesn't include signing, all you have to do when you install it is click a button that says "Yes" when it asks you if you want to allow it to have access to change your computer.

No. The old way was like that. Their new way forces it to be signed or it is not allowed to run.

You can do local signing, but that is complicated and most would not be able to do it. Managing key rings is complicated. Then you have to update it to keyservers, and get trusted keyrings and it is annoying... unless you pay them to do it, and then you don't have to worry. convenient for them, eh? Have an extremely convoluted way to say "yes" instead of just a button, and people won't know what to do. I don't know how restrictive the signing is on win 8, but having to have an instruction manual to run your FOSS doesn't seem very nice of microsoft.

irv
July 9th, 2012, 12:52 PM
The harder MS makes it to run apps, the more it will push people to other OS's. Just look at what is happening with Android. Because it is on a lot of phones and tablets it is becoming a common thing. It is helping to make people see there is more in life then just MS and iOS on apple devices. People are starting to look at more bang for the buck. I think Linux is well on it way to becoming another player on the field.

irv
July 9th, 2012, 01:49 PM
Report: Microsoft desktop mode to take backseat to Windows RT and Metro-style UI (http://www.itproportal.com/2012/06/29/report-traditional-microsoft-desktop-mode-to-take-backseat-to-windows-rt-and-metro-style-ui/#ixzz2084ASmgu)

Edit:
Windows 8, which is expected to launch this autumn, will include the traditional Windows desktop but also a new Metro-style interface inspired by Redmond's Windows Phone design. That Metro style will also be featured on Windows RT-based devices, including the recently unveiled Microsoft Surface tablet.
220941

Nixarter
July 10th, 2012, 04:01 AM
It is nice to hear that you won't be locked in to the metro style. That is OK for phones, but it just doesn't seem right for computers.

mastablasta
July 12th, 2012, 12:48 PM
i need to upgrade the CPU somehow. Not sure how though as it's AM2/AM2+ and CPU they have are mostly AM3. maybe (hopefully motherboard will uspport AM3 CPU). i read some do but haven't done reasearch for mine.
If it does support AM3 CPU then i will upgrade CPU and RAM and also get windows 8 on it instead of XP. if not, then i don't know what to do with this box. use XP for 1.5 more year and then perform a full upgrade (CPU, RAM, motherboard, GPU) or install Kubuntu on it and get a new maschine with win8.
if only i had more money...

BrokenKingpin
July 12th, 2012, 04:49 PM
The fact it is only an upgrade from a previous version of windows for 40 bucks is retarded. It should just be 40 bucks for the OS, who gives a **** if I am upgrading or installing fresh. This is why I stick to open source software... no BS.

HawkinsTheWizard
July 16th, 2012, 02:58 PM
I don't want to but probably will need to for gaming purposes since game developers don't want to play nice with linux users. WINE just doesn't work that well to be a seamless replacement and opens up a linux computer to virii.

bobsan
July 16th, 2012, 04:15 PM
No way. With $40 I could have a splendid evening out and keep the change, or buy some new cloths, or ... I wouldn't use Windows unless they pay me and the money has better be good, as in only using it at work. :)

PaulW2U
July 16th, 2012, 04:34 PM
I personally don't want it and don't need it even if they gave it to me.

Windows 8 Pro upgrade set for $39.99, Media Center too (http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57465416-75/windows-8-pro-upgrade-set-for-$39.99-media-center-too/)

I have no interest in Windows 8.

I have two laptops, one loaded with Vista, the other with 7. When Vista and 7 get to the end of their natural lives in 2017 and 2020 I'll think about what do then, if the laptops are still in working order of course. :)

Whenever I have bought a new PC in the past I've found that I've upgraded to the latest version of Windows. Recently I made a point of buying a new PC without an OS pre-installed as I saw no point in paying for the latest OEM version of Windows when it would be deleted without ever being used.

I don't hate Windows, I just prefer to use Kubuntu.

Shadius
July 16th, 2012, 04:40 PM
I'd rather spend my $40 to upgrade my OS X.

Bigtime_Scrub
July 16th, 2012, 06:09 PM
It is nice to hear that you won't be locked in to the metro style. That is OK for phones, but it just doesn't seem right for computers.

You are not going to get the old Windows interface though. In Windows 8 you have Metro which is the default, but the old UI is still not even there. If you go to it, there is no 'start' menu. It is a total change to the desktop. Yeah it will have the taskbar at the bottom and I think it had an icon for IE where the start menu should be. That's it. It is designed to be used with Metro.

BrokenKingpin
July 16th, 2012, 07:05 PM
I'd rather spend my $40 to upgrade my OS X.
:-&

irv
July 21st, 2012, 01:18 PM
MARK SHUTTLEWORTH: ‘WE DIDN’T WANT UBUNTU TO END UP LIKE WINDOWS 8′ (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/mark-shuttleworth-the-desktop-we-had-4-years-ago-sucked)

[In Windows 8] you have this shiny tablet interface, and you sit and you use then you press the wrong button then it slaps you in the face and Windows 7 is back. And then you think OK, this is familiar, so you’re kind of getting into it and whack [Windows 8 is back].”

‘But [Ubuntu] is in this great position to spread out across all of the form factors. “

With Ubuntu for Android, Ubuntu Phone and Ubuntu TV attracting industry attention, and the Ubuntu OS set to ship on even more devices by years end, ‘great position’ is starting to seem like an understatement.

ubiquitin.jf
July 21st, 2012, 01:33 PM
Nope. I can get Windows Server 2012 for free as a student (Look up Dreamspark if you're interested) but I see no reason whatsoever to upgrade. All I use Windows for nowadays is to play Skyrim, and that may change when I upgrade my graphics card.

irv
July 21st, 2012, 02:19 PM
Yesterday I made the total commitment to Ubuntu 12.04, I am now Windows free. I install a SSD with just Ubuntu and I couldn't be more happier.

codingman
July 21st, 2012, 09:27 PM
Nah, no Start menu, crappy metro UI, $2 to be able to install your own programs, no more customization. Everything is terrible!

bmeakings
July 23rd, 2012, 07:42 AM
No thanks.

I only recently (and reluctantly) upgraded my XP partition to 7 (and before that, I tearfully said goodbye to Win2000) just to make sure future games will run fine and make the most of my 64-bit machine. I don't know why everyone's fawning over Windows 7, I hate the interface.

Even then, I've mostly been playing Linux compatible indie games and when I booted up Windows to play a new game I realised it had been 3 months.

samwyse
July 24th, 2012, 07:04 AM
I don't have a Windows to upgrade from. So basically Microsoft is wasting their time with this.

pqwoerituytrueiwoq
July 25th, 2012, 07:08 AM
for something that makes me have to switch the power off and on at my PSU to get my mouse working after suspend/hibernate HELL NO (probably could unplug my mouse and plug it in)

I tried rebooting it and shutting down still my mouse's optical light would not come back on till i cut the power and reconnected it (as soon as power was restored the mouse came on)

i was trying the customer preview (32bit as it was 800mb less) on a separate HDD (disconnected my parimary drives) on my desktop

pqwoerituytrueiwoq
July 25th, 2012, 07:16 AM
I don't know why everyone's fawning over Windows 7, I hate the interface.
you have just been proven wrong as it seems it is everyone - 2
the 2 being us, i hate scrolling through the start menu
i prefer the XP start menu, gnome 2 app menus (applications,places, system), and my xfce menu

i have a couple copies of windows i never used i got free via my schools MSDN thing
well i tried them in a VB a couple times and used it to flash my bios, flash my gpu's firmware, and my ipod shuffle's firmware

irv
July 26th, 2012, 02:36 PM
Do you think Microsoft’s bet on Windows 8 will pay off? Valve’s Gabe Newell doesn’t – even going as far as to call the OS a ‘catastrophe for everyone in the PC space’.
Read the whole story HERE! (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/valve-windows-8-a-catastrophe?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+d0od+%28OMG%21+Ubuntu%21%29)

AllRadioisDead
July 26th, 2012, 08:40 PM
Nah, no Start menu, crappy metro UI, $2 to be able to install your own programs, no more customization. Everything is terrible!

There is a start menu. The start screen is much more informative and customizable than the menu ever was.

I don't understand the point about $2 to install your own programs, because Windows 8 installs programs the same way any version of Windows does.

There will be visual styles available for Windows 8, same as every version before it.

It's faster, more memory efficient, and smoother than any version of Windows prior to it. How does that make it a disaster?

Corelogik
July 28th, 2012, 06:09 AM
Have absolutely no interest. Building a new PC in another week or so. Will be dual booting Win7 64 and Ubunutu 12.04. When Win7 goes EOL or I get more comfortable and one or two more apps get fully ported to Linux, Windows is out of here!

zombifier25
July 28th, 2012, 07:59 AM
Actually, if you get rid of Metro, then Windows 8 is actually very good. People keep bashing Metro while dismissing other cool features of Windows 8.

kurt18947
July 28th, 2012, 02:06 PM
Actually, if you get rid of Metro, then Windows 8 is actually very good. People keep bashing Metro while dismissing other cool features of Windows 8.

Sounds like Unity ..........

pqwoerituytrueiwoq
July 28th, 2012, 02:13 PM
Sounds like Unity ..........
trust me unity is better
how would you get rid of metro?

zombifier25
July 28th, 2012, 02:15 PM
Sounds like Unity ..........

Indeed. (note: I'm a Unity fan, and I haven't tried Metro)


trust me unity is better
how would you get rid of metro?

The same way you get rid of IE from Windows 95 and onward.

pqwoerituytrueiwoq
July 28th, 2012, 02:23 PM
The same way you get rid of IE from Windows 95 and onward.
might try that later, if i rmber how have not really used windows in 2-3 years, probably could find it in xp but idk on 7/8
i have the cust. prevew on a separate hdd, mainly to see what all the fuss was about, who would think of right clicking a start screen to bring up a gnome 3 like bottom panel with a single icon that lets you get to all programs, i was like i wonder if right click does anything, bingo that is how to get to the calculator without going into the system 32 folder to open it

AllRadioisDead
July 29th, 2012, 12:04 PM
You can't just 'get rid' of Metro. The entire OS is built around Metro, it's not as simple as just removing it.

Mikeb85
August 1st, 2012, 05:11 AM
After testing out the Developer's Preview and the Consumer Preview, Microsoft might have a hit on their hands. Windows 8 is definitely the smoothest, best performing Windows ever, and Metro is quite nice once you get used to it (reminds me of the Flipboard phone app). I'll more than likely pony up for Windows 8 (although it'll probably get put into a VM).

The only downside is the restrictions Microsoft wants to apply to their app store (which will really only affect Metro apps and ARM devices).

bashhimup
August 10th, 2012, 01:23 AM
No. Linux and Mac OS X are fine for me. I don't use windows that often.

KiwiNZ
August 10th, 2012, 01:30 AM
No. Linux and Mac OS X are fine for me. I don't use windows that often.

However OSX Mountain Lion is very buggy

aff92
August 10th, 2012, 01:35 AM
I am a happy Ubuntu Linux user :)
I don't need Windows or Mac OSX!

Shadius
August 10th, 2012, 07:54 AM
However OSX Mountain Lion is very buggy

It is? What sort of bugs?

Paqman
August 10th, 2012, 08:03 AM
It is? What sort of bugs?

At the moment the headline bug is one causing excessive power consumption.

Shadius
August 10th, 2012, 08:08 AM
At the moment the headline bug is one causing excessive power consumption.

May I ask where you're getting this information from? Can you share with me?

Primefalcon
August 10th, 2012, 09:00 AM
Not interested

Moif_Murphy
August 10th, 2012, 12:19 PM
Yes, I'd rather pay 40 now than 300+ later.

This, pretty much. I work in a Wintel environment and need to keep abreast of everything OS related.

Paqman
August 10th, 2012, 03:28 PM
May I ask where you're getting this information from? Can you share with me?

This is the first hit from the search "mountain lion battery", but there are plenty more:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/tests-show-mountain-lion-may-indeed-degrade-battery-life/

ontaiwolf
August 11th, 2012, 10:41 PM
I will get Windows 8 for free but I don't know if I will test it. No need.

vexorian
August 12th, 2012, 09:13 PM
My only uses for windows are covered by windows XP inside my virtualBox.

irv
August 12th, 2012, 09:20 PM
My only uses for windows are covered by windows XP inside my virtualBox.
After getting a SSD (180gig) I found I really had no need for Windows. I am so glad I am windows free.

Shadius
August 12th, 2012, 11:37 PM
After getting a SSD (180gig) I found I really had no need for Windows. I am so glad I am windows free.

May I ask which SSD did you get? I've been thinking of getting myself one....or two.

Paqman
August 13th, 2012, 12:38 AM
May I ask which SSD did you get? I've been thinking of getting myself one....or two.

Which one suits you is going to depend on your budget and what size you want.

irv
August 13th, 2012, 02:54 AM
May I ask which SSD did you get? I've been thinking of getting myself one....or two.

I purchased a OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-180G 2.5" 180GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD). I paid $149 and now there are on sale for $129. @ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227789

Shadius
August 13th, 2012, 07:28 AM
I purchased a OCZ Agility 3 AGT3-25SAT3-180G 2.5" 180GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD). I paid $149 and now there are on sale for $129. @ http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227789

Wow, thank you kindly.

mamamia88
August 14th, 2012, 10:09 PM
To be honest if it wasn't for my weird desire to build a gaming rig then i would ditch windows completely. windows 8 looks like change for changes sake and it looks like it's going backwards.

irv
August 14th, 2012, 10:26 PM
Possibly. I used only Linux operating systems (mainly Ubuntu and Fedora) for years, but I've recently switched back to Windows because of audio production software and hardware. Windows 7 works well for me right now, and I probably wont switch for a while since I'll have to migrate along with the industry and driver stability.

I see you are using Kubuntu 10.04. I still use 10.04 Ubuntu on my server, but have 12.04 on my main laptop. But when you mentioned audio production software and hardware and win7 working well, I was wondering what software and hardware you use? I have one older laptop setup on a sound system which I do all the sound recording using Audacity and am running Ubuntu Studio 12.04 with xfce DE and it really work great for me. I also have other sound software running, and I convert analog to digital using a small converter coming off my PA system.

Superpelican12
August 17th, 2012, 10:06 AM
No, I wouldn't even use it if they gave me 40 euro!
I'm not going to help M$ to maintain their monopoly. And I think Windows is just a piece of crap. And that is not going to change until they design a completely new Unix-like OS and call it "Windows". And then I would still not buy it. Only open source for me when it's possible. Ubuntu does everything it needs to do except for gaming which I do on console (which are specially made for it).