Windows 8 will return Start menu

'Windows Blue will be released as a service pack Service Pack and will be distributed free of charge, according to sources.' ~ op cit

If this really happens it will be a U-turn for Microsoft.

'However, according to some analysts, with the release of the Microsoft may move to a new payment model of the operating system – to be paid by subscription, as in the case of Office 365.' ~ op cit

If this really happens the next laptop I buy will run Ubuntu or be a Macbook.

 

well, it's only rumors for the moment but i'm not too crazy about the prospect of a subscription based model.

since the Windows 8 upgrade cost me 40$ i would be upset if the price were above 10-15 $ per year.

especially considering that most Linux distros are free.
but even if they are free we should support the developpers with some money every years.
people don't work for free.

 

Luring people into longer-term commitments (firm or at least of such a nature that they are unlikely to jump ship) that involve repetitive outlays by offering free or greatly reduced/subsidized products is well known strategy, right? Companies can afford to be "generous" up front because they've analyzed things and know that the future repetitive payments will more than make up for the discounts they offered up front. If a subscription is involved that assures the company that they will have a name to go with the product and whatever data collection it enables, thus enabling more profitable tracking, profiling, personalized advertising, affiliate marketing data sharing schemes, etc.

I don't know how Microsoft intends to play it and it might not be clear for awhile as they slowly lure more people onto the platforms and cloud services that will best trap them. However, sooner or later Microsoft may very well take that next step with the OS. So it would be wise for people to really scrutinize future releases and look for any changes in licensing agreements, support policies, etc. Even having to download a Service Pack via the Windows Store using a Microsoft account would be a major change.

 

I think this is very true and the wise user will have to take a serious look at what's going on. IMO, they are definitely heading in new directions, and I think they would love to get everyone on the subscription model. I'm not sure yet what I will do when the time comes to replace my existing machine, but you can bet I will be looking hard at all this, and thinking not twice, but even 3 times about things...

 

If I buy a new machine I would prefer to pay for the OS as normal with the computer. If MS start charging for service packs I would probably not buy them anyway. If MS go down this route I will almost certainly transfer to Ubuntu.

 

I program in masm32 and would have gone to some flavor of Linux
long ago if it wasn't for GRUB and SUDO. Also Linux will not accept
a Windows programming language. Yes I know about Wine but don't
think it fills the bill. Kind of leaves me out in the cold.
Microsoft needs some serious competition!!!

 

I forgot all about WINE, that makes Ubuntu look even better to me at the moment.

 

well, let's say Windows 9 comes out in 3 years.

if you paid 40$ for your Windows 8 upgrade it means that a subscription based model should not cost more than 13.33 $ per year.

basically, anything between 10-15$ per year i would consider fair.

of course, i might just give than 10$ per year to my favorite Linux distro. (hint: it's in my sig line)

my Win 7 is valid 'till 2020 and my Win 8 probably beyond that...

 

I'm not talking about upgrading an existing computer. I would rather buy a computer with an operating system that was paid for once & for all. I don't want to pay a subscription charge of any description.

 

but you paid money for XP or whatever Windows OS you are using.
and OSes have to be eventually replaced because they get too old, of course.

it's up to you to figure out how much money per year this is worth to you.
your mileage will vary.

 

When you buy a PC with Windows pre-loaded how do you figure out what you're paying for it? It's clear though that you pay much less for an OEM pre-load than buying it retail.

 

it's a good point but you are still paying for that OS nevertheless.
and that OEM license is tied to that one machine and is not transferable.
if you have to change you motherboard at a later time you are screwed, because you'll have to get a new license.
... which is why OEM licenses cost less.

i think 10$ per year would be a reasonable price.
i'd be ok with that and i will give that amount to Microsoft or any Linux distro i happen to be using.

these days, it would be probably Linux more than Microsoft anyway.

oh what the hell, i'm out to donate 10$ to the Linux Mint team right now.
they bloody well deserve it.
and i better do what i preach. lol

see you in a few minutes!

 

I paid money for XP, Vista & 7 on different machines. I still run the Vista & 7 machines & will continue to do so on those computers until they are unsupported as OS's. After that if the computers that are running them are still working I will run them with Ubuntu. When I purchase a new computer & if by this time MS are selling subscription operating systems, I will buy a laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed, or, as in the case of the custom-built desktops I have built, also pre-installed with Ubuntu.

I'm sure it will.

 

well,

i just gave 10$ to the Linux Mint team.
it feels good because they deserve it.

Microsoft has had my money since Win 95!

 

Well I own a copy of XP and about 8 or 9 copy's of win 7
which I do not use any of, just came with new machines
I brought so I figure I more than paid for the hacked or
school version's that i ""just may"" be running ""by accident""
I not going to continue to pay either, especially when they
just keep getting more and more bloated with each new version
When XP gets where it is no longer a option I will be going to Linux

 

I wouldn't say more bloated. Windows 7 might be larger in size but it is also faster than XP. Unless you are of course running bare bones XP....
I generally tend to agree with you however. They could have made Windows 7 as light as Windows 2000, which was the fastest and the meanest version of Windows. You can of course see the same trend with Microsoft Office. It's now what 5GB in size, consumes huge amounts of CPU and RAM while Office XP is super light and starts instantly. I recently bought Outlook 2013 and I was frankly dissatisfied with it being as you say bloated. I tried several different email clients and so far I have settled down on The Bat which starts instantly, consumes very little disk space, very little CPU and is customizable 100% in every single way. On the other hand switching from Windows to Linux might be a bit harder, as long as MS gives me my start screen, conservative desktop then Im fine with it.

 

""Unless you are of course running bare bones XP....""

That is what I am running, only about 20 services
and all useless programs and unwanted programs
files, dll's and all kinds of garbage have been removed
"some by force" and many mods have been done

 

Hey Dave even when there not supported as you know how to keep them secure you can run them forever or at least until they fizzle out beyond worth the repairs.

 

I tried for months, ~Snip~ i tried to use Windows 8, I think i'll just stick with 7 like I did with XP for many years...

 

Must be bath salts.

 

Definitely not.

 

Hash good stuff man. Thats what they where smoking when windows 8 was being developed,thats why they forget the start menu..

 

Yup, its free. Why should I pay yearly for music, movies, antivirus, VPN, gym membership, car insurance and now microsoft office, windows, skype, what else? Nope, if there is a free option I will go with it, no yearly rentware.

 

I laughed out loud at this

I actually own a couple respectable touchscreen monitors (ELO 2420s, quite an expensive goodie at over US$1400 new) and feel absolutely no inclination to switch to touch for desktop use with Win8 or Win7. Zero. I only got them because they're 1920 x 1200 and I found a hot deal on them refurbished.

At home, my monitors are about 1 meter away from my face and even with my long arms, I can't reach them from where I'm sitting. At work it would be even worse, since I have a quad-monitor setup in a 2x2 layout. That's a big area to be reaching all over, when I can traverse it with a flick of the mouse instead. Whatever the reasoning was for optimizing on touch for desktop systems, I can't relate at all.