Windows 10 Is A Free Upgrade For All 7 And 8.1 Users

[DPI]

Giving the upgrade away for a year should see the highest upgrade rates ever in the history of Windows.

This is a little delusional. It's not going to surpass the mass migration that Windows 7 experienced. Not a chance in hell. Businesses also aren't touching Windows 10, because Windows 7 is working fine for them, and there's no killer business feature in Windows 10 that IT decision makers are willing to accelerate their update cycle to get. Business and enterprise will remain locked into Windows 7 until 2020, talk to any IT manager or CIO.

 

[DPI]

We also don't know what devil is going to be hiding in the EULA, so it's a bit premature to be s_cking each other's d1cks that it's going to be a no strings attached free update for Win7 and later. MS has already stated an always online requirement, so that may also mean being forced to opt into their online service and cloud bullshit to activate the update key after installation, which may not be a problem for some, but will be for others. And who knows what else.

"But but but Microsoft just wants it to be free for everyone, they luv their customers". We'll see, we'll see. With their insistence on "Windows as a Service" in their Windows 10 spiel I don't think we've seen everything yet in terms of their monetization strategy.

 

[heatlesssun]

If that model is forced on MS then why would OEMs pay MS?

On the lower price range of devices, Microsoft is already giving away Windows in order to compete with Android and Chromebooks. At $500 and above, Android and Chromebooks aren't nearly the threat at the lower end. So it's easier for Microsoft to charge and easier for OEMs to pass the cost on to customers. Plus the market for $500+ laptops and desktops that don't run Windows is very, very thin outside of Macs. Few are going to $500+ for a Chromebook or $500+for an Android tablet.

The argument is that this is a one off event to help kickstart development for the windows app store. After they move the active world to windows 10 they will go back to their original model.

As a PC builder I have no interest in a future for windows where windows is free, this means that MS will change policy on major issues that would scare most people here. For instance they would probably switch to strictly enforcing OEM licensing where if you change hardware you will have to buy a new key. They may start to enforce stricter limits on what can be installed on a machine to push more people to buy store apps.

I guess I don't understand how it's supposed to work then. The at cost licensing model of Windows just can't work like it did even just 6 years ago. There's simply too many options at the low end with free OSes.

 

[rudy]

This is a little delusional. It's not going to surpass the mass migration that Windows 7 experienced. Not a chance in hell. Businesses also aren't touching Windows 10, because Windows 7 is working fine for them, and there's no killer business feature in Windows 10 that IT decision makers are willing to accelerate their update cycle to get. Business and enterprise will remain locked into Windows 7 until 2020, talk to any IT manager or CIO.

The same argument could be made for windows XP to 7 migrations. The reality is many IT departments are already preparing to move to windows 10 because they know 7 is an aging product. The reason windows 7 migration was so fast was basically the same reason. So many skipped out on Vista they needed to move forward. Many businesses will be thinking the same way about moving to windows 10 from windows 7. The simple argument that it boots up hella faster is gong to be valuable to many. And from a UI standpoint windows 10 functions close enough to 7 as to not frighten people on training.

The valid argument I see that is significantly different now is that the PC market is more stagnant and ipads and other tablets might be slowing down absolute adoption rates as they replace many laptops in various scenarios. But that has nothing to do with your argument. Suffice to say not ever IT manager is going to wait till 2020 to move forward otherwise we would have all been on XP till what last year?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

tl;dr: I'm not 'upgrading' to Windows 10 from 7.

I paid 179 Euro for my copy of Windows 7 x64 Ultimate. I'm totally happy with the OS, UI and everything.

I also have the Windows 10 Technical Preview running VM and have played with it for the past months.

In short, I see even a free Windows 10 as a downgrade for Win7. Worse UI, frustrating integration with Microsoft services (better than in Win8, but still...) and the horrible flat look. Next to Windows 7's Aero Glass desktop it looks pitiful and it's much harder to distinguish individual windows without having all of the 3D cues Win7's UI offers.

I couldn't care less about the 'technological improvements' Windows 10 supposedly offers if it means having to downgrade my day to day user experience.

This from someone who gleefully upgraded from Win95 SR2 to Win98 SE to Win2k, to XP and finally Windows 7. While I could forgive Vista as an unfortunate fluke, Windows 8.x and now Windows 10 merely shows me that Microsoft has lost touch with its userbase.

I like Modern UI on tablets and phones, but please, keep it the hell away from my PCs and laptops. Also give me back the usable UI we've had since Windows bloody 95.

While I mostly agree with you, have you considered that you may not be their desired user base?

When Microsoft started down the Windows 8 path every market forecaster worth their salt were predicting that tablets would overtake PC's and wondering how Microsoft would survive:

So Microsoft naturally needed to get onboard with the tablet market.

As it turns out, the PC market started to recover and tablet sales started to taper off in 2014, which was a surprise to most market watchers, but some still suggest 2015 is the year tablets will overtake PC's in sales.

So, it's tough to blame them for trying to move towards tablets.

I hate to give Apple praise, but Microsoft should have gone the Apple route instead. A mobile OS and a separate desktop OS.

This "one size fits all" approach succeeds in nothing but pissing all users off.

 

[rudy]

On the lower price range of devices, Microsoft is already giving away Windows in order to compete with Android and Chromebooks. At $500 and above, Android and Chromebooks aren't nearly the threat at the lower end. So it's easier for Microsoft to charge and easier for OEMs to pass the cost on to customers. Plus the market for $500+ laptops and desktops that don't run Windows is very, very thin outside of Macs. Few are going to $500+ for a Chromebook or $500+for an Android tablet.



I guess I don't understand how it's supposed to work then. The at cost licensing model of Windows just can't work like it did even just 6 years ago. There's simply too many options at the low end with free OSes.

Well if you cannot see that then what do you see MS doing about PC builders? Do we have to arbitrarily get windows for free just because we are builders? Or do we get to be screwed into being the only people who have to pay some random high price for windows when everyone else gets it free? Do we have to buy a new key every time we switch motherboards? None of those options seem reasonable.

I see MS giving away windows as a way to break back into mobile nothing more. Once they get in they will switch over to some system (probably cheaper) where OEMs are expected to pay. The app store model is not really sustainable either. And businesses are not likely to put up with advertisements and the insecurities they cause. Remember a lot of what we see now days is really only made possible by the extreme growth of mobile. Eventually the market will stabilize and companies like google will start looking to extract more money from device makers. This is basically the same thing we see with many markets such as video, look at youtube it all seemed to good to be true right? How does a company make enough money off advertisements to serve up expensive video bandwidth? The answer was they didn't, so after they grabbed ahold of the market they started to hammer us with advertisements and move in paid services. It gets worse and worse every 6 months. IMO the same will happen to things including mobile operating systems.

 

[heatlesssun]

This is a little delusional. It's not going to surpass the mass migration that Windows 7 experienced. Not a chance in hell. Businesses also aren't touching Windows 10, because Windows 7 is working fine for them, and there's no killer business feature in Windows 10 that IT decision makers are willing to accelerate their update cycle to get. Business and enterprise will remain locked into Windows 7 until 2020, talk to any IT manager or CIO.

I agree that 10 probably won't see the adoption rate of 7 in business but it is easy to see it getting very high consumer uptake considering there's no cost for the first year. If 10 is technically sound and gets an overall decent reviews I don't see why consumers would upgrade in very high numbers.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well if you cannot see that then what do you see MS doing about PC builders? Do we have to arbitrarily get windows for free just because we are builders? Or do we get to be screwed into being the only people who have to pay some random high price for windows when everyone else gets it free? Do we have to buy a new key every time we switch motherboards? None of those options seem reasonable.

Ok, you're talking about white box builders. My guess is that free Windows doesn't qualify for most of the white box devices out there. Not sure how it would work for a small builder for machines that would qualify. There are smaller OEMs that get Windows 8.1 with Bing for their devices. There's probably some way to get free Windows for small system builds for devices that qualify.

I see MS giving away windows as a way to break back into mobile nothing more. Once they get in they will switch over to some system (probably cheaper) where OEMs are expected to pay. The app store model is not really sustainable either. And businesses are not likely to put up with advertisements and the insecurities they cause.

Business licensing is a different animal from consumer and I don't think much will change in that pricing model. But this is more than just about mobile. It's also about the low end of device market that simply can't price in at cost Windows at low prices and remain competitive.

Remember a lot of what we see now days is really only made possible by the extreme growth of mobile. Eventually the market will stabilize and companies like google will start looking to extract more money from device makers. This is basically the same thing we see with many markets such as video, look at youtube it all seemed to good to be true right? How does a company make enough money off advertisements to serve up expensive video bandwidth? The answer was they didn't, so after they grabbed ahold of the market they started to hammer us with advertisements and move in paid services. It gets worse and worse every 6 months. IMO the same will happen to things including mobile operating systems.

You have to play whatever game is being played. Clearly at cost Windows in the consumer space doesn't align well in mobile and the low end anymore. So either you give away or you just don't have Windows on those devices. There's really nothing Microsoft can do about that other than to play the game. It's hard to see how Google comes to OEMs and start asking for more money as now they're hand is being forced by Microsoft playing the free game. Maybe you're right but I don't see how that works.

 

[Exavior]

We also don't know what devil is going to be hiding in the EULA, so it's a bit premature to be s_cking each other's d1cks that it's going to be a no strings attached free update for Win7 and later. MS has already stated an always online requirement, so that may also mean being forced to opt into their online service and cloud bullshit to activate the update key after installation, which may not be a problem for some, but will be for others. And who knows what else.

"But but but Microsoft just wants it to be free for everyone, they luv their customers". We'll see, we'll see. With their insistence on "Windows as a Service" in their Windows 10 spiel I don't think we've seen everything yet in terms of their monetization strategy.

It isn't that Microsoft luvs their customers. it is that they want to keep them from going to somebody / something else. Look at something like a printer. You get the printer for dirt cheap, at a loss to the company. They do this because they know they can get you later on ink. Microsoft already basically gives away their OS for OEM for desktops. They want / need to get into your home. Sure they are there with windows XP and 7, however they want / need to get you to upgrade to the newest version. That isn't going to happen on its own. People are going to want to wait till they buy a new pc, and even then they will try to hold onto what they have. The only way for Microsoft to get a large number of people to upgrade, or to even want to upgrade is to make it free. Especially since the upgrade happens on its own from windows update.

The average person knows jack shit about their pc, they can't go buy a dvd and complete the upgrade process. However if windows update was to ask if yes or no, you say yes then a few hours later you are on windows 10, they can do that as they did nothing but let it all happen on its own.

 

[heatlesssun]

I hate to give Apple praise, but Microsoft should have gone the Apple route instead. A mobile OS and a separate desktop OS.

This "one size fits all" approach succeeds in nothing but pissing all users off.

We saw what happened to Windows RT by not supporting desktop apps. Windows tablets may never be a big market but there is a market there where people will spend top dollar for tablets that are Win32 capable. In the end the hybrid approach really is the only one for Windows. It's got to be able to run on smaller, cheaper and touch enabled devices to be viable especially in the consumer space. But it also has to support the legacy desktop for now because why bother with Windows tablets if they don't support the desktop?

So far it looks like Windows 10 is going to work well for the majority of desktop users that were having problems with the learning curve of 8.1 on the desktop. Most all of the major functional UI issues that caused the confusion are fixed. I know people will complain about titles and the flat design but those really were core to the issues that cause the biggest problems for 8.x.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Didn't say I didn't believe you. I did say "may or may not", but I did suggest that you were using that fact to get a rise out of people

You know, at some point it's tough to tell. A little bit of "boy who cried wolf" going on here

Well maybe I was abusing reality a little bit....BUT only a little. Besides, I needed a good excuse to post a pic that pointed out I have a plush Grumpy Cat from Ganz since I know at least one person who uses this forum that would get upset as a result. Okay, so maybe it was more than a little bit, but its all still true regardless of whether or not I'm using it to accomplish my evil, ulterior motives.

 

[DPI]

The same argument could be made for windows XP to 7 migrations. The reality is many IT departments are already preparing to move to windows 10 because they know 7 is an aging product. The reason windows 7 migration was so fast was basically the same reason. So many skipped out on Vista they needed to move forward. Many businesses will be thinking the same way about moving to windows 10 from windows 7. The simple argument that it boots up hella faster is gong to be valuable to many. And from a UI standpoint windows 10 functions close enough to 7 as to not frighten people on training.

rudy, rudy, rudy.... what planet are you living on? "IT departments are already preparing to move to windows 10".

I don't even.......

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Well maybe I was abusing reality a little bit....BUT only a little. Besides, I needed a good excuse to post a pic that pointed out I have a plush Grumpy Cat from Ganz since I know at least one person who uses this forum that would get upset as a result. Okay, so maybe it was more than a little bit, but its all still true regardless of whether or not I'm using it to accomplish my evil, ulterior motives.

Knew it

 

[heatlesssun]

rudy, rudy, rudy.... what planet are you living on? "IT departments are already preparing to move to windows 10".

I don't even.......

I don't see too many businesses doing large scale Windows 10 deployments anytime soon. However, with the rise of BYOD, the emergence of new hardware like the Surface Pro 3, and that fact that 7 is getting up there and some businesses will probably want to avoid crunch time with their next go around with upgrades.

 

[rudy]

rudy, rudy, rudy.... what planet are you living on? "IT departments are already preparing to move to windows 10".

I don't even.......

You do realize the whole point of developer preview is for exactly this type of thing don't you? Nope you don't because the penguins in your glasses block your view.

 

[heatlesssun]

You do realize the whole point of developer preview is for exactly this type of thing don't you? Nope you don't because the penguins in your glasses block your view.

There is that crowd that seems to want to stick its collective head in the sand and write off Windows 10 as another Windows 8. That's probably not going to be the case if history repeats itself. An unpopular release of Windows is generally followed up by a popular as generally the bad releases aren't anywhere as bad as detractors make them and all Microsoft has to is take feedback and refine the bad release into a good one. Overall from what I've seen of Windows 10 to date this is exactly what is occurring. I'm not saying things like brining back Aero Glass are happening but aesthetics weren't the main issue with 8.x, as much as some won't to overplay those issues.

A long way to go. My biggest concern about Windows 10 is quality. I just think there's too many bugs in it at this point to be a solid release in the next 6 to 8 months. Maybe things will shape up in the next couple of months. But the overall concept of hybrid operation is much better in 10, though the tablet mode does need some work. 8.1 Update is just more elegant in tablet mode at this point but I don't see anything that can't be ironed out to make it work as well or better than 8.1 on tablets.

 

[nilepez]

Personally, I consider the desktop gaming experience the end all of gaming experiences. I don't even bother on any other platform or in any other configuration.

Haven't had any console since I retired the 8bit Nintendo when I got my first PC of my own in '91, I don't play any games on my phone, and games (or anything else) on a laptop make no sense at all to me. Laptops are an ergonomic disaster IMHO, causing back pain, cramps and blurred vision, while being too small to have any real performance,and not upgradeable.

So, that's where I stand. Games are not games, if they aren't at my desk on my desktop.

Ditto, though I could do PC games on a large screen TV too, so long as I have a keyboard and all the right controllers (which isn't always a gamepad). I think my last console was the same as yours. For me, it came down to I spent a lot on the console and I only bought a couple of games that I rarely played. PCs had Ultima, WC, Links and other games that I could play for about the same money and the graphics were better...plus I already had to have a computer.

I will say, however, there are laptops that have plenty of performance. I can't recall the model, but Dell's got a laptop that has a 3k monitor and it's got a very fast CPU and, as I recall, a good GPU. It's not going to be as good as what some put into their PCs, but I think it's probably fine for non-3k gaming. Of course that's a 2-3k machine, and you could build a hell of a desktop for that price (especially if you're reusing parts).

 

[nilepez]

I actually do a lot of writing with my computers and text entry is really important to me. Yes, I'm lots faster on a full size keyboard too, but I don't like having to be at a specific place to use one so I just give up on whatever the difference is (I have no idea how many WPM I can type on different keyboards but it doesn't seem that much slower on even my awful netbook keyboard) and I hardly ever plug in an external mouse because most of the things I do aren't games and the games I do play usually work fine with just a touchpad. Resolution...meh 1024x600 is enough though websites start to feel a little bit cramped sometimes. I just could never get into convincing myself there's a burning need for more pixels.

No way I could work on 1024x600. That's lower res than the monitor I used 20 years ago. I was at 1600x1200 at least 16 years ago and 1900x1400 (give or take) 10 years ago....switched to LCD in 7 or 8 years ago (1920x1200) and at work 3300x1050 for about the same (and at work I feel very constrained). Of course if you use one app to a screen, then higher resolution doesn't do much., but I always have 2 or 3 windows open and at work it was at least a dozen (though space constraints meant I could only see 3-6 at a time.


As for you and your disbelief, I lined up a glam shot of my Asus 1005HAB and Latitude e6320 with my awesome Sims 3 disc and Grumpy Cat for you (which let me know the flash thing isn't working in my camera >.<) because it's so impossible to believe that people can have fun and do everything they personally want with integrated graphics inside of notebooks and netbooks. If you still wanna disbelieve and resort to name-calling because of awful image quality and your old-guy bad eyes, I can wait until theres more daylight and take another pic.

[/QUOTE]

 

[nilepez]

Of course the intent isn't to loose money. The thing is that many people don't see to realize that most Windows PCs NEVER get an OS upgrade today. Microsoft currently doesn't make any money on the bulk of existing PC users via OS upgrades. So by giving away the OS, Microsoft isn't loosing anything because it never would have sold the OS upgrade to most to anyway.

Giving the upgrade away for a year should see the highest upgrade rates ever in the history of Windows. And with 10 there's services and apps that Microsoft can generate money from that it can't with Windows 7 and prior. And reducing fragmentation means more developers can focus more on the new stuff, creating better revenue opportunities for developers.

The current at cost model for Windows has long been seen by many as an unsustainable business model particularly in the consumer space. No other platform in the consumer space charges for OS upgrades so it's something that Microsoft long term doesn't really have much of a choice anyway. Give away and/or sell the OS at low cost and make the money on other things, services, apps and now even PC hardware. In general these things are much easier to sell to consumers today.

I suspect that 95 had the highest adoption rate (just guessing). I mean I recall people running out to get it the day it was released (though that may have happened with XP too). Of course I'm thinking in terms of the percentage home users, not the total units it's installed on.

With that said, I think it'll all come down to whether they push it out via windows update to 7 users. If they do that, then I think we'll see a very high adoption rate (so long as the reviews are solid).

I'll be watching here and elsewhere as the beta moves on. I knew I would go with 7 from day one, because even the beta was pretty solid. You indicated there are a lot of issues right now, and I believe the 7 Beta Fish release was out at this point in '07.

I hope they pull it off, because I like the idea of live tiles on the menu, though I could see the start screen as a nice option if you're using a lot of live tiles (but so far I'm not).

 

[heatlesssun]

With that said, I think it'll all come down to whether they push it out via windows update to 7 users. If they do that, then I think we'll see a very high adoption rate (so long as the reviews are solid).

That's exactly how it's going to work: http://betanews.com/2015/01/25/how-to-upgrade-from-windows-7-or-8-to-windows-10-via-windows-update/. No doubt there's going to be people complaining that Microsoft is "forcing" people to upgrade by making it easy to upgrade.

If 10 comes together well and I think Microsoft is under enormous pressure for this to be the case, then I see no reason why it won't get very high adoption. If Microsoft can get 1/3rd of all consumer Windows 7 users, 75% of Windows 8.x users, half of new devices and 5% to 10% business adoption, I think 1/3 of the total PC market by the end of 2016 is a doable goal and puts is well within striking distance of overtaking Windows 7 as the #1 desktop OS in 2017. This is complete speculation on my part but I don't think anything I'm saying here is unreasonable or optimistic.

The key will be how well Windows 10 is received. Haters are going to hate and I understand I have my biases and I have my doubts about 10 at this point so I have absolutely no idea how that's going to play out. I think Microsoft has listened and has the general idea of what needs to be done. I've simply not seen enough executed well enough at this point to make a judgment.

 

[nilepez]

Arguing this point is not going to make a the poster think any differently. If you argue that MS is going to start giving away windows for free from here on out then the poster is right there is another catch to this. If that model is forced on MS then why would OEMs pay MS?

Because the license doesn't apply to new licenses and OEMs are paying a per pc cost.

The argument is that this is a one off event to help kickstart development for the windows app store. After they move the active world to windows 10 they will go back to their original model.

As a PC builder I have no interest in a future for windows where windows is free, this means that MS will change policy on major issues that would scare most people here. For instance they would probably switch to strictly enforcing OEM licensing where if you change hardware you will have to buy a new key. They may start to enforce stricter limits on what can be installed on a machine to push more people to buy store apps.

It could happen, but we won't know until the EULA is out. I'm honestly not very concerned about OEM copies. I've always had retail licenses. I probably would have gone OEM with Vista or 7, but I got the Vista license for free (watched some MS videos and they sent me a disk). 7 I bought and 8 was 20 bucks. Unless they change the retail EULA (which will be problematic for MS if they push the update out via windows update), forever. If not, then i'm good for 5 or 6 years, more than likely, because I'll build at least one machine this year and possibly another next year. One of my parent's machines will probably outlive them (only web browsing, office and netflix). The other one could require an upgrade at some point, but it's a 2 year old i7 with 32GB of ram, so I'm not very concerned.

 

[nilepez]

This is no different than any one else give away OS upgrades at no cost.

It's definitely different from apple. Apple makes their money from the hardware and they have a history of ending H/W support much faster than MS, but I'm sure they'll make their money. If they pull this off, it'll mean far more apps for Windows Phone, which might help them sell more phones (though I wouldn't bet on it).

 

[nilepez]

tl;dr: I'm not 'upgrading' to Windows 10 from 7.

I paid 179 Euro for my copy of Windows 7 x64 Ultimate. I'm totally happy with the OS, UI and everything.

I also have the Windows 10 Technical Preview running VM and have played with it for the past months.

In short, I see even a free Windows 10 as a downgrade for Win7. Worse UI, frustrating integration with Microsoft services (better than in Win8, but still...) and the horrible flat look. Next to Windows 7's Aero Glass desktop it looks pitiful and it's much harder to distinguish individual windows without having all of the 3D cues Win7's UI offers.

I couldn't care less about the 'technological improvements' Windows 10 supposedly offers if it means having to downgrade my day to day user experience.

This from someone who gleefully upgraded from Win95 SR2 to Win98 SE to Win2k, to XP and finally Windows 7. While I could forgive Vista as an unfortunate fluke, Windows 8.x and now Windows 10 merely shows me that Microsoft has lost touch with its userbase.

I like Modern UI on tablets and phones, but please, keep it the hell away from my PCs and laptops. Also give me back the usable UI we've had since Windows bloody 95.

Windows 95? That UI went away with ME and XP...and 7/Aero goes away in about 5 years. FWIW, I like Aero better too, but after a week with 8, I'm finding a lot of things I like. I prefer the menu, but either way I'm doing windows key-> type program name->hit <enter> key.

The only time I ever use the mouse in 7's start menu is if I don't know what I'm looking for. For example, I know I want some video program, but I haven't used it in 5 years, so i go to the Video folder, but that's a rarity.

 

[nilepez]

I don't see too many businesses doing large scale Windows 10 deployments anytime soon. However, with the rise of BYOD, the emergence of new hardware like the Surface Pro 3, and that fact that 7 is getting up there and some businesses will probably want to avoid crunch time with their next go around with upgrades.

I'm kinda flipping on this one. I don't see them doing it this year, but depending on their device life cycle (3, 4 or 5 years), they may have to start migrating next year. I don't know how all companies do this, but IME, the OS is only changed when you get new H/W.

Assuming 10 is solid at release, then a company with a 4 years upgrade cycle pretty much has to start going to 10 next year. Those with a 3 year cycle have until 2017.

Of course if they are willing to use windows update at some point, then presumably they could wait longer....but anyway you slice it, everyone is either going to 10 or they're not using Windows...cause there is no 11

 

[DPI]

I'm kinda flipping on this one. I don't see them doing it this year, but depending on their device life cycle (3, 4 or 5 years), they may have to start migrating next year. I don't know how all companies do this, but IME, the OS is only changed when you get new H/W.

Assuming 10 is solid at release, then a company with a 4 years upgrade cycle pretty much has to start going to 10 next year. Those with a 3 year cycle have until 2017.

Huh? Not following why a company "has to start going 10 next year", perhaps you've never worked in IT or believe companies are going to BestBuy and picking up their computers there, then just tolerating whatever version of Windows comes with it the way consumers have to. Most companies typically maintain a standard desktop image that is then deployed to new hardware. The company decides which version of Windows they'll remain standardized on, not Microsoft marketing.

Windows 7 will continue to get updates until 2020, and probably beyond once big companies put pressure on MS the way they did with XP. Most companies are in absolutely no rush to run anything newer than 7, there's no compelling business case to run 8 or 10.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I couldn't care less about the 'technological improvements' Windows 10 supposedly offers if it means having to downgrade my day to day user experience.

I would agree and understand completely. I would be the same if Windows were my main OS.

Luckily for me I don't use Windows for my day to day user experience. It is just something I boot into for a game or two late at night, and then shut it down. Everything else is Linux.

So if they fuck up the user interface, but give me a few more FPS or better graphics, I'm OK with that. Wasn't planning on having to live with it on a day to day basis anyway

 

[msny]

This is a little delusional. It's not going to surpass the mass migration that Windows 7 experienced. Not a chance in hell. Businesses also aren't touching Windows 10, because Windows 7 is working fine for them, and there's no killer business feature in Windows 10 that IT decision makers are willing to accelerate their update cycle to get. Business and enterprise will remain locked into Windows 7 until 2020, talk to any IT manager or CIO.

Yep, being in IT myself our organization was late to the
Win 7 party. I suspect the cost for business with large users
will be a non-starter.

We also still have legacy software frin Win XP that is business
critical. If this fails our business is hurt, and we can't allow that
to happen.

If it's not broken why fix it.

 

[Exavior]

Yep, being in IT myself our organization was late to the
Win 7 party. I suspect the cost for business with large users
will be a non-starter.

We also still have legacy software frin Win XP that is business
critical. If this fails our business is hurt, and we can't allow that
to happen.

If it's not broken why fix it.

With the software now being free however that helps remove that part of the cost, so that just leaves the cost of testing software, and time to actually do the upgrade.

 

[kbrickley]

It's definitely different from apple. Apple makes their money from the hardware and they have a history of ending H/W support much faster than MS, but I'm sure they'll make their money. If they pull this off, it'll mean far more apps for Windows Phone, which might help them sell more phones (though I wouldn't bet on it).

Not necessarily ... MS does make money on the enterprise side from their service and long term license agreements with business ... The value of their stock is also partially due to the perception of their market domination ... The conversion of people on the enterprise and consumer side to their latest OS helps simplify their support infrastructure and prevents encroachment by competing OS providers or alternative hardware using a competing OS

 

[ktk]

With the software now being free however that helps remove that part of the cost, so that just leaves the cost of testing software, and time to actually do the upgrade.

You just listed the hidden cost of the "free" upgrade

its NOT gonna be borne by m$

any company with half a brain cell knows its going to add to the overhead greatly.

micorosft is just ass stupid.

include a win7 mode and thats it. let the users choose.

win 7 UI + win 10 stability .

if they cant already figure out that shit, m$ is fucked.by itself.

 

[Modred189]

You just listed the hidden cost of the "free" upgrade
its NOT gonna be borne by m$
any company with half a brain cell knows its going to add to the overhead greatly.
micorosft is just ass stupid.
include a win7 mode and thats it. let the users choose.
win 7 UI + win 10 stability .
if they cant already figure out that shit, m$ is fucked.by itself.

...says someone who has clearly never used a Windows based tablet. My Dell Venue 8 Pro, which has been insanely successful, would be utterly USELESS with Windows 7. IN fact, based on what I've seen, I likely won't update it to 10.
My desktops and laptops? Sure. Why not. But not the tablet.

 

[ktk]

...says someone who has clearly never used a Windows based tablet. My Dell Venue 8 Pro, which has been insanely successful, would be utterly USELESS with Windows 7. IN fact, based on what I've seen, I likely won't update it to 10.
My desktops and laptops? Sure. Why not. But not the tablet.

yes, companies totally dig windows tablets...

and dont have mountains of laptops and desktops

yeah , totally .

 

[Modred189]

yes, companies totally dig windows tablets...

and dont have mountains of laptops and desktops

yeah , totally .

Then what you are advocating is separate versions of Windows. Home, Pro, Business, Tablet, etc. And that just sucks for everyone, including the end users.

 

[ktk]

Then what you are advocating is separate versions of Windows. Home, Pro, Business, Tablet, etc. And that just sucks for everyone, including the end users.

did i say that?

i guess sarcasm isnt the in thing these days...

 

[heatlesssun]

yes, companies totally dig windows tablets...

and dont have mountains of laptops and desktops

yeah , totally .

In time as the hybrid UI issues get sorted out in Windows, the hardware improves and the pricing gets better, I think Windows tablets and hybrids will become a significant portion of the Windows device market. It won't be anytime soon but many of these devices in the last even running Windows 8.1 have overall have been pretty well received, like the Dell Venue 8 Pro and the Surface Pro 3 and OEMs are pumping out a lot of these things now.

 

[Modred189]

yes, companies totally dig windows tablets...
and dont have mountains of laptops and desktops
yeah , totally .

did i say that?
i guess sarcasm isnt the in thing these days...

You didn't say it, but it's the outcome of what you WERE saying. Besides, even if you were being sarcastic, what I said holds:
If you mean that companies DO NOT "dig" windows tablets, and that they DO have mountains of laptops and desktops, then you are advocating for multiple versions of Windows. One for corporate systems, one for home systems, one for home systems that use a domain (Pro), and another for tablets.

I'm not sure why this is hard to follow.

 

[heatlesssun]

Then what you are advocating is separate versions of Windows. Home, Pro, Business, Tablet, etc. And that just sucks for everyone, including the end users.

It's a Catch 22. Create separate versions of the OS and people will screem why there are so many and why their tablets can't run Win32 apps. We saw this situtation with Windows RT and Surface RT and all the complaints of not being able to run desktop apps.

 

[Modred189]

In time as the hybrid UI issues get sorted out in Windows, the hardware improves and the pricing gets better, I think Windows tablets and hybrids will become a significant portion of the Windows device market. It won't be anytime soon but many of these devices in the last even running Windows 8.1 have overall have been pretty well received, like the Dell Venue 8 Pro and the Surface Pro 3 and OEMs are pumping out a lot of these things now.

THIS. Several partners at my firm use Surface Pro 2s and 3s. I use a Dell Venue 8 pro, and I know of 4 others that do as well.

 

[ktk]

You didn't say it, but it's the outcome of what you WERE saying. Besides, even if you were being sarcastic, what I said holds:
If you mean that companies DO NOT "dig" windows tablets, and that they DO have mountains of laptops and desktops, then you are advocating for multiple versions of Windows. One for corporate systems, one for home systems, one for home systems that use a domain (Pro), and another for tablets.

I'm not sure why this is hard to follow.

ooh someone with 1/2 a brain cell, cool.

 

[ktk]

THIS. Several partners at my firm use Surface Pro 2s and 3s. I use a Dell Venue 8 pro, and I know of 4 others that do as well.

wow, what a big company...