Windows 8 is terrible. Free is still too expensive. It's Windows 7 with reduced functionality and an app store. I've been using Windows on my work laptops for the last 4 years because I use the adobe suite, and it's been easier. I've been stuck with Windows 8 on my most recent laptop, and yesterday I finally decided to switch to Ubuntu. Good riddance.
If you don't like Windows that is fine, but with a few check boxes Windows 8 isn't very different that Windows 7. Enable boot-to-desktop, disable hot-corners, set the Start button to take you to apps, change file associations to non-metro apps. Just last week I setup a Windows 8 computer for a co-worker that was using Windows 7 and he hasn't had a single question about it.
Only on the Internet do I see people have these caustic reactions to Windows 8, in the real world but are just slightly annoyed that something changed or they aren't and then they just move on.
I begrudgingly upgraded WinXP to Win8 because I figured I couldn't really hold out any more for work purposes (I usually run Windows VMs on my Macbook in the cases where my customers are Windows shops).
At first, Win8 was a huge shock to my system. I didn't get it, and I also fixated on the loss of the Start Menu.
But things changed once I found a decent video that explained Win8 on YouTube. Things weren't nearly as different or as bad as I had thought.
I give Ubuntu desktop a run every year to see if I could use it full time, and every time, I uninstall it, thinking "maybe next year". One of the main reasons is that it never feels as well put together as OSX or Windows <-- this is purely subjective for my use case, ymmv. For all of Windows inconsistencies, I still feel more at home using Windows than Ubuntu.
Second - I really hope this doesn't happen, as every time I have to use a non-touch Windows 8 machine I end up wanting to throw it at a wall.
More windows 8 machines sounds like my nightmare. The worst part is Windows 7 is actually good, and will run IE 9 and 10 - both decent browsers by MS standards.
Thanks for that list. In effect, windows 8.1 has lost very little functionality from windows 7. It puzzles me why there is so much hate for the windows 8.1 operating system about the modern UI when it can effectively be disabled and ignored. It's as it people are specifically looking for a reason, validity be damned, to hate windows.
I wonder if I will be accused of astroturfing just because this is my first HN comment.
Windows 8x is a mess (in comparison to Windows XP or even 7). For example, Win 8x now has 3 control panels (classic, metro/modern, charmbar). And (of course subjective) a lot of people seem to dislike the new art-style and color choices.
If you're a keyboard centric user, the start menu's not a huge loss as one would think.
I used to think it was a big deal until I realized I stopped using the Dock on OSX in favor of Spotlight to launch stuff. When I started using Win8 and learned that I basically could keep the same habits by hitting the Windows key and typing the first few characters of what I wanted to launch, I stopped caring about the start menu.
I used to think the idea of a touchscreen laptop was stupid, but Win8 works for me, and my main machine is still a Macbook Pro. I have a Surface Pro that I use in place of my original iPad, and I think Win8 is quite good in tile mode or desktop mode. It's still hurting in the area of power management though.
While you can use the same keyboard habits, I find it much worse. The whole screen gets taken over by a rainbow colored mess of an interface, instead of a concise list in the corner.
Indeed. I'm upgrading my parents from XP to Debian wheezy vs. $$$ for Windows 7 or, now, this possibility of free Windows 8. They're eyes are old enough they need big screens with lots of pixels, which they already own, without touch features (are there even any affordable 24 inch or greater touch screens out there?)
Thirded. Before I refit my main gaming rig (built in 2010, running Windows 7), I'll see what Windows 9 looks like. If it isn't a major improvement over Windows 8, I'll probably get a Mac Pro instead.
Hm how does that make sense? For gaming you would still need to run Windows on that Mac Pro and the workstation grade CPU/GPUs are a waste of money if the primary usecase is games.
Well they aren't bad, actually the Dual D700 perform very well in games under Windows as they are used in CrossfireX mode. However, the D700s are the top of the line cards and cost a hefty extra. In general you can get the same or even better gaming performance for a lot less.
"A free version of Windows 8.1? Those M$FT bastards are just trying to make more money!"
-- 90% of responses that will show up here
Anyway, Microsoft definitely needs to do something to eradicate the 29% of desktop users that are still using Windows XP which is a security disaster-waiting-to-happen.
I imagine a lot of machines running XP won't be able to run 8.1. IIRC even the minimum screen resolution of 1366x768 is above the popular old 1280x1024.
IIRC even the minimum screen resolution of 1366x768
Your memory is also completely wrong. Windows 8.1 does not have a minimum resolution of 1366x768. In fact, if you review the system requirements link above, you'll see that it works at less than 1024x768 but that certain features require 1024x768.
Can you help me understand the purpose of your comment? I mean, obviously - you had no idea what you were talking about. You even knew it because you used weasel words like, "I imagine" or "IIRC". It makes me think you had some agenda to spread FUD about Windows 8.1 not working on older hardware.
It sounds a like this is going to be a gimped money-grab like "Windows 7 Starter edition" (where you can't even change the wallpaper).
Meanwhile, the other two major desktop OSes are completely free. Upgrades too. The notion of paying for the basic software that makes your computer work is quickly becoming outmoded.
I really hate it when people glorify Apple for releasing Mavericks for free. They make money with hardware, not software. OS sales had no impact on their revenue at all, so they made it free and people even think it's because they are such a nice company.
Windows on the other hand is a big deal to MS revenue. Its Apples vs Oranges, no pun intended. Obv. thats a bad situation for MS to be in and they will need to adopt, but please stop thinking Apple did this out of good-will.
Microsoft is switching to a "Devices and Services" company, didn't you get the memo?
Anyway, MSFT should really just charge Enterprises for software, give it away to consumers, and monetize services/devices, as they have stated.
Charging any amount of money for a consumer OS is stupid: it's not about the revenue but getting lock-in to the ecosystem. Microsoft is in dire risk of losing the consumer mindshare (to the extent that they already haven't).
Startups are all using Apple products. Go to almost any large corporation and you're going to see a lot larger proportion of Mac products than 5-10 years ago (MacBooks).
I don't believe it can be understated what a potential disaster this represents for Microsoft.
As stated, MS needs to adapt to this changing market, but still their business model has been fundamentally different up until recently. It's not like MS desktop market share is in danger though.
At home? After the utter drubbing that Win8 took in the Media? When the owner of the biggest gaming platform on the OS has said they want to move away from it?
The reasons to use Windows at home are slowly drying up.
To an extent that's tough luck for MS. Apple have a bundling strategy. Google have a 'see what sticks' strategy. Linux is open source. Samsung, Apple and anyone who wants to sell a tablet needs to compete with Amazon who can subsidize their tablet with ads or book sales or whatever else.
MS wouldn't be the first software company to find that their system and method for causing customers to exchange cash for software is losing its potency in light of gradual technology and associated cultural changes.
They are a powerful, cashed up, profitable company and this is competition.
The upgrades are also completely gratis. And again with the "Twice as much" myth? Do I really need to link the article that shows the discount being offered on the new Pro machines with the workstation chipset?
And you're also not counting the reduction in cost from the bundled crapware that comes on most every OOTB PC.
Apple hardware isn't overpriced (maybe slightly) if you compare it with similar offerings, BUT most people don't need/want/can afford premium hardware or get the same value out of a $400 laptop/desktop for their needs.
So for many peoples basic computing needs, Apple is indeed much more expensive.
The new Mac Pro is a joke. If you need to add more disks, you're adding an additional $1,500 to $2,500 for the external disk enclosure. That puts the base price, for 6 bays at $5,500! Now that is absurd.
You are being disingenuous. The number of laptop users with a bunch of external disks compared to desktop users.... very, very different.
This is about what is normal. My desktop machines have ALWAYS had more than just the boot drive. My laptops have NEVER had anything but the boot drive.
Unless you build a Hackintosh[1]. I'm typing on mine right now. I jumped from Windows 7 because I use Windows 8.1 at work and hate it. I've totally loving the Hackintosh. I do lots of scripting, and while I love the crap outta the Cygwin people (heroes, all of them), it is soooo nice having a real unix under me, albeit a slightly weird one. Yeah, if it weren't for Lightroom, I'd be on Linux.
I have a pretty beefy machine, but I spent less than $2000.
I'm in the same boat myself. Right now I'm strongly considering picking up a mac mini and a nice displayport KVM switch. Last upgrade to Mavericks hosed my mackintosh install (panic on boot) and no amount of re-running the tools seems to fix it. There's also the small miscellaneous problems you have to deal with.
I keep coming back to Windows for the games. Once Steam's streaming functionality is nailed down, I figure I'll build a nice beefy shoebox machine, throw Windows on it, put that box in the corner, and use the mini or a laptop as my main machine.
What hardware do you have? I was very careful to use the hardware with for the path of least resistance. The installation took an hour. Then, I spent the next 3 days getting the RAID 1 for the boot drive working.
Gigabyte board, Gigabyte AMD video, Intel i5. I actually specced this machine out three-ish years ago with the express intent of hackintoshing. Except for some early issues with dual monitors back in the Snow Leopard/Lion days (we're talking hex editing the ATI driver kext), it has worked really well.
Ive been running a Hackintosh for years without any serious issues but i am growing worried about apples direction in many things and the platform lock-in as a whole. I also hate to adapt to different keyboard layouts when going back to Windows for gaming.
Thats why i am toying with going for a Win 8.1/Linux Mint combination again, maybe even Windows only would suffice as vagrant took a lot of pain out of development on windows.
More accurately, Apple is selling you both the hardware and the software in a modern version of the old IBM model (give away the software to help sell the hardware).
I believe that Apple aggressive pricing of the last operating systems (up to the current "free") had much more influence on the decision, together with Ubuntu progress in terms of usability.
Edit: Probably is all off these put together, nowadays most users simply do not expect to pay for an updated OS.
I got a Chromebook for my teenager and one for myself at work for note taking, etc. It's been a win for the kid. At work, it's been a pain in the ass. Google spreadsheets is pretty bad and can't handle many of the spreadsheets I need to deal with on a regular basis. And, gotomeeting doesn't work on the Chromebook, even though they have a new web-based version.
Printing is the Achilles heel, however there are new printers out that have Cloud Print built in.
I use Windows 8 every day at work. It's not that bad as some would have you believe, but I like it less than Windows 7, and every release should be more enjoyable and better. I consider Windows 7 to be the best version of Windows ever. It has a pretty clean windowing UI, it's stable and secure and generally just works.
It's an OS that really appeals to MS's core audience. Why mess with it?
I have my Windows 8 machine set to boot straight to desktop mode, and I have the start menu back; so it's pretty similar to using Windows 7. But every now and then you accidentally open up an app or file in Metro mode, and it's a really disorienting experience when one of my windows is in metro mode and the other is in desktop mode.
The core issue of Windows 8 is that it tries to merge two pretty good UI concepts together, and in the process makes both worse. I like Metro as a tablet and phone UI. I like the Windows 7 UI for desktop computing. It's when you have to use Metro on a desktop or Windows 7 windowing on a tablet that it all goes to hell.
I would suggest that MS end this, and make Windows 9 the best traditional Windows it can. Aim it at businesses and people who want to use the same OS they use at work at home. Focus on networking and cloud support (take OneDrive even further), improving multithreaded support (make it easier for developers to harness 4-12 and more core computers) and improving the file system.
The UI concepts of Windows 7 are pretty good. You can iterate on the UI and add new features like Apple does with OS X, but there is no reason to get away from windowing for desktop computing. It's a conceptual model that works well, particularly for power users and work that benefits from multiple-monitors and multitasking.
Microsoft should then spin off Metro into its own OS without the Windows name, while still using the Windows kernel. This is what Apple does with iOS, and it works very well.
I use OS X at home, and think Mavericks is what MS should be aiming for, not Windows 8. Mavericks is the best desktop OS I've ever used, and, while I really like iOS, I wouldn't want to use iOS on my desktop computer.
the OEMs don't perceive it that way. Acer could have two SKUs. One with the free version at 199 and the non free version at 249. I think a lot will buy the 199 version.
That people are avoiding Windows 8+ is a side affect, it's not the problem. The problem is that developers have been (and are continuing to) fleeing Windows like it's the plague. The solution is to either radically make Windows more developer friendly or open source Windows. At the very least open source XP which you have no interest in supporting. Stick it on GitHub and accept pull requests.
But I thought one of the bullet points of Win8 was that it was more developer friendly.
When you say developer friendly, what do you mean by that? Seems to me you can develop more or less whatever you want in numerous different ways. Are you talking about developing on the core?
As for open sourcing a previous version, there's always something like ReactOS, http://www.reactos.org/.
Using Windows 8 as a windows development platform is inferior to windows 7 if you target legacy users (windows XP) because Windows 8 does not support installing SDKs like DirectX9. You can still compile for those targets but you can't run some of the most useful debug stuff anymore.
Microsoft's idea of developer friendliness is always aimed at high-level. Windows is developer friendly as long as you use their tools/languages. Developers want to choose their own tools, so they should make that easier / more integrated.
I'm not a Windows developer, but I'm fairly certain there are options of tools/languages for Windows development that are not offered directly from Microsoft.
Again, are we talking about developing applications to run on Windows or developing on the core?
Low-level applications/libraries. Things we take for granted on other OSes like alternative shells, alternative terminal emulators, language bindings for Win32 gui.
I dont see why Windows 8 would be any less developer friendly than OSX for example. Of course they have their own platform stuff (and OSX has as well) but you don't need to use it. Even for web development as most people today use vagrant to virtualize their development enviroment, i don't see a difference.
I am actually thinking about going back to windows because i grow worried about the Apple platform lock in and their general direction with OSX/iOS
I hope this doesn't involve intrusive advertising or tracking. Firstly we're all on a slippery path with that one but secondly can you imagine the increased burden of family tech support? When relative X turns up with a $250 windows laptop and wants the ads removed, its going to be painful to explain.
I imagine this will actually cause more harm than good to the brand.
Ever since Vista, every time I run notepad Win calls home to Redmond to let them know I did it(non-intrusive, granted). There are ~ 40 ways Windows phones home to an MS IP when I open something or other these days. They call it 'metrics', I call it none of their business(look how they manipulate the data to say 'most users don't use start menu, anyway'...bwahahaha). TG for 3rd party firewalls, careful what you block...
Yes definitely aware of this. I ran wireshark on my workstation (MacBook) and had Windows 7 in a VBox virtual machine. The amount of network traffic it generates is insane. Prior to using the windows machine there was a little mDNS traffic and some SSDP stuff from my router/television and nothing else. Moment windows is online, thousands of packets everywhere. I didn't have time to reverse engineer what it was doing (as I was debugging an SSDP stack) but it's worrying simply from the complexity of filtering all of it.
Just updated Windows 8(#) to 8.1. What a bullshit (still)!
It's not a question of money (free) but of simplifying the experience. It's a bloody mess!
(#) Admittedly I didn't use Windows 8 often (mostly worked with Mountain Lion and Ubuntu 13.04/13.10 however I was a longtime Windows user before (Win98 to 7).
(just saw [this article](http://ignorethecode.net/blog/2014/03/02/windows_8_surface/) on the hn frontpage which describes very well what I meant with bullshit and mess. I kind of like the metro part but as I need the Desktop part... no 'love';)
A few tens of millions of XP users would sure appreciate that, April 8th is fast approaching. MS has extended MSSE updates for XP 'til 6/2015... can't wait to see what they pull out of where next month.
PS: I could have sworn I saw XP workstations running on the ISS while watching NASA archives couple days ago. I do not know how recent the archive footage was...
NASA uses Windows XP on A31 & T61 Thinkpad notebooks:
As of 2010, the Space Station was equipped with 68
ThinkPad A31 computers along with 32 new Lenovo ThinkPad
T61p laptops plus a dedicated IP phone which also has
limited video phone capabilities. Work incorporating
those laptops into the station's LAN continued into June
2011. All laptops aboard the ISS are connected to the
station's LAN via Wi-Fi and are connected to the ground
at 3 Mbit/s up and 10 Mbit/s down, comparable to home DSL
connection speeds.
I could see the benefit being people who have to re-install or want to upgrade from XP/Vista can now do so for free - but wouldn't 9/10 of those people just buy Windows or pirate it anyway?
For non-technical people, is losing Windows XP customers to Linux even an issue for Microsoft?
They do have a good point about combating Chromebooks with a free version of Windows. Will it run efficiently on Chromebook level hardware? The Acer C720 is a Haswell Celeron with 4GB of RAM which should be plenty. I'd be concerned about the OS footprint on the SSD more than anything. 32GB vs 16GB would double the storage cost of the machine.
It would be interesting to see how "free" it will be.
I'm not sure how OSX is accounted, but I suppose it's now defined as upgradable software coming with the hardware, the same way drivers are just software for a device already paid.
Would Windows follow the same way of thinking and be free when bought OEM (as the article hints at) or have a really free tier that anyone could download for any hardware supported ?
It would be nice to have Microsoft let go a lower/barebone tier of windows and focus on a premium version and additional services (unlimited skydrive integration with automatic backups for instance) for profits.
Win8 was an attempt to convert from a desktop interface to a tablet interface. But the thing is, I'm still using a desktop. There's no way you can convince me to use a tablet interface on a desktop, especially when my monitor is not touch enabled. You can offer it to me for free and I would still politely turn you down. I already have Win7 on my current machine and it does everything that I require. Why exactly would I take a step back in interface design when I'm happy right now?
If I was them I'd rather make less money now and stay relevant for the next 20 years than satisfy my immediate greed and disappear* in the next decade ...
* disappear is too strong but my English being limited I don't have the word I need to convey what I mean.
"Guys, I know we've been making around $20 billion a year selling Windows licenses but this guy jmnicolas on Hacker News is suggesting we should give it away".
"That's... brilliant... Why didn't we think of that before?"
Microsoft could quickly sell a Linux version of Exchange or SharePoint even if it's just debugging a Wine version. However, by only selling Windows versions they make more money and increase the Windows ecosystem. Don't forget MS has enough cash on hand to handle huge market shifts so they can focus on maximizing short term profit.
There are a lot of things that cash can not buy ... MS failed to buy Bing a place in the spotlight, failed to buy good will for Windows 8.1, Google failed to buy its way into social networking and video (there was google video back in the ancient times) - the list goes on.
Unless MS find a way for the people to genuinely like the products they peddle to the Devices and Services target audience - their cash will last only so far.
True. On the other hand, MS has to fear XP replacements which are not Windows, yet will run on the same old(er) HW that XP did; e.g. LXLE, which is geared specifically towards this goal: http://lxle.net/
The biggest XP replacements that are not Windows are iPads and Android tablets -- at least for the majority of users who are primarily emailers and web surfers. Not sure if a free version of Windows is going to stop the bleeding there.
RHEL and SLED contain some things that their community editions don't and are updated and tested more carefully. But yes, you're also paying for support.
