Windows 10

complexmath wrote:

Really, if they can solve the upgrade problem I won't really care. With my Mac, I start the OS install, the machine reboots, and I'm back to work in minutes with basically everything just as it was with the previous version (it doesn't retain certain unix-level configs because of incompatibilities with version upgrades, but that's it). With Windows, traditionally, upgrading means wiping and starting from scratch, trying to remember all of the drivers I need, reinstalling apps, etc. It's a multi-day nightmare. If Windows X fixes this then I'm on board. But I only use my PC for gaming anyway, so all I actually want is some platform that runs Steam, Origin, and whatever else and gets out of my way. They can do whatever they want with the UI or release frequency so long as it doesn't prevent me from doing this as easily as possible.

I think this idea of windows being so hard to update is very outdated. I have upgraded several devices from Windows 7 to Windows 8 and it was extremely easy. The base install of Windows 8 is also stupidly simple and easy, takes less than an hour.

In general I think the Win 7 -> Win 8 (and probably Win 10) upgrades are just as easy as the last few Mac OSX upgrades I have done on my wife's Air.

TheGameguru wrote:

(They referenced repeatedly some "insider" program that would see the new features)

The Insider stuff is about who is beta testing the OS, you can sign up for it as long as you have a MS account and then Windows 10 is just delivered as a Windows update.

TheGameguru wrote:

Once I sat down with a Mac zealot who railed against Microsoft every chance he could get.. I said let's sit down at this Windows PC and you show me exactly what is so terrible about this OS.. He just sorta sat there for a while and didn't say anything then finally said

"It's just so unstable! it crashes all the time"

That was it. I felt very let down almost like when Zack did that thing and Slater didn't do that other thing.

I still have people tell me, "Windows crashes all the time" and "Macs are better for graphics" neither of which has been true for a long long time.

PaladinTom wrote:

I still have people tell me, "Windows crashes all the time"...

I used to work tech support.. the whole Macs crash less thing has pretty much never been true in my experience. What's more, a glitchy windows machine was way more fixable than a mac.

garion333 wrote:
ubrakto wrote:

Edit: And while I was writing, a bunch of people beat me to essentially the same point.

I like your properly worded sentences with correct punctuation and grammar.

And I totally dig that rock'n beard.

Chaz wrote:

With the premium that Apple charges on any hardware with their logo and OS on it, I'd have a hard time agreeing that they're giving away anything.

Well, it tends to be premium hardware, built with components and/or a fit and finish at mass market quantities few others match without coming in at the same price anyway.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I think this idea of windows being so hard to update is very outdated. I have upgraded several devices from Windows 7 to Windows 8 and it was extremely easy. The base install of Windows 8 is also stupidly simple and easy, takes less than an hour.

It is. I've been a diehard formatter and still usually do for my personal systems, but I've done a lot of in-place server upgrades and it just works. I've done quite a few remote servers over remote desktop seemlessly. I just start the upgrade, get disconnected when it reboots, then try back a bit later, and it's all good.

I've had more quirkiness with my new MBPr in the few months I've owned it than I have on any of my recent Windows systems, Vista included. Right now I still have to keep Bluetooth off so that my wifi doesn't silently disconnect. That was a "fix" I got when 10.10 updated to 10.10.1 with wifi fixes.

I just have a hard time grasping the concept of paying a monthly or annual fee for an OS. Not sure I get it or that any consumer will either. Given Microsoft's recent track record of communicating a clear message it makes even less sense. Maybe as part of an O365 sub where its part of a suite of products/services it could work.

Kurrelgyre wrote:
Chaz wrote:

With the premium that Apple charges on any hardware with their logo and OS on it, I'd have a hard time agreeing that they're giving away anything.

Well, it tends to be premium hardware, built with components and/or a fit and finish at mass market quantities few others match without coming in at the same price anyway.

The hardware is super nice, and true, comparable PCs are also that expensive. The thing is that the entry-level price is several levels higher than entry-level PC pricing. There is no real budget-level Apple option like there is for PCs. If I'm willing to compromise on hardware and fit & finish, I can get a very serviceable PC laptop for ~$200. The entry level Mac is a Macbook Air 11" for $900. When your entry level model is $700 more than the entry-level of the competition, that's premium pricing.

See also the $100 for an extra 16GB of memory in the ipads/iphones.

TheGameguru wrote:

I just have a hard time grasping the concept of paying a monthly or annual fee for an OS. Not sure I get it or that any consumer will either. Given Microsoft's recent track record of communicating a clear message it makes even less sense. Maybe as part of an O365 sub where its part of a suite of products/services it could work.

I could do annual if it was extremely low, like less than the cost of updating the OS every three years. But only if not paying meant not getting non-security related updates anymore, and not the complete disabling of my OS.

I still think Microsoft is just going to look for more ways to monetize consumers through SaaS, not PaaS. Having an OS by itself is of little value in terms of actually getting sh*t done, so why make people pay for it?

Tyops wrote:
PaladinTom wrote:

I still have people tell me, "Windows crashes all the time"...

I used to work tech support.. the whole Macs crash less thing has pretty much never been true in my experience. What's more, a glitchy windows machine was way more fixable than a mac.

Macs were *much* worse in the OS 9 days, and early OS X was a little rough. OS X ended up being a lot better than the Win9X branch, but I don't think it's ever offered more than about par with XP and later.

For a long time, OS X was about fit and finish... everything Just Worked. That seems to be less true these days; stuff isn't as completely thought through, and they seem to be changing stuff just to change it, not because it's notably better in any particular way.

What I'm really wondering about with 10 is the Start Menu. I don't absolutely need that specific thing, but I want something that's truly meant for a mouse and keyboard, not for a finger and a touchscreen. I don't want Metro on my desktop at all; I want to pretend it never existed. I don't want hot corners, I don't want all that touchscreen frippery, I want something that's meant for a mouse, a keyboard, and a giant monitor. Even if the upgrade actually is free, if they're still trying to jam touchscreen crap down my throat, I'm likely to stay on 7.

TheGameguru wrote:

I just have a hard time grasping the concept of paying a monthly or annual fee for an OS. Not sure I get it or that any consumer will either. Given Microsoft's recent track record of communicating a clear message it makes even less sense. Maybe as part of an O365 sub where its part of a suite of products/services it could work.

I think MS's consumer play going forward outside of gaming is cloud services. Whether they get you through Office 365 (which is a great buy just for the cloud storage alone if you need it), or through some kind of other ubiquitous service that they put on every device they can (see the recent Android and iOS pushes), they'll try to keep the consumers in their customer population that way more than the traditional license sales.

After all, they already give Windows away for free. Today. It's free to OEMs making low price Windows devices in a play to stem the growth of Chromebooks in areas like education. And those free licensed devices often come with a year of Office 365 to try to hook people on those services.

I see this possibly being a one year deal with an upgrade path that's like a subscription, but they don't have to go that route.

I'll likely upgrade, or at least buy a new case (or computer, cause then I don't have to dismantle my current one yay laziness), but if they want me to subscribe to Windows 10, I'll have to go Linux. There's just no way. There's no indication of it so far, but if they made a free version supported by ads or something, I'd go with the full version and just pay once.
Also, here's some more actual news, universal apps
Which blows my mind and I have to wonder what the api looks like. I wonder if they've thought of a way to make .Net less reverse-engineer-able.

DX12 might drive up gfx card prices when I upgrade (due to increases in demand), but the coder in me likes the idea of getting closer to the semi-conductor.

RolandofGilead wrote:

DX12 might drive up gfx card prices when I upgrade (due to increases in demand), but the coder in me likes the idea of getting closer to the semi-conductor.

Why would it increase demand?

The kicker there will be the UI; if you're forced into Metro mode everywhere, then it will be much less interesting/useful for desktop users, and if you're allowed to use both interfaces, well.... you have to write two UIs.

I imagine that toolkits could reduce the extra load substantially, but those would be tough toolkits to even design, much less write.

edit: Oh, and I reminded myself of the UI in Win10... it's basically a start menu that's a mini-Metro. I'm still kind of repulsed, but that's almost purely because I disliked the Metro UI so much. If I were looking at that Start Menu fresh, with no preconceptions, I'd think it looked pretty cool. (I actually really liked the look of Metro when I first saw it, but then it started raining hobnailed boots.)

Paul Thurrott has some info posted as well. I don't always agree with him.
Here is some info on windows 10 being free.

Among the information Microsoft revealed at today’s Windows 10 event is the good news many were waiting to hear: Windows 10 will be a free upgrade for customers running Windows 7, Windows 8.1, and Windows Phone 8.1. That said, there are some caveats to this deal, not the least of which—as I understand it—is that those who agree to this upgrade must also agree to let their PCs and devices be kept up-to-date by Microsoft going forward.

The notion here is “Windows as a service,” one that will in effect make version numbers much less important going forward. Technically, this should work a lot like Office 365, and with the same exclusions for businesses. Indeed, businesses are free (ahem) to continue moving forward with existing licensing schemes and controlling updates if they prefer.

But let’s get to that free bit.

As described by Microsoft, Windows 10 will be free for customers running Windows 7, Windows 8.1, and Windows Phone 8.1, albeit only during the first year of Windows 10’s life cycle. So it’s a promotional offer designed to get as many people as possible upgraded to the new OS version.

But consider this line: “Once a Windows device is upgraded to Windows 10, we will continue to keep it current for the supported lifetime of the device – at no additional charge.” This suggests to me that keeping Windows 10 up-to-date going forward is not optional. That in order to get this offer—or perhaps just to get Windows 10 as a consumer, regardless—will require you to let Microsoft keep your system up to date.

I’m further curious how this will work on phones, given the trouble Microsoft has had delivering updates on Windows Phone.

Not sure why MS is emphasizing the part stating the keeping up to date. This is something you should want anyway, right?
Maybe there is a reason why users don't want this in the future. Just don't know what that could be. Maybe build in ads in the future?
The article also states that you won't have to pay for it once upgraded. At least, no exchange of money.

It almost sounds like they are going with a Yum-like updating system where functionality is upgraded by OS component and app updates, delivered automatically. That would account for the wording.

It's pretty normal in the server world to pay yearly fees for OS licensing and support (different manufacturers have different details, but usually without the fee, you get no updates and no support beyond maybe critical patches). That could be the model they are looking at, especially if they are moving to WinYum.

There must be something in the water in Washington as yet another horrible haircut exists:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/CDItsVN.jpg?1)

It's like they all want to be in the Goo Goo Dolls.

That pic, btw, came from this interesting Wired article. The guy above is the one who created Kinect and Hololens.

If an OS license fee was a small add on to my office 365 subscription, it would be a very good value. Office365 gives me 5 installs of Office. This covers all of my work and personal computers. One Drive & Office365 lets me work from almost anywhere.

Having 5 installs of an operating system would be great.

If I wasn't a work alcoholic, I would standardize on Google & Ubuntu to save money.

Greg wrote:

If I wasn't a work alcoholic,

You get drunk at work everyday?! Is your company hiring?

The danger/benefit of telelecommmmoooteng.

That's certainly a positive review. It sounds better than the faint, shaky, blurry results I was expecting.

That Skype markup feature letting one person see what you're seeing and then annotate is awesome. Could really help with long distance tech, auto, home, etc... repairs. Since it seems to only need the hololens on one person and not both.

That being said, I don't see my mother buying one so I can help her out with programming her answering machine (don't ask...).

LiquidMantis wrote:

The danger/benefit of telelecommmmoooteng.

Fun fact: I'm a telecommuter, so of course I occasionally have a drink towards the end of my "work shift". I just couldn't resist responding to "work alcoholic".

The reporting I've seen from Ars and other sources shows two things. One is that MS stated yesterday that if you get the free version, the one year dealie, you will get all upgrades and patches in perpetuity without other fees.

And two, the screenshots show a "Start" button.

I'm curious about this upgrade offer.

When MS offered the Windows 7 to 8 version, was it only digital? So you have to create an account or use your email address to get the digital upgrade? Are you suppose to put the OS on a USB stick if you need to do a reinstall?

I got a 3 licenses Windows version, will my 3 install be upgradable? Or what was the experience from 7 to 8?

One is that MS stated yesterday that if you get the free version, the one year dealie, you will get all upgrades and patches in perpetuity without other fees.

One possible gotcha there: you may not be able to do anything else. Some folks were musing that you may potentially be required to take all patches they issue, whether you want them or not. With security patches, obviously, that's what you'd want, but you may no longer have the option of not accepting new Windows features.... like, say, Silverlight, or new versions of Internet Explorer. That's something to keep an eye on. In essence, that scenario is sort of the ultimate DRM: Microsoft can change the terms of the deal any time they like, and you can't stay online with the computer and not accept their new ideas for how your computer should work.

They seem to have chosen their wording with extreme care when talking about these features, so while it probably isn't that way, it could be. Parsing their language feels a little like listening to the NSA; they may not be saying what they want us to think they're saying. They weren't plain-spoken when they easily could have been, so be wary.

And two, the screenshots show a "Start" button.

Yeah, well, in my case at least, it's not that that specific thing is required. I just want something that's intended first and foremost for mice and large monitors. Hierarchical menus work very well. Touchscreen interfaces are horrible on a 30" screen with a high precision mouse.

From another angle: why would they tell you about keeping you up to date on patches? That's what they do now. It doesn't need any special emphasis.

There is a reason they used that very precise, stilted language, and we may not like it very much once we find out what it is.

Or it'll be innocuous. How about we shelve this part of the discussion for now until we get more information? Feel like we're getting a bit repetitive.