Windows 8 Pro Upgrade

That is quite reasonable. Still haven't really seen anything in windows 8 that makes me want to upgrade.

color me impressed. Upgrade for just $40

http://windowsteambl..._medium=twitter

From any version or from 7 pro ?

standalone or oem ?

[quote name='way2lazy2care' timestamp='1341261000' post='4955034']
color me impressed. Upgrade for just $40

http://windowsteambl..._medium=twitter

From any version or from 7 pro ?

standalone or oem ?
[/quote]

As far as I can tell it's pretty much if you are running XP or higher you can upgrade to 8 pro for $40.

[color=#333333] if your PC is running Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7 you will qualify to download an upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for just $39.99 in 131 markets. And if you want, you can add Windows Media Center for free through the “add features” option within Windows 8 Pro after your upgrade.[/quote]

makes great sense... MS will make most of their $$ as commission fees from the marketplace... so why charge an arm and a leg for the OS ;)

I'm on it.

I think this is more "evidence" of MS adopting a more Apple-like release setup of cheap and often upgrades vs years between large releases.

Personally I'm ok with this, even though I'm on the fence when it comes to Win8 atm, at least as a desktop OS replacement for Win7.

I think this is more "evidence" of MS adopting a more Apple-like release setup of cheap and often upgrades vs years between large releases.

Personally I'm ok with this, even though I'm on the fence when it comes to Win8 atm, at least as a desktop OS replacement for Win7.

I don't see much point in upgrading either, Win7 works fine and as it is quite a pain to find a laptop with no OS these days (atleast if you want a decent selection of models to choose from) i'm fairly sure i'd get Win8 or 9 next time i upgrade my hardware anyway.

I don't see much point in upgrading either

That's the point in making it so cheap. Many more people will upgrade even if they don't really need to (also, a lot of Windows XP people who refused to upgrade to Vista and have been undecided about Windows 7).

The goal is to have as many people as possible have Metro installed. Not only does it make supporting Windows XP less important, this takes the wind out of the competitors' sails on the tablet market. People usually want to have "the same" everywhere. Which consequently means fewer people will buy iPads, unless those come with Windows8, too. It also brings $$$ via the marketplace, and it secretly increases the install base of "secure boot" systems for free.

One day in the future, MS will then just flip the secure boot switch, and suddenly your computers are their computers. Class lawsuit following or not (which takes years), you'll not be able to run any other operating system (or software, thanks to Metro) in the mean time, unless they let you. Which means, if you pay them, directly or indirectly, and if they agree with the software that you want to run.

It's the same thing as with Visual Studio. The Metro-only version is released for free, as opposed to the "normal" one, because MS wants as many developers as possible to migrate to Metro, in as little time as possible. The easiest way of doing that -- much easier than marketing how awesome it is to have a screen full of small animated flashing rectangles -- is giving everyone a free animated-rectangle-creation tool and charging big $$$ for the desktop IDE.

And then... the entire worrrrrrld....! Muhahahahahaha!!!

It's the same thing as with Visual Studio. The Metro-only version is released for free, as opposed to the "normal" one, because MS wants as many developers as possible to migrate to Metro, in as little time as possible. The easiest way of doing that -- much easier than marketing how awesome it is to have a screen full of small animated flashing rectangles -- is giving everyone a free animated-rectangle-creation tool and charging big $$$ for the desktop IDE.

Not to take the wind out of your "MS is trying to take over everything and your freedom" rant or anything but they are going to release an Express version which does normal desktop apps now too.

I think this is more "evidence" of MS adopting a more Apple-like release setup of cheap and often upgrades vs years between large releases.

People bring this up, but every time people try to do a comparison, it comes down to how you compare releases. I mean yes, Windows goes a long time between major releases, but then the service pack updates are far more often, and are free.

Why should I upgrade, I mean I like my win 7 Professional. Do not see any need at the moment. Also from what I have seen it looks like a touch screen system for a smart phone more than a PC OS Am I wrong here?

This seems a great move - surely they make most money from Windows licences sold with new PCs anyway than the upgraders. And even though the differences between Windows 7 and 8 might not be huge for laptop/desktop users, remember this also provides a cheap upgrade route for all those stuck on XP or Vista. And thanks to the focus on lower power netbooks and tablets, we no longer have the situation where new versions of Windows have vastly higher system requirements (indeed, I'd imagine it runs much better than Vista on say 1GB machines).

My main laptop was bought in June, so I qualify for the $14.99 upgrade.

Why should I upgrade, I mean I like my win 7 Professional. Do not see any need at the moment. Also from what I have seen it looks like a touch screen system for a smart phone more than a PC OS Am I wrong here?

Well the standard UI is still there. And the start screen IMO works well with mouse and keyboard as well as touchscreen. Of course, there's still the question of what Windows 8 brings for devices that don't have touchscreens - anyone know?

One thing I noticed from the preview was the ability to log in via an email, similar to how Android works - it makes sharing things across the Internet much easier. Windows 7 already introduced a lot of this - using Homegroups, and sharing via "Live ID" accounts, which is much easier to set up than the old fashioned Windows networking (I mean yes, I could do it, but your average user doesn't want to have to learn to be a sysadmin just to play movies to the TV). But you still have to manually associate your username with a Live ID account - Windows 8 seems to take this a step forward, and make it a lot easier. (If this means it's possible to seamlessly share things between Windows computers and Windows Phone devices, I can see that being a very cool feature. )

I'm on the edge of this. I don't feel any need to upgrade, so I probably won't, but on the other handle getting a Pro version would be nice when I do upgrade. I'll need to get a new PC anyway in about 6 months, so I might calculate the price and see if it's cheaper to buy a PC with Win 7 installed, and paying $40 to go to Win 8 Pro, or whether it's cheaper to just get Win 8 Pro directly. (The difference on Amazon between Win 7 Home Premium and Win 7 Pro is $90. The difference when customizing a PC on HP's website is $70)

From any version or from 7 pro ?

standalone or oem ?

You will be able to upgrade from any consumer edition of Windows 7 to Windows 8 Pro and bring everything along which includes your Windows settings, personal files, and apps. If you are upgrading from Windows Vista, you will be able to bring along your Windows settings and personal files, and if you are upgrading from Windows XP you will only be able to bring along your personal files.[/quote]

Any consumer version of Windows 7 to Win 8 Pro, apparently. I wonder if the 'consumer edition' means, "Not OEM discs", or whether it means, "Not big business mass licenses". I'd guess the latter... I'm using a Win 7 upgrade which I upgraded from a Dell OEM Windows Vista disc. I assume the Win 8 upgrade would be the same.

It would kinda defeat the point of the whole "upgrade your OS" if it only works for the 0.001% of consumers who built their PCs from scratch, and excludes all the OEM installs... but I don't know for sure.

Another thing that needs clarification, is whether it's any consumer version of Windows XP or Windows Vista - he said Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7, but then specifically mentioned any version of Windows 7, and didn't say what version of XP or Vista is needed to upgrade to Win 8 Pro.

It would kinda defeat the point of the whole "upgrade your OS" if it only works for the 0.001% of consumers who built their PCs from scratch, and excludes all the OEM installs... but I don't know for sure.

not to mention a lot of people who do that buy OEM disks to begin with.

One day in the future, MS will then just flip the secure boot switch, and suddenly your computers are their computers. Class lawsuit following or not (which takes years), you'll not be able to run any other operating system (or software, thanks to Metro) in the mean time, unless they let you. Which means, if you pay them, directly or indirectly, and if they agree with the software that you want to run.

Paranoid much? ;)

There's already 2 Linux distros going to support secure boot and no reason why others can't follow. And part of the standard is that users must be able to disable it if desired, so no problem at all there.

Nah, don't think I'll be bothering with 8. There were compelling reasons to get off XP, Vista didn't cut it, but no reason for now to move from 7. The pricing is a good idea but as for encouraging people to migrate from XP (which I think is a major motivator behind it) it's of fairly limited appeal. Anyone buying a new machine will get 8 pre-installed, anyone running an ancient machine will be staying with XP, so that leaves a vanishingly small niche of people who have capable hardware but for one reason or another stuck with XP. And if that reason is app compatibility (I'm thinking business users with legacy LoB apps here) then they're even less likely to move.

I really hope the decrease the price of windows 7 right before launch, I would love a non OEM version of windows 7 professional but 300$ is just pushing the envolope a little too much for me :-/.

[quote name='samoth' timestamp='1341320969' post='4955277']
One day in the future, MS will then just flip the secure boot switch, and suddenly your computers are their computers. Class lawsuit following or not (which takes years), you'll not be able to run any other operating system (or software, thanks to Metro) in the mean time, unless they let you. Which means, if you pay them, directly or indirectly, and if they agree with the software that you want to run.

Paranoid much? ;)

There's already 2 Linux distros going to support secure boot and no reason why others can't follow. And part of the standard is that users must be able to disable it if desired, so no problem at all there.
[/quote]

Hardware vendors could also allow end users to install their own keys (Something i hope some of them will do as it would be nice to be able to run custom kernels with secure boot(it is a good feature so just disabling it isn't as appealing)

No reason to move from 7?
I disagree.
I will move from 7 sooner or later.
Question is: why should I pay... say 150 in a couple of years from now when I can pay 40 immediately?
My bank actually gives me close to 0 interest. So the 1 currency unit now ~= 1 currency unit 2 years from now (assuming no inflation, which is rather optimistic to say the least).
And thereby, 40 < 150.
Saving 100 is a good reason for me to upgrade right now. Anyone not agreeing with that clearly evaluates the risks potentially more expensive. I guess that's the case. It's not my case.

I'm not sure I get the whole problem with Metro. As far as I've understood, they're replacing icons with some small windows. I don't get this revolution vibe at all. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding everything but when I transitioned from WFW 3.11 to 95 I didn't have much issues. I expect VC++ to run just as it would now: i open windows and type.

There's already 2 Linux distros going to support secure boot and no reason why others can't follow. And part of the standard is that users must be able to disable it if desired, so no problem at all there.

As by the specification, the platform is initially in "setup mode", with no public key is installed. After the first public key half of the "platform owner" has been enrolled, it switches to "user mode". Except "platform owner" is really Microsoft, not you. It does not take any privileges or authentication to install their key, and that is just what Windows8 install does, without asking.

In "user mode", the platform only allows execution of signed software, and installation of public key halves that are signed by the already installed key. Which is a key controlled by Microsoft. You can clear the key by writing a zero key that again must be signed with the installed key. Which means you can only regain access to your computer if Microsoft lets you.

As an exception, the specification states "may also be cleared using a secure platform-specific", but in normal English this means no more and no less than "if some particular motherboard manufacturer implements a way of clearing it otherwise, it's not strictly uncompliant, but this is not covered by the spec".

So yes, I do see a problem with that approach. It doesn't really matter if a Linux distro supports secure boot as long as Microsoft doesn't sign their key. Yes, companies like RedHat will go to court for this, so what. It doesn't solve the problem (and takes months/years). It isn't even certain that a court rules that you must sign someone else's key (and, if you do, you can probably ask for a monetary compensation!). After all, why should you have the obligation to sign any random guy's key just because he wants it? The cunning trick here is that not Microsoft prevents someone else from running an installer or an OS, it's the BIOS. And you, the client, implicitly agreed with that by buying it, so you cannot even complain.

What if Microsoft revokes their key tomorrow because it has been "compromised" or because of a different reason? No problem for Microsoft, they just install the new key with Windows update.
Incidentially this could happen at inappropriate times. A key can be compromised at any time, what a terrible tragedy if it just happens three days after a competitor has shipped 20,000 DVDs to retail. Hey, it's not Microsoft's fault, keys do get compromised. Oh, and it wasn't Microsoft who absolutely wanted to sign this key in the first place, the competitor asked them to do it.
This would mean that the installer executable won't be allowed to run, and the entire bulk of install DVDs goes to the trash. Several weeks before the a new bulk is ready and in the stores.

I am not saying that this will happen (it probably won't to that extent), but you see that it is not at all without possible problems.