Could Windows 10 be free?

bekdik said:
If you don't like the start menu, then, in 8.1 & 10, you don't have to use it. The start page is available to you. It's YOUR choice.
Click to expand...
I don't see the point of that start page either lol, searching in Windows is so much faster and all your frequently used programs can be pinned to the task bar.
 
Oh yes, Microsoft, that well-known charity that gives away more free stuff than UNICEF.

Dream on, "analysts".
 
bekdik said:
Where do you find 8.1 unstable? What is your platform?
Click to expand...

Didn't make my post clear - sorry. I don't find it unstable at all. It's fine. My observation is that it is just win 8.1 with a few changes. Hopefully more will follow.

I'm running it on an old acer netbook in fact, with 2 Gb or ram and a 1.6 Atom cpu. It runs well!
 
bekdik said:
Sometimes, in order to gain market share, free is a good option. Loss-leaders are a well known tactic.
Click to expand...

Sure, just not a tactic that Microsoft uses. Well in a way they do such as the Xbawx 360, but they never give things away for free.

Their strategy is, and has always been the following:

1. Release a great version of Windows, proving once again why the whole world apart from hipsters use it. Sell it.
2. Promise great new features and/or a complete redesign with the next version.
3. Release the next version, full of bugs and utterly crappy, with many of the promised features missing. Sell that too.
4. Release massive [-]bugfix[/-] Service Pack that doesn't change much.
4. When everyone is pissed off enough about the crappy version, unexpectedly announce a brand new version that is basically what the previous one should have been.
5. Sell that one for even more money.
6. Profit!!

It's the circle of ****tyness.

95 - Great
98 - ****ty
89SE - Great, what 98 should have been.
ME - Utter plague on this planet and a possible crime against humanity.
XP - Great, what ME should have been.
Vista - Super **** and super slow redesign.
7 - Almost perfect, what Vista should have been.
8 - Retarded Metro interface and optimised for touch screens, which nobody has.


etc.

So 10 will be what 8 should have been all along, and will be more expensive.
 
TJ99 said:
Sure, just not a tactic that Microsoft uses. Well in a way they do such as the Xbawx 360, but they never give things away for free.

Their strategy is, and has always been the following:

1. Release a great version of Windows, proving once again why the whole world apart from hipsters use it. Sell it.
2. Promise great new features and/or a complete redesign with the next version.
3. Release the next version, full of bugs and utterly crappy, with many of the promised features missing. Sell that too.
4. Release massive [-]bugfix[/-] Service Pack that doesn't change much.
4. When everyone is pissed off enough about the crappy version, unexpectedly announce a brand new version that is basically what the previous one should have been.
5. Sell that one for even more money.
6. Profit!!

It's the circle of ****tyness.

95 - Great
98 - ****ty
89SE - Great, what 98 should have been.
ME - Utter plague on this planet and a possible crime against humanity.
XP - Great, what ME should have been.
Vista - Super **** and super slow redesign.
7 - Almost perfect, what Vista should have been.
8 - Retarded Metro interface and optimised for touch screens, which nobody has.


etc.

So 10 will be what 8 should have been all along, and will be more expensive.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with your last point! As for the rest, time will tell, remember management has had some major changes.
 
TJ99 said:
Sure, just not a tactic that Microsoft uses. Well in a way they do such as the Xbawx 360, but they never give things away for free.

Their strategy is, and has always been the following:

1. Release a great version of Windows, proving once again why the whole world apart from hipsters use it. Sell it.
2. Promise great new features and/or a complete redesign with the next version.
3. Release the next version, full of bugs and utterly crappy, with many of the promised features missing. Sell that too.
4. Release massive [-]bugfix[/-] Service Pack that doesn't change much.
4. When everyone is pissed off enough about the crappy version, unexpectedly announce a brand new version that is basically what the previous one should have been.
5. Sell that one for even more money.
6. Profit!!

It's the circle of ****tyness.

95 - Great
98 - ****ty
89SE - Great, what 98 should have been.
ME - Utter plague on this planet and a possible crime against humanity.
XP - Great, what ME should have been.
Vista - Super **** and super slow redesign.
7 - Almost perfect, what Vista should have been.
8 - Retarded Metro interface and optimised for touch screens, which nobody has.


etc.

So 10 will be what 8 should have been all along, and will be more expensive.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with your last point! As for the rest, time will tell, remember management has had some major changes.
 
bekdik said:
Your observation of instability seems to be at odds with every comment I have read, including my own experience.

Please can you expand on your comment?
Click to expand...

Did a clean install on a Toshiba Satellite i3 laptop.

Small delays before apps/programs open, menu is there, then it's gone + all apps I've put inside it.

Just doesn't feel like a solid computing experience, which is to be expected from pre-release software.

Not sold on the metro apps now lurking in the new start menu, feels like Microsoft is just looking for a place to hide it.
 
I've just noticed that 'Previous Versions' is back in win 10. Win 7 had it - great feature - then 8 took it away and replaced it with 'File History' which relied on an external location. Good to see it back: it's saved my ass a few times.
 
I don't think it'll be free. I think it'll be a license that is cheaper, with the media largely downloadable from Microsoft, tied into a Microsoft account that you can attach all your other services to.

The writing on the wall is there already. They've been thinking about this for months now.
 
It won't be free.

Apple sell the hardware and software to you, whereas Microsoft only sell the software to you.

Apple cripple their hardware with new software on a regular basis (as well as their iphones), forcing their users to have to constantly upgrade.

Microsoft did the opposite - Windows 8 runs on pretty much anything, my home computer is a Intel Celeron NUC 2820 and it runs Windows 8.1 like a champ.

So yes, Microsoft need to charge bucks for a new OS.
 
I think Microsoft is going to do what Adobe is doing with Creative Cloud.

Subscription based OS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X