Windows 8 Preview users can upgrade to final version for $39.99

By on July 6, 2012, 6:00 PM

Earlier this week, we mentioned that Microsoft would be coughing up Windows 8 upgrades for the bargain price of $39.99. That's a fine deal, but it looks like Windows 8 Release Preview testers will get the same offer. That's right -- when the time comes, users brave enough to test out Microsoft's freely available Windows 8 RP will be able to upgrade their pre-release installation to the final, upgrade version for a mere $39.99.

This information originated from ComputerWorld but ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley has confirmed it with Microsoft. She also points out that there's no explicit distinction between Home or Professional versions, so upgrades to Home and Pro editions may both be $39.99.

Download the Windows 8 Release Preview:
 32-bit | 64-bit | Upgrade Assistant

"Computerworld got it right. Assuming the customer had a previous version of Windows installed before Release Preview, they’ll be able to upgrade from the Release Preview. They won’t need to reinstall the previous version to do the upgrade; they can just upgrade on top of the Release Preview."

Source: zdnet.com, Microsoft spokesperson

Although we haven't seen an exact release date for Windows 8, there have been plenty of clues it'll be dropping sometime between September and October. Rumors of the gold/RTM version -- the final product which will be shipped to OEM partners -- suggest that Windows 8 could be finalized this month.

In order to be eligible for the $40 upgrade, users must first install the Windows 8 Release Preview. When retail copies of Windows 8 hit the shelves, RP testers will be able to use the Windows.com upgrade tool to "upgrade" their system to Windows 8 RTM.

It's important to note that the term "upgrade" isn't necessarily a precise description of what to expect. When users upgrade their RP to RTM, their system settings will not be saved. However, the upgrade tool will retain personal files (e.g. "Documents" and "Desktop") and presumably most application settings (e.g. the "AppData" folder) but Windows itself will be installed from scratch. This essentially sounds like a clean install with the added bonus of user migration and should prove to be acceptable for most people.

The offer is expected to be valid until Jan 31, 2013.




User Comments: 117

Got something to say? Post a comment
Mantrhax Mantrhax said:

If they pay me $40 perhaps

Gars Gars said:

Why?

7 is too good?

...my first thoughts

2 people like this | lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

If they pay me $40 perhaps

Why?

7 is too good?

...my first thoughts

You guys gotta drop it.

Microsoft is doing this because they have to innovate and stay competitive. In reality, the Start Screen is superior to the start button, it only really takes time to get used to it. And this is coming from a (albeit open-minded) power user.

Either way, they way I see it is this: Microsoft will fail or they will succeed. Whichever the outcome, you are not being forced to buy Windows 8 anyway. So complaining and bashing Windows 8 does and means nothing.

This is not so much completely directed to you two, but also to everyone who will most likely post the same thing.

Guest said:

How can the start screen be superior to the start button? the start button takes less time to do stuff plus you use less resources with it seriously think about it.

killeriii said:

So...unless you have an All-In-One touchscreen computer...What's the point of Windows 8?

Why not call it "Windows Touch", or rather than call the hardware "surface", call windows 8 "Microsoft Surface".

Calling it "Windows 8" just pisses a lot of people off, including myself. Seems like half an OS. Or even feels like a bubbly GUI on top of a good OS (kinda like Windows Media Center).

In fact, I bet they could release this as a GUI for Windows 7. But they won't.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

How can the start screen be superior to the start button? the start button takes less time to do stuff plus you use less resources with it seriously think about it.

Your comment is very clear illustration of what 80% people think (but don't really know) about the Start Screen.

How does the Start Screen use more resources? Do you know Windows 8 is overall more efficient than Windows 7? Hell, the kernel has been optimized for ARM; that should tell you something.

As for why it is superior, here's a quote from Matthew, which really summarizes my thoughts towards Metro:

I'm not necessarily for or against Metro (I guess I lean more toward the former because I don't use the Start menu and I think Metro is a valid implementation for touch devices), but saying it hinders multitasking hasn't been my experience.

The Start menu provides a pretty one-dimensional, partially redundant functionality. You can open it and search for programs by typing or access one of the immediate shortcuts that are likely on your taskbar anyway -- at least that's the case for me.

Metro requires the same amount of actions to access and search for programs, so that functionality is unchanged. However, you can configure the Metro screen to host live tiles that are relevant to you. Not only does this provide one-click access to a screen of information you care about (at least in theory), it can quickly supply this information in passing. What I mean is, you open Metro to access your email or search for a program and you're instantly updated on a dozen other things without doing anything extra.

That doesn't sound like it's hindering multitasking. What's more, if you're truly concerned about productivity, you likely have multiple displays that will remain visible while Metro is open. All of my communication-oriented applications are on a secondary display (Steam, Pidgin, Post Box etc.) so it's not like Metro prevents me from seeing a new message. I don't think this would be the case even with a single display, because you're only accessing Metro very briefly on a desktop, not using it as your primary interface.

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

+1 to lawfer on this one.

There will always be trolls and moaners for every version of anything that makes any changes.

Interestingly, Techspot's staff recently discussed this very topic. We had a really hard time coming up with reasons to choose the traditional start menu over the new Metro start screen.

It basically serves the same functions. It simply looks different, has more features, is more customizable and takes up the whole screen. The colors might annoy some people, but there's little not to like about it other than its different.

Haters gonna hate, though.

Alvaro Alvaro said:

Mr. Staff member, your comment doesn't look very professional.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'll probably end up purchasing several Windows 8 licenses for customers, but I don't see myself using it unless I buy a Windows 8 tablet, which is possible. I'm too much of a fan of Windows 7 to want to switch now.

Gars Gars said:

point is taken

just to mark - the business have 10 years to switch from 98SE to XP

Start button exist even before 95 (there was a plugin to replace Program Manager and to give you a clean desktop and icons you need/like for Windows 3.11 for Workgroups)

so, 1995 - 2012 -that is the case - "Start" or what?

im not against innovations or via versa

but at this time the business will stick with 7/XP

for very short time, 7 become a huge player/successor, indeed

maybe its time to go Touch-ing things, instead of scrolling, pointing and clicking

obviously, we r losing the autoexec.bat and config.sys

ps: sorry for the old-timer tings

Puiu Puiu said:

The problem isn't functionality, it's the fact that instead of everything being in a small window you now MUST go into a fullscreen window. (the apps are also all fullscreen ). Searching for something when you want to compare the results with another opened window does not work anymore.

There are also some other annoying things like not being able to see recently opened files for the software you might use (video player, ms office, photoshop, other professional software). I used to open the start menu just to remind me with that files I've worked with.

They also made some things take more steps to get to (one example is the shutdown). I used to press "window" on the keyboard while moving the mouse down to shut down the computer (when I was being too lazy to close some programs so I can use alt+f4). Now you have to go in the settings menu from the charm.

The only reason I'm still using it is because on my laptop it uses a bit less ram and the battery last a few more minutes.I haven't used METRO since I installed windows. I used to use the start menu on win7 since it actually helped while I was working. I don't care about looks.

I do believe that metro is very good for tablets but it's just a BIG lie to say that it's better than the old start menu for desktop users (non-touch users),

Guest said:

It is obvious the fan boys of windows 8 "Touch" and the staff here are drooling over the fantastic new OS so I see no point in coming to this bias one sided "review" site any longer.

*removes url and looks for a better unbiased site*

Guest said:

Desktops are staying with windows 7pro. I'm considering Windows 8 for my Acer Iconia W500. Just gotta take the time to backup the windows 7 on it and install windows 8 to see how I like it as opposed to win7.

2 people like this | Guest said:

(lawfer, Today at 7:43 PM) - TechSpot Paladin

"You guys gotta drop it.

...

This is not so much completely directed to you two, but also to everyone who will most likely post the same thing."

Uggh.

(Rick, Today at 8:00 PM) - TechSpot Staff

+1 to lawfer on this one.

There will always be trolls and moaners for every version of anything that makes any changes.

Interestingly, Techspot's staff recently discussed this very topic. We had a really hard time coming up with reasons to choose the traditional start menu over the new Metro start screen."

-1 to lawfer and -10 to you from TechSpot Staff. I read his as an attempt at stifling opinion pre-emptively about a highly charged controversial subject. I don't know if lawfer 'TechSpot Paladin' is some kind of official capacity but if it is then both of your comments are way out of line. In journalism usually that stuff appears 'above the fold' and is labeled 'Opinion' or 'Editorial', but here in public comments it carries more unprofessional connotations. I don't know what the staff discussion was concerning, but I sure hope it wasn't about turning TechSpot into another NeoWin fanboy central.

"It basically serves the same functions. It simply looks different, has more features, is more customizable and takes up the whole screen. The colors might annoy some people, but there's little not to like about it other than its different."

What? "more customizable", seriously? I don't think that word means what you think it means. I don't even think Sinofsky and his team of destroyers would make that statement with a straight face.

But let's drop this thing about a replacement Start Menu. We all know full well that is NOT what this is about. Microsoft is attempting to construct a privately controlled software space where they are the gatekeepers, they take a Sopranos sized cut on apps that other people write and even control the OFF switch. Nobody would complain if this was merely on their corner of the smartphone market, but they are aiming at every desktop running Windows. It is a naked attempt to leverage their unique position of monopoly and the entire free-wheeling world of x86 software lies in the balance.

"Haters gonna hate, though."

Why would you intentionally try to sound like a 12 year old girl in trying to defend Windows 8? And what would be the inverse, 'Lovers gonna Love'? *ss kissers gonna kiss? People all over the world are angry and trying to save Microsoft from themselves once again, and this you offer as a counterpoint.

Guest said:

I think you'll find that once you can get past the missing start button, which can easily be added if necessary via third parties, you'll become addicted. I hated on Vista, stuck to thumping my XP like a bible. Tried 7 and was not enamored since it gradually grew slow and began to forget my devices etc etc .. I installed the developer preview of 8, moaned and complained for awhile, then became tolerant, and now I love it. All my devices work, 6 months later, it's still fast, and I actually look forward to sitting down at my 8 computer. I have 7 on a dual-boot, but every time I fire it up, there's a new problem so I go back to 8 where I can breathe again. I'm still on developer 8 right now and I know I can't upgrade but I know I'm good until October when I get to do this all over again. But this time, I'm looking forward to it. Glad I got that TechNet subscription.

killeriii said:

Tried 7 and was not enamored since it gradually grew slow and began to forget my devices etc etc ..

Really?

I've not had a single problem I can remember from Windows 7. No driver issues or program issues. And it still seems as fast as the day I installed it, almost 2 years ago now. (although I do run an i7@4ghz w/8GB 1866 ram)

I even migrated my windows 7 install from a 2TB drive to a 128GB SSD using WHS with no issues.

If you don't mind, what were the devices it forgot, and in what way?

gamoniac said:

While I agree with lawfer and Rick on the utility issue of the Start button, I agree with you -- the author's comment seemed inline till the last line: "haters gonna hate".

Generally, you report, we discuss.

nismo91 said:

well I can tell that start screen is mainly aimed for people who aren't much of tech savvy like us here. but there's no need for fuss around. it's a windows, within short period of time there will be tons of customization for us geeks to install and mess around with. I personally am keeping my desktop's windows 7 and laptop's vista. both of them works perfectly now on legit license and I wont shell out another 40$ to make it become an eye-candy.

but 40$ for the latest OS seems like a good move. remember not only us windows user can upgrade. people using intel-based mac may opt for Windows 8 instead of upgrading their osx to lion / snow lion.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

...the author's comment seemed inline till the last line: "haters gonna hate".

Generally, you report, we discuss.

Seemed like a pretty accurate "reporting" afaic. It's always a no win situation putting up an MS story- instant troll-bait (see the substance of the first two posts for some in-depth article dissection). No author involvement in the comments (or worse, actually trying to keep the content relevant- the old "catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar" tactic), and we end up with an yet another OT railing against the OS rather than commenting on the pricing offer. Unfortunately, anyone calling out the trolls then tends to prove that you'll always attract more flies by throwing sh__ at them, rather than offering them honey.

From a system buider PoV, I'd say that the offer sounds very good. If my customers can concentrate on putting their finances into hardware, install a FREE beta, and then fasttrack into a full OS for a nominal fee, then it sounds like a winner. Unless they have existing software that isn't Win8 compatible then it would be fairly hard to ignore...especially as every man+dog tells us that the days of the desktop PC are numbered and the future is mobile. Seems like an ideal opportunity to get to grips with what a future UI is likely to bring.

Seems like a reboot of the Win7 is just a tweaked Vista and XP's good enough for me go-round that people were wailing about before the W7 launch tbh

Guest said:

if metro and/or lack for start button pisses you off, you can use www.google.com to find guide and regedit hacks to restore win7 style(not metro) start button and disable metro interface.

Guest said:

I'm sort of on the fence but lean more towards lawfer's side of the argument. I think it's fairly undebatable that Windows 8 is going to be a compromise for desktop users in order to provide better functionality for tablets, despite Microsoft's assurances that Metro is perfectly suited for all form factors. However, there's nothing wrong with the idea of scrapping the Start Menu and replacing it with something better suited to modern computer-usage in principle, and all the anti-Windows 8 ranting is almost universally just pathetic luddite whining; largely from people who haven't even tried the preview for any length of time.

What I assume will happen though, is that Microsoft will look at the telemetrics and user feedback once Windows 8 is out in the wild and tweak Windows 9 accordingly, and then by that time all the luddite crybabies will be on board and we'll have the same situation as Vista/7, where everyone cries about it being the worst OS ever, how they'll stick with the previous version forever, etc. etc. then once the polished successor comes out they'll be saying how much they love it.

ig-88 said:

Seriously, this website has to post this information as a major news headline? Its basically the same article they posted a few days ago.

[link]

Seems more like propaganda than news reporting but what do I know.

CryVer CryVer said:

If they pay me $40 perhaps

Why?

7 is too good?

...my first thoughts

lawfer said:

You guys gotta drop it.

Microsoft is doing this because they have to innovate and stay competitive. In reality, the Start Screen is superior to the start button, it only really takes time to get used to it. And this is coming from a (albeit open-minded) power user.

Either way, they way I see it is this: Microsoft will fail or they will succeed. Whichever the outcome, you are not being forced to buy Windows 8 anyway. So complaining and bashing Windows 8 does and means nothing.

This is not so much completely directed to you two, but also to everyone who will most likely post the same thing.

For one, the start screen is not superior to the start button. For a power user it is the opposite. I've tried both the consumer preview and the release preview. The start screen is terrible, it covers the whole screen, you have to use the mouse to click on "settings" to search for settings related stuff, and you if you by mistake open a metro app (as you find them both in the same search menu) you end up in the metroworld again.

Also, have you ever played a console ported game on a PC? Simply put, they are terrible, and if you are a skilled player, they are even worse! The same thing seems to be the case with metro. If you are like me, that likes to have several windows open at the same time, or even place them side by side (windows explorer as an example). At times when I use Chrome or Firefox I have several windows open and several tabs in each of them. In metro that would be "somewhat" problematic.

The fact that poweruser and normal users complain is the only way Microsoft can take to their senses and understand that metro is great for tablets and phones, but certainly not desktops and workstations.

CryVer CryVer said:

if metro and/or lack for start button pisses you off, you can use www.google.com to find guide and regedit hacks to restore win7 style(not metro) start button and disable metro interface.

Yes, but I am afraid Microsoft is arrogant enough to block it:

[link]

Dark times we are headed too... ^^

ig-88 said:

if metro and/or lack for start button pisses you off, you can use www.google.com to find guide and regedit hacks to restore win7 style(not metro) start button and disable metro interface.

You forgot the option of bypassing 'Windows 8' all together. What the hell is the point of installing a new operating system if one's main goal is to make it "look" and "behave" like the OS that is already installed?

Here's my question: If someone is content/happy with Windows 7, why should they upgrade to Windows 8, "other than", its shiny and new, like a virgin(but not)?

1 person liked this | Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

@lawfer & Rick

Its been years since I've stopped using 'start' button, it is just a relic from the ancient times at bottom of my notebook/pc screen, so I can see where you are going. TBH having tried W8x64 preview releases, I am pretty certain of one thing, it is damn fast to find and launch a program in W8 compared to windows 7, so for me, change of UI doesn't present any 'learning challenge' and I may well a) switch to W8, b) buy my first ever tablet I.e. Surface

ig-88 said:

@lawfer & Rick

Its been years since I've stopped using 'start' button, it is just a relic from the ancient times at bottom of my notebook/pc screen, so I can see where you are going. TBH having tried W8x64 preview releases, I am pretty certain of one thing, it is damn fast to find an launch a program in W8 compared to windows 7, so for me, change of UI doesn't present any 'learning challenge' and I may well a) switch to W8, b) buy my first ever tablet I.e. Surface

Your kidding right? Your telling everybody who reads this thread that the overriding reason you "may" switch to Windows 8 is because it's faster to launch a program in Windows 8 than when compared to Windows 7? How long exactly does it take you to double-click a shortcut on a Windows 7 desktop??? How much memory does your current computer have...how many services are you running at startup?? What speed is your hard disk? What CPU you are running?? How much faster is it? Does launching an app in 500 milliseconds versus 600 milliseconds really have that big an impact on your life? Are these posts for real or has Microsoft realized what deep trouble its in thereby having their own employees go make posts on websites like this? This post is hilarious.

And on another note, yeah, lets just rip anything out of the Operating System that isn't used on a daily basis by at least 99% of users on Windows based PCs. Because if it isn't used on a daily basis, who needs it. To hell with it. RIP IT OUT!!!!!!!

Hell, in fact, as long as I can watch YouTube videos and download my MP3s that's all the functionality I need in 'Windows 8'. RIP EVERYTHING ELSE OUT!!!. That way the Operating System will boot 2 seconds faster so it's a win-win for everybody!!!

Your gonna have to start ripping out more than just a 'Start' button.

"ThatGuy" said:

if metro and/or lack for start button pisses you off, you can use www.google.com to find guide and regedit hacks to restore win7 style(not metro) start button and disable metro interface.

You forgot the option of bypassing 'Windows 8' all together. What the hell is the point of installing a new operating system if one's main goal is to make it "look" and "behave" like the OS that is already installed?

Here's my question: If someone is content/happy with Windows 7, why should they upgrade to Windows 8, "other than", its shiny and new, like a virgin(but not)?

Because it's faster. They have managed to cut out a huge chunk of processes making the OS faster and more efficient.

ig-88 said:

Response to "ThatGuy":

You can't be serious right...Did you ever think of maybe upgrading your CPU, or your memory, or you hard disk(maybe get an SSD), or you graphics card, or your motherboard, or your monitor, defragging the hard disk, trimming down the startup programs and running services, if all you wanted was a faster OS?

I am assuming that you are using 'Windows 7' now and its not fast enough for you, am I right? Maybe you are okay with Windows 7 booting up in less than 3 minutes but, DAMMIT Already!!!, a 2 1/2 minute bootup time is what life is all about. And all that's required to get there is installing an operating system that was built with a cellphone/tablet interface in mind. Well hell yeah. Where do I sign? Show me the dotted line. Im sold!!!!

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

once Windows 8 is out in the wild and tweak Windows 9 accordingly

I don't think it will take that long unless they are just intentionally stubborn. Whatever is wrong will get fixed in SP1.

Guest said:

to the guy saying to say nothing about windows 8. If people don't voice their concerns over something then how in the world would Microsoft know about it? They will say "ah no one's saying anything about it so it's all good" you do not have the right to ask people to shut up. That's just like how Microsoft in a couple of years forcing everyone to upgrade to windows 8 just cus they think it's a good move. I'm sure there will be some attempt to do something like that in the future. such as cutting off updates and security patches. It will be a sad day indeed if people shut up about it

"ThatGuy" said:

You're wrong. It isn't faster, they haven't cut out any "chunk of processes" - where do you get this garbage? Your employer perchance?

Wow so aggressive, did mummy take away your favourite toy? go look at speed tests and compare the lists of processes running in win 8 and win 7 oh and whilst your at it go compare it to xp, that is if you know how to do that seeing as from your writing you seem about 8. Here's a speed test for you - [link] it's the first one I found because quite honestly I'm not wasting more time on you after that immature response (and yes I know my response here was immature but its 2 am and he/she gets what he dished out).

Response to "ThatGuy":

You can't be serious right...Did you ever think of maybe upgrading your CPU, or your memory, or you hard disk(maybe get an SSD), or you graphics card, or your motherboard, or your monitor, defragging the hard disk, trimming down the startup programs and running services, if all you wanted was a faster OS?

I am assuming that you are using 'Windows 7' now and its not fast enough for you, am I right? Maybe you are okay with Windows 7 booting up in less than 3 minutes but, DAMMIT Already!!!, a 2 1/2 minute bootup time is what life is all about. And all that's required to get there is installing an operating system that was built with a cellphone/tablet interface in mind. Well hell yeah. Where do I sign? Show me the dotted line. Im sold!!!!

Hem bringing hardware into a debate that's purely focused on the OS what a great argument there. Of course those things make a bigger difference however this debate is focused on the merits of Win 8 compared to Win 7 where the difference in speed and RAM requirements happen to be some of those merits discussed. I'm sure you are capable of spending the two seconds needed to download a great 3rd party start menu. Windows 8 was not built with a cellphone/tablet in mind, otherwise there wouldn't be a special tablet version. The metro interface is great, it takes some getting used to but I personally find it useful and I basically never touched my start menu for anything other then search and the vast majority of people in the world probably use the start menu a similarly small amount or Microsoft would not do this ( they do undertake market research you know). Heck most people just pin the programs to either the taskbar or the desktop and when they need them press show desktop and select the needed program from the tiles there (kind of similar to metro)? Just because it does not suit you is no need to call it crap when a lot of people will find it great.

Puiu Puiu said:

With windows 7 users didn't need to wait for the service pack to upgrade, but I'm afraid that many will wait for the service pack for windows 8. I'm still hoping they will manage to make the start screen NOT ALWAYS FULLSCREEN. If they gave users the option to change between fullscreen and a window then 75% of the people that are complaining now would have loved the new OS.

I know they that need to force us to use metro so that developers actually have a user base to tap into, but I just don't like it.

I'm using the Start8 application so that I can have a start button and I also made a custom toolbar with my most used programs for quicker access.

Roadrunner0 Roadrunner0 said:

So whats the big deal about a touch screen GUI its the kernel that matters, everything else is just fluff.. You can set up an APP in Windows 7 to do the same touch screen thing.. You can also make your screen emulate Windows 7 in Windows 8.. Says it will let you go from XP x 32 to Windows 8 x 64 for $40 BUCKS !!! I say COOL BEANS !!! Seems to slightly out perform 7 and use slightly less system resources.. Had a 3 ghz 64 bit work station running 32 bit Windows 7 and slapped this on it in the 64 bit flavor.. Big boost to be sure................

Guest said:

I tried Win8RP and the debate of better or worse is a mute point in my book. The real problem I saw was PRIVACY issues during the install. Tell me why I should have to give MS two e-mail addresses and phone numbers to install an OS that will then track and report to MS everything I do on my system up to and including key logging. Yes some of these can be opted out of but some can't and those that can will be turned back on the first time the OS updates.

The majority of users will get this OS preinstalled on a new system and won't have a clue that they have just given their soul to MS and even less of a clue as to how to stop it.

I am very surprised more people have not complained about this issue.

Dark times indeed.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

The thing that bothers me the most about the Metro UI, is the back and forth between it and the classic desktop, which makes the Metro UI seem like a 3rd party add on.

ie: if you want to view the task manager, it needs to open in the classic desktop to view it.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Well, I finally got a copy installed. I put the DVD into the drive, set the install drive and let it go, did the whole thing by itself without any additional prompting from me.

So far I'm not super impressed out of the box. Still tinkering with it, probably going to check out a few web sites now to see some tips and tricks. But the whole first impression thing is not that great. With Vista and 7 I liked what I saw from the start. Seemed like an improvement over the old, this, not so much.

I can see it scaring off older users who don't like too many changes. But have to admit, pretty much did everything by itself as far as installation is concerned. Once I get the system customized a bit more, I'll see how useful it is compared to before. I did not install it on my main system but my backup one, which I pretty much use for downloading, burning and multimedia.

TekGun TekGun said:

I think it's a really nice offer, install the RP get full OS for $40, It will come in handy for a HTPC build I have planned.

1 person liked this | dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

For one, the start screen is not superior to the start button. For a power user it is the opposite.

This would be the "power user" that put up consecutive posts because they couldn't work out how to use the "Edit" button?

TekGun TekGun said:

I take it you don't like win8 then...

I'm just glad MS is not listening to anyone and just doing what they want. I'm also glad they are trying something different, that's how progress is made.

ig-88 said:

I take it you don't like win8 then...

I'm just glad MS is not listening to anyone and just doing what they want. I'm also glad they are trying something different, that's how progress is made.

Oh, I am glad too. Because that's exactly the kind of philosophy you wanna put into practice when your a company trying to sell a product to the public. Don't listen to the people buying your product. Piss on them. I couldn't agree with some of you guys more. These Windows 8 haters. They can all kiss my ass!

Hell, as long its "different" and something "new" I'll buy it. Even if it's a polished turd. Hey its new, right?

Guest said:

that's badass and really cheap.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

There are so many holes with all of your arguments, it would simply take me hours to prove you all wrong, and quite frankly, you are not all worth my time...

They way I see it is this: there IS a learning curve to the Start Screen. I disliked it for the better part of a week. But now I "get it." It's a generational shift, and a abrupt one at that, but it works better.

The only real issue I have so far with Windows 8, is the multitasking with the mouse. Hot Corners for multitasking? Retarded idea.

Start Screen? Abrupt, but necessary. (Analysts predict tablets and ultrabook/tablet hybrids will overtake desktop PCs by the end of 2013.)

Don't like it? Fine with me. There are many both telemetric and mathematical data used for many of the decisions surrounding the changes. Most of you, on the other hand, seem to generalize the future reception of Windows 8 by contrasting it with your own experiences. That is moronic. Windows powers 1.3 billion computers; that's a little over 20% of the world's 7+ billion population. Thinking that what you think, what your friends think, or what your friends' friends think is indicative of the overall reaction is shortsighted at best.

Just understand that--gasp--there ARE power users who can embrace the change. It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. I am personally a critic of everything, even of the things I own. Understand their pros and cons and I make an educated decision. If you happen not to be able to see value in Windows 8, that's fine, just please keep it to yourself. Having an opinion is fine, but complaining for the sake of complaining achieves nothing, and like it or not one thing for sure is going to happen:

Windows 8 will be released. And it turns out you are not being forced to buy it.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Oh, I am glad too...

As has been ably demonstrated in the thread, the reasons for buying/not buying W8 are many and varied. A lot depends on the circumstance of the individual user. A couple of points to consider:

1. The overwhelming bulk of W8 licenses will be purchased by OEM's, and as such, W8's viability largely rests in their hands. Good sales = yes, Bad sales = no. Same as it ever was. The vast number of their customer base wouldn't know a tech forum if it appeared as a pop-up during their hourly fix of facebook.

2. Of the very small number of DIY retail/oem licenses that remain, a large percentage will be already have a view one way or the other (possibly swayed by pricing and hw/sw compatibility). Now, do you think that a frothing at the mouth diatribe littered with excessive use of capslock, question marks, exclamation marks, and suspect grammar is going to sway even the smallest of viewers to jettison W8?

Guest said:

When an OS has two desktops you know there's a problem.....

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Indeed DBZ, there is also another dimension which many of these 'power users' seems never to have done, I.e. use a DOS computer, which I did for many years, hence, the habit of not relying on 'start' or many other menus. By the way I 'suspect' DOS was designed to 'test' memory + typing skills of users as well

ig-88 said:

As has been ably demonstrated in the thread, the reasons for buying/not buying W8 are many and varied. A lot depends on the circumstance of the individual user. A couple of points to consider:

1. The overwhelming bulk of W8 licenses will be purchased by OEM's, and as such, W8's viability largely rests in their hands. Good sales = yes, Bad sales = no. Same as it ever was. The vast number of their customer base wouldn't know a tech forum if it appeared as a pop-up during their hourly fix of facebook.

2. Of the very small number of DIY retail/oem licenses that remain, a large percentage will be already have a view one way or the other (possibly swayed by pricing and hw/sw compatibility). Now, do you think that a frothing at the mouth diatribe littered with excessive use of capslock, question marks, exclamation marks, and suspect grammar is going to sway even the smallest of viewers to jettison W8?

Attacking my grammar is your defense for 'Windows 8'? LOL. With friends like you, Microsoft probably doesn't even need any enemies.All I ever did was respond to some of the more ridiculous statements about 'Windows 8'.

Ridiculous Statement #1 - "Windows 8 is by far the best and most stable OS I've used." - Okay, compared to what? If Windows 7 Ultimate has ever crashed on me I can't remember it.

Ridiculous Statement #2 - " I am pretty certain of one thing, it is damn fast to find an launch a program in W8 compared to windows 7" - Really? How much faster is it to click a tile versus clicking a shortcut on the desktop? Measured in milliseconds Im sure.

Ridiculous Statement #3 - "Windows 8 was not built with a cellphone/tablet in mind, otherwise there wouldn't be a special tablet version." - One of my personal favorites, btw.

I don't mind it that there are people out there that like shiny and new. I don't mind it that some peoples lives are so boring they have nothing better to look forward to than the installation of a "new" and "different" operating system. Just come out and say that. "I want Windows 8 because its new and different". Stop making ridiculous statements that are clearly lies, or technically correct but in practice just plain silly.

I do have one good thing to say about 'Windows 8' and I will swallow my pride and say it. The one thing I love about 'Windows 8' is that there is no government mandate that will force me to buy this piece of shit software. Thanks to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for allowing me to choose my own operating system, at least for the time being!

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

It's not clear to me how Microsoft will test that the computer had another Windows installation before the Win 8 preview was installed. Because from the response that's still a condition, having had an older OS installed.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Attacking my grammar is your defense for 'Windows 8'? LOL.

Nope. Attacking your grammar is just for the lulz. BTW, if you think my post is "defence" of Win8 then Comprehension...you're doing it wrong.

All I ever did was respond to some of the more ridiculous statements about 'Windows 8'

So I see;

Piss on them....They can all kiss my ***!...Even if it's a polished turd.

You'll see their "ridiculous statements" and raise them "unresolved issues".

Ridiculous Statement #1 - "Windows 8 is by far the best and most stable OS I've used."

That should read "Ridiculous made up quote that doesn't appear anywhere except in ig-88's post...and then goes off on a tangent attempting to argue that made-up quote".

Ridiculous Statement #2 [snip] Really? How much faster is it to click a tile versus clicking a shortcut on the desktop? Measured in milliseconds Im sure.

Hey, faster is faster. Can't see the downside there. You're arguing about milliseconds. -BTW, quite a number of apps I'm running are a hell of lot faster/faster loading than a few milliseconds (dual boot Win7 x64 Pro / Win8 x64 -both clean installs). Crysis 2 loading is a good 5-6 seconds faster with W8.

As for the third statement...who cares if the OS was built for desktop, tablet, cellphone or etch-a-sketch? So long as it works in the way that users want it to -and from my (and more than a few others) viewpoint it does just that. Is it a worthwhile upgrade for W7 -probably not. Is it worth adding to a new build, I really don't see why not. It took me a whole hour to get conversant with the UI, personalize it and make sure the keyboard shortcuts did what they should...imagine what a "power user" could achieve!

The one thing I love about 'Windows 8' is that there is no government mandate that will force me to buy this piece of **** software.

Another scatological reference. Quite the orator.

____________________________________________________________

It's not clear to me how Microsoft will test that the computer had another Windows installation before the Win 8 preview was installed. Because from the response that's still a condition, having had an older OS installed.

I'm not entirely sure MS can determine what (if any) previous copy of Windows a user had- unless users are expected to furnish MS with their previous serial. I could see a run on some seriously outdated OS's in the resell market if that is the criteria.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Will you guys quit it?

ig-88, my understanding is that your only problem with Windows 8 is Metro. Since that's a design issue and not a technical problem, you need to acknowledge that it may not be a problem for others, or that some people might actually like it.

Technically Windows 8 has some underlying improvements to Windows 7. They may not be huge enough improvements to convince someone who hates Metro, but for those who don't mind it they're a decent enough reason to upgrade, especially at this price.

By the way this isn't any different from upgrading from Vista to 7. There isn't a huge reason to move from Vista, which is a stable OS and runs well given enough RAM, which is why I stuck with it even though I had a Windows 7 license since it was released (reinstallation is a hassle, though I'll do it soon now that I got my SSD). Still lots of people felt that the technical improvements in 7 were worth the upgrade.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.