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

Rick

TS Evangelist
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…

[newwindow="https://www.techspot.com/news/49300-windows-8-preview-users-can-upgrade-to-final-version-for-3999.html"]Read more[/newwindow]
 

lawfer

TechSpot Paladin
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matthew and Rick
G

Guest

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

TS Enthusiast
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
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.
 

Rick

TS Evangelist
+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.
 

Wendig0

TechSpot Paladin
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

TS Booster
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

TS Evangelist
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),
 
G

Guest

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*
 
G

Guest

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.
 
G

Guest

(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.
 
G

Guest

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

TS Enthusiast
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

TS Evangelist
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

TS Evangelist
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

trainee n00b
...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
 
G

Guest

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.
 
G

Guest

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.
 

CryVer

TS Enthusiast
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.