Moved to Forum: Original Link
Downloadable update for xp, vista and 7 users will cost only $40. DVD version will cost $70. Good thing I didn't buy the technet subscription.
Windows 8 Upgrade to Cost Only $14.99
scupper on 03/07/2012 - 14:02
Related Stores
Comments
Good price, but I will be getting 5 free copies of the Pro version with my MSDNAA account that I got from uni.
lol why the neg? hatin' that I'm getting it for free?
Haters gotta hate.
Haters gotta hate, redux.
Hatters gotta Hat.
Me too! I am not going to get 5, 1 free copy is enough. I already got a Windows 7 Professional license for my new rig.
Why "will be"? Can't you get Windows 8 Pro now on MSDNAA (or is it only premium)?
The price is much higher than that — have you seen the new interface :-(
…and how to avoid it?
Wow, changing an OS seems to be a life-altering and incredibly stressful event. Things change.
I'm often puzzled at how Apple makes changes to its environment without consulting anyone, and those changes are just accepted. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a much bigger market to deal with and much higher expectations.
(Of course, there are alternatives).
My take is that Apple are a lot more incremental. MS have a pattern of making large changes, then following up shortly after with a new improved version having changed almost nothing. The first version just gets people used to the concepts, and the second is accepted.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Apple eases in smaller changes year after year while Microsoft goes for the complete overhaul every 4 or 5 years which can leave people very confused.
No good, they'd have to pay me much more than that to use metro.
this kinda of low pricing means they dont have confidence in the product
win7 has always been priced high because they know people want it
with the Win7 phone, surface and Win RT debacles, Microsoft are on the back foot
Windows 7 had the same promotion when it came out, it was available for around $50.
They are more interested in getting people off XP because the new development tools only support Vista and up, Apple offers cheap upgrades, and they want people to create demand for apps in the Windows Store.
It's okay though, I'm sure you're actually an economist and not another guy living in Fantasy land.
no it didn't
it was postage cost on the price of new hardware
i'm sure Win8 will win out now that you've 'schooled' everyone lol
That deal was only for postage for anyone who bought a Windows Vista or XP computer or laptop between a certain period of time.
Wrong, and this one is also for a limited time.
Just install "Classic Start Menu" and it is mostly like using Windows 7. Also have to change file associations so regular file types open in classic programs and not the new apps.
I have been running Win8 consumer preview as my main OS for the past few months - have come to like it. The new file copy interface is good - although nice if they had an option to enable copy queue rather than concurrent file copies to the same device (eg USB drives).
Haven't tried Win8 copy but Teracopy has been my copy replacement of choice for all previous versions, the site says it supports Win8. http://codesector.com/teracopy
Same, got sick of waiting for ms to fix this ridiculousness…
Or SuperCopier. I actually found SuperCopier better to use after using Teracopy for a long time. Been using the 2.2 'beta' for ages, never had any problems with it.
Thanks for the tip systmworks. Are you talking about the "classic start menu" that costs $20? Have you any feedback on "Classic Shell", the open source product?
I have tried Windows 8 and IMHO it really, really, really sucks. I've never seen a mainstream OS so difficult to use with a mouse and keyboard (and that includes Redhat back in the 90s). For example, getting out of the desktop is very confusing - as is finding the settings screen. I keep on moving the mouse to one of the four corners of the screen to access the required menu. My head aches everytime I use this OS (note: I've used more OSs over the years than most people - so this is saying something).
I've used classic shell a lot on Windows 7 and I am very happy with it. Fixes the menu that doesn't fold out and provides a up button in explorer.
I used "Classic Shell" on Windows 8 and noticed a marked decrease in performance, I think they've replaced what use to be there with something else (Windows loads like 30 seconds faster now) but with Classic Shell installed it has to load both and that KILLS it. The new interface isn't that bad, I really like it after I dunno 4 months of hating it. Just remember Windows Key + X to get to administration and check that box during program installs to get icons to the desktop. I haven't had to open Metro for over 2 weeks and I love that my system is faster. Metro is only for people like apple consumers who love design over functionality (which unfortunately is growing), new keyboard shortcuts are for administrators and for people in-between, well they fall in the cracks unfortunately. Oh also remember alt + f4 from the desktop to shutdown or log out, also a time saver. I always use Windows key + L at TAFE to lock my computer as well.
I'm not a fan of metro but the increase in speed in my deficient win7 netbook is enough to convince me that the underlying improvements are worth it.
Mr MS ….Can i keep my old Vista key to use on another PC?
Maybe try asking someone at microsoft , ie the Mr MS
You can use your key, for vista only. If you want something else then you need to buy it.
If it is an OEM key then no you can't. You'll know it's an OEM key because the operating system came on your computer. You could use it on another computer under the condition you transfer your motherboard to it though… if you want to download an imaging software program like Acronis or EASEUS and save your disk image file and then you could play it on your PC using VMware Player or VirtualBox and remotely access it from other computers? I dunno all seem like bad ideas but I'm just trying to be helpful within the law.
Hmm, tempting to upgrade to Win8 now from XP. $100 for Win7 ? Screw that… Win8 is the future.
You're clueless.
Win8 looks like a hunk of crap that most probably more people will skip than they did with Vista.
The UI is ridiculous, doesn't even have a desktop, task bar, windows, CMD prompt, no native DVD playback (need 3rd party apps or Media Center edition), features over-priced "apps" from the Windows Store (no homebrew/custom apps) to add functionality that should have been integrated by default (basically DLCs for an OS).
It's optimized for touch interfaces and smartphones/netbooks and not to mention the SecureBoot DRM crapware.
Win7 will probably be the last fully-fledged "power-user" OS Microshaft ever make.
If you have any brains at all you would NOT be an early-adopter with a Microsoft OS, given their history.
XP doesn't have any native DVD playback. Do Vista/7 (never used them so honest question?). Also Windows 7 doesn't have any native USB 3.0 support (even with SP1!!) - what a joke.
Under the hood, W8 is good. It's fast, responsive and also supports the power management features that new ARM devices will need in the future.
But its a wreck in terms of usability. Also, if you google "Win 8 Disaster", you get this in the top 3 results:Final thoughts on W8 : a design disaster
MS addresses criticisms to W8 Gaming
MarketWatch Slams Windows 8, Calls it Unmitigated Disaster
From my point of view, there is no point spending money on the upgrade UNLESS your device is a touchscreen slate.
Amar probably some sort of fanboy(apple most likely lol).
Windows 8 does not seem that bad at all.
And you probably think can't tell difference between a kernel and popcorn so be quiet kiddo.
I'm using Windows 7 btw which I'll stick to as long as I possibly can. (don't know what gave you the idea I'm anti-Windows but that's not to say MS doesn't have skeletons in it's closet: Windows ME and Vista foremost)
You enjoy Windows Eightista ;)
Change is fine when it's done for the sake of IMPROVEMENT and not for the sake of simply doing something different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hq95vtoS28This touchscreen Windows gamble will be a disaster.
-Double post
"This touchscreen Windows gamble will be a disaster."
You know this how?
and don't post stupid comments about me.
How the hell would you know if I know or don't know what a kernel is. Do you think people will take your arguement more serious because you're using 'big' words son?It's a huge IMPROVEMENT on Vista, as is Windows 7. When it all boils down, nearly anything would be an improvement on Vista, so no need for the rudeness.
What about the $14.99 upgrade? Does anyone have a bit more info regarding this? I've just built a PC and installed Windows 7 and would like to know whether or not I can upgrade through the $14.99 promotion or have to pay the $40 from this offer.
You should be able to - I don't see why not?
it depends when you purchased your Windows 7 license. Check Microsoft for the Ts and Cs to make sure you've purchased Windows 7 within the timeframe required.
Are you confusing per chance the $14.99 Win 8 Pro upgrade (related to lack of Media Centre) per chance?
If so then you will need to fork $40.
Otherwise if you are entitled to an upgrade per you conditions of purchase (I do believe from 1st July) then check t&c.
My question is, price aside, is it really safe to use yet? Vista took ages to get it right.
It takes time for hardware drivers to mature…. so unless you like using bleeding edge software for the heck of it, stick with Windows 7 until W8 becomes mainstream.
There's an old MS adage - Never trust a even number product version….
Dos 2, Dos 4, Win 3.0, win 98, win2000……you have been warned :-P.
DOS 2, DOS 4, DOS 6, Win98, Win2000 <— these are probably the better ones from MSFT (comparing to Win ME, Win Vista)
This doesn't make sense.
1: Are you suggesting that Dos 1 or 3 were better products than 2/4?
2: Dos 6 was quite good (and thus missing).
3: Windows 2 was terrible, 3 was reasonable (particulary 3.1), though I hope you realise 3 is odd not even.
4: Win98 was MILES ahead of Win95.
5: Win2000 is arguably the best OS MS have ever made. 7 is better sure, but for the time 2000 was outstanding.
6: Windows 7 is actually NT 6.1…. depending what numbering system you use.
You'd be more acturate saying that odd numbers are bad.
Win98 was just Win95 with a shell upgrade (which you got for free if you installed IE4.0 anyway) and better USB support. Win95 OSR2 and above were fine, it was just the original Win95 release that was less than perfect. Personally I think XP is the best OS MS ever made - it still has a 50% market share today - what's Windows 2000's market share right now? How do you figure on Win7 being NT 6.1?
Windows 7 has the kernel of NT 6.1 (Build 7601: Service Pack 1), with Vista having Kernel 6.0.
I agree that Windows XP is the best OS Microsoft ever made (for its time), but that time has gone and Windows 7 is much better.
Win98 was just Win95 with a shell upgrade (which you got for free if you installed IE4.0 anyway) and better USB support.
This is not event remotely correct. I've run IE4 under Windows 95, and WIndows 98. Cosmetically they had the same features, but they were NOT the same in any real performance or stability sense.
Personally I think XP is the best OS MS ever made - it still has a 50% market share today what's Windows 2000's market share right now?
Depending on for you look at it, 50%. XP IS Windows 2000 (more so that 95/98). 2000 was originally intended to bridge the server/end user divide, but they come up with ME instead, and kept 2000 as a 'server' OS. Once they worked out that this sucked, 2000 was resold in the end user space as XP. Sure it had a new look and feel, but the OS was the same. It wasn't until XP SP2 that there were any real difference between the two, other than the stupid green colouring. For reference 2000 is NT5.0, XP is NT5.1.
I would disagree on Windows 2000 vs Windows XP. At launch Windows XP might have been similar to Windows 2000 but with its 3 service packs Windows XP had a lot more functionality added, not to mention the added support of video games.
The difference between Windows 2000(SP4) and Windows XP(SP3) is greater than the difference between Vista(SP2) and Windows 7(SP1).
Yes, the only reason they are different now is because XP kep getting updates and 2000 did not. Sure that makes XP better in 2012, but when 2000 come out in Feb 2000 and XP in Aug 2001 with only cosmetic changes, I personally think that makes 2000 the better OS.
Gaming support was the same at first too (see above comment on 2000 no longer getting updates).
No, it might make Windows 2000 the better OS in August 2001 but in 2012 Windows XP is the better of the two and it currently has around 50% of the market share, Windows 2000 does not. However Windows 7 is the better Windows OS still, regardless of market share.
Better being subjective of course.
Also how was Windows 2000 at launch? Was it great? Did it have problems? Of course, plus take a look at the new features Windows XP launched with (quite extensive):
No it doesn't. XP has 27% of the market share.
Your XP fanboyism is tiring.
LOL, nowhere near that low. However, my figures were a little out of date. XP market share is now about 43%:
http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/01/microsoft-windows-market-share…
Which means that Windows 7 and XP are about neck and neck at the moment.
You once again fail.
What the hell source is that? A paragraph from some editor on an unheard-of tech blog referencing some firm called "Net Applications"?
Take it from the horse's mouth (World Wide Web Consortium):
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Win2000 (as opposed to winME of course) is the best OS MS ever made.
Never used Win2000, but XP is the best I've ever used. It has a better GUI than the outdated 2000 (which used Windows 95-style interface), and is still supported to this day, whereas 2000 support ended yonks ago.
they all has the same NOTEPAD :D
anyway, new OS CAN be good, cos they increase the performance at the OS level.
But I do not find much speed improve from 7 to 8 …. Maybe some cos the Aero is off. but the new metro style has too much trasition animation, and opening metro APP is slow cos you see the splash screen and need to wait for the app to load into the memory.
That's why windows 8 needs a lot of RAM than windows 7.That's actually because the OS is still quite new and has a fair few bugs that still need ironing out.
Some of my apps don't even launch — i click the tile and…. nothing happens.
It would probably be a good idea to give Win8 about 6 months to sort itself out. And also to get the user/critics reports at that time.
And then make a decision whether as to go ahead.Thats when they should release it, when its fixed.
All major OSs have patches and/or updates, it is unavoidable.
Thats a no brainer, have you noticed its even more so?
Even more so what?
more updates for example windows 7 needs an update almost everyday, xp required less updating
I got Server 2008 R2 and that requires update about once every 2-3 weeks.
With the Win 7 it probably needs updates for security and its appcs like office, messenger, IE, direct x etc etc.
Note
Windows ME worked great, well for me it did. I think it was better than 98 as I had no problems with it mostly.
Must of been good luck.windows 7 needs an update almost everyday, xp required less updating
That's probably Windows Defender you're thinking about. I get Definition updates for it almost everyday (although you can change it so that it happens only once a week). Windows XP did not have Windows Defender updates.
Operating system security updates occur on Patch Tuesday. They don't occur daily — the exception being other software which are not part of the OS.
What this guy says
But at least those updates aren't major hurdles, just tinkering for the most part.
According to this article from PC World, it will cost $14.99 to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8
http://tinyurl.com/9nkd86qAnd this is a bargain because ?? The "deal"has been around for ages and it's fairly standard. Wouldn't bother with MS crap anyway, it'llno doubt be full of bugs.
.