Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 8.1 Upgrade Will Cost £75 in the UK

Last response: in News comments
Share
September 21, 2013 12:27:57 AM

It is no wonder average people do not understand windows 8, the way the title for this article is worded is really misleading. 8.1 is only an update if you already have Win 8 installed! It is not an update for windows 7, it is a different operating system.

The "update" is free. A new operating system is not.
Just like it has been for the last 10 years....
Score
15
September 21, 2013 12:40:16 AM

"Of course, if you already have Windows 8 on your computer, you can upgrade for free, just like in the States. If you're looking to go from Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 Pro, you'll have to pay a £62 upgrade cost"

So which one is it? Free or 62 pounds? Also .. has anyone actually seen retail copies of 8? Besides the OEM ones i mean.
Score
1
Related resources
September 21, 2013 12:57:53 AM

Just for reference, Apple's Mountain Lion costs only 20 dollars for the full version and Linux which is far more secure and hackable (and which I use) is free.

I think microsoft is going ridiculous for the pricing.
Score
0
September 21, 2013 1:24:00 AM

SpadeM

I'm assuming they mean you have to pay something to go from regular to pro; not from 8.0 to 8.1
Score
0
September 21, 2013 2:14:39 AM

Windows 7 users have to pay for Windows 8.1, but they also don't need it since they already have a functioning start menu :p 
Score
15
September 21, 2013 2:32:08 AM

... the words UPDATE and UPGRADE should sue Microsoft for using it in context of Windows 8 and Windows 8.1... good chances for winning, because the word METRO haz already won...
Score
0
September 21, 2013 2:56:26 AM

I am an IT consultant and have many Corporate Customers who have told me they just cannot afford the huge cost of upgrading their Windows XP which still works just fine to Windows 7 or 8

So I found a perfect solution for them before Windows XP expires. It is a new commercially available Linux operating system that runs all Windows applications and programs sandboxed inside Linux, making XP and also Windows 7 100% immune to all viruses and malware, requiring no future security updates or any anti virus anti malware software. They do this by saving all windows data to drive e which is the Linux partition and they have a one click Windows VM restore so it impossible to get a virus or malware.

It is so economical and bulletproof that I have already successfully deployed hundreds of these installs in the last 3months alone.

This 3D operating system called Robolinux installs an XP 32 or 64 bit VM in just one click Then you load your licensed XP disk into the VM, but that was easy for my Customers to do.

Check out Robolinux if you cannot afford to upgrade to 7 or you hate Windows 8.
Score
1
September 21, 2013 3:09:42 AM

This is a very poorly written article
Score
2
September 21, 2013 3:38:50 AM

Sangeet, the pricing is comparative if not less in real terms to every other Windows release ever, what is ridiculous is how a cheaper and a free OS have fared so terribly considering how vocal their tiny number of users are about how supposedly superior it is. Linux can take its 0.86% of the desktop market and whistle, if it was going to be successful as a free product it would have done it by now.
Score
-4
September 21, 2013 4:54:40 AM

back_by_demand

Vendor lock-in is very tough to break. People keep buying Windows software because they have a Windows OS and they keep buying a Windows OS because they have Windows software. It's a vicious cycle.
Score
2
September 21, 2013 5:30:01 AM

is this article made only to confuse people?
it seems pointless and miss leading at best.
Score
3
September 21, 2013 5:35:12 AM

back_by_demand said:
Sangeet, the pricing is comparative if not less in real terms to every other Windows release ever, what is ridiculous is how a cheaper and a free OS have fared so terribly considering how vocal their tiny number of users are about how supposedly superior it is. Linux can take its 0.86% of the desktop market and whistle, if it was going to be successful as a free product it would have done it by now.


What would you do of market share. It has every category of apps you need (not including games), most of them for free.

As for games, there are already 190+ games on steam, I know it lacks the high budget AAA titles, but Metro Last Light is coming to linux. Also crytek is working to bring it's gaming engine to Linux. Also Valve is working hard and already thinks that Linux is the future of gaming.

Also for home users, they do not need more than what Linux offers. For corporate users, maybe.. they need Windows, but for an average computer that just has to browse the Internet and watch Video and listen to music spending so much on a OS is not suited.

There are many other things in Linux which windows lacks, but that is completely another thing.

Also Linux runs like a beast on older hardware wheras Windows does not.

Also Linux never catches viruses.

.
.
.
.
.
.

And a hell lot more things, but let it be, most guys are very blind to understand that.
Score
0
September 21, 2013 5:35:43 AM

back_by_demand said:
Sangeet, the pricing is comparative if not less in real terms to every other Windows release ever, what is ridiculous is how a cheaper and a free OS have fared so terribly considering how vocal their tiny number of users are about how supposedly superior it is. Linux can take its 0.86% of the desktop market and whistle, if it was going to be successful as a free product it would have done it by now.


You're not taking into account that:

1. Linux has a reputation of being difficult to use.
2. Windows come pre-installed on the majority of PCs.
3. People will take the path of least resistance.

That said, I do use Windows 7, mainly because I'm a gamer but also because of points 2 and 3 (lets face it, like most people I am lazy)
Score
1
September 21, 2013 5:42:36 AM

@Fredrik Aldhagen

I don't care what others think, but being a software and hardware geek myself. I love to run Linux and nowadays.

1. It is not at all difficult to use. Use Linux Mint, the easiest OS on the planet, really. It is very easy. Also no one knew Windows from birth, they eventually learnt to use it.

2. Yeah, my laptop that I am typing in also came with Windows, but I chose Linux instead. Ubuntu 12.04 to be specific.

3. Well, what kind of resistance btw?
Score
0
September 21, 2013 6:56:11 AM

back_by_demand said:
Linux can take its 0.86% of the desktop market and whistle, if it was going to be successful as a free product it would have done it by now.

Until recently, the concept of non-Windows OS on the desktop was still alien to most people but with smartphones, tablets and hybrids running non-Windows OSes all over the place for the last couple of years, the concept does not sound as foreign anymore.

Things should get more interesting in 3-5 years from now when mobile OSes catch up on desktop features and mobile hardware gets closer to desktop performance.
Score
0
September 21, 2013 7:00:04 AM

Indignant skeptic, as far as vendor lock-in goes, how does Windows compare against OSX, or iOS? With Windows I can buy and install software from anyone I want, hell I can even play all the content I have bought through iTunes, even run Android apps with various emulators and umpteen other formats like old Amiga games. They have enabled the most inclusive software environment. Right from the get-go Apple has been a walled garden and people do nothing but sing their praises, but when MS decides to have its own App store - not instead of, but as well as - they get universal hatred. You are perpetuating the double standard. So what about Linux, people have harped on for years about how it can totally replace Windows, but seriously it can't, people have moved away from Windows in DTP companies because Apple don't just give an OS, but a complete software environment. When Linux stops harping on about the OS and gives software to go with it then people might take note, until then Linux on desktop is never going to amount to more than a garage hobby.
Score
-2
September 21, 2013 7:52:08 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:
@Fredrik Aldhagen

I don't care what others think, but being a software and hardware geek myself. I love to run Linux and nowadays.

1. It is not at all difficult to use. Use Linux Mint, the easiest OS on the planet, really. It is very easy. Also no one knew Windows from birth, they eventually learnt to use it.

2. Yeah, my laptop that I am typing in also came with Windows, but I chose Linux instead. Ubuntu 12.04 to be specific.

3. Well, what kind of resistance btw?


My comment was in response to Linux having a low adoption rate on desktop.

I wasn't saying Linux was hard to use, I was saying it has a reputation of being hard to use. It's like saying Windows BSOD all the time, may have been true once upon a time, but it's not the case anymore

I've installed Linux Mint with Xfce on an old laptop. I find it a great operating system and it runs much smoother than Windows did on it. In fact, I installed it for a person who is new to computers. I don't think Linux as opposed to Windows would make a difference for him, except for him being much less likely to get malware on Linux. My main PC runs Windows 7 because that's what my games run on. I say again though, I find Linux Mint to be a great operating system.

As to point 3, we still have people using Internet Explorer, and installing a new web browser is way simpler than installing and configuring a new OS.
Score
2
September 21, 2013 8:13:25 AM

Fredrik Aldhagen said:
Sangeet Khatri said:
@Fredrik Aldhagen

I don't care what others think, but being a software and hardware geek myself. I love to run Linux and nowadays.

1. It is not at all difficult to use. Use Linux Mint, the easiest OS on the planet, really. It is very easy. Also no one knew Windows from birth, they eventually learnt to use it.

2. Yeah, my laptop that I am typing in also came with Windows, but I chose Linux instead. Ubuntu 12.04 to be specific.

3. Well, what kind of resistance btw?


My comment was in response to Linux having a low adoption rate on desktop.

I wasn't saying Linux was hard to use, I was saying it has a reputation of being hard to use. It's like saying Windows BSOD all the time, may have been true once upon a time, but it's not the case anymore

I've installed Linux Mint with Xfce on an old laptop. I find it a great operating system and it runs much smoother than Windows did on it. In fact, I installed it for a person who is new to computers. I don't think Linux as opposed to Windows would make a difference for him, except for him being much less likely to get malware on Linux. My main PC runs Windows 7 because that's what my games run on. I say again though, I find Linux Mint to be a great operating system.

As to point 3, we still have people using Internet Explorer, and installing a new web browser is way simpler than installing and configuring a new OS.


Add this also to point 3 : And pay 100 dollars for a new OS. Now that looks like a good deal. Ubuntu is as easy to install as Windows is, infact it is easier to install Ubuntu. -_-
Score
0
September 21, 2013 8:39:28 AM

Sangeet Khatri said:

Add this also to point 3 : And pay 100 dollars for a new OS. Now that looks like a good deal. Ubuntu is as easy to install as Windows is, infact it is easier to install Ubuntu. -_-


Problem is the price of the OS is hidden to the consumer when buying a computer (unless they assemble it themselves)
Score
1
September 21, 2013 8:46:46 AM

^^ Well.. yeah you are right! I build computers on my own hence I know how much it is to add another hundred dollars to the build. For those hundred extra dollars you can do a lot of stuff on the hardware front.

And yeah! Gaming on Linux is not clearly evolving, with big companies now looking at it, like Steam, Valve, Metro, Crytek, etc.
Score
0
September 21, 2013 8:49:39 AM

Wow this article is aimed to purposefully misinform people? I know the windows 8 hate is overly rampant (it's the popular opinion to have on the internet), but the title is clearly written to make people think EVERYONE will pay money for 8.1 which is simply not true.

It's like making an article that is titled: Windows 7 service pack 2 update is $150! Then you go in and it says "The price of getting your Windows 7 SP2 on." Then later on, when they know most have stopped actually reading, they say "the price is for anyone with windows vista and earlier" like the small print on a sketchy commercial.

The fact that this could even get published with just this misleading title blows my mind and shows that toms is just pandering to the public opinion.
Score
0
September 21, 2013 9:04:12 AM

Linux never gets viruses because virus writers and hackers want to target the platforms with the most users, which in this case is Windows, followed by Macs.

If everyone started to use Linux believe me people would soon start writing viruses for it. And in it's current incarnation viruses could be very destructive. I am a big supporter of Linux, and would be one of the first to switch if the software I use moved to the system.
Score
0
September 21, 2013 10:29:46 AM

Chaoss said:
Linux never gets viruses because virus writers and hackers want to target the platforms with the most users, which in this case is Windows, followed by Macs.

If everyone started to use Linux believe me people would soon start writing viruses for it. And in it's current incarnation viruses could be very destructive. I am a big supporter of Linux, and would be one of the first to switch if the software I use moved to the system.


I mostly agree with your first statement, although I think Linux computers would make some valuable targets (consider most servers are running Linux)

However, I don't see how Linux would be more vulnerable to viruses than Windows?
Score
0
September 21, 2013 11:30:26 AM

back_by_demand

I'm assuming that people don't criticise Apple so much for the vendor lock-in they are committing because Apple is perceived to be much smaller and weaker with lower market share and they are perceived to be higher quality than Microsoft. At some point people probably will start attacking Apple but at the moment they are treating or using Apple as a sort of friend because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Once Microsoft is closed down then Apple will start getting attacked.

It's like in Syria and the other Arab Spring countries. People don't like Al Qaida but they hate the dictator more so they are kind of happy Al Qaida is helping to fight him, but once he is gone they will fight Al Qaida although unfortunately it may be too late and they will install Religiots in the new government.
Score
0
September 21, 2013 2:26:07 PM

And I thought they were going to pay me for downgrading from Windows 7. Lets face it, windows8 is just about tablets and phones and not primary built for desktops / workstations. I have yet to see any other install than the one my company tired and disapproved in the IT department...
Score
0
September 21, 2013 4:38:45 PM

Indignant skeptic, when all software is interoperable we can dispense with hypothetical arguments, but seeing as it isn't then Windows will and should continue as the dominant OS. People and companies have been acquiring software at a vast cost for decades, the OS is just a means to an end with the end being to run the software. Windows allows me to run almost any software, hell I can even run Android Apps. When Linux can run MS Office and all your games without hiccups then maybe it will get somewhere, but pushing an OS with no software to run on it defeats the object of having the OS in the first place.
Score
0
September 21, 2013 6:13:54 PM

SpadeM said:
"Of course, if you already have Windows 8 on your computer, you can upgrade for free, just like in the States. If you're looking to go from Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 Pro, you'll have to pay a £62 upgrade cost"

So which one is it? Free or 62 pounds? Also .. has anyone actually seen retail copies of 8? Besides the OEM ones i mean.


To my knowledge Windows 8 don't have a Retail version. We have the OEM, the upgrade (that doesn't state anywhere on the box that it's an upgrade) and the pro pack (update from Windows 8 to Windows 8 Pro)
Score
0
September 22, 2013 2:40:43 AM

SpadeM, you can go from 8 to 8.1 for free, 8 Pro to 8.1 Pro for free - this is not rocket science
Score
0
September 22, 2013 9:17:36 AM

Though the future is mixed. If large businesses start to take up alternatives to MS Office. I can see Ms in big trouble. The problem was that windows was asleep for so long. The windows phones need to be priced better to get a bigger slice. I particularly think that windows needs something that the other OS offerings do not offer. You can't tell Microsoft that. They know best and it is not forcing folk to use something they don't like. I hate it that everyone can see what I am using. This obvious screen grid may have efficiency but anyone passing by can see all the apps i have up. No one seems to think this. Are they retarded?
Score
0
September 23, 2013 6:37:26 AM

What is amazing... is that in the past, Windows Home Edition Upgrades were $100... so, now its $120? People having NOT been buying this POS product before... so raising the price will prove its value?! Bwahahahahaha

Windows 8, 9, whatever they'll call it... Anything "newer" than 7 is not worth $5 to install.

Linux makes more sense to use than Windows 8. (This is a response to a poster)
Thanks to Win8, I've started using the free LinuxMint. Its faster than Win8 in booting, and uses even less memory and CPU resources.... and it works like a Windows type OS, not the full-screen baby crap.

Score
0
September 25, 2013 1:14:12 AM

Thanks to Windows 8. When I knew a new OS is out, I wanted to upgrade, but I did not like it very much. So I switched to Linux and I am really happy with it.

Of course with Linux you need to be a software geek. I mean you do not need to be like that, but being a software geek helps to change some things.

As for ease of use. Linux is way more easier to use than Windows. It is just that people have been using Windows from years so they find Linux hard to use just because they are very familiar with Windows.

But give a child a Linux PC vs Windows PC and I am pretty sure that they will find Linux easier to use. I mean just try Linux Mint, Lubuntu, Xubuntu.

Most people that complain about Linux being hard to use haven't even tries Linux in the first place or they have accidently tried not so much beginner friendly distros like Arch, Debian, Puppy Linux (that one is a pain is the.. you know backside.., it was my first Linux distro).

For a new user, I recommend Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Lubuntu (if they are on old hardware).

I would recommend Linux Mint the most because it is the easiest to use.

When I started linux, I used everything point and click with mouse and all. But now I do most of my work in Terminal because it is faster than anything. To install a software I just have to do "sudo apt-get install gimp" if I want to install gimp. To uninstall it, I just have to type in "sudo apt-get autoremove gimp". It is as simple as that.

To check all the network traffic, I just have to do "sudo nethogs wlan0" and even I download things using Terminal because everything is much faster with terminal. To download from say http://example.com/download-link-here.zip all I have to do is "aria2c -x4 http://example.com/download-link-here.zip" and it downloads it all.

Seriously Linux gives you the most control over any other OS. But let it be Windows users would never understand. When I used Windows, I did not understand these things, so it is quite understandable, but really, for me Linux is way better than Windows. I can do anything with it. Seriously, anything I want to do unlike in Windows, you can just do what Microsoft wants you to.

All the benefits like Linux being free, no virus, security, lightweight, faster and everything aside. These are just things to attract Windows users to Linux but the real fun of using Linux is way different than what is advertised. Only a Linux user would understand that. No one else knows that feeling, that experience. No Windows user can ever know that without using Linux.
Score
0
September 26, 2013 3:19:27 AM

@Comment 1 - IT-guru-luke

Nothing is immune to computer viruses, not even linux. Your comment reminds me of an Mac vs PC advert that Apple used to run where they claimed Macs are immune to viruses, but low and behold, 2 years later, people actually started to bother making Mac viruses. Maybe I should sue Apple for false advertising.

So the point is, Linux is only "immune" to viruses because not many people make viruses for it in the first place. The number one goal of anyone who makes a virus, is to infect as many systems as they can, which of course would be Windows PCs since there is over 1 billion of those and not very, very little of either Macs or Linux-based PCs.

Now if you really want to bring linux servers into the mix..... good luck, those are about as secure as a cracked nut, most companies (like the one you speak of) seem to think Linux is immune to security threats, so don't bother installing much (if any) security software. It is after all, why so many Linux servers get hacked, or get used to distribute viruses to visitors by hackers.
Score
0
September 26, 2013 3:20:26 AM

@Comment 1 - IT-guru-luke

Nothing is immune to computer viruses, not even linux. Your comment reminds me of an Mac vs PC advert that Apple used to run where they claimed Macs are immune to viruses, but low and behold, 2 years later, people actually started to bother making Mac viruses. Maybe I should sue Apple for false advertising.

So the point is, Linux is only "immune" to viruses because not many people make viruses for it in the first place. The number one goal of anyone who makes a virus, is to infect as many systems as they can, which of course would be Windows PCs since there is over 1 billion of those and not very, very little of either Macs or Linux-based PCs.

Now if you really want to bring linux servers into the mix..... good luck, those are about as secure as a cracked nut, most companies (like the one you speak of) seem to think Linux is immune to security threats, so don't bother installing much (if any) security software. It is after all, why so many Linux servers get hacked, or get used to distribute viruses to visitors by hackers.
Score
0
September 28, 2013 8:04:18 AM

OdinShortbeard said:
@Comment 1 - IT-guru-luke

Nothing is immune to computer viruses, not even linux. Your comment reminds me of an Mac vs PC advert that Apple used to run where they claimed Macs are immune to viruses, but low and behold, 2 years later, people actually started to bother making Mac viruses. Maybe I should sue Apple for false advertising.

So the point is, Linux is only "immune" to viruses because not many people make viruses for it in the first place. The number one goal of anyone who makes a virus, is to infect as many systems as they can, which of course would be Windows PCs since there is over 1 billion of those and not very, very little of either Macs or Linux-based PCs.

Now if you really want to bring linux servers into the mix..... good luck, those are about as secure as a cracked nut, most companies (like the one you speak of) seem to think Linux is immune to security threats, so don't bother installing much (if any) security software. It is after all, why so many Linux servers get hacked, or get used to distribute viruses to visitors by hackers.


Well, first of all, Linux is more or less immune to drive-by-downloads (because anything downloaded will have its executable bit OFF) Now, assuming a virus does get in the system, its damages will be limited to the user's home folder, it will not be able to damage the operating system or other software on the machine, or other users home folders, unless the user deliberately gives it superuser privileges. As for the product IT-guru-luke is promoting, from the sound of it, it runs Windows software in a virtual machine under Linux. Provided it is properly designed it should be 100% virusproof (in the sense that any damage done is limited to the VM itself) Such VMs are in fact used to research actual viruses.

As for servers, any server running out-of-date security software is insecure regardless of it running Windows or Linux.

Also, as that is IT-guru-luke's only comment, I'm gonna assume it's a spam account...
Score
0
September 28, 2013 11:37:31 AM

Fredrik Aldhagen said:
Well, first of all, Linux is more or less immune to drive-by-downloads (because anything downloaded will have its executable bit OFF) Now, assuming a virus does get in the system, its damages will be limited to the user's home folder, it will not be able to damage the operating system or other software on the machine, or other users home folders, unless the user deliberately gives it superuser privileges.

Yeah... right.

Windows has the Execute Disable bit support too. That does not prevent virus writers to find ways to get around that and I'm sure if someone searches deep enough, they will find opportunities to do the same on Linux or any other OS. It is mainly a matter of motivation.

Linux is not immune to privilege escalation attacks either; hundreds of ways to achieve those have been found in the past by using system services and tools that require root access to do some legitimate non-root stuff, hundreds more will likely be found in the future. Just as with XD, it is largely a matter of motivation.

Linux is mostly used on servers so most of the research and exploit focus in the past has been on server-oriented aspects of the thing. If enough people used it on the desktop to attract researchers and virus writers, I bet tons of new security holes would be found.
Score
0
!