Can Free Windows 9 Upgrades Help Microsoft Win the Platform War?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
mouse24

mouse24

Splendid
Nov 30, 2010
4,389
0
23,960
As long as they give me the option to choose how I want the OS to look and feel I am willing to upgrade from windows 7.

I know it would be a lot of work but I would love to see a more linux like approach to different GUI's, why should it matter to windows what your GUI looks like, why do they have to lock it down so tightly.
 
someguynamedmatt

someguynamedmatt

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2010
1,551
0
20,160
Until you give me back the ability to change the color of the damn text on my windows, and to make those windows transparent, I'll be sticking with Windows 7. It's not that I'm so upset about these things, it's just the thought that I'm being told what I can and can't do with the OS that I paid for. That, in my mind, is unacceptable.
 
C

childofthekorn

Honorable
Jan 31, 2013
359
0
10,780
uhhh...yes! If the dominant OS allows you to upgrade for free, I'm positive it would help maybe not win forever, but it'll keep them afloat long enough to either sink or get their heads out of their asses.

They need to learn that bloat is not a good thing.
 
W

Wamphryi

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2010
1,630
1
20,160
I'm not convinced that mobile platforms are the danger to the desktop they are made out to be. PC sales are not as they used to be because a PC lasts much longer and even the low end machines are powerful enough for most day to day users.

A mobile device is only useful for the most basic tasks. I have a Galaxy Phablet and a Galaxy tablet. I use those items but 90% of my computing is on my desktop systems. I see mobile devices as an extension of my computing not a replacement.
 
CaedenV

CaedenV

Splendid
Jun 14, 2011
4,829
3
23,465
MS does not need to give Windows away for free to be successful on the desktop (though for mobile it was a good call). However, the days of $100-140 windows licenses (to say nothing of the $2-300 retail copies) are long gone now.

Personally I would like to see the return of a real two tiered OS model. Make a base version of Windows for free. This free version requires a MS account to push people into the store, and would share the same basic interface (though hopefully more mature) as win8 has. No domains, no local accounts, internet will be required (at least for initial setup), but it would work well for 99% of the people out there who want a Windows device.
Now, if you want local accounts, or the ability to add to a domain, a more win7-like desktop experience, and other bells and whistles, then you pay for it. But paying for it should not cost $140 a pop. I would like to see something more like $20-50 per machine (no more retail copies). Just a flat fee with simple license tied to a motherboard regardless of the number of users. I mean I paid $40 for my copies of Windows 8 and have no regrets... but if I had to pay $140 for each of my 4 machines... good lord I would be just as bitter as everyone else because it simply is not worth that price. Especially if MS is going to take a cut of any in-store purchases and try to push me towards using subscription services like OneDrive, Office, Music, etc.
Basically let's see the OS for free, and then pay for a 'pro pack'.
 
-Fran-

-Fran-

Illustrious
May 3, 2007
8,938
2,112
42,140
They don't need to give it for free in emerging markets (meaning, "poor" for them), but align the price so it is very cheap to have in all of the world.

For instance, why not make it a USD$10 dollar OS? $20 at most? That way, "rich" countries can subsidize the price for those "emerging" markets and not feel displaced. Then can charge for each "advanced" feature you want (the Siri-like assistant, for example). For instance, I really don't need anything from the Server editions (directory, and advanced user admin), but I do want full 64bits support and everything that would let me run games with no issues.

Cheers!
 
A

a1r

Reputable
Aug 6, 2014
41
0
4,540
Article is much ado about nothing. There is no platform war on the desktop and there really never has been since the days of various DOS versions. Microsoft dominates there, it's a known monopoly, Apple and Linux have insignificant market share. In the mobile market Microsoft has an insignificant software presence. They don't *need* to have their OS on any mobile devices because they make a percentage of most Android based devices.
 
vaughn2k

vaughn2k

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2008
769
4
19,065
"... If Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android evolve into much more functional and more productive “desktop-like” operating systems, then they will turn into real problems for Microsoft, even on the PC side of the business...." - I totally disagree. I still, am using WIndows 7, and I do not want to touch my screen, because I have a mouse - This is also the reason I do not like Windows 8. I do not use excel and I do not use my tablet to design something, because the function and screen can can accomodate maximum 2 fingers - and this is not productive. Whatever operating system I have on my desktop, as long as it is XP or 7 like OS, it cannot, ever, replace by a mobile device. How is someone really get that idea?
 
D

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
The free model only works if there is an alternate revenue stream. F2P games compensate by way of micro-transactions. Apple subsidizes the upgrade cost off their OS by the fact you have no choice but to use their hardware no matter what. Android makes their money off the use of Google. Microsoft isn't hardware bound, and they aren't going to make enough back off Bing, so they would need some mechanism to make money. Free isn't free. As much as it would be great to get a new OS for nothing, it just doesn't work so easily. Limited paths for free upgrades will likely be geared towards those who otherwise never would have upgraded anyway (7 users as they assume 8 users will upgrade anyway). A price cut makes sense. Recall, 8 was $40 for several months, with some retailers still selling it discounted for weeks later. That model seems much more reasonable.
 
H

hoofhearted

Distinguished
Apr 9, 2004
1,020
0
19,280
Why not just charge $50 dollaers and have one Windows OS. No ultimate, Professional, Home, just the OS. Sell everything else as modules. Encrypting filesystem, Backup restore.
 
R

red77star

Honorable
Oct 16, 2013
230
0
10,680
It will be a success once they more metro and other mobile shit. We do not want it. They need to bring Aero back to Windows, right now looks damn flat ugly and boring. Microsoft needs to restart Windows 7 project, slap DX12 to it, release new WMP not some xbox music/video bullshit, slap IE11 or whatever to it. Bring all kernel improvements from Windows 8, add virtual desktop support to it etc and they would have a winner.
 
C

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
666
3
19,015
uhhh...yes! If the dominant OS allows you to upgrade for free, I'm positive it would help maybe not win forever, but it'll keep them afloat long enough to either sink or get their heads out of their asses.

They need to learn that bloat is not a good thing.
Click to expand...
Windows is NOT bloated. When you take out the massive amounts of drivers (necessary to keep compatibility with various things in the real world) Windows is only about 5GB's. I do not call that 'bloated' at all.
 
velocityg4

velocityg4

Glorious
Nov 21, 2006
5,390
471
46,440
I can see some benefits to Microsoft to offering free upgrades. As it is people upgrading Windows is a small percentage of their sales. Most people upgrade comes when they replace their old PC. By playing their cards right they can make people upgrade more rapidly, driving up PC sales.

By offering a free upgrade Microsoft can end support for old version of Windows more rapidly as Apple does with OS X. This will decrease support costs for legacy systems. When people complain point to the free upgrade. Right now MS would just support 7, 8 and 8.1. Which is reasonable.

Don't actively support old hardware in the new version by including drivers, say anything over six or seven years old like Apple. This will also decrease the footprint of Windows. Hardware manufacturers will not provide new drivers. Thus in the cycle of more rapidly ending support people will have to replace their six or seven year old computers they are still clutching on to. Driving sales of Windows licenses and Office Licenses.

Drop 32 bit support. 64 bit CPU's have been the norm for a long time now. It's time to shoot that horse. This will decrease development and support costs along with decreasing the OS footprint.
 
D

dimar

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2009
1,041
63
19,360
Call it Windows. Make it free. Create a centralized software and drivers store, but let users also download and install stuff the way it is now too.
I just solved all the problems.
 
belardo

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,540
2
22,795

That was almost 2 years ago... which was pretty much the largest amount of Win8 sales. Win8 sucked so much, I and many others didn't bother. I mean $40 for a Windows Licences is a good deal... but Win8/8.1 and whatever STUPID upgrade names they come up with are not worth $1. (Because Calling it "Windows 8.2" was more confusing than Windows 8.1 Update 2...?!) I wouldn't bother with 8.x for free. So yeah, Windows 8 suck so much, that MANY MANY people who bought Win8 PCs spent another $100+ for Windows 7 upgrade. (Hence, MS made money... twice)

To a degree, MS help kill the smaller PC company (when Dell, Gateway, Acer took off) with their OEM tier pricing. ie: A smaller builder (like myself) would spend $90~100 for an OEM... while Dell spends $20.

Also, if MS continues to SELL their OS, they really should reduce the SKU #, its confusing and makes upgrades a bitch. First, no more 32bit version. That cuts things in half. Second, no MORE "upgrade" version. You would buy a retail version that can either be used for a single-build or upgrade.
Also, NO MORE HOME "basic / Premium versions" - nor call it "Home Premium". Its just HOME. Saves some confusion.
People buy OEM versions most of the time anyway. So...

Retail : Windows 9 Basic $ 0 = Reduced version of Home-basic, but not a "Starter" version. DL only.
Retail : Windows 9 Home $ 25
Retail : Windows 9 Pro $100 (Has features business users require, add the few Ultimate features.

OEM : Windows 9 Starter $ 1 = (Emerging Markets) - maybe $0, as long as its registered.
OEM : Windows 9 Basic $ 2 = Reduced version of Home-basic, but not a "Starter" version. DL only.
OEM : Windows 9 Home $ 20
OEM : Windows 9 Pro $ 90 (Has features business users require).

The OEM versions don't include discs, its the same price DELL or any other 1-man system builder would pay.

Then of course the single CORP-Enterprise version (which is just a lic. deal anyway).

That's it... 8 SKUs, in which the public only see's 3 versions. NO MORE UPGRADE versions.
PS: Retail (Other than Basic) comes with physical media... because DL take time and has its own headaches.
 
Z

zanny

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2008
214
0
18,680
Windows is NOT bloated. When you take out the massive amounts of drivers (necessary to keep compatibility with various things in the real world) Windows is only about 5GB's. I do not call that 'bloated' at all.
Click to expand...

The combined filesize of a Linux kernel, core utilities and plumbing, and the entire KDE core software compilation (as a frame of reference) is around 1GB. So a fully featured suite of desktop applications including word processor, browser, etc take up half a cheap thumb drive, and non-bloated Windows where its just the OS without drivers or user facing programs is the size of a dvd.

It is still quite bloated. But it doesn't need to not be, since its distribution channels are not like the Linux distros and the OS targets devices with way more storage than a 4GB difference would make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom