Windows 8 Pricing Update

so far i'm in total about 45 bucks for two licenses of windows 8 pro and a copy of office 2013.
 
Glad I bought it when it was cheap. Seriously this move is stupid, I don't see people buying it at this price since it was cheaper before.
 
The core of Windows 8 is more efficient and has a better underlying feature set than Windows 7. If the Metro UI really bugs you all that much just pay the $5 for Stardocks Start8 and it makes it basically a parallel UI experience compared to Win7.

There's a lot of new things in Windows 8 that I like a lot better than Windows 7. Even with Metro it's not much different...
 
TheBlueChanell said:
The core of Windows 8 is more efficient and has a better underlying feature set than Windows 7. If the Metro UI really bugs you all that much just pay the $5 for Stardocks Start8 and it makes it basically a parallel UI experience compared to Win7.

There's a lot of new things in Windows 8 that I like a lot better than Windows 7. Even with Metro it's not much different...
Click to expand...

Can you have Quick Launch like xp/vista? Never really liked the Pinned tabs.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
The core of Windows 8 is more efficient and has a better underlying feature set than Windows 7. If the Metro UI really bugs you all that much just pay the $5 for Stardocks Start8 and it makes it basically a parallel UI experience compared to Win7.

There's a lot of new things in Windows 8 that I like a lot better than Windows 7. Even with Metro it's not much different...
Click to expand...

I've said similar in previous threads here on [H]. Windows 8 actually feels more efficient than Windows 7. I can pop open my task manager and compare it to when it was in Windows 7.

For example, with Chrome open with 50 tabs, Windows 7 would show 80% to 90% total memory used out of 16GB of RAM. Under Windows 8, whatever is going on beneath this OS, I'm now almost always at 40% to 50% total memory used out of 16GB of RAM with Chrome opened and same amount of tabs. There's a much better memory management in Windows 8.
 
Metrocall said:
Looks like if you buy a PC with Windows 8 Pro, than you can get to Windows 7. Not sure about buying Windows 8 Pro separately though.
Click to expand...
Looks like that's the case. I wonder, too, whether it's possible to downgrade to Windows 7 if you buy a PC with Windows 8 (non-Pro) by upgrading to Pro and then doing the downgrade.

Even if that's possible, though, it's certainly convoluted as hell. Microsoft clearly doesn't want users doing it.
 
octoberasian said:
For example, with Chrome open with 50 tabs, Windows 7 would show 80% to 90% total memory used out of 16GB of RAM. Under Windows 8, whatever is going on beneath this OS, I'm now almost always at 40% to 50% total memory used out of 16GB of RAM with Chrome opened and same amount of tabs. There's a much better memory management in Windows 8.
Click to expand...
Usually I would say "that depends" to something like this, but this is probably the effect of memory combining, which is a plus (sort of).
 
Ripperjack said:
This was posted on 23rd Sepember, 2011.

windows-version-chart-e1316834921611.jpg


:eek: The prophecy has been fulfilled! YOU SIR... Are a visionary!
Click to expand...

Bit of a problem there, champ: Windows Vista, Windows 95, and Windows 8 are all good too. Sorta makes that image fall apart.
 
Glad I took advantage of the system builder prices at amazon. Too bad Windows 8 Pro is gathering dust :(
 
i have a win 8 key I never used if anyone wants it? I installed Ubuntu on the laptop and never even booted into Windows
 
I want to preface my thoughts below by saying this is coming from somebody who prefers Linux on the desktop or to a lesser extent OSX.

I don't understand all the unwarranted hate for Windows 8. The Metro UI, on a functionality level, isn't much different than the start menu in 7. You still have the "any" search, so you can hit the windows key, start typing what you need, press enter and you're there. If that really bothers you, you have options like I said, you can get start8 and it brings back your classic shell and throws all of the Metro Apps into a folder called "Modern UI".

Here are just a few of the things I feel make Windows 8 a superior experience
  1. Native Image mounting
  2. Ribbon in Explorer
  3. Expanded Hardware Support
  4. Expanded Multi-monitor Support
One thing I was hoping to see that wasn't added is multiple desktop functionality. Linux and OSX have been doing this for quite sometime. If you're running 2+ monitors it's not too big of a deal but if you're using a single monitor or a laptop it greatly increases your productivity and screen real-estate. You can achieve something similar with HydraView if you have an AMD card but it's not quite as nicely integrated as Apple/*Nix solutions.

I'm not a fan of some of the stock metro apps like the Music player, Calendar etc because they take up a lot of screen real estate and your only real options is to have it use all of your screen or 30% of it. That being said, most people use other alternatives for these programs anyway and so it shouldn't be a problem to begin with.

I've had zero issues with program or hardware compatibility since I've been using Windows 8, their corners implementation also makes working with multi-monitors + metro apps very manageable and I'd even argue intuitive.

Microsoft did a solid job on their newest OS and if/when you do get to utilize Win8 on a Tablet you quickly start to realize the power that it offers that platform/form-factor that simply wasn't available or viable before. I think a majority of people, supposedly enthusiasts or educated users are just jumping on the hate bandwagon because they are either scared of change or incredibly stubborn.

I'm currently running start8 and have been since the middle of December but prior to that I was using the stock shell and honestly the experience is basically the same. I navigate Windows utilizing run or the "any" search for roughly 95% of my tasks anyways and taking that into account combined with my thoughts above it certainly makes Win8 worth the upgrade from 7 for me.

Here's a quick SS of Start8:
 
kac77 said:
Only if you forgot to take your meds.
Click to expand...

Vista was fine. There were some bugs with file/network transfers at launch but they were patched shortly after release. Vista's downfall was not the doing of Microsoft but their OEM's failing to be prepared with driver support even though they were given what they needed WAY in advance. Windows 7 isn't much different at the kernel level than Vista, and the same applies to Windows 8.

They've all been slight steps forward with new feature sets. The majority of what was changed within Windows 7 could of been added to Vista via SP's but the name and reputation was already too damaged from the same idiots spewing their hate and discontent for Windows 8.

XP has been my LEAST favorite major MS release.
 
Can you pretty much type anything you want with win8? I really enjoy just typing one or two letters, have a list of programs pop up with the most frequent showing first a la launchy.net. Much faster than any start menu or America Online style squares interface.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Bit of a problem there, champ: Windows Vista, Windows 95, and Windows 8 are all good too. Sorta makes that image fall apart.
Click to expand...

That image is also missing a whole bunch of versions of Windows including Windows 3.11, Windows 95B, Windows 98se, Both Windows NT releases, Windows 2000.

P.S. I also liked Windows Vista and 8, 95 was really unstable... but so were all the OSes going at the time. Mac OS 7.0 was a horrible mess. I don't know how anyone used it.
 
Parmenides said:
Can you pretty much type anything you want with win8? I really enjoy just typing one or two letters, have a list of programs pop up with the most frequent showing first a la launchy.net. Much faster than any start menu or America Online style squares interface.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. Just start typing at the start screen. All of these little apps are solutions for a problem that doesn't exist. Windows 8's interface is perfectly usable, as long as you try even a little bit instead of crying over every single change. I understand that a lot of you have never used a windows without a start button but for us old timers it's just another change, of many.
 
TheBlueChanell said:
Vista was fine. There were some bugs with file/network transfers at launch but they were patched shortly after release. Vista's downfall was not the doing of Microsoft but their OEM's failing to be prepared with driver support even though they were given what they needed WAY in advance. Windows 7 isn't much different at the kernel level than Vista, and the same applies to Windows 8.

They've all been slight steps forward with new feature sets. The majority of what was changed within Windows 7 could of been added to Vista via SP's but the name and reputation was already too damaged from the same idiots spewing their hate and discontent for Windows 8.

XP has been my LEAST favorite major MS release.
Click to expand...

Sorry but Vista had way more problems than just file transfer problems. In an enterprise setting it was bad. It had printer problems, and Synchronize Offline Files was broken for quite some time. It was bad enough that we skipped it entirely. Now with SP's it has become virtually Windows 7 but at launch it was anything but good.
 
kac77 said:
Sorry but Vista had way more problems than just file transfer problems. In an enterprise setting it was bad. It had printer problems, and Synchronize Offline Files was broken for quite some time. It was bad enough that we skipped it entirely. Now with SP's it has become virtually Windows 7 but at launch it was anything but good.
Click to expand...

We deployed Vista at launch to pretty much all of our clients who were upgrading at the time and I never encountered any of those issues, and we did have environments which utilized sync center/offline files.

What type of printer issues are you speaking of?

You skipped it entirely though plenty of other corporations or consulting firms chose to deploy it with success. Did you encounter issues during your initial deployments? Did you guys attempt to resolve them or maybe open up support case with MS or did you write it off based on all of the bad press circulating at the time?
 
Well I was just about to pull the trigger on the download of Win8 for 40 dollars until I found I have to get the Win8 Disk for 70 Dollars for 64bit version..Ugh:mad:
 
TheBlueChanell said:
We deployed Vista at launch to pretty much all of our clients who were upgrading at the time and I never encountered any of those issues, and we did have environments which utilized sync center/offline files.

What type of printer issues are you speaking of?

You skipped it entirely though plenty of other corporations or consulting firms chose to deploy it with success. Did you encounter issues during your initial deployments? Did you guys attempt to resolve them or maybe open up support case with MS or did you write it off based on all of the bad press circulating at the time?
Click to expand...

At launch Vista had problems with Windows 2003. Whereby if you went to pull down the list of printers it would show half, some or none. A patch came out not to long after launch which fixed this behavior but it still was a pain for at least a couple of weeks.

The issue with Offline Files was that for some reason during sync users would receive Access Denied. This bug (though it was fixed later) was just too much. Win XP had no such problems, just Vista.

Now there were work-arounds for many of the problems, but we deploy in the hundreds. The choice was do we sit here and bang away at issues or do we use the XP image that has 0 problems. Now if you deployed Vista at launch with 0 problems, then that's great. But sitting up there and chalking all of Vista's problems as imaginary is just a little too much.
 
kac77 said:
At launch Vista had problems with Windows 2003. Whereby if you went to pull down the list of printers it would show half, some or none. A patch came out not to long after launch which fixed this behavior but it still was a pain for at least a couple of weeks.

The issue with Offline Files was that for some reason during sync users would receive Access Denied. This bug (though it was fixed later) was just too much. Win XP had no such problems, just Vista.

Now there were work-arounds for many of the problems, but we deploy in the hundreds. The choice was do we sit here and bang away at issues or do we use the XP image that has 0 problems. Now if you deployed Vista at launch with 0 problems, then that's great. But sitting up there and chalking all of Vista's problems as imaginary is just a little too much.
Click to expand...

That's legitimate. I wasn't trying to berate you or doubt you or your peers skillsets I was just curious.

Every environment is different and certain variables can cause issues to crop-up when they weren't a problem point in other similar configurations. We didn't have trouble but most of our shops ended up deploying Server 2008 alongside Vista and they were mostly smaller clients / single dc / fileserver setups. The bulk of our larger clients ended up running mixed environments of XP/Vista/7 though I still can't recall any game breaking bugs, as we also have deployments in the hundreds.
 
Why did Microsoft decided to skyrocket the price anyway?
 
TheBlueChanell said:
That's legitimate. I wasn't trying to berate you or doubt you or your peers skillsets I was just curious.

Every environment is different and certain variables can cause issues to crop-up when they weren't a problem point in other similar configurations. We didn't have trouble but most of our shops ended up deploying Server 2008 alongside Vista and they were mostly smaller clients / single dc / fileserver setups. The bulk of our larger clients ended up running mixed environments of XP/Vista/7 though I still can't recall any game breaking bugs, as we also have deployments in the hundreds.
Click to expand...

No problem. I just have a visceral reaction to it. :)
 
Hornet said:
Why did Microsoft decided to skyrocket the price anyway?
Click to expand...

Anytime they've released an OS from Vista moving forward there's all been discounts or deals for at least the first 30 days. If I remember the OP Windows 8 Pro is $199, that brings it closer to what 7Pro was and actually a bit cheaper. From what I remember Windows 7 Pro's MSRP was like $300 and Vista Ultimate was like $320 I believe.
 
I seriously thought this was going to be an announcement of extending the upgrade deal another month or two. That was a quick ride.
 
octoberasian said:
I've said similar in previous threads here on [H]. Windows 8 actually feels more efficient than Windows 7. I can pop open my task manager and compare it to when it was in Windows 7.

For example, with Chrome open with 50 tabs, Windows 7 would show 80% to 90% total memory used out of 16GB of RAM. Under Windows 8, whatever is going on beneath this OS, I'm now almost always at 40% to 50% total memory used out of 16GB of RAM with Chrome opened and same amount of tabs. There's a much better memory management in Windows 8.
Click to expand...

To me, I get the feeling they slathered Metro UI on top of a Windows 7 Service Pack.
 
Stiletto said:
What this thread needs is a few good heatlesssun posts.
Click to expand...

What this forum needs is a lot less bullshit callout posts. None sounds like a good number. Seriously, no point in making a post like that unless you're aiming to stir shit up around here.
 
Ripperjack said:
This was posted on 23rd Sepember, 2011.

windows-version-chart-e1316834921611.jpg


:eek: The prophecy has been fulfilled! YOU SIR... Are a visionary!
Click to expand...

I loved Vista, It took 3 service packs before XP was stable Vista right out of the box was pretty solid. I can't imagine anyone is going to be running out to buy win 8 really.... How much you guys wanna bet the prices are gonna drop back to where they were in 4 months.
 
I actually like Windows 95 for some reason, it was the OS that introduced the Start button. What I hated about Vista that it was slow, bloated and I especially hated how some videos stored on your hard drive required "buffering" which really annoyed me. And certain stuff took a long time to process which also annoyed me. Windows ME... what a terrible POS that was. All it did was freeze at random times when I opened programs, randomly crashed on me and getting rid of real time DOS mode was annoying as well despite it being a DOS OS like Windows 95 and 98.

Anyway, I already bought Windows 8 for $40 and only using it for testing purposes only, the last time I tried using it as my main OS I encountered strange issues.
 
Hmm how about this , I'm offering Microsoft to sell me 20 million windows licenses for the total amount of 1 dollar. So Microsoft can continue boasting about sales being booming.

And keep recording sales as rising.
 
Youn said:
win8 works fine for me, the difference between it and win7 are easy to overcome ime... not sure what all the fuss is about, especially the start screen.. imo it's fast and easy to use, maybe moreso then the previously used start menu... and again easy enough to avoid if it gets your panties in that much of a wad...
Click to expand...

Just that some of us don't like some of the changes that don't make any sense. Hot corners, charms bar, aero being gone. I can completely understand these changes for their tablets, their phones and hybrids, but on the desktop they just don't make sense. At least not to me and obviously many others.

TheBlueChanell said:
The core of Windows 8 is more efficient and has a better underlying feature set than Windows 7. If the Metro UI really bugs you all that much just pay the $5 for Stardocks Start8 and it makes it basically a parallel UI experience compared to Win7.

There's a lot of new things in Windows 8 that I like a lot better than Windows 7. Even with Metro it's not much different...
Click to expand...

If Start8, or any of the other apps that do the same thing, could bring back aero and completely take away the Metro UI being activated at all, I'd pick up Win8. Problem is, that's not the case. You can make it 90-some percent back to like Win 7 with the enhancements of Win 8, but not far enough for me.

Quix said:
Yes, you can. Just start typing at the start screen. All of these little apps are solutions for a problem that doesn't exist. Windows 8's interface is perfectly usable, as long as you try even a little bit instead of crying over every single change. I understand that a lot of you have never used a windows without a start button but for us old timers it's just another change, of many.
Click to expand...

I will say there are plenty of things to like about Win 8, just not enough to justify my moving to it from Win 7. As I said above, to me a lot of the changes don't make sense on a desktop PC. Had they given some ability to turn off some of the tablet like features for desktop users, I'd probably already be using it. Instead I'll take a pass on this one...
 
wtburnette said:
I will say there are plenty of things to like about Win 8, just not enough to justify my moving to it from Win 7. As I said above, to me a lot of the changes don't make sense on a desktop PC. Had they given some ability to turn off some of the tablet like features for desktop users, I'd probably already be using it. Instead I'll take a pass on this one...
Click to expand...

Very common complaint and what it boils down to is there was an interface change for the desktop variant WITHOUT A NET INCREASE IN USABILITY. Yes the underlying kernel is improved in many ways but like a fat chick with a great personality nobody's going to stick around long enough to find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top