Windows 9: Rumored to be WORSE Than 8

Assuming that the rumors are accurate and that the codenamed "Project Blue" becomes Win9.

Not mentioned in that piece are rumors that MS is looking at an annual subscription model for the next version of Windows. Instead of paying for the copy of Windows once, you'd pay an annual subscription (If its like Office 360, then it'll be around $150/yr) in order to get updates and/or keep using Win9.

No way in hell am I going to do that. I've got no problem with paying for an OS, but I'm not going to shell out money every year, just to keep using that OS, especially when it gets to the point where MS decides that they're no longer going to support my perfectly functional hardware and insist that I buy a new PC if I want to be able to use their OS. (Which will happen, when they decide that I simply must have a 2 THz graphics card in my machine in order to be able to use the OS, because otherwise I won't be able to experience it in all is 16 kiloquad different colors.)

Looks like I'll be switching to Ubuntu or Mint, unless Apple decides to cut the prices on their Mac Minis.

They can't just let Windows 8 go for more than two months before creating another pile of shit, can they?

I'm going to wait a little longer before getting bothered. Oh, if this is true, I agree with you two and will be pissed. I think, however, Microsoft will see enough backlash that they'll HAVE to discuss it soon, and then we'll get a better idea of what's going on. If it is the worst case scenario, then I'm using Windows 7 until it's no longer supported, and will fully kick over to Ubuntu, which I already dual boot.

Owning software is going to be pointless soon. Subscription is better for the consumer. Tech gets outdated too quickly to bother paying to own a license. Hardware prices will continue to decline as well. You guys think too old school. Steve Jobs was right when he said customers don't know what they want until you show them.

Sorry, but no. I simply cannot afford to shell out money for an OS every year. Nor is there any legitimate reason for me to do so. As for the gains in computing power, that's not going to continue forever. The uppermost estimated date for when we hit the absolute limit of what any computer can do is 2050, and new techniques are showing that it might be possible to hit that limit significantly sooner, like 2025. At which point, we're done with the concept of using an OS put out by anyone, because the computers will be smart enough to write their own on the fly.

If MS wants me to even consider adopting an annual subscription model for the OS, then they're going to have to bundle it with new hardware, gigabit internet access wherever I go (with no bandwidth caps), and do it all for what I'm paying for internet access now. Otherwise, they can go pound sand.

They aren't going to charge you $100+ in a subscription model. It will be roughly the current cost divided by 3.5 if it follows industry standards. Apple tends to give a pretty good upgrade every year to year and a half for $20.

As for Office; The price you quoted earlier was for the business premium 5 user and multi computer license of office 365, the cheapest is $100 and its for 1 user license and up to 5 devices. That's about $8.25 per month, the cost of Netflix and way more useful to most people. If you want good software you should be willing to pay the engineers that produce it.

I don't buy music or movies anymore, I pay a monthly subscription. It's a better deal for me.

Why should software be different?

Apple only recently cut their upgrade price to that level in the past few years as a way to give themselves an edge over MS, because Apple makes their money off hardware, not software.

A difference of $50.

Why should I pay for it when free versions do everything I need? I pay for Netflix, but I don't pay for Hulu+ because my budget won't allow it (and you still have to endure commercials). I have no problem paying for software once, but I'm not going to pay for an OS which demands a yearly payment and adds features I don't like.

Additionally, I do not have reliable access to the internet where I live, nor is there anything I can do about that because Comcast is too fucking cheap to rewire the place (which they admit that they need to do). Doesn't do me a bit of good to pay for software that's mostly in the cloud (like Office 365), when I can't get to the cloud to begin with!

It would be nice if I could afford to plunk down money for a new PC every year (or even every couple of years), but I can't, so I make do with machines that are somewhat obsolete when I buy them, and I nurse them along until they absolutely won't function any more. I then cannibalize them for parts to keep my other machines going. Companies like MS and Apple love to push the limits of what can be done with hardware and software, and so long as they allow folks like myself to toddle along with older gear I'm fine with that, but when they start demanding $ annually for little added benefit (let's face it, while Win7 was a big improvement over XP in some ways, compared to Vista, it was just a bugfix), then I start looking elsewhere. One of the reasons why I ditched my Android phone was that it rapidly became useless due to sometimes minor changes to Android. (I had roughly the same number of apps installed on it as I did the iPod Touch I owned at the time, the apps grew so big that I had to strip 90% of them off as there wasn't room for them, and this was less than a year after the phone was released. Apple supports its mobile devices for 2+ years.)

Not to be a dick, but people in bumfuck using 10 year old machines isn't exactly the demo ANYONE is building a business model around.

You can still buy movies and music if you want. And the available catalog of movies and music frequently changes, so what was once available is no longer. Try watching a Disney movie on Netflix right now. Two years ago you could, but not any longer. If you bought those Disney movies, you don't have to worry about them being available on Netflix or not.

I'm not in bumfuck, its just that there's zero competition in the ISP business in this area (not too uncommon in the rest of the country, either), nor am I using 10 year machines. This machine is a 1.5 year old PC running 64-bit 7, it will need to last me a couple of years, and with the average wage in this country going down, I'm hardly unique in having to watch my expenses closely.

This machine was a significant portion of my monthly income, and the reason I'm able to afford to pay for Netflix is that this machine is paid for. I don't have to pay an annual subscription to use the OS, which would force me to choose between it and something like Netflix.

The problem is, to a degree, at this point they're selling typewriters.

What I mean is, once you bought a typewriter, you had a typewriter. You didn't need to buy a new one in a couple years because they'd added some new letters and symbols.

If you own a computer to make documents, spreadsheets, and presentations, store photos, access the Internet, and send and receive e-mails, then the machine I built back in 2001 that was running W2K and Office2K does everything you need. No, after about 2004 it wouldn't run the latest games, but such is life.

Unless someone comes up with an OS that sucks my dick, I really don't need it to do much more than I needed over a decade ago. They've gotten to the point where upstart competitors do 90% of what someone wants at a fraction of the price. (Hello, $249 Google laptop!)

You're half right and half wrong. And you and Tucker are both looking at this thing through 1998 eyes. If you are just doing very basic docs and spreadsheets, by all means just use googles free versions. People that can use those free versions to meet their needs absolutely should. That makes sense.

If you are just using your computer to browse Facebook and check email then I would never suggest the MS subscription OS or Office. Just get a chrome book and never look back. When you start using your device at the pro level, whether that be as a business tool or to do high end marketing or media work, you'll appreciate powerful devices with capabilities way beyond your $250 one time purchase.

Where you are wrong is your statement that a computer running versions of Office from 12 years ago can do what needs to be done in a professional level environment. I work in Excel 2010 everyday in spreadsheets up to 100MB in size. A computer 12 years old would crash just trying to open those files. MS has vastly improved the entire office suite over the last 12 years. There are lots of pro level features that power users such as myself are happy to pay for. I am their target market and I appreciate their excellent products. $8.25 a month is a bargain.

Oh and Tucker, I've had a MacBook Pro since 2008 as my personal laptop. I have never paid over $20 to update the OS. So it has been at least 4 years now.

I expect the OS upgrade for Windows to come in at $35 or so annually. And like Apple they will keep supporting the old version if you don't upgrade for 3 years.

I can't believe I forgot to address this absurd claim earlier. Anyone telling you we will find an uppermost limit is simply a limited thinker.

Setting aside that ridiculous notion for a minute. Even if it does somehow come true, we are still a long ways from 2050. The concept of the OS is alive and well and adapting to meet the needs of the evolving market. It's going to be quite a while before that changes. Good luck keeping your pile of loosely strung together old computer parts going until we evolve past OS's and our computers overthrow us because they have become self aware.

Any prediction today on the "limit" of human advancement is just a load of bullshit. We'll stop advancing when we stop advancing, and whenever that is can't possibly be predicted with any semblance of accuracy.

Also, I'm totally ok with a $30-40 upgrade fee for an OS every year. It's really just spreading out what it would cost to get a full OS every 4 years or so.

What he was referring to was Moore's Law. In a sense it's right. Eventually computing as we know it will work its way down to the molecular level. Processor speeds will approach the speed of light and simply won't be able to go any faster... That's where thinking comes into play. Quantum computing will revolutionize the way we currently do things. Then something else will come out.

There will always be something else or some new theory that will change everything. Maybe people will survive long enough to reach an actual uppermost limit, but we will all be long since dead by that time.

I'm going to create the first computer to power itself with the tears of college students. It sounds crazy, and you may be laughing now, but you just wait until you're laughing later and I prove I'm right. You'll be crying in your laughter. Tears of happy sadness.

I think it's funny that only the name is known but the internet complaining machine is already in full swing. I like Windows 8 even though I only have it on the desktop. But it's always the same: Something changes - DOOM! Nothing changes - DOOM!

Win 8 hasn't even had time to stretch its legs yet, it's only been out officially for a little more than a month, but we're going to have a conniption based on rumors of its successor? Calm down, everything will be alright... and if it's not, then you've got the choice to switch to another OS.

Nasty things were reported about Windows 7 before it was released too, in so far that it was deemed to be less secure than Vista due to what some bloggers found in a beta version and which was then coined to be "Microsoft's Worst Nightmare".

As Aurora pointed out above, there is always "DOOM!" speculated for the next version of Windows or MS anything. Though at least the original article didn't come from Engadget or Gizmodo. ><

So please excuse me while I wait for the doom to actually come, before getting too excited about it.

Win8 is working fine for me. Seems to be just as stable as Win7 and the bootup times are faster (though installing the OS on a newly purchased Samsung 830 SSD might have something to do with that. ).

I never gave the new interface a chance, though. Don't plan to, either.

But yeah, I'm not sure if I want a Windroid OS on my desktop, yet. It'll probably be fine for casual users, but power users like me will probably explore alternative operating systems until this all gets sorted out.

Kinda off subject but I am LOVING Win8 Phone and am fine with Win8 on my desktop. Still haven't adopted the new UI there though.

How do you turn off the new UI in Win8?

On a side note, what good is the METRO UI anyway?

Actually, I get that not everyone has the same computing needs, I also get that year-over-year changes to software rarely yield any meaningful change versus the previous version. Both MS and Apple have taken to padding the enhancement listings with things like adding more fonts. (Really, how many people outside of artists and graphic designers will need more than a dozen or so fonts?) Additionally, corporations are often loathe to do things like software upgrades on an annual basis, because every time you upgrade a piece of software, you run the risk of something breaking. Better to keep running the current version and have everything work, than to upgrade and break something important.

The problem comes in, however, when MS starts talking about everyone having to go to the annual subscription model. There are certainly businesses which can benefit from such things, but others won't. An awful lot of embedded systems run some version of Windows on them, these systems do what they need to do, and don't benefit from tweaks to the OS. Putting a periodic requirement that they "phone home" for OS updates to things like fonts and the latest version of IE are pointless. Forcing the manufacturers of those systems to come up with their own OS adds to the cost of those machines.

And until Google realizes that for many folks having the internet available 24/7 isn't always possible, Chromebooks are little more than toys. I've heard lots of tech-types rave over Chromebooks until they had to take a trip with one, and then bitch when they get back because they couldn't use the thing without internet access when they were on the plane, and then they got to their hotel and discovered that the hotel wifi was shit.

Again, it all depends upon your work environment and needs. Certain industries (like medical and defense work) benefit from powerful versions of things like Office, but putting that in the cloud, opens them up to considerable risk. Even companies outside those industries need to be able to run software disconnected from the internet in order to be able to protect their intellectual property. Even then, as Stuxnet showed, you can still be at risk of having problems.

So? It still doesn't change my point that they did it as a way to put the screws to MS because Apple makes its money from hardware and not software.

You have to install something like Classic Shell or similar add-ons. MS wants you to use Metro, no matter what.

On a tablet its probably pretty useful, but on a bog standard desktop, its little more than eye candy, really. MS had a really good idea with what they were trying to do (1 OS for all devices, different UIs based on the type of device you were using), but they screwed it up by forcing Metro on desktops, and the desktop on tablets (certain programs, like Office, run in desktop mode, even on tablets, which even fanboys of things like the Surface admit was a bad idea because its hard to do anything that way just using the touchscreen).

I don't happen to like the look of the Metro UI, because that particular design aesthetic reminds me of Mondrian's paintings:



Sales figures for new PCs aren't great, BTW.

Amazon said that it sold more apparel than it did computer related products over the Black Friday weekend which was a first for them.

Tucker, the bottom line is that if you want software you should be prepared to pay for it. There are free versions of most major office program and photo editor out there. If you can't use those then too bad, so sad, get out your wallet. If you don't want to get into the Windows OS subscription model then switch to some other OS or find a way to keep an old version going indefinitely. As Anc pointed out, you are clearly not the consumer they are going for.

Where did I say that MS should give Windows away?

I know this, and we've been over it.

Again, I have no problem with paying for software once. Its when I buy software, and then am asked to pay for it every year that I get cranky.

Which I said I was going to do.

And as I pointed out, there's lots of folks and businesses who will not want to have the OS updated on someone else's schedule. MS tests their OS' before they release them to try to minimize problems, but there's simply too many programs out there (some of them used by only a single company) for them to test all of them. This means that someone winds up being the guinea pig. Even large corporations can't afford to have mission critical systems fail when they do an upgrade (and there's also retraining issues as well), so they stay on an older OS, not because its better, but because they can't afford the downtime to troubleshoot the problems.

Again, embedded systems don't need to have their OS updated all that often, and requiring the system to be able to phone home periodically for validation and updates opens those systems up to problems.

If you want the desktop in Win8 move the mouse to the right off screen, click search then click desktop.

That works until you reboot the machine or hit the Windows key, if one wants a more permanent solution, then they have to use the software I linked to above.

I imagine that MS did the market research before moving towards the subscription model. I work in the software industry. I've seen how the move towards subscriptions vs owning licenses benefits both the company and the consumer. The pricing is set up so that you are really just spreading the one time ownership cost over every 3.5 years. In that period it is generally time for a new release with a major upgrade.

That is where you are behind the curve. You get mad because at that 4th year the price swings in favor of the software company but you are not considering that you are constantly receiving updates that are being pushed out with bug fixes and new features that are giving you a constantly improved product and a better user experience.

You seem to think that most corporations think like you, but they don't. The subscription model is really taking off, customer like it. Most big companies that have large IT departments and support 100s or 1000s of employees do upgrade to the latest version of Office when it comes out. They represent most of the market for office, followed by schools, then home users and small businesses. But the money comes from the businesses and schools mainly so of course you can expect them to be catered to. If a small business can't afford the 8-12 per month for an office subscription then they have much bigger problems anyway.

Ever been involved in market research? Its not nearly the scientific process its made out to be. Note that TV networks do lots of market research and yet still put lots of crap on TV.

So you're a bit biased.

Not everybody upgrades on that schedule.

Where did I say that I had a problem with paying full price?

Not at all.

No kidding. I can tell you stories about large corporations I've worked for that routinely do things which make no sense. One of the benefits of being a large corporation, however, is that you can afford to fuck up an awful lot without it completely wrecking your operation.

Really? Which ones? Because I've worked for some very large corporations and they were always a version or two behind in their software, if not more.

Office is only one program, and not nearly as essential to business operations as many other programs. If Office craps out on you because it doesn't work with some other program, its generally not the issue that having your production line come to a grinding halt, or being unable to get a video out on time to your customers are.

How quickly did businesses adopt Vista? IIRC, XP didn't lose its share of market dominance until after Win 7 came out and I know that Dell and other large PC producers convinced MS to allow them to continue selling XP long after MS originally planned to kill it.

So, tell me, if you paid cash for a brand new car and the dealer told you that if you wanted them to do any recall repairs on the car you were required to pay them a monthly subscription fee (even a modest one), how happy about that would you be?