Microsoft Giving Away Windows 8.1?

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't like
the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

Stef

Stef wrote:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't like
the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

Stef

As long as the included apps don't cost money or, if they do (i.e.,
they're lureware) then they can be uninstalled or ignored.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:52:33 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote in

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't like
the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

Stef

+1 on that.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't like
the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over Windows 8
is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly well on
low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if your hardware
could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

--
Going to church doesn't make you a christian any more than
standing in a garage makes you a car.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:13:23 -0800, DevilsPGD
wrote in


Going to church doesn't make you a christian any more than
standing in a garage makes you a car.

Nice one.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't like
the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over Windows 8
is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly well on
low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if your hardware
could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No keyboard.
No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either into a
traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows users want.
Why MS is responding so slowly to that is anybody's guess. My guess is
MS wants "in" on the big profits of the tablet market, and are trying to
force users in that direction. It matters not that 90% of the Windows
users out there use desktops whether it is a box under the desk or a
laptop. It's what they need. Why can't MS admit that? Pride?

I have no complaints about the OS itself. It's the GUI that's the
"problem." And MS' stubborn arrogance.

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.
How many XP users out there with hardware that is 5 or more years old?
Millions! W8/8.1 won't run on it. Many businesses in that group. Would
cost millions to upgrade: new hardware, new apps, retraining, etc.
Business can't afford that right now. Neither can the average user.

Let's face it: Microsoft dropped the ball with W8. Of course, it's not
the first time. Remember Vista?

Stef

On 3/1/2014 12:26 AM, Stef wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't like
the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over Windows 8
is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly well on
low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if your hardware
could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No keyboard.
No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either into a
traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows users want.
Why MS is responding so slowly to that is anybody's guess. My guess is
MS wants "in" on the big profits of the tablet market, and are trying to
force users in that direction. It matters not that 90% of the Windows
users out there use desktops whether it is a box under the desk or a
laptop. It's what they need. Why can't MS admit that? Pride?

Wow! What version of Windows 8 are you running? As mine isn't like that
at all. This one is Windows 8 on a laptop. No touch screen and I have it
docked so I am using an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse. And
Windows 8 is super easy with a keyboard/mouse. And this is my preferred
method of using Windows 8.

I do have two Windows tablets that is also running Windows 8. One
doesn't have touch, but just pen enabled and that is all. The other one
has both touch and pen enabled. So I have them all covered. And even for
both of them, I still prefer to have them docked and using an external
monitor, keyboard, and mouse too. But I don't have to, as I could use
them as a tablet too.

I have no complaints about the OS itself. It's the GUI that's the
"problem." And MS' stubborn arrogance.

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.
How many XP users out there with hardware that is 5 or more years old?
Millions! W8/8.1 won't run on it. Many businesses in that group. Would
cost millions to upgrade: new hardware, new apps, retraining, etc.
Business can't afford that right now. Neither can the average user.

Wow! What kind of hardware do you buy? This machine is eight years old
and runs XP, Vista, 7, and 8. Yes and I have all of the drivers for all
of them too. Plus it is a business class machine. Windows 8 upgrade
costs me $39.95 plus $9.95 for the Media Center.

One of my Motion Computing LE1700 is also eight years old and can run
the same Windows versions and one of them I also have Windows 8
installed on it. That Windows 8 Pro costs me $14.95 directly from Microsoft.

My other Windows 8 Pro machine is a Dell Latitude ST. It originally came
with Windows 7 Pro and was manufactured in 2011. And upgrading it to
Windows 8 Pro also costs me $14.95 (directly from Microsoft).

Let's face it: Microsoft dropped the ball with W8. Of course, it's not
the first time. Remember Vista?

Let's face it, you have a different Windows 8 than I do.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8 Pro w/Media Center

BillW50 wrote:

On 3/1/2014 12:26 AM, Stef wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't like
the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over Windows 8
is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly well on
low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if your hardware
could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No keyboard.
No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either into a
traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows users want.
Why MS is responding so slowly to that is anybody's guess. My guess is
MS wants "in" on the big profits of the tablet market, and are trying to
force users in that direction. It matters not that 90% of the Windows
users out there use desktops whether it is a box under the desk or a
laptop. It's what they need. Why can't MS admit that? Pride?

Wow! What version of Windows 8 are you running? As mine isn't like that
at all. This one is Windows 8 on a laptop. No touch screen and I have it
docked so I am using an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse. And
Windows 8 is super easy with a keyboard/mouse. And this is my preferred
method of using Windows 8.

You as well as others misunderstood my statement. I didn't mean W8
wouldn't work with a keyboard and mouse, or run on a laptop or PC. I
merely stated that it was designed for a tablet, which has no
keyboard or mouse.

MS wanted "in" on that market, once it had proven itself lucrative
enough. So, a day late and a dollar short, MS developed a new OS, W8,
and a tablet to go with it, The Surface, and alienated all their
desktop/laptop users with the Metro GUI. Why there wasn't the option to
choose either GUIs, I don't know. Probably, saved MS a nickel an OS.
Pennywise, but pound foolish.

I do have two Windows tablets that is also running Windows 8. One
doesn't have touch, but just pen enabled and that is all. The other one
has both touch and pen enabled. So I have them all covered. And even for
both of them, I still prefer to have them docked and using an external
monitor, keyboard, and mouse too. But I don't have to, as I could use
them as a tablet too.

I have no complaints about the OS itself. It's the GUI that's the
"problem." And MS' stubborn arrogance.

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.
How many XP users out there with hardware that is 5 or more years old?
Millions! W8/8.1 won't run on it. Many businesses in that group. Would
cost millions to upgrade: new hardware, new apps, retraining, etc.
Business can't afford that right now. Neither can the average user.

Wow! What kind of hardware do you buy? This machine is eight years old
and runs XP, Vista, 7, and 8. Yes and I have all of the drivers for all
of them too. Plus it is a business class machine. Windows 8 upgrade
costs me $39.95 plus $9.95 for the Media Center.

Consider yourself lucky. I've read some older systems that will run 8,
but not 8.1, And it seems that both 8 and 8.1 have problems with AMD
CPUs. Sometimes. 8 didn't in my case. I ran the 32-bit pre-release 8
in a Virtualbox VM on a 64-bit Debian 7 (Wheezy) box with both a
3.0 GHz Ahtlon X2 Dual Core and, later, 3.0 GHz Phenom Quad Core (I
upgraded) with 8GB RAM. The VM has direct access to the CPU. So, CPU
is not virtual. I assigned a single core to the W8 VM. W8 had no
problems with either CPU. I tested it with 1, 2 and 3GB RAM.
Performances was hesistent only with 1 Gig, but still worked. Tested it
for several weeks, running continuously 24/7 in its own workspace.
Never crashed. Also, tested Classic Shell. I never tested 8.1. I'm
not sold on 8/8.X. Going to wait and see what W9 looks like.

Currently, for my Windows needs, I have 32-bit XP running in a VM with
3GB RAM assigned and 1 CPU Core. And W2k on an old Thinkpad 240X which
I hardly ever use.

Let's face it: Microsoft dropped the ball with W8. Of course, it's not
the first time. Remember Vista?

Let's face it, you have a different Windows 8 than I do.

You may like 8, but I and over 50% of the Windows users out there
don't. And I'm willing to wait for something I prefer. As others are.

Stef

On 3/2/2014 5:05 PM, Stef wrote:
BillW50 wrote:

On 3/1/2014 12:26 AM, Stef wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle

http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't like
the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over Windows 8
is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly well on
low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if your hardware
could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No keyboard.
No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either into a
traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows users want.
Why MS is responding so slowly to that is anybody's guess. My guess is
MS wants "in" on the big profits of the tablet market, and are trying to
force users in that direction. It matters not that 90% of the Windows
users out there use desktops whether it is a box under the desk or a
laptop. It's what they need. Why can't MS admit that? Pride?

Wow! What version of Windows 8 are you running? As mine isn't like that
at all. This one is Windows 8 on a laptop. No touch screen and I have it
docked so I am using an external monitor, keyboard, and mouse. And
Windows 8 is super easy with a keyboard/mouse. And this is my preferred
method of using Windows 8.

You as well as others misunderstood my statement. I didn't mean W8
wouldn't work with a keyboard and mouse, or run on a laptop or PC. I
merely stated that it was designed for a tablet, which has no
keyboard or mouse.

No I got that, you miss understood me. Windows 8 works perfectly fine
with a keyboard and mouse. There should be no complaints about this at
all. Although Windows does have the Start Screen and Metro that not only
works well with the keyboard and mouse, but with touch too.

MS wanted "in" on that market, once it had proven itself lucrative
enough. So, a day late and a dollar short, MS developed a new OS, W8,
and a tablet to go with it, The Surface, and alienated all their
desktop/laptop users with the Metro GUI. Why there wasn't the option to
choose either GUIs, I don't know. Probably, saved MS a nickel an OS.
Pennywise, but pound foolish.

Oh come on! It is like Windows 8 has two virtual desktops. Ever use
virtual desktops before? If you want to live only on the desktop side,
nothing is stopping you. Maybe later versions will, but not Windows 8.

I do have two Windows tablets that is also running Windows 8. One
doesn't have touch, but just pen enabled and that is all. The other one
has both touch and pen enabled. So I have them all covered. And even for
both of them, I still prefer to have them docked and using an external
monitor, keyboard, and mouse too. But I don't have to, as I could use
them as a tablet too.

I have no complaints about the OS itself. It's the GUI that's the
"problem." And MS' stubborn arrogance.

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.
How many XP users out there with hardware that is 5 or more years old?
Millions! W8/8.1 won't run on it. Many businesses in that group. Would
cost millions to upgrade: new hardware, new apps, retraining, etc.
Business can't afford that right now. Neither can the average user.

Wow! What kind of hardware do you buy? This machine is eight years old
and runs XP, Vista, 7, and 8. Yes and I have all of the drivers for all
of them too. Plus it is a business class machine. Windows 8 upgrade
costs me $39.95 plus $9.95 for the Media Center.

Consider yourself lucky. I've read some older systems that will run 8,
but not 8.1, And it seems that both 8 and 8.1 have problems with AMD
CPUs. Sometimes. 8 didn't in my case. I ran the 32-bit pre-release 8
in a Virtualbox VM on a 64-bit Debian 7 (Wheezy) box with both a
3.0 GHz Ahtlon X2 Dual Core and, later, 3.0 GHz Phenom Quad Core (I
upgraded) with 8GB RAM. The VM has direct access to the CPU. So, CPU
is not virtual. I assigned a single core to the W8 VM. W8 had no
problems with either CPU. I tested it with 1, 2 and 3GB RAM.
Performances was hesistent only with 1 Gig, but still worked. Tested it
for several weeks, running continuously 24/7 in its own workspace.
Never crashed. Also, tested Classic Shell. I never tested 8.1. I'm
not sold on 8/8.X. Going to wait and see what W9 looks like.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! AMD processors? They always was the underdog and they
always have had problems. Sure you buy a machine with an AMD and it
works just fine. Yes I have ADMs just like that. But if you upgrade the
OS or anything, all bets are off. That is just life with AMD.

Currently, for my Windows needs, I have 32-bit XP running in a VM with
3GB RAM assigned and 1 CPU Core. And W2k on an old Thinkpad 240X which
I hardly ever use.

Sounds fine with me.

Let's face it: Microsoft dropped the ball with W8. Of course, it's not
the first time. Remember Vista?

Let's face it, you have a different Windows 8 than I do.

You may like 8, but I and over 50% of the Windows users out there
don't. And I'm willing to wait for something I prefer. As others are.

No, I think both Windows 7 and 8 are ok. I love XP the most out of any
OS as far. Although I think most Windows 8 complaints are bogus. It is
still fine, but it is just different. And some people can't deal with it.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 7 Home SP1

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote in

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.
How many XP users out there with hardware that is 5 or more years old?
Millions! W8/8.1 won't run on it. Many businesses in that group. Would
cost millions to upgrade: new hardware, new apps, retraining, etc.
Business can't afford that right now. Neither can the average user.

Well said.


Let's face it: Microsoft dropped the ball with W8. Of course, it's not
the first time. Remember Vista?

And Windows ME before that. MS business model:

1) conjure up a new OS version with lots of bloat so you need a new
computer (e.g. one with a touch screen) to run it. Hardware
manufactures love this so they are on board;

2) figure out some way to force users to buy it, usually by forcing
software writers to issue new versions of software that utilize the
bloat in (1) and convince users that they need the new software
version because it's new. Software writers love this.

The problem is that many users, particularly businesses, have found
that they can't afford the upgrade process as described above, and
that their current "outdated" systems work perfectly fine and do all
that they want from them. The very smart owners of current systems
have started to stock spare parts from "outdated" systems to extend
the life of their current systems.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

CRNG wrote:

The problem is that many users, particularly businesses, have found
that they can't afford the upgrade process as described above, and
that their current "outdated" systems work perfectly fine and do all
that they want from them. The very smart owners of current systems
have started to stock spare parts from "outdated" systems to extend
the life of their current systems.


Not practical and with diminishing return.
The 'smart owners' aren't as insightful as you portray or perceive.

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

In the last episode of ,
CRNG said:

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stef
wrote in

Moderately recent hardware? I'll assume that means a W7 machine.
How many XP users out there with hardware that is 5 or more years old?
Millions! W8/8.1 won't run on it. Many businesses in that group. Would
cost millions to upgrade: new hardware, new apps, retraining, etc.
Business can't afford that right now. Neither can the average user.

Well said.

Given that something like 95% of users never upgrade their OS separate
from hardware unless it's offered free and done automatically (read:
service packs), this is not an unreasonable approach.

That being said, the effective performance from Vista going forward has
improved on the same or similar hardware, and drivers are largely
compatible across platforms too, so Microsoft is moving the right
direction here in terms of reducing the system resources needed.

If you're running a 5+ year old system, you probably shouldn't expect to
run the latest software with similar performance to modern hardware
either, that's reasonable. Modern OSes are largely tuned to perform
better on modern hardware, assuming at least a couple cores, offloading
graphics to the video card rather than doing it in CPU like XP, etc.

--
Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool.

Stef wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle


http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't
like the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over
Windows 8 is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly
well on low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if
your hardware could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No
keyboard. No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either
into a traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows
users want.

My Windows 8.1 notebook does not have a touch screen, and I have no problem
using its interface unmodified by any third-party utilities. The computer is
stable, faster than the Vista or Windows 7 equivalents, and provides access
to more apps via Metro.

I suspect that there are some who just don't want to change, which makes me
wonder why they did in the first place? I'm posting this from one of my
Win2k machines, which is the OS I prefer over XP, Vista or Win7. Nobody is
forcing folks to "upgrade", but I think it behooves those who do to learn
the benefits of the new OS as well as the hardware that it supports, because
time doesn't move in reverse in this neck of the universe. 8-D
--
best regards,

Neil

On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:02:44 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Stef wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle


http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't
like the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over
Windows 8 is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly
well on low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if
your hardware could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No
keyboard. No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either
into a traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows
users want.

My Windows 8.1 notebook does not have a touch screen, and I have no problem
using its interface unmodified by any third-party utilities. The computer is
stable, faster than the Vista or Windows 7 equivalents, and provides access
to more apps via Metro.

I suspect that there are some who just don't want to change, which makes me
wonder why they did in the first place? I'm posting this from one of my
Win2k machines, which is the OS I prefer over XP, Vista or Win7. Nobody is
forcing folks to "upgrade", but I think it behooves those who do to learn
the benefits of the new OS as well as the hardware that it supports, because
time doesn't move in reverse in this neck of the universe. 8-D

I tried upgrading win 8.0 twice. The first time image copy was used
to go back to 8.0, the second time the 8.0 install disc (and image
copy) was needed. I require a physical backup to blu-ray discs, it's
no longer possible with 8.1, perhaps the cloud is deemed sufficient
for a safe backup.

On 3/1/2014 9:20 AM, Glenn wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 10:02:44 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Stef wrote:
DevilsPGD wrote:

In the last episode of , Stef
said:

Came across this little blurb. chuckle, chuckle


http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/54...ing-experiment

What a joke as a marketing ploy. When half your customers don't
like the product, giving it away won't change that consensus. MS has
already reduced licensing frees with little or no tangible results.

MS is in denial. It needs to get its head out of the sand, and give
their desktop customers what they want: A true desktop, mouse and
keyboard version.

It would also be nice if it ran on users' current hardware and
a totally new system purchase wasn't necessary. But perhaps, I'm
dreaming, and asking too much. This IS Windows after all.

That's pretty much what Windows 8.1 is; the polish it has over
Windows 8 is primarily to enable desktop users. It runs surprisingly
well on low-resource systems, new hardware is far from needed if
your hardware could handle any moderately recent version of Windows.

Even so, 8 or 8.1 are really designed to run on a tablet. No
keyboard. No mouse. It takes third-party utilities to turn either
into a traditional desktop which is what the majority of Windows
users want.

My Windows 8.1 notebook does not have a touch screen, and I have no problem
using its interface unmodified by any third-party utilities. The computer is
stable, faster than the Vista or Windows 7 equivalents, and provides access
to more apps via Metro.

I suspect that there are some who just don't want to change, which makes me
wonder why they did in the first place? I'm posting this from one of my
Win2k machines, which is the OS I prefer over XP, Vista or Win7. Nobody is
forcing folks to "upgrade", but I think it behooves those who do to learn
the benefits of the new OS as well as the hardware that it supports, because
time doesn't move in reverse in this neck of the universe. 8-D

I tried upgrading win 8.0 twice. The first time image copy was used
to go back to 8.0, the second time the 8.0 install disc (and image
copy) was needed. I require a physical backup to blu-ray discs, it's
no longer possible with 8.1, perhaps the cloud is deemed sufficient
for a safe backup.

I don't do external "clouds" for anything. It's easy enough to have an
in-house server or network HDDs to back up all of one's systems.
--
best regards,

Neil