Windows 8

[ProperModulation]

Yes, I clarified that in my response that you can do a full install, but it is indeed a pain in the ass.

It's not a pain in the ass at all, it's easy. I haven't had a painful windows installation experience since the days of having to load a crapload of floppies. The only time you have to do anything extra is if you want to load an upgrade CD onto a blank hard drive. Pre Win7 you'd just need to insert an old install disk, and post Win7 you need to do a quick registry change before you can activate. It's a small inconvenience to deal with in exchange for getting a discounted upgrade CD, but certainly not a pain in the ass. Especially when you consider that most people would probably use an upgrade CD on a hard drive where windows already exists, so the typical user doesn't have to do anything extra during installation. Just insert the DVD and hit the GO button!

As a side note, the Win7 installation routine was MUCH quicker than previous versions. It was 35 min from inserting the DVD to looking at a functional desktop. Nice! Most games take twice as long to install.

 

[DAB]

It's not a pain in the ass at all, it's easy. I haven't had a painful windows installation experience since the days of having to load a crapload of floppies. The only time you have to do anything extra is if you want to load an upgrade CD onto a blank hard drive. Pre Win7 you'd just need to insert an old install disk, and post Win7 you need to do a quick registry change before you can activate. It's a small inconvenience to deal with in exchange for getting a discounted upgrade CD, but certainly not a pain in the ass. Especially when you consider that most people would probably use an upgrade CD on a hard drive where windows already exists, so the typical user doesn't have to do anything extra during installation. Just insert the DVD and hit the GO button!

As a side note, the Win7 installation routine was MUCH quicker than previous versions. It was 35 min from inserting the DVD to looking at a functional desktop. Nice! Most games take twice as long to install.

Why do you guys make assumptions that everyone is going to know that there is a work around? You make it sound like every one in the world knows you can do this, but that just isn't true. Back when I was going though this I didn't know this and I can tell you YES it was a royal pain in the ass. Honestly I think most people would likely do what I did which was to install a base copy of their previous OS, then do the stupid upgrade. Means installing twice!

So, lets recap? I don't have to do this with OS-X END OF THE STORY! LOL

Win 7 is probably the best OS MS has ever actually put out my opinion and you are correct the installation is fast. I just hate all the hoops and shit one has to go through using an upgrade CD to do a full clean install. It just simply shouldn't be necessary for a work around if you want to install a bigger hard drive or maybe go to an SSD drive. I personally refuse to give MS a pass on this, for those of you that want too I am cool with that. But they won't get it from me. Vista is part of the reason I even tried a Mac.

 

[ProperModulation]

If you want to skirt their upgrade licensing (which you were trying to do) and load the upgrade to a bare hard drive, then you can find a simple workaround (although pre 7 it wasnt a workaround, it was a part of the install routine). It's written clearly on the box that you need to have an existing copy of windows on the target machine. This is exactly what you would have to do if you choose to skirt the OSX licensing and load on non-Apple hardware. Would you be so adamant about this if you had tried to load OSX to a netbook and had to search for a workaround? I doubt it. Compare apples to apples (no pun intended).

If you use the disc as intended (load over existing copy of Windows), then you can absolutely do a FULL CLEAN INSTALL of Win7 without doing ANYTHING other than insert upgrade DVD and enter your key. That's it! I did it myself three times in a weekend. So OSX doesn't have you enter a key. Big deal.

Not to mention the fact that most Windows users probably have never, and will never load an operating system. That's left for us geeks who feel the need to upgrade a perfectly fine system, or who build our own.

 

[DAB]

If you want to skirt their upgrade licensing (which you were trying to do) and load the upgrade to a bare hard drive, then you can find a simple workaround (although pre 7 it wasnt a workaround, it was a part of the install routine). It's written clearly on the box that you need to have an existing copy of windows on the target machine. This is exactly what you would have to do if you choose to skirt the OSX licensing and load on non-Apple hardware. Would you be so adamant about this if you had tried to load OSX to a netbook and had to search for a workaround? I doubt it. Compare apples to apples (no pun intended).

Okay here is apples to apples for you! I purchased a windows notebook with vista, I purchased an upgrade to win 7 and I did as you said it works just as was designed. The rub was when I installed a SSD and then tried to use the upgrade CD to do a full clean install. Again it installed just fine, but then when I entered the license guess what? I says this license is for an upgrade. LOL

I purchased a Macbook Pro with Leopard, purchased an upgrade to Snow Leopard and it installed perfectly as an upgrade. Decided to buy an SSD drive, took that upgrade Snow Leopard CD and it installed without issue.

Same scenarios for both a Windows and OS-X machine and one actually let me use a $29 upgrade CD to do a clean install, the other wants me to go back and install my original OS, then upgrade. I get the licensing thing for MS and in all honestly I wasn't trying to skirt anything. I just wanted my OS that I paid $150 for to work again. I got there, but it was a pain in the ass as I said. Why was it a pain in the ass, because I wasn't trying to skirt anything, I did it by the book just as MS said I had to do.

Now do I think that was BS, absofuckinglutely! I should have been able to take my DVD from my original install and that should have been proof enough that I had it installed, but NO, they want the copy to be on your hard drive. So, they force you to skirt it by using a work around or again you have to jump through hoops. The activation thing isn't the issue, the issue is the way they do their licensing that is the problem. Look even with that they have a right to do what they want and I made a decision to get a Mac. That solution so far is working out great for me.

If I was going to attempt to install an OS that I know wasn't designed for specific hardware then I was expect there to be some work around. Especially an OS that I paid $29 for. Try paying $150 and have it installed and working, then upgrade your hardware and oops.. no can do at least not without as you said skirting license, which I honestly didn't want to do and didn't do.

Your point about the license is valid, no doubt about it. But that doesn't change my opinion that MS charges to much for its OS and then it can be a royal pain in the ass to follow that license just to get you back to square one where you can get back to work on your computer should you need to do a fresh install of your then current version of the OS.

MS just like Apple has a right to do anything they want to do. Just like some won't give Apple a pass about some of their crap, I am not giving MS a pass on this because I think its BS. Yet, I will defend their right to have as much BS in their OS as they want, while enjoying my Mac. LOL

 

[memebag]

Also lets not forget that MS actually requires retailers that sell OEM to sell it with hardware, however most of those retailers ignore that requirement.

Nope. By assembling components to build my own computer, I became an OEM. I can buy OEM OSs by themselves.

My point is exactly the same as it was when this conversation was started. MS for one sucks at marketing and 2, they over price their OS. You can disagree, you can skirt the issue, you can say that Apple OS-X won't run on other hardware.. but the fact still remains!

You're missing the point. Microsoft is a software company. That's where they make their money. Apple is a computer company. If Apple wanted to, it could go head to head with Microsoft and sell OSX without the requirement to buy Apple hardware. That would increase Apple's costs, and force them to make money on the OS in addition to the hardware. Saying Microsoft's OS is overpriced because Apple's OS is cheaper doesn't make any sense. Microsoft's OS is overpriced if and only if people stop buying it. With about 90% of the OS market, that clearly isn't the case.

 

[HecticArt]

You're missing the point. Microsoft is a software company. That's where they make their money. Apple is a computer company. If Apple wanted to, it could go head to head with Microsoft and sell OSX without the requirement to buy Apple hardware. That would increase Apple's costs, and force them to make money on the OS in addition to the hardware. Saying Microsoft's OS is overpriced because Apple's OS is cheaper doesn't make any sense. Microsoft's OS is overpriced if and only if people stop buying it. With about 90% of the OS market, that clearly isn't the case.

That's a good point that I tend to forget myself.

MS sells software and it's more pricy.
Apple sells hardware with the intent that it's an easier, more enjoyable experience for the user. The hardware tends to be more expensive than others. it makes sense to me that the OS upgrades are more attractively priced to reinforce that. With such a tightly controlled ecosystem, I would think that it's easier for them manage that balance.

 

[DAB]

Nope. By assembling components to build my own computer, I became an OEM. I can buy OEM OSs by themselves.



You're missing the point. Microsoft is a software company. That's where they make their money. Apple is a computer company. If Apple wanted to, it could go head to head with Microsoft and sell OSX without the requirement to buy Apple hardware. That would increase Apple's costs, and force them to make money on the OS in addition to the hardware. Saying Microsoft's OS is overpriced because Apple's OS is cheaper doesn't make any sense. Microsoft's OS is overpriced if and only if people stop buying it. With about 90% of the OS market, that clearly isn't the case.

Right an another assumption that everyone knows one damn thing about OEM's. I do because I use to build PC's. Nonetheless, most see the retail price, not OEM.

MS is NOT just a software company, YES their OS is software, but your point simply doesn't change the fact that they were forced to re-introduce their family pack in order to reach their minimum sales goals and considering that overall PC's sales are flat thanks to Apple, MS had to make it up. In my opinion and it is just that my opinion, their OS is too damn expensive. You have absolutely NOTHING that proves otherwise, no more than I can prove that they are over priced, but I at least take a stab at it by looking at their sales figures. Their sales clearly show the result of them reintroducing the family pack and how that energized sales for those to upgrade. Because otherwise many just wait until they get a new PC to get the new OS.

I understand MS see the value of a $300 full version of Windows is worth it in their opinion, but rather it is worth that much is up to the individual. I think many spoke with their pocket books, they were not upgrading until the price dropped. I don't know a soul that would buy it at that full retail price, but I know some have. I know many more though that purchased the family pack because they could justify $50 an upgrade. Like usually Mem, you and I are at the crossroad and we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[SISO]

This looks a lot like the Windows Phone, the Windows Phone has been a flop. Not sure I get the thinking behind this, but applaud their efforts to be different. Though certainly I imagine you will be able to change this to look like Windows 7 or classic windows.

 

[DAB]

This looks a lot like the Windows Phone, the Windows Phone has been a flop. Not sure I get the thinking behind this, but applaud their efforts to be different. Though certainly I imagine you will be able to change this to look like Windows 7 or classic windows.

Ah, someone to finally get us back on track! Thanks SISO! I agree that Windows Phone has certainly not done what they thought it would. I think with this version of Windows the effort is going to finally be to get it working with touch screens and give it a more modern portable feel to it. This is really nothing more than changes to the GUI. Though of course it will support newer hardware and be a tad bit backwards compatible. MS doesn't seem so bent on supporting every single thing going backwards anymore as they use too. I think that is smart and brings a leaner meaner OS. Hopefully Win 8 continues the trend.