Windows 10 - free upgrade to those with PC using Windows 7 or 8

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Most eReaders use a linux based OS

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Not just ereaders, but Android is also a linux OS.

"Thanks for adding reputation to these users. May you be lucky enough to receive the same Reputation back in turn."

[fjtorres]

And now, back on topic: Microsoft just listed the six versions of Windows 10 incoming:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microso...s-10-editions/

Not counting the three embedded/Internet of Things (IoT) versions, there will be six Windows 10 SKUs: Home, Mobile, Pro, Enterprise, Education and Mobile Enterprise, according to a May 13 blog post from Windows Marketing chief Tony Prophet.

The three more relevant ones look to be:

Windows 10 Home: The consumer-focused desktop edition. This will include the core Windows 10 features, such as the Edge browser, Continuum tablet-mode for touch-capable devices; Cortana integration; free Photos, Maps, Mail, Calendar; Music and Video apps; and Windows Hello face-recognition/iris/fingerprint log-in for devices that support those technologies. On devices with screen sizes of 10.1 inches or less, users also will get Universal Office apps for free, once they are available.

Windows 10 Mobile: This is the SKU for Windows Phones and small Intel- and ARM-based tablets. This SKU will include the core Windows 10 features; free Universal Office apps once they are available; and support for Continuum for Phone, allowing customers to use phones as PCs connected to larger screens (but only on new devices supporting certain screen resolutions).

Windows 10 Pro: A desktop version of Windows 10 for mobile workers, tech enthusiasts and other power users. This version is one of at least two -- the other being Windows 10 Enterprise -- that will allow users to opt for Windows Update for Business. Windows Update for Business will allow admins to opt to not receive all feature and security updates from Microsoft immediately after they are available.

More at the source.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And now, back on topic:

Wait wait wait, I need to take one last shot at this:

eschwartz says he would not accuse users of linux-kernel-based ereaders like Kindle of "using Linux" but he would so accuse Android smartphone users.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And I wouldn't accuse them of using linux if they have an ereader (unless they use our third-party addons) but I do consider using Android to be using linux.

His reason for the difference is stated thusly:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Possibly because it is much more common to do things of that general nature on an Android... which in turn is probably because Android is not inherently aggressive towards attempts to do so...

Because Android is a general multipurpose platform, typically installed on general multipurpose devices.
I don't consider a Kindle to be not-a-general-purpose-os because it is unable to be used as one, I consider it so because it is dedicated to a specific task.

Android, being a general multipurpose device, then qualifies as a general multipurpose linux OS since it can and is used as such.

OK, so: We have a server running Linux. It hosts a VM that runs Windows. Lots of folks in my office, some of whom have no idea what Linux, or a VM is, use that Windows VM.
Do they "use Linux" in your book?
Why or why not?
Show your work.

[wodin]

Do I care what OS the MR forum server is running?

Uhhh... nope!

[WillAdams]

Yeah, arguments that using an ereader running Linux is equivalent to using a typical distribution of Linux from the user's perspective are specious --- along the lines of arguing that Tron is the most widely-used operating system in the world since it's typically used in automotive control and fuel systems:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/31855.html

William

(who really wishes it were easier to get Tron to run on a desktop, or better still a portable / tablet)

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by wodin

MacOS was built on a Unix kernel, but no one including Apple would suggest that Macs ran Unix, at least out of the box.

Actually, a friend of mine builds "turnkey," open-source business systems, using PostgreSQL running on Mac Minis. The Desktop is incidental to these machines. He says he'll may eventually go to Linux but the Mac Minis fill the bill and he's used to them. I don't think he's alone in using Macs this way.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And now, back on topic: Microsoft just listed the six versions of Windows 10 incoming: (snip)

What I'm interested in is the final pricing scheme, upgrade paths, and exactly what this subscription model means. Earlier announcements were hopeful in the respect of a free upgrade to Windows 10 and updates for a year. It's not that I have anything against paying for an OS, but I have found that Microsoft's traditional pricing of Windows was somewhat more than I was willing to pay. (On the other hand, I jumped at Windows 8 Pro for $40 at release.) The thing is, a free upgrade isn't an upgrade if it is only the Home version that is free and it doesn't support all of my system's memory. I'm also not terribly interested in paying annually for security updates, especially since the feature updates won't be particularly interesting from my perspective.

Originally Posted by WillAdams

Yeah, arguments that using an ereader running Linux is equivalent to using a typical distribution of Linux from the user's perspective are specious

I doubt that anyone is arguing that they are equivalent from the end-user's perspective. Clearly the use scenarios are different. However, they are the same operating system in many respects. Not every respect, but many.

This is important since my original reply was to:

Linux has been brimming with potential since my grown children were in diapers. There's a reason why they don't charge for it.

Clearly the adoption of the Linux kernel and associated open source libraries suggest that Linux has gone beyond, "brimming with potential," as is a major force in the market. It won't replace Windows on the desktop, but it is at the core of many products that people pay for.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by shalym

Ok...so since people can (and do) install a shell prompt and use it on their Android phones, then we can say that all of the Android phones can be considered as running Linux, right? Let's step back a bit, and say that all Android (and MacOS, incidentally) systems are running Unix, since someone used to Unix would feel at home in a Linux shell prompt. So we've established that all non-Windows systems are running Unix, right? (Although, I'm not sure about iOS--can you install a shell prompt and use Unix/Linux commands on that once it's jailbroken?)

Shari

Unix isn't an operating system, it's a standard. 'nuff said.

OK, fine. There is/was an actual OS called unix. But when we refer to linux/OSX/*bsd/etc. as "unix" the implication is "unix-like", as part of a general family design typically called "unix".
UNIX is a trademark now given to any unix-like kernel/userspace combo that fulfills certain specifications and pays for the privilege.

Also, the ReactOS are very hurt that you don't think they exist.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't think many people are going to agree with you that Android devices run Linux. Even though, as you rightly say, Android is built on a Linux kernel, it's generally considered to be a distinct o/s from Linux.

Android is one of many linux OSes. I don't even understand why there is a question.

It is a technical question, and the technical answer is "yes".


Force of habit and the fact that many people wouldn't recognize the word "linux" if it hit them over the head with a smartphone, but they do recognize "Android" since it is a famous brand -- that is why people don't call Android a type of linux.

Android is just as much of a distinct OS as any other OS built on the linux kernel.
ArchLinux is very distinct from Ubuntu is very distinct from Gentoo is very distinct from Fedora is very distinct from Android.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you elaborate on your claim that "most people don't know how to use Windows"? The overwhelming majority (something like 90%, I believe?) of desktop PCs run Windows; why do you believe that their owners don't know how to use them? What level of knowledge do you believe constitutes an ability to use it?

In this context, they would presumably have to know enough about using it for your metric to kick in -- that it matters to them what OS they are using, because knowing so grants them the ability to use it more effectively.

i.e. a lot of people only know how to run a program from a desktop icon, in fact I am reminded vividly of some of Hitch's rants about incompetent clients who didn't know what a file was nor how to download one from an email.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

I would delineate them by what actions a user takes to troubleshoot when something goes wrong on a stock device.

Windows: Run virus checker exe, install a driver, change a registry setting (after googling), reinstall Windows

Linux: google, google, sudo/apt-get commands

Kindle/Android: uninstall programs, reboot, call customer service, live with it

The typical troubleshooting process is very distinct for the three groups. So that's my "quacks like a duck" litmus test.

That litmus test is only testing the average intelligence of the users. A typical Android user would also use the Ubuntu Software Center when on a Linux PC -- what is the difference between that and the Google Play Store... besides what computing language is used in installed programs?

Also I will have you know I never use apt-get, does that mean ArchLinux isn't linux?
What would you call someone who runs LFS? They don't even use a package manager, it is all "./configure; make; make install" after manually downloading sources

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ApK

Wait wait wait, I need to take one last shot at this:

eschwartz says he would not accuse users of linux-kernel-based ereaders like Kindle of "using Linux" but he would so accuse Android smartphone users.


His reason for the difference is stated thusly:



OK, so: We have a server running Linux. It hosts a VM that runs Windows. Lots of folks in my office, some of whom have no idea what Linux, or a VM is, use that Windows VM.
Do they "use Linux" in your book?
Why or why not?
Show your work.

I don't understand the question.

The user is using Windows. Windows is running on a VM. Other people might run Windows, with Windows running directly on a microprocessor.

What is the difference between the two?

How about this -- if I remote-desktop into Windows-on-a-VM, am I using Windows? What if I remote-desktop from a linux PC?
Either way, does the fact that Windows is on a VM rather than native, make any difference to me?



At the end of the day, the OS I am using is Windows. Regardless of linuxy OSes that happen to be in the general vicinity.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

What I'm interested in is the final pricing scheme, upgrade paths, and exactly what this subscription model means. Earlier announcements were hopeful in the respect of a free upgrade to Windows 10 and updates for a year. It's not that I have anything against paying for an OS, but I have found that Microsoft's traditional pricing of Windows was somewhat more than I was willing to pay. (On the other hand, I jumped at Windows 8 Pro for $40 at release.) The thing is, a free upgrade isn't an upgrade if it is only the Home version that is free and it doesn't support all of my system's memory. I'm also not terribly interested in paying annually for security updates, especially since the feature updates won't be particularly interesting from my perspective.

Windows upgrades have generally been like to like: Home should upgrade to Home, Premium to Premium. If they weren't going to do it that way they wouldn't be retaining the names.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Windows upgrades have generally been like to like: Home should upgrade to Home, Premium to Premium. If they weren't going to do it that way they wouldn't be retaining the names.

I don't see mention of a Premium version, does that mean Home will cover both going forward?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I don't see mention of a Premium version, does that mean Home will cover both going forward?

Probably not.
The last time they had a Pro version they mapped it to the Premium.

A lot is going to depend on what is in the Home version.
The pro is described as a desktop power user version, which maps to Premium.