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

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. People buy PCs to run applications; the overwhelming majority don't give a damn what version of an operating system it's running.

And when those applications will no longer run on a new machine, what should they buy?

That's the nub of we naysayers are stating. I bought a piece of software. It did what I wanted then and still does now. Why do I have to scrap it, and re-buy it, because the new machines won't run it? Is there a new version even available? How many different applications will I have to buy? All of these issues are seen by those people who "don't give a damn", at least until they get the final bill. And bill. And bill.

Microsoft is trying to convert Windows into a "walled garden", just like Apple has built for iOS and the Mac. That way, nobody will leave, and they can reap the economic benefits of the closed environment.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In this case, what you mean is, a monopoly almost completely controlling the desktop has a price. If Windows 7 satisfactorily runs your applications, how is it "progress" to demand customers move to Windows 10?

Then you simply keep running it as Win7 without support. Same as leaving XP run even though it doesn't have support any more. No support doesn't mean it stops working.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And when those applications will no longer run on a new machine, what should they buy?

This is not a common occurrence on a Windows PC; backward compatibility is excellent, unlike with MacOS. I've only had one "application won't run" issue in the last 10 years, and that was because of a device driver that the manufacturer hadn't produced a Windows 8 version of.

Of course I'm not saying that it can't happen, but it's definitely not common.

What is the software that you're having problems with?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In this case, what you mean is, a monopoly almost completely controlling the desktop has a price. If Windows 7 satisfactorily runs your applications, how is it "progress" to demand customers move to Windows 10?

Because at some point it becomes too expensive to keep pushing updates out to stop all those people that are jumping to make use of any holes in the OS. Remove all hackers and you'll never need to upgrade your OS. Except when you want new/updated functionality.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head that you must buy that new pc and upgrade that OS. If you never go to the internet, you can keep on running XP on that machine from 2010. Just don't expect it to run on that machine from 2016. And even if you do go to the internet, if you don't care about hackers, etc, you'll just go ahead, nobody is stopping you.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Then you simply keep running it as Win7 without support. Same as leaving XP run even though it doesn't have support any more. No support doesn't mean it stops working.

Not really a viable option. On Windows, security updates (all of them) are a necessity. The only real option is to continue using old hardware -- or buy new hardware with the old CPUs. I'm sure Microsoft's OEM partners are going to really appreciate that.

For me -- personally -- the best option is to move to Linux. I did that years ago. Unfortunately I still have to support my wife's Windows 7 desktop and laptop. And when I buy "new" (probably refurbished) machines I'll have to make sure they don't have the newer CPUs in them.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rcentros

In this case, what you mean is, a monopoly almost completely controlling the desktop has a price. If Windows 7 satisfactorily runs your applications, how is it "progress" to demand customers move to Windows 10?

It's not. It only serves the corporation and stockholders.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Because at some point it becomes too expensive to keep pushing updates out to stop all those people that are jumping to make use of any holes in the OS. Remove all hackers and you'll never need to upgrade your OS. Except when you want new/updated functionality.

Except the updates will still be available for the older CPU-based machines, so what you said makes no sense. This is a strong-arm tactic by Microsoft (using the advantage of their near desktop monopoly) to force their users to move Windows 10. There's nothing anyone can do about it, but let's at least be honest about what's going on here.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Nobody is holding a gun to your head that you must buy that new pc and upgrade that OS. If you never go to the internet, you can keep on running XP on that machine from 2010. Just don't expect it to run on that machine from 2016. And even if you do go to the internet, if you don't care about hackers, etc, you'll just go ahead, nobody is stopping you.

Obviously. I've already posted that I will have to avoid the newer CPUs for my wife so she can keep running Windows 7. (Not going on the Internet is not an option.) Fortunately -- for me -- Linux doesn't have any of these monopoly enforced "take it or leave it" choices. I can use whatever hardware I want without any restrictions.

What's amazing to me is that so many will apologize for Microsoft's unprecedented, strong-arm, monopoly behavior. Do you actually like being controlled in this way?

A lot of Windows users don't like this ... here's a link to another article about Microsoft's strong arm tactics. (And this is from a guy who likes Windows 10.)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/30242...e-tactics.html

[ApK]

If you want to be honest, stop using the word monopoly here. It's got nothing to do with it. I don't like ms's tactics, but it's no different than Apple saying if you want to run osx, then you must buy Apple hardware.
What's going on here is a company having a popular, closed, product that people are compelled for various reasons to continue using. That windows may have gotten to that position by anticompetitive practices in the past is not the issue here.

[JSWolf]

There were other operating systems available for Intel based platforms. They didn't take off (obviously) and Windows did. You cannot blame MS for making an OS that developers wanted to develop for.

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If you want the product, feel free to pay the price.

Just don't suddenly say - I shocked, shocked, to find I'm locked into a platform...

I've been locked into Windows since 3.0 but that's not entirely true as I'm typing this on an iPhone.

Originally Posted by rcentros

In this case, what you mean is, a monopoly almost completely controlling the desktop has a price. If Windows 7 satisfactorily runs your applications, how is it "progress" to demand customers move to Windows 10?

Then I guess we should hold MS to be accountable and backwards compatible for how long? I'm sure there are some 286 machines still running should MS be made to support them forever?

As far as demanding the. To upgrade I'm not sure where that's coming from. My wife has a W7 machine and yes it asked her if she wants to upgrade but hasn't been forced. Then maybe I miss something in the last 20-30 pages of the thread.

In the car world manufacturers are only required to make parts available for 10 years and in some cases you lucky if they are out there for 3 past the last production date.

[tomsem]

Newer hardware is not guaranteed to run Windows 8 or 7. That's all. If you like Windows 7 or 8.1, Microsoft is not forcing you to upgrade. 'Encouraging', yes.

Security updates will continue to come until January 14, 2020. And they're going to know long before that date approaches how many machines are going to be at risk. They can always push that date out.

[dickloraine]

Why would you buy an expensive cutting-edge processor anyway, if the OS can't make use of it? You wouldn't buy 16gb of RAM for a 32bit windows system either. This should be only an issue for businesses who need the power, but can't yet upgrade to windows 10. For these there will be the supported devices.

Is there money involved? Of course. But it costs money too, to implement support for new hardware.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is not a common occurrence on a Windows PC; backward compatibility is excellent, unlike with MacOS. I've only had one "application won't run" issue in the last 10 years, and that was because of a device driver that the manufacturer hadn't produced a Windows 8 version of.

Of course I'm not saying that it can't happen, but it's definitely not common.

What is the software that you're having problems with?

16 bit software stopped running "out of the box" with Windows 7 64 bit. Microsoft even tried to stop running 32 bit software, but the hue and cry was too much and they released a 32 bit emulator.

Word 97? Funny, it does everything I want in a word processor....

[jj2me]

Whatever Microsoft's motivations are, this new policy should have a deleterious effect on retail OS sales.

The advantage of buying a retail boxed Windows OS over the OEM Windows version that ships with a retail PC has been that you could move it to your next build (as long as you de-activate it from your current build).

That advantage seems to be lost now (assuming you move forward with newer processors). Processor generations change every 2-3 years, while the Windows OS lifecycle is 10 years, a gross mismatch.

It's especially bad for Windows 8/8.1 retail copies. Say you build a Skylake desktop and upgrade Windows to Windows 10 before July 29th. Anytime after July 29th, when you want to move that retail OS license to the next PC, you have to downgrade both the hardware and the OS (to 8.1 per Microsoft rules on the Win 10 free upgrade).

Sorta pushes some desktop builders to Linux, unless Microsoft lowers the price of retail Windows, proportional to the loss of migration capability.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ApK

If you want to be honest, stop using the word monopoly here. It's got nothing to do with it. I don't like ms's tactics, but it's no different than Apple saying if you want to run osx, then you must buy Apple hardware.

No, the word "monopoly" is appropriate here. If Windows wasn't a monopoly operating system -- with users tied to it via their major applications -- Microsoft wouldn't be able dictate these draconian terms. Think about it. They've changed the rules in midstream. Windows 7 was supposed to be supported until 2020. Now they're limiting that support in ways they've never done before (use newer equipment and you can't use Windows 7). They can only get away with this because they believe that most of their users have no other options. In other words they're using their monopoly standing to manipulate their customers.