I agree.
Instead of fixing their products as quickly as possible, they should hold onto problems. No patches, no matter how severe the vulnerability until patch Tuesday. I'm sure that'd go over for them well.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft to Cut Windows Licensing Price by 70% to Compete with Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree.
Instead of fixing their products as quickly as possible, they should hold onto problems. No patches, no matter how severe the vulnerability until patch Tuesday. I'm sure that'd go over for them well.
Last edited:
I'm not the one who said it is the WORST OS EVER. I'm not the one arguing this on the basis of ONLY USING WINDOWS. So, kindly, get some facts. It also isn't even the worst current OS. There are a thousand current OS's out there. Windows 8 isn't the worst at everything.
I'm sure I could find a Linux OS that's worse than Windows.
This isn't just about laptops and desktops though. Microsoft is also trying to compete in the tablet market. No doubt one of their goals is to encourage the production of small Windows 8.1 tablets that undercut the $299 iPad Mini.
Not likely. This is the price that computer manufacturers pay. You might look at buying a cheap PC
Many people work at companies with company wide licenses and can install it for free.You were saying I said that though in your reply to me. That was my point, so you get the FACTS, mate. I was talking about just Windows, as that's the point here, you're trying to justify microsoft by saying 'we'll others are worse' which is a childish argument. If you're going to reply to my post, reply to what I say, not what others have said.
Now on my comment about current OS's, you quoted it before I fixed my intended comment. I meant to say ONE of the worst current OS's.
I tried that. It said "30 minutes until the download is finished". An hour later it said "Takes about an hour to install". The next two hours, it counted down to zero then said "Oh, and another hour". It counted down a few minutes, then nothing happened anymore.
Sure, but it was MS that managed to disrupt the market and not Apple. It doesn't matter who was the first. It matters who was the first to change the structure of the market, and we all know that that was MS.
We could see the same pattern emerging with smart watches. Sure there are plentiful on the market now, but they are hardly creating a dent in the market from a global point of view. It appears that only Apple might be able to change that. Or Samsung if they are able to release a proper version of a smart watch.
Is it true? I think it is. Is it fair? There are all these people comparing Windows sales with Mac OS X sales, which is also not fair, because Apple doesn't even _try_ to compete in that market (there's no doubt that Apple selling MacOS X to the general public would easily achieve 20-30 percent market share, probably more, but they have no intention to do so).
I have posted plenty on Apple as a "form over function" oriented company. If I implied in my post they are not swayed by fashion that is my error to be sure.
I have rendered posts on iPhone/iPad, iMacs and the new Mac (mini) Pro about some decisions that appear to be more about form than function.
Oh, most certainly it could be considered one of the worst if you don't like the move to mobile. But that excludes most OSs these days.
I wouldn't call it the worst OS ever. For it to be considered as much, it'd have to be a buggy, janky mess that barely works. From a purely technical standpoint, Win8 is one of the fastest, lightest, and well put together versions of Windows yet released. It's quicker and uses less ram on average than even OSX.
But it is the most initially confusing, and does require a bit of work to get the most out of it. I've had this conversation a thousand times before, so I won't go into detail concerning its problems, but I'll sum up my issues with it as saying it's not a good Out of the Box OS.
So is it the worst OS ever? No. But it could be a helluva lot better as far as the UI is concerned.
Business versus consumer
I've used Windows at work forever and bought my first Mac for home use about 5 years ago. As PCs died at home, I replaced them with Macs so now I'm Windows-free at home. Windows 7/MS Office is great for what we need at work, other than the roughly weekly updates causing me to restart.
Our CIO will not touch Windows 8.1 for our 200 users. We also won't move to Apple given the massive cost of hardware that would need to be purchased. To that end there is room for both companies in selling/distributing their operating systems.
My non-IT professional opinion is that Windows looks like it was designed by and for techies that like to tweak things, without the involvement of "average" non-technical users. OSX just seems simpler in execution, especially in the way apps are installed. But I'm not going to move away from Windows 7/Office for my business needs (I'm in the financial services industry).
Microsoft's problems have been in their largely failed attempts to design consumer-focused technology. IMHO, they just don't seem to have the right people to execute in that space, and they are followers rather then leaders.
I've used Windows at work forever and bought my first Mac for home use about 5 years ago. As PCs died at home, I replaced them with Macs so now I'm Windows-free at home. Windows 7/MS Office is great for what we need at work, other than the roughly weekly updates causing me to restart.
Our CIO will not touch Windows 8.1 for our 200 users. We also won't move to Apple given the massive cost of hardware that would need to be purchased. To that end there is room for both companies in selling/distributing their operating systems.
My non-IT professional opinion is that Windows looks like it was designed by and for techies that like to tweak things, without the involvement of "average" non-technical users. OSX just seems simpler in execution, especially in the way apps are installed. But I'm not going to move away from Windows 7/Office for my business needs (I'm in the financial services industry).
Microsoft's problems have been in their largely failed attempts to design consumer-focused technology. IMHO, they just don't seem to have the right people to execute in that space, and they are followers rather then leaders.
It's sad that I can only thumbs up this once. Also, it says a lot better what I was trying to say in few words.
I like windows 7 but windows 8 on the desktop is a little redundant for 99% of the work I do. Nearly everything is done in the windows 8 desktop.
There is nothing wrong with windows 8 design on the mobile platform but they made a mistake by putting it on the desktop also. They can change this easily with the next windows 8.x by asking the user what "mode" they would like to run in upon installation. Some who like the traditional desktop could opt for that and some who like the new look can opt for that.
Microsoft changed the world we live in, no doubt about it. The problem they have is each business unit is fragmented. Hopefully the new CEO will bring cohesiveness to the company and become one Microsoft with one strategy. Also they should begin to test their hardware and software more robustly.
I use Microsoft because I have to but where I don't I use Apple.
There is nothing wrong with windows 8 design on the mobile platform but they made a mistake by putting it on the desktop also. They can change this easily with the next windows 8.x by asking the user what "mode" they would like to run in upon installation. Some who like the traditional desktop could opt for that and some who like the new look can opt for that.
Microsoft changed the world we live in, no doubt about it. The problem they have is each business unit is fragmented. Hopefully the new CEO will bring cohesiveness to the company and become one Microsoft with one strategy. Also they should begin to test their hardware and software more robustly.
I use Microsoft because I have to but where I don't I use Apple.
Last edited:
Mine downloaded in 20 minutes, and then took maybe 15 minutes to complete the installation process.
Ubuntu with the freaking Unity or whatever it's called now interface. Oh my, what have they done?! That is a huge failed attempt at making it "user-friendly". Can't they just accept that Linux is for nerds and leave it alone?
A real Linux nerd would know how to install a desktop environment other than Unity.
Not going to lie - i have a retina mbp - my first mac, and i cannot tell you how sluggish it is and this was right out of the box! my machine is a $3k spec machine but loads windows 8.1 flawlessly....
maybe i got a lemon...? but i bought this laptop to get away from windows only going back to it after OSX's poor performance. i took it to the apple store and they said that sluggishness is expected! i kid you not! the opening desktop animation when you start the machine literally hangs and stutters! and i barely have any software installed on it!
/rant. the hardware is sexy though and it's the best windows 8.1 laptop i own
That's ridiculous.. It definitely shouldn't perform like that. I'm typing this on a entry-level 13-inch Retina MBP myself.
----------
Just because Windows is being used on most computers doesn't make it better than OS X. All of these companies are simply behind due to legacy apps and hardware cost. But if you look at companies that do video/movie and music production, almost all of them use Macs because of the software available.
Unity isn't that bad.
Yes, we should wish for a company to go under and for people to lose their jobs.
Microsoft Windows 1 and 2 did nothing to disrupt the market an any way. Traction for Windows didn't occur until Windows 3 was introduced in 1990. Apple had already defined the windowing product category 7 years earlier and being the #2 computer manufacturer in the early 90's did disrupt the computing market. The structure of the market was already altered, not in iPad or iPhone sales numbers ways, when Microsoft Windows work started paying off for them, and its users.
Yeah, but it's just extra work then. Maybe they put that there as a test?
----------
Another will replace it, hopefully something again based in the United States.
Last edited:
I think this is great news and shows progress on the part of Microsoft to notice a market trend and to adjust policy and pricing to take advantage of it.
I am not personally a fan of Windows 8, or Vista, but I know that this price drop due to slower adoption of Windows 8 is a smart move. They're still selling the OS, the Cloud Outlook suite, all the X Box stuff, and of course Windows Phone. I'm pretty sure that they'll be fine and this way they can get more companies to manufacture low-end laptops and devices with Windows 8 on it to get even more market share out there. I cannot tell you how many of my family members just buy cheap laptops to have them break and then buy another one within a year; just to repeat the same process over and over "because it's a cheap laptop and it doesn't matter."
I am not personally a fan of Windows 8, or Vista, but I know that this price drop due to slower adoption of Windows 8 is a smart move. They're still selling the OS, the Cloud Outlook suite, all the X Box stuff, and of course Windows Phone. I'm pretty sure that they'll be fine and this way they can get more companies to manufacture low-end laptops and devices with Windows 8 on it to get even more market share out there. I cannot tell you how many of my family members just buy cheap laptops to have them break and then buy another one within a year; just to repeat the same process over and over "because it's a cheap laptop and it doesn't matter."
Security and personal preference. Linux got me away from having to run XP but Vista got me away from resorting to Linux.
Now I run Mavericks so I don't have to worry as much about things breaking suddenly without explanation.
To each their own.
wait, wut?