Rumor: Windows 9 May Be Revealed Next Week

[edogawa]

So what happens when there store is down? Should they talk to ubisoft about that? Or if you have any software installed that they don't like and decide to revoke your license.

The store won't go down, and even if it does it should be back in no time, this is a giant corporation and not some small business.

You don't need 24/7 connectivity to use Windows, just for the activation.

They can revoke it at any time they want already if you go against their TOS. This isn't different than now, but a different way to pay for your copy and activate.

 

[edogawa]

You want a good reason to go Mac? $20. $20 is what it cost me to upgrade to Mac OS X 10.8. For all the Macs on my iTunes account, up to 5. And Mavericks was free!

$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from WinXP to SP1, SP2, SP3
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Vista to SP1, SP2
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Win7 to SP1
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Win8 to 8.1, 8.1 update 1.

Essentially, all the Mac OS "upgrades" you had to pay for were little more than a service pack for OSX 10.5. And I have used OSX 10.5-10.8, so I know what was "upgraded."

Mac OSX 10.4-10.5 was a significant change. Probably more like upgrading from Vista to 7 in the Windows World.
Mac OS 9 to OSX was the last major OS upgrade from Apple (like going from XP to Vista)

And Windows upgrades between XP, 7 and 8 have mainly been, if you'll excuse the pun, window dressing. It is still the NT kernel, which is the OS that stranded an Aegis cruiser at sea, making it nonoperational for 3 days.

Still the fact remains, that I can upgrade *all* my macs, up to 5 of them for one low price of $20, while every time thre is a new Windows it costs 5 to 7 times that for *each computer you need to upgrade*. And, have you noticed the ever shrinking amount of time between new Windows releases?

Actually, Microsoft has released Windows in rough cycles of 2-3 years ever since Windows 1.0, but there has been the exception of 5 years between XP and VISTA.

Windows may cost more, roughly $100 at a retailer, but offers much more openness, compatibility, and the ability to self build your own PC cheaper than buying a MAC. That OSX upgrade may be $20, but it's subsidized by the fact you spend hundreds more just to own that a MAC. You payed hundreds more for brand, novelty, and looks instead of performance, modularity, and compatibility.

 

[back_by_demand]

Windows Store requires your Microsoft Account to login, since the dawn of time I have been able to create an anonymous Hotmail/Live/Outlook email account and that serves its purpose. If you a particularly paranoid, wear a big hat and make the account at an internet cafe.

Why would you assume I would use the Windows Store?

Err, have you even read the article or the previous posts?
1) MS to use Windows Store to do activation
2) Paranoid rant that they will track who you are if you do
3) Point out the Windows Store doesn't track who you are, only your Microsoft account
4) Point out Microsoft account can be made using an anonymous Hotmail account
5) Further point out no credit card info is needed to use the Windows Store

Also, recently MS changed its T&Cs to state that no part of its services would be used to track you and target you with advertising, it gets a healthy profit from selling the OS as a product, it doesn't need to rape your profile, scan your email or track your position to make dollar 1.

If people are so paranoid about this stuff, maybe they need to stop using computers and go live in an Amish community.

 

[TechMa]

For those who sincerely believe Microsoft isn't also looking at your email, taking pictures of your house, etc., I have this bridge I'd love to sell one of y'all. 😉

 

[edogawa]

For those who sincerely believe Microsoft isn't also looking at your email, taking pictures of your house, etc., I have this bridge I'd love to sell one of y'all. 😉

Google literally is taking pictures of your home, if that counts for anything. :/

 

[beetlejuicegr]

I wouldn't mind renting an OS if the cost over 5 (maybe 6) years came out to the same as purchasing any version of Windows OS, today. That's about how long I'll have had Windows 7 until they finally have a decent OS for me to upgrade to. Microsoft seems to have a history of releasing one bad OS followed by a good one, then that cycle repeats.

Fortunately, or unfortunately depends how you see it, windows 8 / 8.1 are faster than win7. Installed them on old laptops etc, i was surprised because the 1 good 1 bad OS didnt apply this time.

Does this mean we will see KMS programmers out of work?

 

[Darkk]

I've been a long time Windows user until Dec 2013 is when I switched to Linux Mint on my main PC. The biggest reason is I got tired of the Microsoft's tight grip on activations and their ever changing licensing models only sole aim is to milk more money out of people. Come on Microsoft. It's just an OS. Real money maker are the apps and Office. Ever since I've switched everything over to Linux it's been great. SteamOS will make things even better for gamers.

Best thing Microsoft can do is make their OS free and let people pay for Office and the apps. That in a nutshell will practically kill off Linux and maybe Apple.

 

[edogawa]

I've been a long time Windows user until Dec 2013 is when I switched to Linux Mint on my main PC. The biggest reason is I got tired of the Microsoft's tight grip on activations and their ever changing licensing models only sole aim is to milk more money out of people. Come on Microsoft. It's just an OS. Real money maker are the apps and Office. Ever since I've switched everything over to Linux it's been great. SteamOS will make things even better for gamers.

Best thing Microsoft can do is make their OS free and let people pay for Office and the apps. That in a nutshell will practically kill off Linux and maybe Apple.

They are not milking anyone. You buy a license for an operating system, and you can use it for as long as you want. XP lasted for years, and 7 will last for years too. Just because a new OS comes out does not mean you have to upgrade. Windows 8 does allow you to move your copy between machines now which is good too.

Microsoft will making almost nothing on apps, plus no one will buy them on a desktop PC. 5 dollars a month for Office 365 isn't going to be a very profitable business plan alone either. Making their OS free is one the worst ideas ever.

Your issue with the "tight grip on activations" makes no sense, where is the problem?

 

[therealduckofdeath]

rent an OS?
hell NO!
not ever!
also about the activation method... I rather have a useful KEY...
me personally usually reinstall every OS a few times ... so having to use the "store" online is just another hassle that I don't need.
Long Live Windows 7!

Your key is your login. Really not much of a difference there. And even if this would become reality, there will still be a Windows edition for regular offline installs. After all, millions and millions of users don't really have a broadband connection.

 

[Morbus]

Ahhh the good ol' subscription system. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they even added micro-transactions like they do in some games today. Just amazing what corporations today will do for a buck you know? God Bless America.. *Insert massive sarcasm here* =(

They already have micro transactions in Windows Hate. The store is nothing short of a micro-transaction crap-store of sheet. Any software that's worth less than 10 bucks is not worth spending money for, that's my way of seeing it. I have never been wrong.

 

[antilycus]

Anyone who thinks WINDOWS VISTA is somehow a bad operating system, simply hasn't used it since WINDOWS 7 has come out. They are practically the exact same operating sytem, minus DX versions. They use the same kernel (which is why the WIN7 and WIN VISTA drivers are the same). Windows 8 is a HORRIBLE interface for PC use, but agian, it's just the same VISTA kernel with a new GUI. I'll stick with DEBIAN. I made the switch on all my PC's a couple years ago and it's been great ever since. Though I do support MS Operatin Systems so I am thankful Microsoft is as dumb as they can get.

 

[epaciga]

"Interesting"

Yes indeed: a very interesting way of going out of business - with a bang apparently.

Apple has so far kept their OS exclusive only to their devices, but with Steve Jobs out of the way, and Microsoft constantly fumbling the ball, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple started selling their OS to anyone who wanted it.

Also, Google will eventually make the transition from a cloud/net-connected-only OS to a full on competitor to Microsoft's.

And of course always-lovely and free open-source Linux.

Hopefully, because I like competition, Microsoft doesn't make the silly error of a subscription based OS.

 

[velocityg4]

Looks like Microsoft wants to help Apple pick up market share. I don't bother mentioning Linux because it is way too difficult for the average user to find software, install software, do updates, &c. Partly because there is no uniformity. I can't just download a Linux program, double click and install. It may not support my variant and need to be recompiled.

Plus there is no easy to use commercial software for the average user. It's a hodge podge of cryptic, difficult to find Open Source programs. With a completely unfriendly user interface designed by a computer geek that may require uses of the Terminal.

If you need help figuring something out with Linux. Google search results are daunting. Invariably the solution isn't for your variant of Linux. Plus it will likely include a lot if not all Terminal commands. Rather than icons and buttons to click.

Techies that think it is easy for the average user are way out of touch with reality.

 

[back_by_demand]

"Interesting"

Yes indeed: a very interesting way of going out of business - with a bang apparently.

Apple has so far kept their OS exclusive only to their devices, but with Steve Jobs out of the way, and Microsoft constantly fumbling the ball, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple started selling their OS to anyone who wanted it.

Also, Google will eventually make the transition from a cloud/net-connected-only OS to a full on competitor to Microsoft's.

And of course always-lovely and free open-source Linux.

Hopefully, because I like competition, Microsoft doesn't make the silly error of a subscription based OS.

MS won't go out of business, even before W8 came out we had a financial crisis and a global downturn in PC sales. 8 consecutive quarters of PC sales dropping, which people blamed on W8 and conveniently ignored the global financial catastrophe. Gartners have just announced that the downturn has ended and PC sales now have growth, so for all those blaming the downturn on W8, will they now credit the upturn on W8? Of course not. Because the OS was never the problem.

 

[rantoc]

So with this idea we will pay and get upgrades... how about windows 10 that will have only pad features? Every other windows is a failure and with this your forced to the failures... No wonder windows users loose faith in their OS the quickest and now this - Perhaps its time to sell the shares before this disaster hits!

I hope its just Kevin who like more "hits" but with MS those days it would not surprise me if harakiri is a new corporate philosophy!

 

[razor512]

Subscriptions are the worst, Microsoft can easily raise the subscription prices. Furthermore, when you pay for continued use, if Microsoft does something to make you unable to continue the subscription, then you will end up being locked out of your OS long before you can fully migrate to a new system.

For software like an OS or anything that you rely on, you never want to pay for continued access, as it means that the company can take it away at a moments notice.

Suppose you use the new Microsoft office professionally, and Microsoft increases the price to $100 per month,?

For software you rely on, have it paid for in full so that it is yours to keep.

Furthermore when you move to a subscription model, you lose the ability to skip unwanted changes such as metro UI without also losing security updates.

 

[sarcophagus_macabre]

You want a good reason to go Mac? $20. $20 is what it cost me to upgrade to Mac OS X 10.8. For all the Macs on my iTunes account, up to 5. And Mavericks was free!

$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from WinXP to SP1, SP2, SP3
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Vista to SP1, SP2
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Win7 to SP1
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Win8 to 8.1, 8.1 update 1.

Essentially, all the Mac OS "upgrades" you had to pay for were little more than a service pack for OSX 10.5. And I have used OSX 10.5-10.8, so I know what was "upgraded."

Mac OSX 10.4-10.5 was a significant change. Probably more like upgrading from Vista to 7 in the Windows World.
Mac OS 9 to OSX was the last major OS upgrade from Apple (like going from XP to Vista)

And Windows upgrades between XP, 7 and 8 have mainly been, if you'll excuse the pun, window dressing. It is still the NT kernel, which is the OS that stranded an Aegis cruiser at sea, making it nonoperational for 3 days.

Still the fact remains, that I can upgrade *all* my macs, up to 5 of them for one low price of $20, while every time thre is a new Windows it costs 5 to 7 times that for *each computer you need to upgrade*. And, have you noticed the ever shrinking amount of time between new Windows releases?

Actually, Microsoft has released Windows in rough cycles of 2-3 years ever since Windows 1.0, but there has been the exception of 5 years between XP and VISTA.

Windows may cost more, roughly $100 at a retailer, but offers much more openness, compatibility, and the ability to self build your own PC cheaper than buying a MAC. That OSX upgrade may be $20, but it's subsidized by the fact you spend hundreds more just to own that a MAC. You payed hundreds more for brand, novelty, and looks instead of performance, modularity, and compatibility.

It's about the same development cycle between major upgrades of the Mac OS. I will agree with some of your arguments, it is more compatible with the hardware available, and easy to build your own machine, however, with a little more work, and some tools from the hackintosh community, you can build your own mac compatible. Windows in *not* more open than the mac OS, however, when you consider you can directly access the base system on the Mac through a terminal window, while the registry stands in your way on the windows side, much like the resource fork in the pre-OSX mac days. Windows may be more compatible with the hardware, but you can't mount a non-ntfs disk without 3rd party software, etc.

We can go on and on ad nauseum arguing the good and bad points about Mac OSX and Windows, the truth is I use both and like both. I've been using a mac for nearly 30 years, and prefer it for day to day use. I enjoy the hell out of my gaming PC running Win 7. On my hackintosh, I just wish I could make a dual boot system without having to pay *another* $100-$140 for a system I already own. It makes upgrading to the new version a major expense, and even when Microsoft offers multi packs, they give 3 installs and cost nearly as much as 3 separate copies. Microsoft could easily maintain their development schedule, and make a ton of money off Windows if 1) the consolidated the product to 1 version, 2) cut the price to, say, $70, and 3) gave customers 3-5 installs for that price. Users would be much more likely to upgrade to the new version if it were more affordable. It's a much easier decision to make when it upgrades all your machines, and not just one.

 

[edogawa]

You want a good reason to go Mac? $20. $20 is what it cost me to upgrade to Mac OS X 10.8. For all the Macs on my iTunes account, up to 5. And Mavericks was free!

$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from WinXP to SP1, SP2, SP3
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Vista to SP1, SP2
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Win7 to SP1
$0.00 is what it cost me to upgrade from Win8 to 8.1, 8.1 update 1.

Essentially, all the Mac OS "upgrades" you had to pay for were little more than a service pack for OSX 10.5. And I have used OSX 10.5-10.8, so I know what was "upgraded."

Mac OSX 10.4-10.5 was a significant change. Probably more like upgrading from Vista to 7 in the Windows World.
Mac OS 9 to OSX was the last major OS upgrade from Apple (like going from XP to Vista)

And Windows upgrades between XP, 7 and 8 have mainly been, if you'll excuse the pun, window dressing. It is still the NT kernel, which is the OS that stranded an Aegis cruiser at sea, making it nonoperational for 3 days.

Still the fact remains, that I can upgrade *all* my macs, up to 5 of them for one low price of $20, while every time thre is a new Windows it costs 5 to 7 times that for *each computer you need to upgrade*. And, have you noticed the ever shrinking amount of time between new Windows releases?

Actually, Microsoft has released Windows in rough cycles of 2-3 years ever since Windows 1.0, but there has been the exception of 5 years between XP and VISTA.

Windows may cost more, roughly $100 at a retailer, but offers much more openness, compatibility, and the ability to self build your own PC cheaper than buying a MAC. That OSX upgrade may be $20, but it's subsidized by the fact you spend hundreds more just to own that a MAC. You payed hundreds more for brand, novelty, and looks instead of performance, modularity, and compatibility.

It's about the same development cycle between major upgrades of the Mac OS. I will agree with some of your arguments, it is more compatible with the hardware available, and easy to build your own machine, however, with a little more work, and some tools from the hackintosh community, you can build your own mac compatible. Windows in *not* more open than the mac OS, however, when you consider you can directly access the base system on the Mac through a terminal window, while the registry stands in your way on the windows side, much like the resource fork in the pre-OSX mac days. Windows may be more compatible with the hardware, but you can't mount a non-ntfs disk without 3rd party software, etc.

We can go on and on ad nauseum arguing the good and bad points about Mac OSX and Windows, the truth is I use both and like both. I've been using a mac for nearly 30 years, and prefer it for day to day use. I enjoy the hell out of my gaming PC running Win 7. On my hackintosh, I just wish I could make a dual boot system without having to pay *another* $100-$140 for a system I already own. It makes upgrading to the new version a major expense, and even when Microsoft offers multi packs, they give 3 installs and cost nearly as much as 3 separate copies. Microsoft could easily maintain their development schedule, and make a ton of money off Windows if 1) the consolidated the product to 1 version, 2) cut the price to, say, $70, and 3) gave customers 3-5 installs for that price. Users would be much more likely to upgrade to the new version if it were more affordable. It's a much easier decision to make when it upgrades all your machines, and not just one.

If I wanted a system with a terminal and more access I would use Linux, which I also do use occasionally.

There is, in my opinion, no place for OSX. Dual booted Windows + Linux is a better option in my opinion.

Also almost all consumers don't need a access to the base system or terminal window so that is moot for most of the population anyway.

I do agree that they should lower the cost, if it was $10 for a year, or $60 that would be great, and offer 50GB onedrive storage for backup.

I've never done a hackitosh, but why would I want to limit myself to certain hardware just to run OSX?

If you like using OSX, and more comfortable with it, more power to you then I suppose.

 

[chaosmassive]

rent OS...
have this M$ think for some hard-earned money's people to spend for upgrading their OS
only last for a month?
find a new way to milking consumer,eh?

Looks like the new CEO is even more greedier than Balmer. Hope SteamOS will peak up by then. SteamOS for games, and Linux for other stuff.

behind new CEO, there is old person 'you-know-who' that always 'innovatively' thinking the way to squeeze more cash from consumer...

 

[junkeymonkey]

what I don't get is why Microsoft cant get things back to basic's like xp was why do they fell I want all this hype- fluff fetchers I don't really want or need .. no cloud base just cut the crap out and get real.. just give me a lean efficient os not a bloated clowened up system that now takes me 3 or 4 clicks to hunt things down that used to take 1 or 2 to get me there . Microsoft I don't need all your added on fluffware I need a OS

 

[MidnightDistort]

lol not going to sign up for an M$ account, not going to use the M$ store for anything and they have gotten way obsessive with profit. Ever since XP or Vista your only allowed to install your OS on one machine. I have 2 desktops and one laptop. The extra desktop is for in case something goes wrong with one of them and the laptop for portable usage. Guess MS could care less if i use Linux instead because i can install Linux on as many machines as i need to and i don't have to sign up for an account and have to access a store to get updates.

I do have to sign into Android using my google account but since i already use gmail and Chrome there's no problem with that. Seems that Google and Linux are winning me over while MS continues to disappoint. And you can forget a subscription. That's on my list of reasons never to get another Windows OS.

 

[plast0000]

otherwise I would start purchasing an apple (yeah I know I said it)

Why apple? There's always linux (which is free).

we want a REAL OS

 

[edogawa]

lol not going to sign up for an M$ account, not going to use the M$ store for anything and they have gotten way obsessive with profit. Ever since XP or Vista your only allowed to install your OS on one machine. I have 2 desktops and one laptop. The extra desktop is for in case something goes wrong with one of them and the laptop for portable usage. Guess MS could care less if i use Linux instead because i can install Linux on as many machines as i need to and i don't have to sign up for an account and have to access a store to get updates.

I do have to sign into Android using my google account but since i already use gmail and Chrome there's no problem with that. Seems that Google and Linux are winning me over while MS continues to disappoint. And you can forget a subscription. That's on my list of reasons never to get another Windows OS.

Windows pricing has not really changed much in the last decade, and you can move Windows 8 licenses between systems now too. They do not care if you use Linux because it poses no threat to the Windows market share.

I can make the same argument about logging into Windows with a Microsoft account, I already use outlook; you can also create a local account on Windows without signing in too.

You won't care about using Windows until you need it for software or hardware.

 

[The3monitors]

No I am not going to "rent" my OS. I would pay $1 per month max if they went that route otherwise I would start purchasing an apple (yeah I know I said it)

LAWL with apple your paying a extra $300-500 up front when you buy their hardware. It's all just factored in. It's kind of like buying a $7 drink at the movies that has tax, and employee wages. It's just factored in, at least Microsoft is up front at what your paying and what you are getting.

Ya I know but I couldnt stand having to "only rent" the drink and then pissing it back to MS in a cup with them standing behind me with a baton Saying "oh theres a couple drops left in there". I have also noticed a couple of "improvements" that MS has made with the OS for those of you that havn't noticed on Windows 8 or 8.1. Microsoft is keeping track of people and registered email addresses. As well as hackers can attach to the same email registration address and then once that email address is utilized they can attack the ports that open up from the 8 store and windows update to be able to get into windows and destroy your registry..
They even got past an IPfire Firewall to lock into a system I was updating Brand new with Comodo already installed b4 anything else and would hit about 30 times an hour just to see what was up. My IPfire was registering about 30k portscans per day after I cleaned my facebook account. Big brother is watching and Little baby second cousins t/v is hacking.

 

[MidnightDistort]

lol not going to sign up for an M$ account, not going to use the M$ store for anything and they have gotten way obsessive with profit. Ever since XP or Vista your only allowed to install your OS on one machine. I have 2 desktops and one laptop. The extra desktop is for in case something goes wrong with one of them and the laptop for portable usage. Guess MS could care less if i use Linux instead because i can install Linux on as many machines as i need to and i don't have to sign up for an account and have to access a store to get updates.

I do have to sign into Android using my google account but since i already use gmail and Chrome there's no problem with that. Seems that Google and Linux are winning me over while MS continues to disappoint. And you can forget a subscription. That's on my list of reasons never to get another Windows OS.

Windows pricing has not really changed much in the last decade, and you can move Windows 8 licenses between systems now too. They do not care if you use Linux because it poses no threat to the Windows market share.

I can make the same argument about logging into Windows with a Microsoft account, I already use outlook; you can also create a local account on Windows without signing in too.

You won't care about using Windows until you need it for software or hardware.

That arrogance will only lead the company to disaster. They should care they are slowly losing users and unless they can get XP users to upgrade or they decide for themselves MS already lost a portion to XP. I won't argue that i won't need Windows for anything, Linux is limited, but not using Linux at all won't do much of anything to help Linux out and neither is giving Microsoft my money. That is why for everything i can use Linux on i will be using Linux for, anything i need Windows for, W7 will work just fine, in an extreme case if i so desperately need to get the latest WIndows or w/e that is when i will fork the money out, but again that's only if i really need it. I'll buy an Android tablet before getting Windows if deemed necessary. Windows started out the same way Linux did only that WIndows has a head start and has already gained a profound foothold into the desktop market. It only means that other OS's will just have to work harder or have something that Windows doesn't have, which Linux already does is that it's free and completely open sourced. The other good thing about Linux is you don't have to upgrade much hardware unless you really want to or you need to replace something.

It's not going to be easy and either sacrificing some things or ending up having to rely on Windows to get things done might have to be in effort, but it certainly won't be in vain unless people think that Linux isn't worthy to have on a PC because Windows does the job and has plenty of resources.