With the Start Menu coming to Windows 9, does that mean it will be free for Windows 8 users?

Earlier this year, Microsoft announced that the Start Menu would be coming back, saying it would be made available to all Windows 8.1 users as an update. Well, with indications that the "August Update" will not include the Start Menu, all reports are now pointing to the Start Menu's return in Windows 9 (Threshold).

You can watch the announcement with the video above, but the idea certainly seems plausible that Microsoft could make Windows 9 free for Windows 8 users to keep with its promise that the Start menu would arrive as an update. Besides, the target for Windows 9 will not be Windows 8 users, it will be for those who are still on Windows 7 and Windows XP, which account for about 75 percent of the install base of Windows users, according to Net Applications.

Additionally, we have heard that Microsoft is trying to blend the Windows 7 and 8 experiences with Windows 9 for exactly that reason: to get those on Windows 7 and XP to finally upgrade. Microsoft is concerned that Windows 7 will become the next XP and does not want to get into another situation where they have to extend the support timeline for the OS so that slow-moving businesses can move from the platform.

By going back to its roots and making the desktop the center of the Windows experience, Microsoft will be re-targeting users who did not find Windows 8 appealing with the hope of getting them to upgrade to Windows 9 and bypassing Windows 8. The question will be is if Microsoft can execute the feature set well enough in Windows 9 to entice those who are living with Windows 7 because it is "good enough" and they see no reason to upgrade.

Microsoft has already shown that it will give away Windows for free for devices with screens smaller than 9 inches and reduced the cost for OEMs with a Bing version of Windows, so the idea is not that far fetched. 

It was said before that the Start Menu was actually targeted to be released with the second update, but that it was pulled a few months ago. This would align to Microsoft's comments where they said it would arrive in an update but seeing as that this appears to be no longer true, we will be curious to see if they do charge for Windows 9, how they will backtrack on these statements.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Original 'BioShock' coming to iPhone, iPad

Next Story

Windows Phone 'Accessory Apps' points the way towards smart watch accessories

101 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Start Menu. Blech. Try installing more than a dozen applications, tools and nicknacks, and you'll end up with a horrible list of folders, subfolders, menu entries and badly named shortcuts.

With W7 I quickly pinned most of my apps to the taskbar, and some slightly less used to the desktop. Ever so often I use the Start Menu to find something in that hopeless jungle of mess that is looking at me when I press that button... ;-)

SO, no I don't miss it, and in W8 I have happily organized everything on the Start Screen, and the taskbar. Did I loose productivity with W8 on the desktop, not really.

But W8 seems to be a matter of taste, hinging from 'it sucks' to 'love it'. There seems to be no middle ground.

To be honest I stopped using the start menu with the introduction of Vista. Once I was able to hit Start and type what I wanted to launch, that is how I launch all my applications. Windows 8.1 introduced the annoyance of my screen disappearing and jumping to some dumb tile interface every time I hit Start, but overall the OS is faster and has some nice features. The bigger annoyances are how VPN and networking is implemented forcing me to switch between multiple interfaces for advanced configuration. So, if MS could just eliminate the jump to a tile interface when I hit Start and just pop up a search bar... I would be happy.

Who needs a start menu from Microsoft? I use a third parties application for that. Imagine I will be using a third parties OS again in the near future.

"FREE" does not compute when it comes to Microsoft. Do you think "FREE" made Bill the multi-billionaire he is today? Surely you jest!!!

Dale Burke said,
"FREE" does not compute when it comes to Microsoft. Do you think "FREE" made Bill the multi-billionaire he is today? Surely you jest!!!

"Free" made redhat a billionaire company... With a much smaller use base aswell

To be honest Microsoft needs to change their business model. People see android as 'free' and Apple updates are free. Whether Microsoft had a different business model than the other two means nothing, all the end consumer See's is that Microsoft is the only company charging for "upgrades". Also don't say android never gets updated because it does, it just depends on the vendor.

Microsoft won't be able to sustain paying for software as a business model forever when virtually everything most people use is "free".

P.s. I'd live the year of Linux but it ain't ever going to happen. Not what I'd consider "Linux" anyway.

I brought 8, it's.... Well it's 8. It ain't to bass if I ignore 2/3 of it's features, but then some things are really annoying. I'd like 9 to be a free upgrade but it probably won't be. It's probably be the last is I every buy. I use Linux for everything but gaming now.

Forgive me if I've missed a bit of news somewhere but, since when did we get confirmation the next release was Windows 9?

One would tend to think if Microsoft don't want to get in hot water for misrepresenting that 8.x would get the start menu back eventually, and the next release is what has said feature - then that release might indeed be 8.2 if versioning is to continue as it has.

JHBrown said,
Free and new major version of Windows don't go hand in hand.

Free and <insert proper software application> don't go hand in hand. What's your point?
That Linux is free? That OSX is artificially free of charge?

Just admit you don't like MS... ;-)

Dutchie64 said,

Free and <insert proper software application> don't go hand in hand. What's your point?
That Linux is free? That OSX is artificially free of charge?

Just admit you don't like MS... ;-)

What the hell are you talking about? I've been using Windows for over twenty years and not one major version has been free. Why are you bringing up OSX? Why are you turning my comment into a "hate" Microsoft comment? My comment was straight to the point with no other intentions. Goodness!!!!!!

Microsoft wants to bury Windows 8 so I can't see them bringing the start menu back via an update. They are itching to take 8 out back and put a bullet in it.

I agree, however; there are others would disagree. It probably depends on the type of device(s) one is using and how they are being used.

TsarNikky said,
I agree, however; there are others would disagree. It probably depends on the type of device(s) one is using and how they are being used.

You will find that the ones who disagree are of a tiny, minuscule and irrelevant minority of windows 8.x zealots who refuse to accept the obvious, windows 8.x was an epic disaster at retail.

If Windows 9 costs any money at all, Windows 8 will be the last Microsoft OS I buy.

It's insulting to think that they think 8 was such a mess that they make all these huge changes to it and slap a 9 on it to make people forget how bad it is AND still charge for it.

AmazingRando said,
If Windows 9 costs any money at all, Windows 8 will be the last Microsoft OS I buy.

It's insulting to think that they think 8 was such a mess that they make all these huge changes to it and slap a 9 on it to make people forget how bad it is AND still charge for it.

Nobody made you go out and buy Windows 8.

Dot Matrix said,

Nobody made you go out and buy Windows 8.

Actually the vast majority of pc's that are sold today come with some version of windows 8.x so most people have no other choice than to purchase windows 8.x regardless if they intend to use 8.x or not.

Just because it came with the machine doesn't mean it was 100% free.

Order_66 said,

Actually the vast majority of pc's that are sold today come with some version of windows 8.x so most people have no other choice than to purchase windows 8.x regardless if they intend to use 8.x or not.

Just because it came with the machine doesn't mean it was 100% free.

You have downgrade rights.

Dot Matrix said,

You have downgrade rights.

...only if that new computer has Windows 8/8.1 Pro :p. Don't know your Microsoft licensing Dot Matrix?

AmazingRando said,

Seriously with this? This is one of the most asinine arguments.

How so? When you go to buy a new device, you have options to choose from. At no point did anyone force the OP to buy Windows 8.

Once again for Dot.


Order_66 said,

Actually the vast majority of pc's that are sold today come with some version of windows 8.x so most people have no other choice than to purchase windows 8.x regardless if they intend to use 8.x or not.

Just because it came with the machine doesn't mean it was 100% free.

And try to tell the average consumer what "downgrade rights" are then let me know what kind of response you get because the majority of consumers have no clue about it at all and they end up even more confused.

Dot Matrix said,

How so? When you go to buy a new device, you have options to choose from. At no point did anyone force the OP to buy Windows 8.

Fortunately the consumer doesnt have to worry about choice anymore. Microsoft has to worry about choice. There are several very mature and usable Linux distro's, the Mac platform is running on all cylinders and Google is picking off the emerging and alternate markets.

Why would the upgrade be free? It never has been before, and Microsoft is still primarily a Software (and services) company. Maybe if their focus was on the hardware like Apple, and the OS were just part of the package.

But since the software is what MS makes their money on? No way. They might price it low like the introductory price for 8 back in 2012, but I seriously doubt it'll be free.

Windows 9 needs to be free for all Windows 8.x users, and it must upgrade all of Windows 8.x users without losing their desktop apps. It should be smooth, easy, safe, and pain-free. Unlike the 8.0 and 8.1 updates were for many (lots of errors and problems).

Windows 7 users need to be able to update for free or low cost (no more than $29.99), and they should be able to upgrade and keep their desktop apps too.

Anyone on any earlier versions of Windows can be charged more (but never more than $99), and if they have to reinstall their desktop apps, that's fine.

Well, if they keep the price reasonable, similar to the time they introduced Windows 8, it might work too. If it's, say, US$14.99 or US$19.99, or maybe even US$24.99, people might be down with that. But if they go their regular route (somewhere in the 100 bucks vicinity), they'll be slaughtered on the Internet and they'll have a tough time getting people to upgrade.

Corey C said,
If I recall when Windows 8 was released it was 40 to upgrade from 7, that's a reasonable price to me at least.

It might be a reasonable price, but is it going to appeal to people who just want a start menu & whatever new look they put in?

I probably wouldn't pay over $20 myself.

Lamp0 said,

It might be a reasonable price, but is it going to appeal to people who just want a start menu & whatever new look they put in?

I probably wouldn't pay over $20 myself.

With how much hate there appears to be on the Internet, you would think so. Personally I will be waiting to see what features are coming in besides the start menu, but I can't see myself not buying it personally.

OS X Mavericks and OS X Yosemite are free updates for OS X
Microsoft'd better do the same thing for Windows with Windows 8.1, GDR1, GDR2, Windows 9, etc.

Apple already got your money when you bought your Mac. Microsoft most of the time only makes their money when you buy the OS or other programs.. kind of silly for a company to give their products away for nothing. Bad way to stay in business.

hungb.nguyen said,
OS X Mavericks and OS X Yosemite are free updates for OS X
Microsoft'd better do the same thing for Windows with Windows 8.1, GDR1, GDR2, Windows 9, etc.

You're comparing two different things, there buddy.

Max Norris said,
Apple already got your money when you bought your Mac. Microsoft most of the time only makes their money when you buy the OS or other programs.. kind of silly for a company to give their products away for nothing. Bad way to stay in business.

So it will be free on their Surface products?

AmazingRando said,
So it will be free on their Surface products?

*shrug* Perhaps, I agree with above that it would be a good move. But that's also why I said "most", as 99.999% of the systems running Windows out there aren't made by Microsoft.

Max Norris said,

*shrug* Perhaps, I agree with above that it would be a good move. But that's also why I said "most", as 99.999% of the systems running Windows out there aren't made by Microsoft.

But then again 99.997% of them arent possible to buy without Windows.

AmazingRando said,
But then again 99.997% of them arent possible to buy without Windows.

And? The OEM's bundling an OS with their product doesn't automagically make it a Microsoft product. HP/Dell/Whoever got your money for the system. You buy a Mac, it's 100% on Apple.

I think MS could care less about the XP users at this point *cough*China*cough*, after all there have been numerous offers and upgrade paths to Vista/7. But I do think they'll entice the Windows 7 and 8 users with special offers. Not sure what the Mini Start has to do with anything, though.

Actually I hope it will not be free: a low cost for W8 users, like $40, and around$100 for everybody else for the Pro version. People who paid for W8 should not be penalized.

Wrong a low cost for ever users get rid of multiple versions and UPGRADE Only carp just Full ver Install with an upgrade path option and there only need be two versions a Client which cover both Home User and Office Worker User and Server which covers the Business End.

Cosmocronos said,
Actually I hope it will not be free: a low cost for W8 users, like $40, and around$100 for everybody else for the Pro version. People who paid for W8 should not be penalized.


I disagree, I think microsoft should give windows 9 for free for windows 8.x users as well as a hand written letter of apology.

I think Microsoft will give Windows 9 away for free to Windows 8 users, they will probably reduce the price for Windows 7 and lower. And the retail versions.

Studio384 said,
"Windows 8.1 Update 3" is a hoax as far as we know.

I would assume we would still see updates for 8.1 for a few more years yet. Microsoft isn't just going to up and abandon it. Windows 8.1 is well within the support period.

I bet it will be free for legit users but those that went around the Windows 8 activation with paying anything will encounter hurdles if the whole activation revamp rumor is true.

Grumphus said,
I bet it will be free for legit users but those that went around the Windows 8 activation with paying anything will encounter hurdles if the whole activation revamp rumor is true.

Windows 8.x was such a disaster that most people didn't even bother to pirate it.

No need to make it free, I have no problem with paying a few bucks every three years or so for a software I use over 10hrs daily. Also I and many others got it for a heavy rebate at release (was 40€ for a few months here) so whatever, I'll be happy either way.

They should make it free for 8.1/8.0 users and have a very low fee for Windows 7 and Vista users, say $15. I have a Vista machine waiting to be updated when the time comes.

It betta be free for current Windows 8 users they promise as a start menu with 8.1 update 1 or 2 don't remember which and for Windows XP/7 users they deserve to pay for there copy because they're still stuck on the older OS without giving Microsoft there share of the money yet.

Tech085 said,
It betta be free for current Windows 8 users they promise as a start menu with 8.1 update 1 or 2 don't remember which and for Windows XP/7 users they deserve to pay for there copy because they're still stuck on the older OS without giving Microsoft there share of the money yet.

thats why people will just stick with xp or 7 if people with windows 8 didnt bother to update for 8.1 even when its free microsoft should realize what its the reason.

simpler easier updates via windows update should be the way to go from 8.1 and 8 to 9

stop twisting my words I didn't mention anywhere about doing the Windows Upgrade through the store the Windows Update is a fine route, I said they promise a start menu with windows 8.1 update 1/2 didn't mention doing upgrade that way don't be an ars*

Free update to Windows 9 sounds great but... Most experienced users (including me) would never do a OS upgrade to a new version. A clean install (from scratch) is the only way to go if don't want issues and crude left behind from the old version. I would say no thanks to a upgrade and stay with Windows 7 or buy Windows 9 if really wanted it.

I know Windows 8 users are already crying they paid for the upgrade from 7 to 8 (sorry about that) so it would not be fair if Windows 7 users get a free upgrade. Well, guess what? Life is not fair... The reality is Microsoft needs to get their legacy base to Windows 9 which means upgrading Windows 7 and XP users.

>Most experienced users ...

...know that for the past few versions MS installs an entirely clean version of the OS and then migrates selected data via scripts over to it. This means that the clean OS install and the upgrade OS install are essentially the same now.

They also know that there is no reason to be afraid of in place upgrades anymore for just that reason. And they have known it for almost a decade now.

"Most experienced users" keep their data on a separate partition or disk then their OS so those "scripts" are for regular users. I agree the process is more clean with recent Windows versions but I still prefer a total clean install.

In any case, I doubt Windows 9 will be a free upgrade for Windows 7 users anyway....

If not free, then a modest charge to upgrade from Window-8 to Windows-9 would be reasonable and acceptable. Obviously, there would be a higher charge for Windows-7 users to upgrade to Windows-9. MS is behind the eight-ball with Windows-9; in that they had best "get it right" with selectable UIs. If they should need a reminder: One size does not fit all--never has, never will.

TsarNikky said,
If not free, then a modest charge to upgrade from Window-8 to Windows-9 would be reasonable and acceptable. Obviously, there would be a higher charge for Windows-7 users to upgrade to Windows-9. MS is behind the eight-ball with Windows-9; in that they had best "get it right" with selectable UIs. If they should need a reminder: One size does not fit all--never has, never will.

Threshold is reported to modernize the desktop. It's the way forward for Microsoft.

Way overdue! Has Microsoft learned several valuable lessons? We'll have to see with Windows-9. A lot is riding on Microsoft "getting it right" this time around. A second failure will be very hard to recover.

TsarNikky said,
Way overdue! Has Microsoft learned several valuable lessons? We'll have to see with Windows-9. A lot is riding on Microsoft "getting it right" this time around. A second failure will be very hard to recover.

What lessons? The OS is in need of a facelift. Much of it is severely dated. You can't fault them for experimenting. Scalable, modern interfaces give Microsoft the unique opportunity to tie their various devices together. There's no reason to abandon that. With "Threshold", it sounds as if they are taking that objective to the next level by tying both interfaces together.

Dot Matrix said,

What lessons? The OS is in need of a facelift. Much of it is severely dated. You can't fault them for experimenting. Scalable, modern interfaces give Microsoft the unique opportunity to tie their various devices together. There's no reason to abandon that. With "Threshold", it sounds as if they are taking that objective to the next level by tying both interfaces together.

The whole premise of modern apps goes against everything desktop. The majority of people don't want modern apps on the desktop. It's not that the ui is bad or windows itself sucking, people just don't want to use a cut down application that doesn't fit their method of working, most and keyboard. Mobile users don't want overly complicated applications on mobile. They are two completely separate schisms that shouldn't ever overlap.

Jedipottsy said,

The whole premise of modern apps goes against everything desktop. The majority of people don't want modern apps on the desktop. It's not that the ui is bad or windows itself sucking, people just don't want to use a cut down application that doesn't fit their method of working, most and keyboard. Mobile users don't want overly complicated applications on mobile. They are two completely separate schisms that shouldn't ever overlap.

No, they don't. There's no reasons why applications can't be used universally across different devices. Personally, as a tablet user, I want greater functionality across my devices. There's nothing preventing users from using these apps with a keyboard.

Dot Matrix said,

No, they don't. There's no reasons why applications can't be used universally across different devices. Personally, as a tablet user, I want greater functionality across my devices. There's nothing preventing users from using these apps with a keyboard.


Yes they can. It's two different use environments. Look at the most successful mobile apps and the most successful desktop apps. There's nothing in common between the two. Have you ever heard of convergence? Things will naturally over time trend towards to most natural and efficient workflow.

Also if your argument were true windows 8 would be selling exceptionally well and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The "lesson" that Microsoft should have learned is the one UI does not and never will work equally well or be equally suitable for all users on all devices. Microsoft either decides on one UI, risking alienating a huge portion of their customer base, or, providing a user selectable UI that allows the user to select the UI most suitable to their needs.

TsarNikky said,
The "lesson" that Microsoft should have learned is the one UI does not and never will work equally well or be equally suitable for all users on all devices. Microsoft either decides on one UI, risking alienating a huge portion of their customer base, or, providing a user selectable UI that allows the user to select the UI most suitable to their needs.

A user unable to adapt to UI changes is a PEBKAC issue, not a Microsoft one. Personally, I really hope that the rumors are true, and that the whole OS is getting a modern makeover. If that's the case, it won't matter, as the whole OS is changing in one form or another.

Dot, I sure hope you never get hired on to manage an organization. With your way of thinking...that organization will be destined fail. Users failing to "adapt" to the modern UI is a Microsoft problem. The high percentage of users still on XP is a Microsoft problem. These are all Microsoft problems as they are affecting sales (i.e. lost revenue). Windows 8 barely made a dent in usage last month (I think it actually dropped)...that is a Microsoft problem.

Microsoft has been backpedaling a lot lately...and eventually they will get it right (Windows 9). Windows 8, in my opinion, has been beta test from the start and hopefully Microsoft has learned from its many failures.

how about make it easier to update the need of windows store its ridiculous, just make it into windows update. you dont see google forcing to install android updates via google play

-adrian- said,
well - tell me how to get Google now on my android phone without the google play stuff installed

one thing its an app or a program and another its a whole os update you see the diference. the fact that big part of windows 8 user didnt update to 8.1 its because its annoying not easy even if its free.

instead forcing ui more like a mobile or tablet they ahould streamline the updates making it less complex

Well 7 is certainly going to be the new XP, corporate at least, since it's incredibly expensive and time consuming to update OS's company-wide.

7 is a great OS, which is why people adopted it so quickly, so they shouldn't have bothered with releasing 8 until 2019 or 2020. I'm really not sure why Microsoft wants to bombard us with a new OS every year. The vast majority of people don't want constant change, especially on something used for daily productivity.

Off the top of my head, Windows 7 isn't touch friendly and they needed something for tablets and they obviously wanted to unify their UI across phone, tablet, PC, Xbox, etc.

Astra.Xtreme said,
I'm really not sure why Microsoft wants to bombard us with a new OS every year. The vast majority of people don't want constant change, especially on something used for daily productivity.

Blame Apple ;-P

Astra.Xtreme said,
Well 7 is certainly going to be the new XP, corporate at least, since it's incredibly expensive and time consuming to update OS's company-wide.

7 is a great OS, which is why people adopted it so quickly, so they shouldn't have bothered with releasing 8 until 2019 or 2020. I'm really not sure why Microsoft wants to bombard us with a new OS every year. The vast majority of people don't want constant change, especially on something used for daily productivity.

Because that's not how the tech market works. If you don't keep moving, you'll fall behind, and quickly be out of business. Windows 7 was released in 2009. That's almost 10 years without a new release... Apple in that time would have released a handful of updates for OS X, and in that time Google has released updates to Android, and Chrome OS, that would flat foot Microsoft had they not been keeping up.

You say people don't want constant change, yet these are the very same users who clamor to update their iPhones each year...

"Because that's not how the tech market works. If you don't keep moving, you'll fall behind, and quickly be out of business. "

Huh? Are you serious? More businesses are using XP today than Windows 8 and they're doing fine. Businesses aren't going to disappear because they're operating system is a few years old, they'll go out of business when they're employees don't know how to use an operating system with a crappy design (Windows 8).

"You say people don't want constant change, yet these are the very same users who clamor to update their iPhones each year... "

Are you honestly comparing the mobile phone system where companies give out heavily discounted smartphones when you sign up to a new contract every 2 years, to upgrading all your PCs to a new OS and moving all the data over?

Oh wait, you said the Start Menu was NEVER coming back. Wrong as usual.

Dot Matrix said,

Because that's not how the tech market works. If you don't keep moving, you'll fall behind, and quickly be out of business. Windows 7 was released in 2009. That's almost 10 years without a new release... Apple in that time would have released a handful of updates for OS X, and in that time Google has released updates to Android, and Chrome OS, that would flat foot Microsoft had they not been keeping up.

You say people don't want constant change, yet these are the very same users who clamor to update their iPhones each year...

Who is going to catch up? Microsoft rules the PC market by a massive margin and whether or not they release a new OS every year isn't going to help/hurt them. All this is doing is pis*ing people off because they are forced to upgrade if they want the latest and greatest hardware support. And businesses are pis*ed off because they now have to spend more money to upgrade company PCs before support runs out. It's a very big deal with big companies. The Windows market is going to be insanely fragmented and ask Google how much they love that concept.

Btw, it hasn't even been 5 years since Win 7 was released, so perhaps you should brush up on your math before making a poorly crafted comment.'

Not sure what your iPhone comment has to do with anything either. iOS doesn't change much version to version. People update for the newer/better hardware. You know, the same reason why people buy a new PC every so often...

Astra.Xtreme said,

Who is going to catch up? Microsoft rules the PC market by a massive margin and whether or not they release a new OS every year isn't going to help/hurt them. All this is doing is pis*ing people off because they are forced to upgrade if they want the latest and greatest hardware support. And businesses are pis*ed off because they now have to spend more money to upgrade company PCs before support runs out. It's a very big deal with big companies. The Windows market is going to be insanely fragmented and ask Google how much they love that concept.

Btw, it hasn't even been 5 years since Win 7 was released, so perhaps you should brush up on your math before making a poorly crafted comment.'

Not sure what your iPhone comment has to do with anything either. iOS doesn't change much version to version. People update for the newer/better hardware. You know, the same reason why people buy a new PC every so often...

You saw what happened when Microsoft got complacent with Windows Mobile. Apple released iOS and upset the market pretty much over night. What do you think would happen if Microsoft got complacent with Windows? 10 years is asinine to wait for new releases.

Astra.Xtreme said,

Who is going to catch up? Microsoft rules the PC market by a massive margin and whether or not they release a new OS every year isn't going to help/hurt them. All this is doing is pis*ing people off because they are forced to upgrade if they want the latest and greatest hardware support. And businesses are pis*ed off because they now have to spend more money to upgrade company PCs before support runs out. It's a very big deal with big companies. The Windows market is going to be insanely fragmented and ask Google how much they love that concept.

Btw, it hasn't even been 5 years since Win 7 was released, so perhaps you should brush up on your math before making a poorly crafted comment.'

Not sure what your iPhone comment has to do with anything either. iOS doesn't change much version to version. People update for the newer/better hardware. You know, the same reason why people buy a new PC every so often...

2009-2019 makes ten years. Count them. Yes, I can do math, TYVM. And businesses can be p**sed off all they want. They have to spend money to make money. Networks just don't maintain themselves. If they can't support the cost to upgrade in ten years' time, then they've got issues, and you probably shouldn't be doing business with them any way. Regardless, Microsoft's release schedule is of no obligation to you, the user. They're a business after all. Don't want to upgrade? Then don't.

Edited by Dot Matrix, Aug 4 2014, 6:19pm :

Astra.Xtreme said,
The vast majority of people don't want constant change, especially on something used for daily productivity.

So what about the brand new company that's investing in equipment and software licenses for the first time? Should they be limited to old software just because they had the nerve to start-up out of sync with existing businesses' software upgrade schedules?

Businesses already don't constantly change. That's well-understood, and actually a pretty great reason for Microsoft to occasionally be very experimental with a release. If your metrics tell you that all of the businesses just migrated to Windows 7 and won't have budget for the next upgrade for another 8 years, you have a lot of freedom to try something new with the next version.

It would be idiotic (and bad business) to only release a new OS based on the update cycle of businesses.

Dot Matrix said,

2009-2019 makes ten years. Count them. Yes, I can do math, TYVM. And businesses can be p**sed off all they want. They have to spend money to make money. Networks just don't maintain themselves. If they can't support the cost to upgrade in ten years' time, then they've got issues, and you probably shouldn't be doing business with them any way. Regardless, Microsoft's release schedule is of no obligation to you, the user. They're a business after all. Don't want to upgrade? Then don't.

Except business don't need to upgrade that often. The feature set doesn't bed to increase, just big fixes. LTS Linux provides this in spades for much longer than Microsoft. If Microsoft upgrades business to quickly they will switch to something closer to their terms

Jedipottsy said,

Except business don't need to upgrade that often. The feature set doesn't bed to increase, just big fixes. LTS Linux provides this in spades for much longer than Microsoft. If Microsoft upgrades business to quickly they will switch to something closer to their terms

I don't know of any Linux LTS that supports one version for 12 or 13 yrs.

excalpius said,
>I'm really not sure why Microsoft wants to bombard us with a new OS every year.

Mo' money.


There not bringing it out every year more like four but they usually release a preview version early

Astra.Xtreme said,
Well 7 is certainly going to be the new XP, corporate at least, since it's incredibly expensive and time consuming to update OS's company-wide.

7 is a great OS, which is why people adopted it so quickly, so they shouldn't have bothered with releasing 8 until 2019 or 2020. I'm really not sure why Microsoft wants to bombard us with a new OS every year. The vast majority of people don't want constant change, especially on something used for daily productivity.


Because 1. MS is a software company, 2. You eventually get to issues that can't simply be "patched in" so a new version is a better idea, 3. Features are the same way.

Corporate customers are slow, true, but most consumers benefit if they keep up with their chosen OS. 64bit, rewriting the multicore support, improved efficiency, etc. Hell, system requirements have been going down with Windows! And honestly, the move from 9x to XP wasn't smooth or welcomed, either. XP was decried for being slow, having poor compatibility, and looking like it was designed by Fisher Price. It took years before SP2 was released and hardware caught up with what it needed/wanted.

Jedipottsy said,

Except business don't need to upgrade that often. The feature set doesn't bed to increase, just big fixes. LTS Linux provides this in spades for much longer than Microsoft. If Microsoft upgrades business to quickly they will switch to something closer to their terms


That said, MS is still far friendlier in this regard than Apple. But then Apple wants you to buy new more often - they're essentially a hardware company, so if you're not getting a new Mac every six years they're going to be a little sad. MS at least has Office and their other services.

depends if they want to annoy the few people that already have 8 and have bad publicity or if they hope to get better publicity and make the profit out of people on win9 using the store

If it is $40 like it was for windows 8 for a limited time, I would upgrade all my computers to it, instead of the just the one I did for windows 8.

I hope they make Win 9 a free upgrade to 8.1 users. I started off with 8, got a pretty significant free update to 8.1, another free feature update with Update 1, and soon another free update in August. While Win 7 users get nothing but security fixes lol.

Error1 said,
I started off with 8 [...] free update to 8.1 [...] another free feature update [...] soon another free update in August. [...]Win 7 users get nothing but security fixes

Ironically enough some of the updates enabled features already built into Windows 7

Microsoft now have to contend with the age old problem. They have broken trust with many customers over the Windows 8 debacle. It doesn't matter how good Windows 9 is, it'll take a long time for many users to forgive Microsoft or trust them again.

Microsoft are in for a long hard slog before people start buying a new O/S from them again.

People said the exact same thing about Vista. Then boom comes Windows 7 and becomes the fastest selling OS in history.

dvb2000 said,
Microsoft now have to contend with the age old problem. They have broken trust with many customers over the Windows 8 debacle. It doesn't matter how good Windows 9 is, it'll take a long time for many users to forgive Microsoft or trust them again.

Microsoft are in for a long hard slog before people start buying a new O/S from them again.

Doubt it. 95 was pretty well regarded. The original 98 was hilarious. 98SE was a better effort. ME...ULTRALOL. 2K was superb and XP that came off the back of that ended up being splendid despite early hate. Vista...a good OS...but just too good for the hardware in common use at the time. 7...glorious. 8 - I've had no issues really. 99% of my workflow and usage pattern is pretty much identical to Win7. It's rock solid in terms of reliability too. I don't mind the "Metro" stuff and it all works nicely with my Windows Phone as well. I know some people detest all of it and that's their choice. Stay on Win 7 for the next 10 years like the XP fans.

Up and down reception of OS'es is nothing new for MS and it doesn't generally hurt them. Why would it? It's not like Linux is a real competitor in the "home" market and OSX is an irrelevancy because it's tied to specific hardware.