Microsoft to stop producing Windows versions

Microsoft is trying to lure all the counterfeit Windows 7 into the Windows 10 tent. Quantity not quality. They don't care as long as the get the numbers for bragging rights.

Bragging and it shows well on the charts. They don't want to have a Windows 8 repeat - although I truly wonder how they can avoid that.

It is said that W8 was rejected because there were too many changes at once. W10 will bring a lot more changes and the funny start menu is not going to save the day on the desktop. You have to see that from the perspective of a W7 or XP user - not an advanced geek user.

They probably still dream of this huge future tablet market. But that grows a lot slower now.

The way I read it is, they just won't give each new OS a new name/number. It will just be Windows. Continuously updating and evolving. How that will work, of if it will work, who knows? Just my take on it. Sooner or latter the Windows kernel will be updated to a new version number. In the past that would be designated as a new version of Windows. Now that won't happen. Internally in Microsoft it might, but to the consumer its still just Windows. Seems to me its just going to confuse things for consumers? I would think it's also going to make it a pain for OEM's to maintain an install image for new PC's. Time will tell I guess.

MS still has to maintain some order of updates even if there's no real "version". Unless they make updates mandatory (automatic with no choice), some may choose not to update and that state of the OS would have to be known.

I just hope MS doesn't move to animal, fruit or vegetable versions instead of numbers. It's too easy to loose track.

I'll switch to Linux if necessary, My Microsoft experience stops to Windows 7 now. But I'll wait for updates just in case Microsoft changes mind :)

Even if W10 really is free forever as an upgrade, I'm still not sure about it. Maybe after it is really released with all of the details, I might change my mind. So much is unknown now that I'm going to wait until things settle out and get defined (likely a year or more after production release), as well as W10's viability. For now, I'm willing to live with W7 until all support is gone and my current tower dies.

What some may forget or not realize, is if you take Microsoft up on this offer, Windows will be free to you on that device for as long as you own that device. Buy a new PC and you'll be paying for Windows on that PC. Microsoft is still going to make money on Windows on new PC sales. The OEM's are still going to have to pay Microsoft for every version of Windows they install on a PC. Build a new PC and your going to have to buy Windows. Wait until the free offer expires, your paying. Want to upgrade from XP or Vista, your paying. Anyway, my point is, Microsoft is till going to make money on Windows, despite giving it away free to some consumers. PC's don't last forever and they know that. I think you'll find out that these free upgrades are not going to be transferable to another PC. Your not getting Windows free for the rest of your life, unless that PC lasts that long that is. IMHO they don't need to try and get you into a subscription after giving you your free upgrade. Some seem to think they will never make any further money on Windows because of this free offer. It's just not so.

groze said:

Scr,

It is the retailers, OEMs, & printer manufactures that needs to change. I see Ubuntu and Ubuntu derivatives as the easiest to use and is real close Windows 10. We also need to get some cheap low end machine at walmart or other national chains that have computer with Ubuntu that is pre-installed. This is the only way Linux could take over. I find Ubuntu and it derivatives real easy to use and best for novices. After initial setup, you don't see the sudo prompt to often. I do change the read permission on my home folder, to read & write just for me not for others.

Linux preloaded on low end machines has already been done. Except for techies who want to run stuff on a Raspberry Pi nobody likes it. It's too much like those consoles added to TVs so people could do internet email without having a real computer. They should have made the hardware capable of doing everything a Windows PC can do but reduce the price by not having to pay for the Windows preload.

As for the Linux distro, anything Debian derived has a leg up. The apt packaging system is what really simplifies updates and installing new programs. But in any case I think trying to low ball the casual user is the wrong way to go. If anything you want to get people who don't want to become a geek to get the machine to work, but have money, to buy it. Instead of a $1200 Windows desktop sell them a $900 one with the same quad core CPU, memory etc.. :)

groze said:

I wouldn't call $1200, $900 U.S. Dollars low end.

I never wrote they were. Read my post until you get it the right way around please. :)

I don't call $1200, $900 or $500 low end systems. My low end acquisition cost $99 with a quad core CPU, an eMMC disk (kind of an SSD) and Windows 8.1. It's a beautiful 2 pound little machine that I use on travel and it does everything that I need to do.

Boots in 26 seconds (Event 100) and is quite snappy in running my office type applications. I even run a virtual Linux Mint system from an external SSD on the 8.1 host. That takes a little time to load because I have only USB2 ports, but once loaded, performance is OK.