When Microsoft released Windows 95 almost 20 years ago, people packed into stores to be among the first lucky buyers to get their hands on this cutting edge new technology. Microsoft had an iron grip on productivity software in the enterprise, but even ordinary consumers were accustomed to paying hundreds of dollars for software. Two decades later, Microsoft is releasing Windows 10. But most people won’t have to rush out and purchase a copy. Anyone with a copy of Windows dating back to Windows 7 can upgrade for free, a first for Microsoft.
Whether we’re talking tiny smartphone applications, or entire operating systems, people now expect software to be free. It’s a reality that, obviously, hurts software makers the most. If you’d told me only a few years ago Microsoft would adapt to this new reality this (relatively) quickly, I wouldn’t have believed it.
For what I know, the upgrade is valid only for a single PC (motherboard) and after changing hardware, you need to purchase a new copy of the OS. I am not sure how different that is from the Windows 7 and 8 licenses that are being used to get a free Windows 10 upgrade, but not everybody is happy.
I think it was previously possible to activate a fresh installation using the old product key on a new machine, after revoking it on the old computer.
Edited 2015-08-01 11:37 UTC
Only with retail licenses, but you are correct in everything else you say. Even if you have a transferrable retail license now, your “upgrade” will revoke that right and turn it into a non-transferrable OEM license. Further, if you don’t downgrade within a month, they’ll take away your right to use the software you previously purchased (your previous copy of Windows) along with it.
This is why they’re releasing it for free: To try their best to make damn sure as many people as possible get stuck on it with no recourse, because Windows 8 and 8.1 weren’t exactly stunning success stories and they’re afraid Windows 10 will follow that trend if they don’t force things.
Microsoft is not giving Windows 10 licenses away for free. You are either paying for it by relinquishing your previous Windows license, or you have to buy it.
Microsoft is not scared Windows 10 will be Windows 8 all over again. They are changing their business model (by consolidation) when it comes to Windows. As long as people are on previous versions, Microsoft is carrying around dead weight.
And btw, Microsoft still managed to sell a whole ton of Windows 8 licenses. People try to devalue that fact by questioning how many people actually use Windows 8. Who gives a shit how many people use Windows 8? Whatever that number is, it doesn’t change how many licenses were sold.
Exactly that is one of the reasons, lots of people keep forgetting that.
Except you don’t just give up your previous Windows license, you give up the transferability of said license that you paid extra to have. It never ceases to amaze me how people will justify getting cheated.
And more I wasn’t allowed to upgrade my Windows 7 as I had a non-transerable OEM licence, because I changed country and the licence is restricted geographically. Microsoft sees itself as a feudal baron and it users as surfs who are not allowed to move.
The experience of finding out this “policy” involved being put on hold twice for over an hour whilst listening to the worst muzak known to man, an excruciating assault to the senses and then being shunted about by powerless minions and finally being left on hold and ignored. In fact the whole experience was retched, the awful installer, the product key failing, the time on the phone, the numerous reboots made it by far the worst install experience ever.
The fact that my data will be shared with everyone MS sees fit, probably doesn’t bother me as it will only be used as a gaming platform for the few steam games that don’t play on Linux. Nevertheless the choice seems to me use opensource and be in control or just be abused, exploited, sold and whored out by MS Apple etc.
The year of the Linux desktop happened, if you missed it that’s your fault.
Edited 2015-08-02 09:56 UTC
Jesus, keep dreaming. I got to give you idiots credit for one thing: you don’t give up. Too bad you don’t actually offer a more solid product along with your rhetoric. You might actually get somewhere if you did.
As you say Windows is a stunning product – enjoy.
Personally I will be using opensource.
I don’t know why you think a retail license will become fixed to 1 machine like an OEM license does:
“If you upgrade from a retail version, it carries the rights of a retail version.
…
If the base qualifying license (Windows 7 or Windows 8.1) was a full retail version, then yes, you can transfer it.
If you acquired the software as stand-alone software
(and also if you upgraded from software you acquired as stand-alone
software), you may transfer the software to another device that belongs
to you.”
Source: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/wiki/insider_wintp-insid…
back in 1994 a useable pentium system cost 3000usd or so (about what i paid for my p5/120 with 32MB ram). Comparatively the OS cost was ~5% or so.
Fast forward to today. Perfectly usable hardware can be had for 300usd or so. The MS OS price has barely dropped in comparison. And they actually have real competition from chromeos and tablet systems. And now the internet has become the software platform, individual local applications not so much.
Edited 2015-08-01 12:04 UTC
As I understand it: Devices with a screen less than 11″ get Windows for free. The Windows tax is just to great.
Great news for Rift-buyers!
If i install wndows 10 on my computer with my 8″ troubleshooting screen, it will be free? And what happens if i later on swap the monitor to a regular sized one?
No it’s for fixed devices like tablets. And it’s free for the manufacturer.
I don’t think you can ask Microsoft for a download-link
Microsoft provides ISO download links free of charge for windows 10. It is the activation code that you need to input after a while that costs money.
Yeah, that is true.
I mean they aren’t giving away free codes to everyone, just manufactures as far as I know.
p5 120 with 32 mb was a beast back then. Most of my friends just settled with a p5 66 and 8 mb Those were like 1500 or so. Or the cheap ones like me got a processor overclock thing, where you placed your 486 into this slot that then plugged into the motherboard and promised to make it a like pentium in performance. I think those were maybe 96 and a couple hundred, and didn’t work well . Fun times.
But yeah, the prices have dropped significantly.
I remember choosing the 50MHz bus 486DX over the 486DX2/66, P5-66 and P5-90 because video editing was smoother. We ended up backing down to an AMD board on a 40MHz bus because Intel’s 50MHz memory bus was unreliable after a couple months. And by then we could outrun P5-90 performance with the AMD DX4/120 which was really a triple clocked processor on AMD’s 40MHz bus. When we replaced the AMD board we moved it to the undocumented quadruple clock setting and it ran as a gaming desktop until I pawned it off a couple years later. Not bad for a processor only guaranteed for single clock speeds.
It’s safe to say low end hardware isn’t made like it used to be.
Yeah, those AMD processors were amazing. They must have been charging more than cyrix. I never saw any prebuilt systems with AMD. It was only my tech friends that put together from parts that had them.
Considering the reports of loss of user control, advertising, privacy concerns, etc… I’m starting to think that MS should pay me to use their new OS.
Meanwhile I’m hoarding a few copies of Windows 7 for future installs.
Are we really so stupid?
Windows 10 is free because Microsoft has embraced Google’s tactics: brutal data mining to sell to third parties… advertising companies, insurance, big data, etc.
Be caution with you privacy, ’cause Windows 10 is MS’s new Android-like OS for desktops and phones
The real reason MS is giving people Win10 is to get them to move on from their old OS’ without a lot of fuzz. This forces consumers and developers to also move to MS’ newer programming platforms and hopefully decommission once and for some of the obsolete ones.
There’s honestly no reason a desktop OS should cost more than $50 for consumers or business (Retail or OEM). Not with the free open source and other alternatives out there. The cost savings on not having to maintain older OS’ for as long more than make up for the lower price point. Coupled with smaller incremental updates in 18-24 months that add features, it should increase market share for them.
That model has worked well for Apple. I don’t see why it should not worked for M$ as well.
Apple and Microsoft are completely different companies with largely different customer bases, products, and services. Having a couple similarities in only a couple areas doesn’t mean their business models are interchangeable.
The problem is they sell it for $50 or less to large OEMs but have kept the price sky high for everyone else. That makes the operating system the single-most expensive component of a basic home computer, and makes it impossible for small builders or home builders to compete.
And it seems like there’s no change with Windows 10, which certainly isn’t free. Windows 10 for a new build, OEM pricing, is $100. Meanwhile Linux is free and full retail copies of OSX are $20.
What? Has Apple restarted the old Mac clone program? Because it doesn’t matter if OS X is free or $20 if you can’t legally run the damn thing on the machines you build.
“Legally” doesn’t enter into it. The fact is you can buy full versions of the OSX operating system for $20 directly from Apple.
Of course it enters into it, if you’re talking about building machines. You forgotten Psystar?
Mavericks and Yosemite were free as will be El Capitan. The last paid for upgrade was Mountain Lion 10.8.
The other comments about OSX’s only being installable legally on spendy Apple hardware stand. It is a different business model from Microsoft’s and comparisons betweeen the two are pointless.
Mavericks and Yosemite are free as full install retail packages, or only free when upgraded from an earlier version?
Frankly Windows has basically been a means to an end for MS. It has been about getting Office and all their other software out there, where they can really rake in the license deals. And now that thing are going SaaS (aka cloud) with the likes of Office 365, Windows becomes ever more a terminal to services.
The reason is adoption disaster for 8.x (15%). Microsoft simply needs strong new userbase to have new shiny major platform in the wild and force all developers to move on [to the ModernUI]. Simply to shine at the front of Microsoft stockholders. To be like Apple To have the same income from their AppStore like Apple, to have the same app ecosystem [like Apple, Google].
I do not agree. The consumer market should not be confused with other markets. For example, businesses would surely pay to upgrade. And there’s a lot of room between (say) 90 ^a'not and zero. For example, I’d say that tons of consumers would upgrade anyway if it would cost 20 ^a'not or 15 and so on and that would be a lot of cash anyway.
The simple reason why they will give the upgrade for free is they want most customers to upgrade to instantly build a big ecosystem for developers. If upgrade had a price, users would do that according to their will and possibility, especially businesses. Instead, giving it for free almost instantly creates possibly the biggest ecosystem to date.
I don’t know if numbers are accurate but if Microsoft was able to upgrade 67 millions devices to Windows 10 in only two days, no sane developer would think about targeting anything else than Win10 when developing for Windows from now on.
And since Microsoft unified development lines to a single one with Universal Apps (Xbox, Desktop, Mobile) that could also help their mobile strategy since there could be a flood of mobile-compatible apps soon.
Add that Windows10 is the one of the most important keys for Microsoft cloud strategy and that Microsoft sits on tons of cash and you can easily understand why they prefer numbers to a few billion dollars.
Because they now track everything you do on Windows 10 and sell that info like Google.
Companies have suckered us into giving up our personal freedom to get some free sh_t.
Sad.
Most of the domestic users only change the OS when they change the computer. Bussiness users won’t upgrade carelessly (and if they fo they will pay support).
Microsoft needs a big installed base for programmers to use their new APIs and technologies.
The Verge article doesn’t cover it, but Visual Studio is a huge part of their new strategy (remember, Microsoft started as a language vendor, they’re still a language vendor) – they want developers to use Visual Studio to write iOS and Android apps, and therefore are making it so one app written in VS works on all Windows devices as well as iOS and Android devices.
We’ll see if that actually works, but it’s the best bet they’ve got other than just paying bounties for even free releases into the Windows Store.
Actually they started out as Unix vendor. MS (Xenix) was the biggest seller of AT&T Unix.
That was later.
In 1975, they were a language vendor, and that’s what they were until 1980, when they became an OS vendor with Xenix and CP/M, and later MS-DOS, and a hardware vendor with a couple Apple II peripherals (one of which was why they started vending CP/M, the Z-80 Softcard).
Edited 2015-08-04 00:50 UTC
I’ve been in this business for more than 40 years and frankly the way that MS is going to force updates on users is to be honest ‘a disaster that is going to happen’
I’ve been trying W10 out for a few days and here are my observations.
Lets consider this scenario.
A use has a PC and gets the forced updates from MS and suddenly something that worked no longer does. They search online and find that a particular update is reported to be the cause of the problem. Ok they say, and they remove the update and everything is ok again.
Sometime later that update is sent again. Rinse repeat and repeat.
The user has no control of how their PC works. MS owns their device.
Another scenario I’ve seen discussed a bit is to install the Enterprise version. Ok, you don’t get the updates but the only way to get any is via WSUS. Once again, you lose control of the updates yo whoever runs the WSUS server.
Frankly, if I’d even dared dream of a system like this I would be ashamed to go out in public. IMHO you couldn’t have doe a worse job.
Naturally, these are only my observations and I am willing to be corrected where I have got it wrong.
Anyone with a modicum of IT knowledge will realise that this is a game changer. For them (and the majority of OSAlert readers) this is a clear Red Flag to Not install this version of the software.
It does not matter if it is free or not. Putting lipstick on a pig can’t disguise that underneath the lipstic, there is still a pig.
Then there is the little matter of Microsoft over ruling some of your privacy settings if they deem them wrong. Who owns the PC now?
Then there is the little issue of an update borking a PC. Lawyers are you ready for battle?
Tip of the Iceberg?
Edited 2015-08-02 18:44 UTC
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3073930
That’s the tool to block specific updates.
“Another scenario I’ve seen discussed a bit is to install the Enterprise version. Ok, you don’t get the updates but the only way to get any is via WSUS. Once again, you lose control of the updates yo whoever runs the WSUS server. ”
I get updates every other day and I use the Enterprise version
Can you choose the options just like you could with older versions?
I’d really like to know how to control the application of the updates. So far I can’t see how I can do it.
Just by using a local account and disabling Cortana, and using some other search engine like Duck Duck Go, on some other browser than Edge or IE. It’s not hard, and is similar to how Windows 7 works right now. Most people who care aren’t using IE anyway, so what’s the big deal. Free upgrades, and just keep doing what you’re doing.
Edited 2015-08-02 21:19 UTC
The big deal is the shift in the business model from one of selling the software to make money to capturing a lot of data (and incorporating more advertising into their products).
I still upgraded to Windows 10 because I don’t do anything important on my windows computers so I don’t care about the tracking, but I do think this change is significant. I will always go with a vendor that makes money in a transparent way by selling hardware or software at a profit.
If you don’t give them any data, what’s the difference?
You are just trading your personal i formation for the license! Make no mistake, MS WILL make money…they will just do it by selling your data instead of taking it from your wallet!
^aEUR|the OS should be free, how else are you supposed to use a computer? if the OS is free, the companies behind it can still make money on the software for that OS.
Do you also think you should get gas for free because how are you supposed to drive a car without it?
Why some people think software is a free entitlement is beyond me…
Unless you build your own computer, the operating system is nearly always included in the price of the computer.
Microsoft Windows 10 is not free. Period.
Users who bought Windows 7/8.x are already paying a lot of money to get their version of Windows. Windows 10 is just an upgrade to both and certainly Windows 7 and specially Windows 8 users were deserving to receive that upgrade, with a small fee or to zero cost. Microsoft choose the latter. I remember, $0 != Free.
People should not use the word FREE here, for it is not applicable, it is all marketing hype to use the word *free*. When people get use to decades of brainwashing with product major upgrade releases that require insane amount of money to get it, will certainly think that upgrading to a software release at not cost is equivalent to free which is really not the case.
The free here if ever is equal to Microsoft releasing Windows 10 as free to all (pirated or genuine)users even for a limited time.
I would rather pay for it and eliminate the unwanted ads and wasted bandwidth I pay do pay for.
I despise unsolicited advertising. Whether or not it’s “targeted” towards me has no relevance. Maybe some people enjoy being distracted by companies trying to pry money from them, but not me. It’s highly irritating and prompts me not to buy their product(s) rather than the intended opposite.
MS certainly frames it this way — and Thom has apparently swallowed the bait — hook, line and sink.
But Windows 10 is not free.
The entire OS is designed to be a revenue generating spybot. How many in this thread are aware that when the average user upgrades to 10, 10 turns their system into a fire-sharing node? Rather than spend their own precious tens of billions, MS is using the user’s connection to provide upgrade feeds to other users — without their knowledge or permission (unless, possibly, one bothers to actually read the licensing terms). Who’s going to pay for this? Not MS.
Edited 2015-08-05 13:19 UTC
The default settings may not exactly be “privacy-friendly”, but you forgot to mention that you can disable all of it. So no, the sky is not falling.
Like I wrote, the intent of Windows 10 is to be a revenue generating spybot. Whether or not you change the privacy settings is utterly irrelevant. MS’s intent is to record and sell your behaviour. That’s not free. I hazard to guess that most users will not switch off the privacy-mitigating features (unless they give up Cortana for example); and they may not even be aware of the privacy issues. MS is counting on it.
Edited 2015-08-06 02:33 UTC
Utterly irrelevant? That’s beyond laughable. For something supposedly `utterly irrelevant`, the issue sure is getting a ton of attention and press coverage. That’s pretty bizarre behavior wouldn’t you say?