Win 8 upgrade

[kevincott]

I was wondering the stats on tech-savy Win8 upgrades when available considering:

1. Microsoft will stop supporting WinXP, Aug 2014 Microsoft Support Lifecycle
2. Low cost upgrades from WinXP/Vista/7; download $40: DVD $70
3. Win8 offers a traditional (Aero) style interface option

Most users seem to dislike Metro but I am curious if people will 'drink the cool-aid'.

 

[SUroot]

I don't like the Metro UI. If forced to roll out Windows 8 at work, I will definitely be testing alternative UI configurations first. I don't think the Metro UI particularly lends itself to business. Especially not the technical/engineer users the company I work for has. Although 40% of them use Fedora.

As for personally, I only use Windows 7 in a virtual machine anyway. I don't get aero and it's usually in unity mode so UI is unimportant to me.

 

[kevincott]

I have a 32bitXP I will probably bounce and get an upgrade.

Also annoying: Home premium doesn't allow rdp.

Getting a copy of Win8 Pro will fix the remote issue. Not worth $120 to fix, but $40 is possible.

 

[argedion]

The poll is biased it assumes we all use Windows. I'm a Fedora Man I'm running 17 on my laptop and 1 server. Will be putting it on the other server soon. Not to make another Linux vs Windows thread. The drive I have with windows on it I am planning on taking off and putting Fedora on it and then using the extra drives for storage. Wife has windows If I really need it.

 

[kevincott]

The poll is biased it assumes we all use Windows. I'm a Fedora Man I'm running 17 on my laptop and 1 server. Will be putting it on the other server soon. Not to make another Linux vs Windows thread. The drive I have with windows on it I am planning on taking off and putting Fedora on it and then using the extra drives for storage. Wife has windows If I really need it.

I am curious about WinXp/Vista/7 > Win8 upgrades.

I assume if you don't like Win, 8 won't make the difference.

 

[linuxrich]

I voted no upgrade to Win 8. I have Vista Business installed as a VM and an old Vista home basic laptop for use if there ever is any Windows requirements in our household. All other machines run Linux in one form or another.

 

[Davdi]

I run Linux/Win7 Dual boot on 1 desktp and 1 Laptop. Linux and Win8 Consumer Preview on Desktop No2. I WON'T be 'upgrading' to win8 at all. The Metro Interface will be just the thing for MS's new Surface tablet. That could be a nice device, but I'll stick with Android (ICS tablet goodness). Win7 May prove as hard to shift as XP. It's stable, relatively secure and just about any new(ish) hardware can run it.

 

[350X]

"Microsoft Support Lifecycle" is a joke anyways, its 2-3 party apps that mean the most.

How I can still use windows 2000 and do everything online, anyone else can, you don't need MS support.

Oh sure you may think bug fixes are a big deal, but were talking about MS products, there is always a new bug to fix, they could spend 1000 years on the same OS version and still find bugs.

 

[johnlgalt]

I will upgrade to Win8 when I need to, via my Technet account - but it will be a clean install, not upgrading 7 --> 8.

I hate upgrades.

 

[SUroot]

I will upgrade to Win8 when I need to, via my Technet account - but it will be a clean install, not upgrading 7 --> 8.

I hate upgrades.

I only ever upgraded once from 2000 to 2003 in a test environment. Thats only because I had to replicate production and maintain an active directory functional level of Windows 2000 native. If it wasn't for that I would have clean installed.

 

[argedion]

did an "upgrade" from 3.11 to 95 talk about a major pain. The whole process killed me from "upgrading" clean installs are the only way to go. It allows you to get rid of the headaches and problems that come with upgrades and incompatibility.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I don't like the Metro UI. If forced to roll out Windows 8 at work, I will definitely be testing alternative UI configurations first. I don't think the Metro UI particularly lends itself to business. Especially not the technical/engineer users the company I work for has. Although 40% of them use Fedora.

Same here. I was pleasantly surprised by Windows 7, enough to keep it on one PC that would have otherwise had OpenSUSE (my shop's distro of choice) installed on it. I had to put it back on my laptop because I couldn't get my Sierra Wireless (Sprint) dongle to work with Linux, and have been slow to move back now that I quit using it. And that laptop was really sweet running Linux! That says a lot about Windows 7, at least after the Aero junk gets turned off.

After XP's extended teething pains and Vista being totally worthless, Microsoft should thank their lucky stars and keep on milking 7 for as long as they can.

I keep on reading about how the Windows 8 UI will be a radical departure and cringe. I HATE radical UI departures! After going through GNOME 3 and KDE4 hell, I'm not going to pay for more abuse. "Take it away; I don't even want to look at it!"

 

[Speed Daemon]

I am curious about WinXp/Vista/7 > Win8 upgrades.

I vaguely remember reading that no 32-bit version, or any version of XP can be upgraded in-place. So you'll have to do a clean install in many cases. With Windows 7 Home and above, Microsoft has strongly advocated using the 64-bit version, so if you have 7 it's more likely to be easier. I'd still do a clean install no matter what because of the radically different UI. It's easier to deal with a failed application install than it is to try to track down and eradicate some application's DLL that breaks Metro.

Back it all up, wipe it clean and install 8 on bare metal. Or even better go to or stay with Windows 7. Or even better...

 

[Speed Daemon]

did an "upgrade" from 3.11 to 95 talk about a major pain. The whole process killed me from "upgrading" clean installs are the only way to go. It allows you to get rid of the headaches and problems that come with upgrades and incompatibility.

To be fair, DOS/WFW3.11 was a totally different animal than Win95. The old DOS/Win ran Windows as a MS-DOS application, while Windows 95 only used MS-DOS as a bootloader, and for compatibility reasons. It wasn't just like installing a different OS, it was installing a different OS.

There shouldn't have been an upgrade in-place option to begin with. But I can't complain since that made me a lot of money.

 

[argedion]

To be fair, DOS/WFW3.11 was a totally different animal than Win95. The old DOS/Win ran Windows as a MS-DOS application, while Windows 95 only used MS-DOS as a bootloader, and for compatibility reasons. It wasn't just like installing a different OS, it was installing a different OS.

There shouldn't have been an upgrade in-place option to begin with. But I can't complain since that made me a lot of money.

I feel that the switch between the desktops is the same. a completely different monster. Gnome 2x was a wonderful desktop. Easy to convert from Winblows. Never really cared for the KDE I always found it to Microsofty and Heavy. I liked the Lighter side of Gnome but now with Gnome 3 Gnome has gotten just as Heavy. I'm running LXDE on my "Dedicated"Android System and Liking it even though I am having to relearn a few things.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Never really cared for the KDE I always found it to Microsofty and Heavy.

I could say the same about GNOME, except it was too "Appley", specifically the screen-wasting and often redundant task bar after it became standard.

As for being heavy, I didn't really notice because when KDE2 came out I was fortunate enough to be using true workstation class PCs (SMP, SCSI RAID, tons of RAM, workstation video cards). For me, working in a Windows (and NetWare) shop, KDE2 (and 3 after it) was finally a desktop complete enough and good enough for me to not miss a single Windows feature. That was a big deal to a Linux user who started off in 1995 with a barely-usable X environment with most distributions!

As far as I'm concerned, a WIMP is a WIMP is a WIMP. Of course they're going to resemble each other, so what? Being able to get real work done without having to become a regular expressions guru was a big milestone for Linux, and KDE brought it. OTOH KDE4 is so much of a copy of Windows vista that I can't bear to use it. Thankfully OpenSUSE is still supporting KDE3, and the Trinity Project is working on carrying it forward.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That axiom applies as well to KDE as it does to this topic, Windows 8.

 

[mikedt]

I won't bothering to upgrade from Win 7. Don't think there's anything in Win8 that would be particularly useful for me. If it comes on a new PC I buy in the future, so be it, as long as it has the classic Start interface, OK.

 

[mikedt]

"Microsoft Support Lifecycle" is a joke anyways, its 2-3 party apps that mean the most.

How I can still use windows 2000 and do everything online, anyone else can, you don't need MS support.

Oh sure you may think bug fixes are a big deal, but were talking about MS products, there is always a new bug to fix, they could spend 1000 years on the same OS version and still find bugs.

It's not just bug and security fixes, it's what works with the modern internet or any new hardware you might buy, like a printer or something. What browser would you use with Win 2000? Internet Explorer 6? NOT recommended for so many reasons.

AFAIK IE7 and 8, require a minimum of Win XP, same for Opera, Chrome and Firefox.

 

[Speed Daemon]

It's not just bug and security fixes, it's what works with the modern internet or any new hardware you might buy, like a printer or something. What browser would you use with Win 2000? Internet Explorer 6?

Precisely.

I'd still be using my beloved Windows NT 4.0 if there was SP8, 8, 9 and on, adding support for USB and other current devices. As it stands, so much software relies on API hooks that are in XP and on that I gave in and deleted my Win2k VM images because I never use them any more.

 

[bplusshoe]

I'll probably wait until service pack 1 comes out. Hopefully by then they will have got most of the bugs ironed out.

 

[nigsy]

I don't think the upgrade will allow a clean install - It will need an existing OS in-place first, so that kind of rules out most XP users as I believe 64bit XP was only for business and never got an official consumer release.

Personally I like W7, so I don't see any need to abandon it for the latest flavour.
I'm dual booting with SUSE 12.1 at the moment and tempted to go all the way and ditch windows when SUSE 12.2 stable release is out.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Greetings, fellow SuSE user! :wavey: :tee:

I don't think the upgrade will allow a clean install - It will need an existing OS in-place first, so that kind of rules out most XP users as I believe 64bit XP was only for business and never got an official consumer release.

IIRC from reading the Win7 install warnings, XP is no longer supported for the "nice" upgrade that carries over your settings ans applications installed, not even if you're using the 64-bit version. That should carry over to Win8.

I vaguely recall a Win7 install procedure that asked me to put my old XP install disc (or was it the serial number) into the computer to verify ownership when installing Windows 7 from an upgrade disc. With Windows 8, you're not going to have that convenience; you must have an installed qualifying version of Windows pre-installed, or a System Builder copy of Win8. No matter what, you will not have your settings and applications migrated when upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 8.

If you have Windows Vista or 7, you'll need to have it pre-installed on your computer in order to use the upgrade disc or download (obviously for the download ). If Win8 is like Win7, if you have a 32-bit version of Vista or 7, you're not going to get the "nice" upgrade either. If you have the 64-bit version of Vista or 7, you might...maybe...it's not clear. Even Magic 8 Ball is blank.

As a rule of thumb, if you have the $40 Win8 upgrade, keep your old Windows install intact! If you have the more expensive System Builder disc, then the rules are different.

Personally I like W7, so I don't see any need to abandon it for the latest flavour.
I'm dual booting with SUSE 12.1 at the moment and tempted to go all the way and ditch windows when SUSE 12.2 stable release is out.

As good as Linux has become, there isalways some product that comes with software that only runs on Windows or OSX. Considering that disk space is so cheap these days, I'd hold on to my Windows 7 install for those inevitable cases. IJS

 

[kevincott]

I don't think the upgrade will allow a clean install - It will need an existing OS in-place first, so that kind of rules out most XP users as I believe 64bit XP was only for business and never got an official consumer release.

Personally I like W7, so I don't see any need to abandon it for the latest flavour.
I'm dual booting with SUSE 12.1 at the moment and tempted to go all the way and ditch windows when SUSE 12.2 stable release is out.

Did I miss reading something? Can you not upgrade a 32bit XP/Vista to Win8?

 

[kevincott]

deleted: started new thread

 

[pbf98]

So if Microsoft is "Forcing" XP users to upgrade will they get an "equivalent" copy of 8? I mean like XP Pro upgraded to windows 8 pro? at no extra cost from the 40$?

Just curious although that is still 2 years away. I can see where this may bring up some very unhappy windows users, I know many people that are still using XP and have no plans at all of getting a new computer or upgrading.

And what about PCs that are not able to support Windows 8? I ask this because I volunteer at my church for fixing issues with the computers there, and I recently refurbished an old computer by adding more ram and a new hard drive and upgrading from 98 to XP.. its only at 768Mb which is just over the 512 needed to run XP and is not quite to the 1gig required with windows 8, also to add the processor is only an 850MHz single core. That PC has no windows 8 in its future.

I understand why they will stop supporting XP but I do see there being problems with customers when they do.