I dunno if I like the sound of "Windows 10 'free for the first year'"

[Winter_Wolf]

Because Windows 10 is so close, I have decided that even if I splurge on a new machine, I might as well wait until after the new OS is on the scene and just skip Windows 8 entirely. Win7 has been nothing but good to me and if I have to learn a new system, I think I'll just learn the latest one.

BUT.

Reading on Win 10 news, I came across this "gem" (http://www.techradar.com/us/news/software/operating-systems/windows-10-release-date-price-news-and-features-1029245):

How much will Windows 10 cost?

Myerson announced in January that Windows 10 will be free for Windows 7 and 8.1 users for its first year. While there's no word on pricing for users still on an older version, Microsoft confirmed a while ago that the two most recent Windows versions will be able to upgrade to Windows 10 directly (http://www.techradar.com/us/news/software/operating-systems/windows-7-and-8-1-pcs-will-get-direct-upgrade-to-windows-10-1278884).



Yeah. I don't know if I like the sound of that. Sounds a lot like, "well, the first hit is free (but getting your regular fix is gonna cost ya)." I suppose it could mean that Win7 and Win8 users get a free pass OS upgrade. I really, really hope I'm just being pointlessly alarmist and misinterpreting what I'm reading. Okay, now that we're all done laughing and/or groaning, I really don't believe Microsoft will go that way. Because businesses need to make money somewhere. I really don't want to switch to Linux, because I don't know how long it would take to learn everything from scratch. But yearly subscriptions to Windows would be the push that does it. I should probably be able to get some stable drivers for the Nvidia 970/980 graphics cards by then.

[factotum]

It's been confirmed that this is a free upgrade--your OS will not stop working after a year, if that's what concerns you.

[Telok]

Most of the bigger name linux releases are pretty close to Windows accessability and utility. It's just another GUI, you should probably be about as scared of learning an linux distro OS as you are of learning the Apple OS.

As for Windows... This is really sarcastic and pessimistic but "free for the first year" sound like either "welcome unpaid beta tester" or "free to play the basic game and pay for everything else (like upgrades and patches)". But Microsoft is usually decent to the most recent release customers so I'm probably being gloomy about it. It's not like it impacts me too much, I like my computer to do what I tell it to.

[Mando Knight]

What they mean is that during the first year after Windows 10's release, anyone running Win7/8 can (permanently) upgrade to 10 for free. (For those still running Windows XP, that OS was released closer to 3.1 than to today, and you really should think about buying a new computer if you're doing it for anything beyond offline word processing)

For that first year, expect bugs, workarounds, and a lot of Compatibility Mode.

[TheThan]

Yeah, I would rather just shell out for a full version of an OS than pay a yearly subscription or have to pay for upgrades and add-ons.

Sure it’s expensive, but that’s a one-time cost. A subscription fee you have to keep paying and paying.

[Alent]

It's been confirmed that this is a free upgrade--your OS will not stop working after a year, if that's what concerns you.

This. Microsoft is trying to avoid another XP style "I don't need to upgrade" mess where they're supporting Windows 7 for another decade. Rather than brute force like they had to resort to with XP, they're hoping to get the most stubborn holdouts early by offering them the free upgrade they used to whine and complain they weren't getting.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, I would rather just shell out for a full version of an OS than pay a yearly subscription or have to pay for upgrades and add-ons.

Sure it’s expensive, but that’s a one-time cost. A subscription fee you have to keep paying and paying.
Well it's a good thing that it's not subscription based. This particular alarmist nonsense was already done to death back in February when it was first announced that upgrading would be free for the first year.

[Winter_Wolf]

Well it's a good thing that it's not subscription based. This particular alarmist nonsense was already done to death back in February when it was first announced that upgrading would be free for the first year.

I live under a rock. :smallbiggrin: I'm pretty well behind the times, since I only check on things sporadically; more of a "I wonder what's happening with that these days?" thing than obsessively following it. It also happened that particular blurb was in the top three when I searched "Windows 10 price release".

[Solse]

What they mean is that during the first year after Windows 10's release, anyone running Win7/8 can (permanently) upgrade to 10 for free. (For those still running Windows XP, that OS was released closer to 3.1 than to today, and you really should think about buying a new computer if you're doing it for anything beyond offline word processing)

For that first year, expect bugs, workarounds, and a lot of Compatibility Mode.

Phew, that's good. The way that it was worded made it sound like one of those deals where companies unethically sell users "licenses" to their products, where the users don't actually own the product. Microsoft having complete control over when and how you use your operating system is something that would worry me. That's one of the main reasons I decided not to use the Tech Demo, even in a VM, because Microsoft tracks everything (including keystrokes) about the demo's user while they're using the demo in order to "improve the OS". Still, I'm really glad that I can get Windows 10 for free if I upgrade in the first year as opposed to the other option.

[Starwulf]

I think I'd be more worried that this means they already know Win10 is junk, so their best chance of getting people to adopt it is by luring them to it via a free upgrade from Win7/Win8. That and/or as someone else said, it basically means you'll be an unpaid beta-tester.

I'll probably continue my habit of not upgrading and just stick with Win7 until Win11 or whatever comes out. I have no pressing need to upgrade to a new OS, current one works just fine, and since most PC games have moved onto largely digital releases only that leaves me out in the cold so I'm stuck with playing older games and the farther I move away from the OS they were made to run on, the less likely it is I"ll be able to run them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Norren
Rather than brute force like they had to resort to with XP….

I'm still using XP on an old work machine. Solid as Gibraltar.

That said:


Originally Posted by Bulldog Psion
Linux, here I come.

Word. Ubuntu is just my speed.

[Flickerdart]

I think I'd be more worried that this means they already know Win10 is junk, so their best chance of getting people to adopt it is by luring them to it via a free upgrade from Win7/Win8. That and/or as someone else said, it basically means you'll be an unpaid beta-tester.
They already have that; it's called the Technical Preview.

[factotum]

I'm still using XP on an old work machine. Solid as Gibraltar.

Right up until the point that machine gets compromised by an unpatched vulnerability due to the OS not having been supported in over a year now. Using Windows XP on *any* machine these days is the operating system equivalent of playing Russian Roulette--do you feel lucky today?

[halfeye]

Right up until the point that machine gets compromised by an unpatched vulnerability due to the OS not having been supported in over a year now. Using Windows XP on *any* machine these days is the operating system equivalent of playing Russian Roulette--do you feel lucky today?
If it's connected to the internet. Otherwise, it's the same risk it's always been.

[factotum]

If it's connected to the internet.

Or you ever plug a USB storage device into it, or install any program which you downloaded from somewhere on another machine and transferred over...

[Gnoman]

I think I'd be more worried that this means they already know Win10 is junk, so their best chance of getting people to adopt it is by luring them to it via a free upgrade from Win7/Win8. That and/or as someone else said, it basically means you'll be an unpaid beta-tester.


Microsoft knows that the payware OS market is essentially dead - they're the only ones still clinging to that business model, and this is a way to transition away from it.

[Yana]

Does this have anything to do with the GMX.exe that just appeared on my desktop? It seems to want me to upgrade to this os.

[Mando Knight]

Does this have anything to do with the GMX.exe that just appeared on my desktop? It seems to want me to upgrade to this os.

No. Call tech support.

[Flickerdart]

Does this have anything to do with the GMX.exe that just appeared on my desktop? It seems to want me to upgrade to this os.
Microsoft updates are always served through Windows Update. Run a boot-time virus scan.

[Mando Knight]

Microsoft updates are always served through Windows Update. Run a boot-time virus scan.

GWX appears to be legit, however, since it appears to be connected to this (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-upgrade). It's basically a low-impact (~1 MB memory) advertisement for the free* upgrade... which, while it shows a potential insidious "feature" of Windows Update (the ability to install little Microsoft-sponsored advertisements you never asked for onto your computer), it's a pretty solid tactic for informing consumers (who might not know much of anything about Windows 10) that they can upgrade their current computer for free this time around, and that the launch date is pretty close.

*Windows Offer Details

Yes, free! This upgrade offer is for a full version of Windows 10, not a trial. 3GB download required; standard data rates apply. To take advantage of this free offer, you must upgrade to Windows 10 within one year of availability. Once you upgrade, you have Windows 10 for free on that device.

Our lawyers made us say this:

Windows 10 Upgrade Offer is valid for qualified Windows 7 and Windows 8.1 devices, including devices you already own. Some hardware/software requirements apply and feature availability may vary by device and market. The availability of Windows 10 upgrade for Windows Phone 8.1 devices may vary by OEM, mobile operator or carrier. Devices must be connected to the internet and have Windows Update enabled. Windows 7 SP1 and Windows 8.1 Update required. Some editions are excluded: Windows 7 Enterprise, Windows 8/8.1 Enterprise, and Windows RT/RT 8.1. Active Software Assurance customers in volume licensing have the benefit to upgrade to Windows 10 enterprise offerings outside of this offer. To check for compatibility and other important installation information, visit your device manufacturer’s website and the Windows 10 Specifications page. Additional requirements may apply over time for updates. Security and features are kept automatically up-to-date which is always enabled.

[halfeye]

which is always enabled.
I personally find that bit very worrying. Parts of Windows that you can't turn off/delete? it may be best not to install them at all.

[snowblizz]

I personally find that bit very worrying. Parts of Windows that you can't turn off/delete? it may be best not to install them at all.

TBQH none of the newest versions of Windows offers the user total control over the product. If you want that, get Linux. Not that that will give it to you either. Try deleting a Linux kernel and see how far you get...

Ie deleting some parts of the OS *will* render the OS inoperable.

That said, I'm not entirely sold on the little icon down in the corner. And I honestly have been waiting for Win10 because right now I have 3 Win 8.x ish devices. At least on a normal PC you will always have the final solution of removing the OS. On the Surface they own my ass.:smallwink:

[Mando Knight]

I personally find that bit very worrying. Parts of Windows that you can't turn off/delete? it may be best not to install them at all.

From the context, it seems like what you can't turn off are security updates and things like "No, we're not letting you delete System32, moron."

[halfeye]

From the context, it seems like what you can't turn off are security updates and things like "No, we're not letting you delete System32, moron."
Yeah, maybe, but maybe not. What if what you can't delete is trivial, obnoxious and totally unnecessary?

[factotum]

Didn't it just say that you can't disable security updates? I don't think it said anywhere that you can't uninstall or change stuff around.

[halfeye]

Didn't it just say that you can't disable security updates? I don't think it said anywhere that you can't uninstall or change stuff around.

Security and features are kept automatically up-to-date which is always enabled.
Security may be good depending on what they mean by security, but features? what does "features" refer to? I like minesweeper, but if I change my mind about that, I would prefer to be able to uninstall it if I want to.

[Gnoman]

Security may be good depending on what they mean by security, but features? what does "features" refer to? I like minesweeper, but if I change my mind about that, I would prefer to be able to uninstall it if I want to.

I think it's supposed to be read as

Security and features are "kept automatically up-to-date which is always enabled."


not

Security and features are ... always enabled.

In other words, auto updates will be enabled by default, possibly without being able to turn them off (probably because many malware programs disable auto-updates, and they can't do that if disabling them is simply impossible.)

[Alent]

I think it's supposed to be read as

Security and features are "kept automatically up-to-date which is always enabled."


not

Security and features are ... always enabled.

In other words, auto updates will be enabled by default, possibly without being able to turn them off (probably because many malware programs disable auto-updates, and they can't do that if disabling them is simply impossible.)

I wonder if this has anything to do with the way software like McAfee and such decided the Windows Defender "yield to third party" features didn't do enough and brutally disabled them so bad sometimes it took regedits to get them working again.

[Telok]

I know that the last version of Windows that I used wouldn't let me delete a suite of Microspft internet card games that came with it. I had to resort to corrupting the files with a hex editor to disable them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want an OS that lets me manage my files, run my programs, and configure my hardware. I don't want an interactive, online, social media shared, "user experience", where a corporation has decided what I can and can't do with my personal property.

[halfeye]

I think it's supposed to be read as

Security and features are "kept automatically up-to-date which is always enabled."


not

Security and features are ... always enabled.

In other words, auto updates will be enabled by default, possibly without being able to turn them off (probably because many malware programs disable auto-updates, and they can't do that if disabling them is simply impossible.)

They wouldn't update something that wasn't enabled. This is the legal bit, and it's ambiguous, in legal bits, ambiguous is always worrying and often bad.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want an OS that lets me manage my files, run my programs, and configure my hardware. I don't want an interactive, online, social media shared, "user experience", where a corporation has decided what I can and can't do with my personal property.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

[Chen]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I want an OS that lets me manage my files, run my programs, and configure my hardware. I don't want an interactive, online, social media shared, "user experience", where a corporation has decided what I can and can't do with my personal property.

I hear Linux is the way to go then. The vast majority of people out there who use their PCs just want something they can use to surf the net and check their mail or the weather. Windows is pretty good for that. It's the same reason Iphones/Ipods are popular. Snazzy looking, dead simple interface to use. Hard to make configuration changes, but most people don't care about that so it's not a large roadblock.

[GreatWyrmGold]

This. Microsoft is trying to avoid another XP style "I don't need to upgrade" mess where they're supporting Windows 7 for another decade. Rather than brute force like they had to resort to with XP, they're hoping to get the most stubborn holdouts early by offering them the free upgrade they used to whine and complain they weren't getting.
They're learning!
Next version, they'll learn to be careful how they phrase it.

[noparlpf]

What they mean is that during the first year after Windows 10's release, anyone running Win7/8 can (permanently) upgrade to 10 for free. (For those still running Windows XP, that OS was released closer to 3.1 than to today, and you really should think about buying a new computer if you're doing it for anything beyond offline word processing)

For that first year, expect bugs, workarounds, and a lot of Compatibility Mode.

Heh, I finally upgraded my last XP to 7 last year. :smalltongue:


This. Microsoft is trying to avoid another XP style "I don't need to upgrade" mess where they're supporting Windows 7 for another decade. Rather than brute force like they had to resort to with XP, they're hoping to get the most stubborn holdouts early by offering them the free upgrade they used to whine and complain they weren't getting.

Is it possible to/how do you install an OS on a partition so you can try it out without having to get rid of the OS you already have? I might be willing to try out 10 if it's completely free, but it'll be a pain to get all my stuff set up on 7 again if I decide I don't like 10 and want to go back.

[Sith_Happens]

For that first year, expect bugs, workarounds, and a lot of Compatibility Mode.

I would actually expect application compatibility to happen faster than usual if enough people take advantage of the free upgrade.


They wouldn't update something that wasn't enabled.

Why not? That way if you ever reenable it it's already up to date.

[Flickerdart]

Is it possible to/how do you install an OS on a partition so you can try it out without having to get rid of the OS you already have? I might be willing to try out 10 if it's completely free, but it'll be a pain to get all my stuff set up on 7 again if I decide I don't like 10 and want to go back.
You would probably need to buy a separate copy of 7 or 10 - I bet the free upgrade reuses your existing license. What you could do though is make a complete hard drive image, and then restore to it if Windows 10 isn't to your liking.

[Alent]

Is it possible to/how do you install an OS on a partition so you can try it out without having to get rid of the OS you already have? I might be willing to try out 10 if it's completely free, but it'll be a pain to get all my stuff set up on 7 again if I decide I don't like 10 and want to go back.

Without seeing how the installer behaves, I can only speak to previous Windows installers, which usually let you go into custom setup, choose an installation folder and install the new version in dual boot mode. I don't run many "upgrade installations", so those may have changed in general, but Windows 10 is a whole new animal, anyway.

Once it ships, I can give the dual boot install option a test whirl and report the results, I have several machines I'll be upgrading.

[Kalmageddon]

Complete tech noob here.
I have Windows 7 32 bits and it's been a while now that I wanted to upgrade to 64 bits. From what I understand this inevitably involves formatting my PC, is this correct? If I choose to upgrade to Windows 10, do I get the option of going 64 bits? And will that also format my PC?

[Mando Knight]

Complete tech noob here.
I have Windows 7 32 bits and it's been a while now that I wanted to upgrade to 64 bits. From what I understand this inevitably involves formatting my PC, is this correct? If I choose to upgrade to Windows 10, do I get the option of going 64 bits? And will that also format my PC?

You can't upgrade from a 32 bit Windows to 64 bit unless you were using the wrong OS the whole time. A 64 bit OS requires a 64 bit processor, which means you need to do a whole lot more work than just reformatting your hard drive.

[halfeye]

You can't upgrade from a 32 bit Windows to 64 bit unless you were using the wrong OS the whole time. A 64 bit OS requires a 64 bit processor, which means you need to do a whole lot more work than just reformatting your hard drive.
Eh? From the time of the Athlon 64 ten years ago, most processors have been 64 bit but capable of running 32 bit code. You don't need to format your hard drive to change to 64 bit, the hard drive isn't affected. What may be affected is programs, most have 64 bit versions by now, but one or two old versions might not, I think they still run, just not with the full efficiency that a 64 bit version would have. If there is a problem, it's liable to be hardware related software called drivers, they have to be right, and if there is no support from the vendor, they might not have been updated, though if the hardware product is still being sold, they almost certainly will have been.

[Douglas]

You can't upgrade from a 32 bit Windows to 64 bit unless you were using the wrong OS the whole time. A 64 bit OS requires a 64 bit processor, which means you need to do a whole lot more work than just reformatting your hard drive.
Running 32 bit Windows on 64 bit hardware was quite common for a while, and I don't think "wrong" is really the right word to describe it. In the early transition period there were a lot of compatibility issues where 32 bit programs would be unable to run on a 64 bit OS, and in many cases the program in question was vitally important and had no 64 bit version.

After some quick reading, it appears that there might possibly be a tricky workaround to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit without wiping your hard drive, but it's very nonstandard and I wouldn't recommend trying it. You will most likely have to format your hard drive, so be careful to back up everything on the computer that matters to you.

Check that your computer's CPU is 64 bit. If it isn't, you'll have to upgrade your hardware, possibly even get a new computer, to upgrade to 64 bit.

[Max™]

TBQH none of the newest versions of Windows offers the user total control over the product. If you want that, get Linux. Not that that will give it to you either. Try deleting a Linux kernel and see how far you get...
Heh, it's funny because I regularly clean out old kernels, AND I'm not even using the regular kernel since I switched to the linux-ivy-bridge-ck version some time back, but part of installing arch means getting used to doing stuff like loading up a bare minimum command line interface and pulling in the relevant interface and gui parts to get it installed fully.

Anyway, back to the windows thing, there are system requirements but they're not too onerous: 1 Ghz CPU, I think it was 1 or 2 GB of RAM and a GPU that can run Directx9, but I'm pretty sure the old emachine downstairs will meet those requirements so most likely unless you are running something like a box that came new with XP you probably won't have trouble.

Upgrading from a 32 bit to 64 bit isn't that hard, the old netbook I had came with a 32 bit windows 7 starter which I swapped for a cracked version of 7 pro 64 bit before removing all of that crap entirely for linux. I've done linux 32 bit to 64 bit upgrades before as well.

As was said if there are 32 bit programs you use it will need a reinstall of a 64 bit version, but generally if your system even has upgrading to 10 as an option it will be 64 bit and you just had 32 bit windows on it from a looong time ago.

[Sith_Happens]

Anyway, back to the windows thing, there are system requirements but they're not too onerous:

The system requirements are actually exactly the same as for Windows 7, which I'm guessing they did on purpose.

[noparlpf]

Doesn't Windows have some kind of "compatibility mode" for older software? Or does that only apply to a program for an older version of Windows that was also 64-bit? Or wait, I think my computer has both 32- and 64-bit compatibility anyway.

[Max™]

If it's 64 bit it will generally run 32 bit stuff fine as long as it has either a native layer to handle it or a mode to let it know that it isn't dealing with a 64 bit program. Compatibility mode being one of those last time I checked.

[factotum]

Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows have a backwards compatibility feature--on 32-bit Windows this lets you run old 16-bit Windows apps (e.g. Windows 3.x ones), and on 64-bit it lets you run 32-bit apps. Note that this means you can't run old 16-bit applications anymore on 64-bit Windows, but hopefully you're not using any!

As for upgrading from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit, pretty sure that will require a reformat because it will need the hardware abstraction layer and kernel to be updated, both of which are pretty core to a Windows installation. The chances of you *not* having a 64-bit capable processor on any machine that's less than ten years old are pretty minimal. However, unless you also intend to upgrade your RAM, I wouldn't say there's much point in the upgrade--the main advantage you get from 64-bit Windows is the ability to access more than 4Gb of RAM, so if you have less than that then you won't get any benefit from upgrading.

[Alent]

Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows have a backwards compatibility feature--on 32-bit Windows this lets you run old 16-bit Windows apps (e.g. Windows 3.x ones), and on 64-bit it lets you run 32-bit apps. Note that this means you can't run old 16-bit applications anymore on 64-bit Windows, but hopefully you're not using any!

As for upgrading from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit, pretty sure that will require a reformat because it will need the hardware abstraction layer and kernel to be updated, both of which are pretty core to a Windows installation. The chances of you *not* having a 64-bit capable processor on any machine that's less than ten years old are pretty minimal. However, unless you also intend to upgrade your RAM, I wouldn't say there's much point in the upgrade--the main advantage you get from 64-bit Windows is the ability to access more than 4Gb of RAM, so if you have less than that then you won't get any benefit from upgrading.

Don't forget that quite a few XP and Vista era Win32 apps were still Win16 apps in disguise. Even though they're mostly all gone at this point by necessity (64-bit windows 7 scared most of them off), I still encounter them sometimes in corporate and small business environments. Usually right after a Win7 x64 upgrade. :smallsigh:

[Kalmageddon]

My processor is 64 bit and runs a 32 bit OS just fine...
Either way, thanks.

[halfeye]

After some quick reading, it appears that there might possibly be a tricky workaround to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit without wiping your hard drive, but it's very nonstandard and I wouldn't recommend trying it. You will most likely have to format your hard drive, so be careful to back up everything on the computer that matters to you.
I have only installed 64 bit Windows to new drives, but I typically have several drives in a machine, and I'm sure I've read drives that were used as system drives in a 32 bit system as data drives in a 64 bit system without reformatting. Formatting/partitioning drives is part of the installation process, but I suspect that's a whim of the installers, not a physical necessity.

Backing stuff up is good, and you are always advised to do that as often as possible.