How is this more of an exploit than charging an equivalent non-subscription fee for the same product?
Windows 8
- Thread starter stfoskey12
- Start date
How is this more of an exploit than charging an equivalent non-subscription fee for the same product?
Mr.WorldWide
Smugly Inferior
Ah, not at all true. If said software is not being leased via subscriptions and are instead purchased in a physical box, the software company doesn't earn anything past the initial investment cost to the buyer.
In contrast, the subscription delivery system will guarantee that no matter how neglected the development of the software is the company will still get paid - provided that suite is still the best on the market.
Because if your company uses the "boxed" style of delivery, they need to find something innovative to justify consumers spending again on the next release (eg. Office 2010 to 2013). Subscriptions are just giving developers an excuse to scale back on improvement of their product.
They can just stop supporting Office 2010.
Other than games, modern software is never "complete". It's either maintained, or it's abandoned.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
Actually, a lot of games are never "complete" either.
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
I bought Windows 8.1 a few months ago. I haven't had any real problems with it, but I like the look of Windows 7 better and the whole Metro interface seems clunky.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Looks like the Windows 8 UI is being scrapped for the future.
http://mashable.com/2014/04/05/microsoft-windows-8-retreat/
About time Microsoft did something right. Keep the performance, scrap the UI.
http://mashable.com/2014/04/05/microsoft-windows-8-retreat/
About time Microsoft did something right. Keep the performance, scrap the UI.
That's not what's happening.
Tommy Vercetti
The Don
I concur, if they do that Windows 9 will be awesome.
They certainly won't be removing features in Windows 9.
Just like how they didn't remove features in Windows 8.
The Start menu?
Any easy access to configuring appearance.
Start screen is functionally identical.
Control panel? I can't think of anything Win7 has for customizing appearance that Win8 doesn't.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
We want to think for ourselves, not be at the mercy of pattern changes at the whims of others.
How far do you want to go for configurability though?
I like old-fashioned *nix Window Managers that can give you pretty much any interface you want, in functionality as well as appearance (provided you know how to express it in their configuration syntax).
Won't see mainstream acceptance though. Such openness makes it easy to mess things up, practically impossible for developers to make adequate graphical configuration front-ends, and since some DIY is expected most things users don't explicitly tweak to taste will be fairly basic.
Most people would revolt at the prospect of having to edit text files.
Most users don't want to think for themselves when it comes to operating systems and interfaces, at least they're not willing to make the concessions.
They just think they do when something they unthinkingly adapted to is changed or taken away.
I like old-fashioned *nix Window Managers that can give you pretty much any interface you want, in functionality as well as appearance (provided you know how to express it in their configuration syntax).
Won't see mainstream acceptance though. Such openness makes it easy to mess things up, practically impossible for developers to make adequate graphical configuration front-ends, and since some DIY is expected most things users don't explicitly tweak to taste will be fairly basic.
Most people would revolt at the prospect of having to edit text files.
Most users don't want to think for themselves when it comes to operating systems and interfaces, at least they're not willing to make the concessions.
They just think they do when something they unthinkingly adapted to is changed or taken away.
I'd like to see the start screen/menu automatically and irreversibly disabled on any device with a connected keyboard, with only Quicksilver available.
Tommy Vercetti
The Don
Dude just give up. While you might like Windows 8 a lot of people, and judging by the numbers the bulk of Windows users don't like Windows 8. The changes where unnecessary and the interface is awkward. Microsoft is bring back the start menu by popular demand and it is a good thing, a major step in the right direction.
Moderator Action: Please respect the opinions of others as you wish them to respect yours. The word "Dude" is derogatory in this sentence, please do not use it in this way.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
For the record I just got Windows 8 and I absolutely love it. It's so much more sensible and convenient as a system than previous windows OSes were. My parents just moved to it from XP and they adore it as well
The bulk of Windows users haven't tried Windows 8, so they've got no idea if they like it or not.
Microsoft is making some more changes to the start menu/screen which are largely inconsequential to the quality of the OS. Same as how they've changed the start menu/screen with every OS they've released. The only significant feature-difference for desktop users since Windows 95 has been adding keyboard search.
That's a hyperbole. Additional ones include:
- Significant improvements to Windows Explorer. In Win95, it's just a list of folders and files. It tells you what size they are if you click on them, but nothing like the detailed information and options you get in the side bar in Windows 98 and later.
- The frequently-used-programs list. I don't remember exactly when this was added, but it's present by XP and possibly earlier.
- The quick launch menu was introduced in 98, ME, or 2000.
- Toolbars within the taskbar, although not often exploited, were not in 95 but available by XP.
- Improved tab previews came in Vista and can be somewhat handy.
- 7 has jump lists which can be rather useful (I use them as a shortcut to opening particular Visual Studio projects).
- The included software has been greatly improved. Windows 95 initially shipped with no web browser and a barebones media player, for example. While most tech enthusiasts today don't use IE or Windows Media Player, the included versions even by Windows 2000 were much improved.
- Many other small improvements and refinements. For example, Ctrl+S does not trigger a save in Notepad in Windows 95, but does by XP. Nowadays that seems automatic and you don't realize it's missing until you try a Windows 95/98 computer and it isn't there.
And that's just end-user facing features, not including technological advances and improved stability, which while perhaps not a "feature", has certainly improved the desktop experience.
While keyboard search may be the most significant single feature, IMO the other ones combined are more important. The difference in functionality between my Windows 95 VM and an fresh XP install is stark. Even 95 and 2000 is likely a considerable jump when compared side-by-side, but I haven't used 2000 since 2007 so I'm less familiar with it.
I meant just in the context of the start menu, not the OS as a whole.
(Frequently-used-programs is less significant than live tiles, and I'm not counting either of them.)
(Tab/window previews are one of the best features of Windows which is missing in Mac OS. Mildly hobbled in stock Windows by too much delay when mousing over.)
(Frequently-used-programs is less significant than live tiles, and I'm not counting either of them.)
(Tab/window previews are one of the best features of Windows which is missing in Mac OS. Mildly hobbled in stock Windows by too much delay when mousing over.)
Similar threads
