Future For Windows 8.1

[asvent]

And although Microsoft says it should work, doesn't always mean it will work.

changed the hardware requirements [/B]for Windows 8.1 64 bit; thus, my only choice was to drop back to Windows 8 32 bit in order to install Windows 8.1 in the only configuration Microsoft allowed for that particular hardware.

So, in this particular case, looks to me like the onus was and is on Microsoft.

I am somewhat on the fence here. On the one hand, Microsoft's primary concern is to develop an OS for the future. While they're working on shortening the time between releases, you have to remember that traditionally major OS releases for Windows came once every three years and all the planning ahead of that probably had to be locked down around 4 years out. You try predicting where the computer market will be four years from now with perfect accuracy. OTOH, you don't want to pull a dick move like Apple did in the 90s when they switched to PPC and didn't provide any means of migrating apps short of complete and total rewrite.

At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say that the time and effort required to support something is greater than the potential reward in making customers with odd configurations happy. Pretty much every company out there eventually stops supporting its older products. There are probably still a few nutters who cling to Windows 1.0 out there if you look hard enough -- there are still people actively developing a DOS clone -- but I don't think anyone here is going to say Microsoft should be obligated to continue supporting those people.

Since this is a discussion about the future of Windows, I personally think Microsoft should take a page from Apple's book, only do one better. I'd start by chucking Windows out the... well... window and starting over completely from scratch on a brand new OS, or just take one of the research operating systems they've got sitting around and use that. Take the decades of experience gained from Windows development about what to do, what not to do, etc, and pour it all into this new OS. The old Windows can then be run in a VM sort of like XP Mode in Windows 7 or the Classic Mode in the early OS X days, only they can make it largely transparent, similar to how metro/modern apps will run in a window on Win 10 and of course you have full hardware acceleration of the virutalization in the CPU. Then you make it very clear that the old Windows is going away after a couple of years and everyone should get cracking on making sure their code works with the new OS. Then of course you have to actually make good on that threat and pull the plug on the old Windows after say 2-3 releases. There will always be some laggards who will wail and gnash teeth, so all you can really do is try and make for as orderly a transition as possible and if people want to play chicken, let them be prepared to live with the consequences. Assuming a rather breakneck pace of one new release a year, that'd still be 2-3 years people have to make their way to the new OS, not counting all the time that Microsoft could signal ahead of time that the king is dead, long live the king Neo Windows or whatever. That could probably give people at least another year and of course MS will still be supporting the old versions of Neo Windows for a long time after the latest version stopped supporting old Windows.

 

[Wynona]

At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say that the time and effort required to support something is greater than the potential reward in making customers with odd configurations happy. Pretty much every company out there eventually stops supporting its older products. There are probably still a few nutters who cling to Windows 1.0 out there if you look hard enough -- there are still people actively developing a DOS clone -- but I don't think anyone here is going to say Microsoft should be obligated to continue supporting those people.

I am in agreement on drawing the line in the sand, but not while my horse is in the middle of the river! And that's what Microsoft did, purely and simply! They released Windows 8 and shortly thereafter, released Windows 8.1, which, IIRC, was an UPDATE, not even an upgrade! Never in my history with Microsoft (and it's been since 1985) has Microsoft pulled such a stupid move!

Harking back to Windows XP, it was expected that we would have to upgrade hardware and even to pony up again when Windows Vista was released. Same song, second verse, when Windows 7 and Windows 8 were released. However, each of these new operating system releases were a brand new operating system, not an update! We got lucky in that most, but not all of our hardware was adequate for Windows 7 and 8 (Vista hardware requirements). What we didn't expect was that Microsoft would change hardware requirements in the middle of the Windows 8 OS! This change in hardware requirement made a whole lot of computers that were adequate for Windows 8 inadequate to update to Windows 8.1! There were folks who couldn't afford to run out and buy a new computer . . . think about retirees, single parent families, minimum wage earners, etc. You get the idea.

My computer was not old technology by any stretch of the imagination. While my horse was in the middle of the river, Microsoft changed the rules on me. I was required to jump off my horse and into a boat. Problem was that there were holes in the boat and I was left with no option but to fix the boat or drown because my horse had already headed for the other side.

Thankfully, the Windows 8 forum was here and during the clamor, I was told how to keep my computer from drowning. Frankly, I have never been required (before or since) to install a 32 bit operating system on a 64 bit computer!

 

[Itaregid]

At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say that the time and effort required to support something is greater than the potential reward in making customers with odd configurations happy

It is not that easy - and we can blame the badguys for that. XP was designed to support legacy, DOS era HW and SW at the insistence of big corporations (MS's biggest client base) who did not want to retool - again - to support the new OS.

Microsoft, who at the time wanted to include AV code in XP was forced by Congress and the EU to not included it or risk being split apart. This was because Norton, McAfee, TrendMicros and others cried and whined to Congress and the EU that it was their job to rid the world of malware and that MS was trying to rule and monopolize the world. They were, but not the point. Congress and the EU heard "monopoly" and that was it.

But of course, Norton and McAfee failed miserably - as should have been expected! Why? Ask yourself, what financial incentive does Norton have to rid the world of malware? Answer: None! That will put them out of business. But who got blamed by the bashers and biased IT media? MS, who has every incentive to rid the world of malware but was blocked by tunnel-visioned law makers. But that's for another discussion.

The vast majority computers were on big networks. Most home machines were stand-alone, or dial up. Broadband to the home was in its infancy and about the only way to get infected was by "sneakernet". That is, someone had to bring in an infected floppy disk, then reboot their machine with that floppy still in the drive.

NO ONE - not MS, not the IT media, academia, security experts or any one else predicted (1) the EXPLOSION of broadband to the home, or (2) the proliferation of badguys or their malware.

But who did the MS bashers and clearly biased IT media blame for the XP's lack of security? Microsoft - even though it was CLEARLY, the badguys, not MS who were infecting our systems.

So MS, tired of being bashed for something they did not cause, have put security over legacy support and now security is one of the primary factors driving updates for all MS products. Microsoft would much rather get blamed for lack of legacy support than lack of security. And that is how it should be, again, thanks to the badguys.

At the same time, the hardware makers have been making HUGE and RAPID advancements in the state-of-the-art over the years. And we, as consumers, want an OS to take advantage of those advancements. And it is the hardware makers responsibility to ensure compatibility with suitable drivers. It is NOT Microsoft's.

I am in agreement on drawing the line in the sand, but not while my horse is in the middle of the river! And that's what Microsoft did, purely and simply! They released Windows 8 and shortly thereafter, released Windows 8.1, which, IIRC, was an UPDATE, not even an upgrade! Never in my history with Microsoft (and it's been since 1985) has Microsoft pulled such a stupid move!

"Stupid" move??? I am afraid your memory is failing you. Ever heard of Windows98SE? MS-DOS? And it should be noted one of the, if not the primary reason for W8.1 was MS responding to user demand to bring back the Desktop. Where MS was stupid, IMO, was in their decision to FORCE a totally new and unfamiliar UI on PC users.

My computer was not old technology by any stretch of the imagination. While my horse was in the middle of the river, Microsoft changed the rules on me.

NO! Sorry, Wynona but that is biased speaking - not to mention totally wrong! Did Microsoft kick you off your horse? No. Did Microsoft force you to change operating systems? No.

Did Samsung force me to retire my perfectly good, but aging CRT monitors for new, state-of-the-art LCD monitors? No.

Did Sony force me to retire my old VCR when DVDs came out? Or to replace all my old VCR tapes for DVDs?

YOU decided to upgrade your antique, out-dated, legacy hardware to an OS the HW was never designed to support! Then you blame Microsoft. It is NOT Microsoft's job to support legacy hardware in new operating systems. It is up the hardware maker to provide current drivers that add support.

If someone wants the latest OS, it is their responsibility to ensure their legacy HW supports it - before installing. And it is the hardware makers responsibility to provide compatible drivers, not Microsoft's. And note Microsoft provides lots of time for the hardware makers to develop those drivers too before final OS versions are released. It is NOT Microsoft's fault if the hardware makers would rather sell you current hardware that does support the latest OS.

NO DOUBT, Microsoft has done many things that I too consider "stupid" - not least of which is their often confusing naming conventions used for updates, patches, and even major programs. They currently have two different programs named Windows Defender, for example. But forcing you to change horses in the middle of the stream? That's on you, the badguys, and your hardware makers - not Microsoft.

 

[Wynona]

At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say that the time and effort required to support something is greater than the potential reward in making customers with odd configurations happy

Sorry, I'm not going to debate the issue.

What Microsoft did was wrong and you're of the minority opinion.

End of my discussion in this thread.

 

[Itaregid]

What Microsoft did was wrong and you're of the minority opinion.

Not with those who actually studied the facts. But the fact is, I agree with your quote above - it is not productive or beneficial (not to mention secure) to the majority of users for modern OS's to support legacy hardware where the HW maker does not maintain current drivers.

If you don't want to debate or explain how Microsoft forced you to upgrade your hardware, that's fine. I just ask you put the blame where it belongs.

 

[HippsieGypsie]

I am in agreement on drawing the line in the sand, but not while my horse is in the middle of the river! And that's what Microsoft did, purely and simply! They released Windows 8 and shortly thereafter, released Windows 8.1, which, IIRC, was an UPDATE, not even an upgrade! Never in my history with Microsoft (and it's been since 1985) has Microsoft pulled such a stupid move!

Wyn, I believe you are at least half right. I know that this has been a thorn in your side and would like to have a simple fix, but unfortunately that's not reality. 8.1 is indeed considered an update to 8, but unfortunately for you and others has a different kernel version. Granted that it was to appease those whom thought that 8 was a blunder. A very quick response to fix it at that.

Where MS is wrong is that they labeled it an update instead of an upgrade. It should have been an upgrade and probably labeled 9 because of the changed kernel version. This is not the norm as in the past. Yes, Ballmer and Sinofski tried to bail their rears out of the 8 marketing blunder. Plain and simple.

I'm assuming this boils down to your system's CPU type, yes? And the CPU cannot be upgraded because of the MoBo? Assuming you can run 8.1 32bit? You upgraded the machine from 7 to 8? Sorry for all the questions, but this old guy can't keep up with everyone's system.

BTW, I see that end of sales for PCs with Windows 7 Home Basic, Home Premium, and Ultimate preinstalled is October 31, 2014, just a few days away. W7 Pro's date has yet to be determined.

 

[Jody Thornton]

People probably are hating me for starting this thread, but I love reading really engaging discussion, so I'm glad I started it.

I guess why I wanted to still see more developmental support for Windows 8.1 is this. I am testing it extensively right now in a VM. I plan to continue running Vista x64 Ultimate as my main daily driver until early 2017. At that time, I've now decided to switch to Windows 8.1. I just want to be assured that it will be supportive of current IE versions and most current software at that time.

The reason I'm more concerned this time around is that I get the distinct feeling that Microsoft will do all it can to push 8x under the rug (since 10 is now here to rescue Microsoft from its mistake). I don't want Microsoft to assume that EVERYONE hated it, and make it difficult to continue running/supporting. I have a feeling that normal support cycle policies will not necessarily apply here.

 

[strollin]

... I plan to continue running Vista x64 Ultimate as my main daily driver until early 2017. At that time, I've now decided to switch to Windows 8.1. ...

I find it amazing that you can plan that far in advance. I couldn't tell you what OS I plan to be using next week, let alone what OS I plan to use 2 years from now.

 

[Nuccii]

People probably are hating me for starting this thread, but I love reading really engaging discussion, so I'm glad I started it.

I guess why I wanted to still see more developmental support for Windows 8.1 is this. I am testing it extensively right now in a VM. I plan to continue running Vista x64 Ultimate as my main daily driver until early 2017. At that time, I've now decided to switch to Windows 8.1. I just want to be assured that it will be supportive of current IE versions and most current software at that time.

The reason I'm more concerned this time around is that I get the distinct feeling that Microsoft will do all it can to push 8x under the rug (since 10 is now here to rescue Microsoft from its mistake). I don't want Microsoft to assume that EVERYONE hated it, and make it difficult to continue running/supporting. I have a feeling that normal support cycle policies will not necessarily apply here.

Nobody hates Jody Thornton for doing what's best for Jody Thornton. You have plenty of fodder to chew and that is why you created this thread. For whatever the reasons, people will make up their own minds as to want they want through their own means and desires. I for one will weigh it when the time comes. What works for you will not necessarily work for someone else, for some it may be the last straw, but hey, to each his own.

 

[Itaregid]

Where MS is wrong is that they labeled it an update instead of an upgrade. It should have been an upgrade and probably labeled 9 because of the changed kernel version.

Oh, marketing would balk at W9. I would have gone along with Windows 8.1. That's plain and simple. But not "Windows 8.1 Update".

Updating to 8.1 should not have broken any computers. That's plain and simple too. But sadly, it did, for a lot of users. But not a lot when put in perspective. The vast majority of 8.0 to 8.1 updates have gone off without a hitch. That's 10s of millions (if not pushing 100M) of successful upgrades, with happy, wondering 'what's all the fuss about', W8.1 users. But happy users don't complain to their friends, or the IT media, or in posts in forums.

And for the "relatively" few who were not initially successful, it has been for many different reasons. I note it may say Gigabyte or ASUS on the motherboard, or Dell or HP on the case, but there are dozens, if not 100s of competing manufacturing brands represented in the various components "selected" for a motherboard, and peripherals. I don't see how MS can be blamed if competing makers of the same hardware used in millions and millions of other systems had no problems! Especially when considering the same commands are being sent by the OS to the various hardware devices. The only differences at that point would be made by the driver.

And I don't mean to marginalize this either with "relatively few". While we are only talking a few percentage points - less than 5, I think, that 5 percent of 100 million is still 5 million! And that's a lot of unhappy and very vocal campers.

Nobody hates Jody Thornton

Absolutely agree! This is how we learn.

 

[Jody Thornton]

Well thanks folks! It has helped confirm my choice of Windows 8.1. So the thread definitely served a purpose.