4 ms·
>Rather than sell boxed copies of Windows for $119 every 3 years, why not sell an upgrade from the previous version for $40 every one year? But would people ac
by rkwz 14y ago
>Rather than sell boxed copies of Windows for $119 every 3 years, why not sell an upgrade from the previous version for $40 every one year?
But would people actually upgrade? I think for the general population the current OS is "good enough", why would they pay $40 to break something that works perfectly? (Non-techies _hate_ updates)
>In order to compete with iOS, OSX and Android, Windows has to move to a yearly release schedule.
Maybe they'll just update the "metro" portions every year? Just the UI while keeping everything underneath the same?
- randomfool 14y ago>But would people actually upgrade? Yeah, that's the question. Only supporting upgrades from the previous version puts the pressure on- want Win9 but don't care about Win8? Well, if you upgrade to Win8 for $40 then Win9 is another $40 upgrade. Otherwise it's gonna be $120 to go straight to Win9. Also- the $40 number is just based on the current Win8 upgrade price.
- Argorak 14y agoI am not sure whether non-techies hate updates. What they hate are _update pains_. And those are larger when you update your software every few years and not all 300 days. The biggest problem for Microsoft is that they serve the business market as well, where every update has to be checked for compatibility, but that can be solved by long term service releases. I am not sure whether the parent is right, but I wouldn't rule it out.