Jonbouy


We can say what we like about the pros and cons of a particular OS and what benefits or otherwise it may or may not have but at the end of the day if people don't universally shift to the new paradigm there ain't nothin' MS can do about it, except by forcing people to become Apple users by prematurely removing support for 7. 

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I see nothing of sufficient value in W8 that would make the pain of an upgrade worth while.  I upgraded my home machines (first my non-DAW about 18 months ago, then my DAW about six months later).  I went with W7, but would have been happy to stick with XP except that it was time to move to a 64-bit platform.  Now that I'm on a 64-bit platform, I do not want to go through the expense and enormous expenditure of time for many years.  In the first case (non-DAW) I had to upgrade a number of applications that were doing the job just fine on the XP machine but weren't compatible with W7 64-bit.  I mean, I even had to replace a perfectly working Epson scanner because Epson was too lazy cheap to write drivers for the unit I owned.  Fifty bucks here, a hundred bucks there, plus a raft of time wasted in the process and W7 ended up costing me way more money than what I paid to MS and a lot of unproductive hours lost as well.
 
In the case of a DAW, the upgrade was far less of an issue (by then I had already bought the necessary upgrades to things like UltraEdit) than the registration of all the VSTs and synths.  Twenty-five different vendors and twenty-five different ways to register (and re-attempt to register in the case of several of them).  Lordy, I want to do that again about as much as I want to move my entire household.  One lesson learned, however, is that I now keep meticulous track of my serial numbers and authorization codes.
 
In any case, I don't see that much of a paradigm shift for desktop (and DAW) users with W8.  I see what may be some optimization that I don't feel in need of because my hyper-threaded 4-core I7 DAW already runs like a bat.  I'm hoping that the big business users who buy MS licenses in numbers that are five or six figures (like the company for whom I work) will keep me from having to upgrade again for a very long time by holding MS accountable for W7 support.  I'm convinced that they won't conclude there would be a sufficient ROI for moving off W7 for a way long time.  If I was forced to bet money on that being so, I'd take that bet.

dmbaer

John

dmbaer

Plus we have history suggesting to us that every other release of Windows should be skipped.

As to the notion that we can skip an OS here and there is one I did with Windows 7. I also say that a lot of us that had and still have Vista are very pleased with it. Its easy to make a remark that sounds clever but has no basis in fact or truth.
 

Forgot about Windows ME maybe? 
 
But seriously, Vista had a rocky introduction.  It's my understanding that MS got their act together and turned it into a viable OS, but early adopters weren't happy campers and many shyed away from an OS upgrade until W7 came along as I recall.
 
John, I'm not arguing with you about the merits of W8 (or Vista other than the early releases).  I'm mainly trying to make the point to the OP that it's reasonable to believe W7 will be with us and supported for a very long time.

I'm not in an argument with you either. I'm trying to set the record straight. But If a person is asking about upgrading from XP to win 7 I still would advise them to go with Windows 8 instead. I did as you are doing now sticking with a viable OS for your needs. When its time to make a change you will most like opt for the one that is the current one not an old one. I stuck with Vista as long as it was viable now I am happy to be with Windows 8. There is little point in staying in the past if you have a reason to move forward. If Windows 8 were flaky or in some way not fully able it would perhaps be a different story.

It is at least as good as Win 7 and I believe better.