Let's kill the OS upgrade disc
I love upgrades. But I hate upgrade discs and upgrade pricing. Let's find a way to do away with both, or at least make the upgrade transaction a bit cleaner.
Operating system upgrades
The reason I'm writing this column won't be a surprise to anyone one who follows technology:
Windows 7. I bought the upgrade disc (on the pre-order special price). When it arrived, I started the upgrade process for my Vista desktop. Knowing that the disc was licensed only to upgrade an existing Windows installation, I pressed the big button for a "Custom" installation and the disc set up my computer more-or-less cleanly with Windows 7. What I really wanted to do was re-format my hard drive and start from a blank slate on my computer, but I was afraid to do that since I thought the disc would see that as a non-upgrade install and not work.
Eventually, I did it anyway, thanks in part to the confidence I got from other users who had found ways to install an upgrade disc to fresh PC. I re-installed Windows 7 on the computer and asked the installer to format the disc first. It did, it installed Windows 7, and two days later I nervously entered my license key for Windows to authorize itself. Which it did, no problems. I didn't have to resort to any hacks. Hats off to Microsoft for doing what it should have. But my fear about the upgrade did cause me some nerves, and is also the reason I did the "custom" or semi-clean upgrade in the first place, which turned out to be a waste of valuable time.
I'm also peeved that I had to pay for this for this upgrade. Wasn't running Vista for two years payment enough? That OS was patched and upgraded numerous times while I was running it, at no cost to me. Windows 7, while a better experience, is still clearly Vista with problems fixed and an improved interface. I don't feel I should have to pay for again.
Then there's OS X Snow Leopard, another upgrade I paid for. Sure, it was only $29, but what did I get? Nothing that's made a tangible difference in my Mac experience. My Macbook runs very well now. It ran very well before I did the upgrade, too. There are nice new features, but they're incremental.
How many times can operating system vendors charge users for offering the same fundamental benefit on the hardware that they already own?
Here's what I propose: no more OS upgrade pricing. Vendors, make your money for each new machine that runs your OS, either up front when the OS is installed on the machine (easy for Apple, which makes 99.99 percent of the machines that run the Apple OS), or by letting customers subscribe to operating system upgrades as an ongoing service. The OS subscription model is probably a better bet for business customers on the Windows side. On OS X, it could be part of Apple Care. When users retire a machine, they can end the subscription and get a pro-rated portion of their money back.
So much of what you pay for with an OS is ongoing maintenance and security updates anyway, I don't see how a reasonable subscription fee would be a stopper for reasonable users, assuming the total cost for the subscription was about the same as the cost for buying the operating system license outright.
It's time to recognize that the Webware, or software-as-a-service model, can work for installed software, especially now that we've become accustomed to paying subscription fees for almost every digital asset we use (examples: Web apps, mobile phones, cable TV boxes, multiplayer games). We need ongoing vendor support for an OS anyway, so why not level out the expense?
Sure, OS makers don't get the big revenue spike when they ship a major new version. But they do get a predictable revenue stream, and as machines age and people replace them, and as new machines are built and bought, they can still make enough money. And market forces would, I would hope, keep prices competitive. (If we end up paying more for our OSes, I will be first in line to tar and feather myself.)
Application upgrades
There's another form of upgrade that I find vexing: the major app upgrade. I'm looking at Microsoft again here, with its Office upgrades, but also at Adobe and many other software vendors that offer upgrades at retail for existing users of their products.
These upgrade prices are often so low in comparison to new-user prices that they encourage users to find workarounds, legal and not, to get the deals. One co-worker, for example, once acquired Photoshop by buying an upgrade version online, and a leftover, older version at a local computer store, just so he could install the older version and upgrade it. Legal? Sure. Ridiculous? That, too. With new-user pricing for major apps being so high, it's no wonder that people will go to lengths to get the cheaper upgrade path... and then be stuck with having to install two apps to do the job of one.
Here's a better idea: Sell software at a reasonable price. And take the upgrades off the shelves. Instead, offer upgrades to apps exclusively from within the apps themselves, to current users of the apps, and deliver the code over the Net. Users might pay the same for major software upgrades, but the upgrade discs won't be floating around telling new users that they're being taking for a ride when they want to buy the app for the first time. Hopefully this could help vendors actually lower prices and get their apps in the hands of more customers.
I was surprised to hear from a Microsoft exec that the issue with in-place full version upgrades is more technical than economic. Chris Bryant, director of Office Product Management, told me that building an upgrade path into an app requires a clear vision of the future of the app so the upgrade framework will work (which doesn't quite explain how major service pack upgrades are possible). The reason I expected to hear--that retailers wouldn't benefit from the upgrades--he said didn't necessarily hold, since Microsoft has methods to track who sold an installation of the software first, and can credit that seller for revenues from in-place upgrades.
These are just a few ideas, and I'm aware they're far from perfect solutions. But upgrade discs cause consumers confusion. There are ways to give users and companies the same benefits in cleaner packages.
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe. 
I prefer paying, say $100 for an OS than $3 a month (and i'm sure they'd charge more). In three years (a minimum lifespan for an OS), you're already at $108. I ran XP for at least 6 years. Imagine how that'd add up.
==
"While I agree that the pricing schemes need to change for the better, going to a subscription model is not the answer. Talk about getting nickel and dimed to death!"
1) this is mostly a Windows-only phenomenon. Unless you're using RHEL and the like (w/ paid subs), Linux doesn't care about licensing, and in either case, upgrading Linux nowadays is as easy as "yum -y upgrade", or "apt-get upgrade", with no disks at all required. With OSX, you just get the disks and go to town, or do what I did up there (granted my method required a blank HDD, but still, pretty painless).
2) A agree perfectly - subs suck badly enough (IMHO) on things like music and/or movies - Don't want my OS held hostage to a monthly bill too FFS...
More often than not, the attacks are through 3rd parties and AFAIK, all of the OS's, including LInux have fallen at pwn2own.
As for what you want for upgrades, that's effectively what the 7 upgrade does. It doesn't work if you're using XP, because XP is almost 9 years old.
With that said, I never do in place upgrades. I consider an OS install a chance to clean out old programs and start fresh. It's amazing how many programs I have that I would never uninstall, yet never reinstall after an OS install.
1- The upgrade disk should allow a direct clean install no matter what. That is the way MS should program the installation given the user an easier path. It has been know since Vista that you can use the upgrade disk to install clean if you just don't put the key and uncheck the box "Activate Windows when you go online" and then do an update from whithing the first clean install.
It is just a pain to do the installation twice and MS leaving the hole open is great but they just might as well allow it as I stated before.
2-The upgrade disk contains tools to fix the system if something goes wrong so it is always good to have the physical disk - upgrade or not.
3-Installing the operating system on a different partition has always been a risk as hard disk fail and when they do, if you have not make a restore disk you basically are out of your money and out of the restoration path.
4-While many of us here a savy enough to know about doing restore disk from hidden partitions and or repair from the disk itself, there millions of users who don't know about this things.
5-When you first buy a pc, you are just help through the process of setting up your log on name and destop - MANUFACTURERS are to blame here because they do not give precise instructions on creating your restore disk, one has to look around for the particular application to do so. Therefore what I am proposing is that they enforce the creation of the restore disk the momemt the user logs on to the desktop and inform the user of they type of media they will need in order to do so. And allow a postpone until the user gets the media in case they don't have any in hand.
6-Even if the restore from hidden partition disk are created, they could fail, easily by a miswritting operations of the process and people won't find this out until it is too late.
7-Hidden partitions could be vurlnerable to infections. This is exactly what happen to a laptop that I tried to restore from the hidden partition but it had been infected so the restoration did not work. I will give credit here to Dell for doing good for the person I restore the laptop for because they send me restoration disk for everything that the laptop came with, even though it was 3 years ago for free. Thank you Dell
8-A separate hard drive just for restoration would create weight, slight increase in price, and battery usage.
9-Let's not forget netbooks which eventually will come with a dvd to make them more attractive to people but at this point, people has to find out another way to upgrade which is not easy for many. We all know this because we are always here helping people fix issues with their computers.
10-A laughing moment - I like my shiny new DVD from MS.
Windows is a completely different story. The latest, Windows 7, can support 192 GB of RAM. That limitation means a major OS development is going to be due. Also, Microsoft hasn't united a version of Windows for both 32-bit and 64-bit machines. Maybe all of that will be fixed in Windows 8, on upgrade disks.
Just like in Linux. Put /, /home, /opt, and /usr on separate partitions and when you do a fresh install or upgrade(as long as you tell the partitioner to simply mount those partitions) nearly everything is the same after. Your desktop settings are the same, your shortcuts, bookmarks, installed apps are still all there. The only thing left to do is upgrade those apps that have new versions in the repos and that is a single button click.
Windows simply isn't user friendly or flexible.
All you need is the older CD, to do the upgrade, and then buy the upgrade at the lower price!
What, and he recommends the 700 bucks for OSX for every service pack they release?!
Maybe CNET can better screen their writers for those that do simple addition... this one cant.
Til then, ubuntu will be my choice.
The last thing I need is a yearly fee attached to my computers just to use them. Especially the legacy computers. "I"m sorry but your fee only covers Vista - 7 please upgrade your computer" Nice but my old klunky game only runs on an old clunky computer and that computer won't even run the new stuff even assuming I was willing to pay a subscription fee.
http://www.linux.com/media-library/videos/167032-japan-linux-symposium-keynote-linus-torvalds-a-jim-zemlin
I will happily use the OS that came with my computer, and when I buy I new computer I will use the OS that it's loaded with. In the meantime, stay out of my pocketbook. Thanks!
After your approval is given; METRICS about incompatibilities, drivers and issues is collected.
Do you really think Microsoft is interested in what pron you surf? You're not that important.
Plus every security company in the world has analysed the traffic for privacy breaches. They couldn't get away with it anyway.
Sheesh
Would that be XP, Vista or 7? 32 or 64 bit? Server 2008? Server 2003?(holy crap it takes forever for MS to push out their crap), or possibly preconfigured variants that you get from HP or Dell?
Except to make sure your copy magically turns into a pirated one.
No more subscription models for anything. No more please. Remember when TV was free, and Radio, now we have subscriptions. I do not want to have to pay everytime I boot up my PC.
If the Upgrade Advisor doesn't find any issues, Windows 7 is an excellent upgrade.
However, while Windows 7 works great, and I love it, hardware vendors may not have made Windows 7 drivers for their older hardware such as scanners or printers.
To have a good Windows 7 experience, your mom's PC will need:
- At least 2 GB of RAM, minimum ($30 or so at today's prices but the PC must be able to handle it)
- Good graphics (i.e. if it has Intel Integrated graphics, it may just barely be able to run it with the graphics features turned on)
- Reasonably up-to-date hardware and peripherals
Quick question, need help! My father recently passed, but beforehand had bought a new laptop (which was returned after his passing). Yesterday, my mother received the Windows 7 upgrade shipment. She has Windows XP running on a PC about 4 years old. She is 73 yrs old, and wants to know what to do with the Windows 7 Pro package that was presumably purchased at the special price from Sam's Club as while back. Any suggestions? Thanks.
Doesn't Microsoft have some kind of downloadable tool on their website to check if your PC is ready for Windows 7? I believe so. You should install that and see if your mother's computer can handle it. If so, install it. If not, try selling it to a friend or on Ebay.
@gsna_dkm
This is were I ran into DMCA abuse on the part of MicroSoft. I bought a XP laptop and got my fee Vista Upgrade. Since I wanted Ultimate and not the free one I bought that and installed that. Per the Lisence the Upgrade of Ultimate was attached to the laptop. Meaning the free upgrade was both unused, and the EULA wasn't binding (I didn't install it to accept it) I flipped it on eBAy for other Toshiba users to use. MS issued a takedown notice citing exactly what you did. I cited back that I already had Vista on that Laptop and that the lisence of that version took priority over the non accepted lisence of the free upgrade. MS didn't have anyone wiht a brain once ever talk to me about this.
@RK: Why anyone would continue to pay money to be abused like that is beyond me. I never was into masochism in any way, but to each his (or her) own. I guess it *IS* that time of year!
...
I got better.
:D
lmao, such timing, perfect.
Sure, your option is 'just stop using them', but in subscription services, eventually basic use gets included and once you stop paying, you stop using the service too. So now you have something similar to a cell phone plan: a dead piece of hardware you paid for on top of the subscription service, that you cannot use because you stopped the subscription service.
CHK11272 had it right - talk about getting nickle and dimed to death!
Before CNET writes these articles, you should really pull your head out and look at the world from the perspective of the customer, not the corporation. When my windows can be strategically built to stop working after a certain date (yes, those of use that discovered CMOS inadvertently setting our date way in the future to find out your Windows install dies as an added guarantee to make you upgrade) don't have any trust in an industry for subscription pricing to maintain it as a moderate fee. If they can take more, they will.
"a dead piece of hardware you paid for on top of the subscription service, that you cannot use because you stopped the subscription service."
You could do a pre-paid plan and see if the carrier has a SIM card you can slip into the phone. IIRC, Cricket does that (but if you have a Verizon phone, you're kinda screwed).
Consumers have far, far too many financially crushing monthly subscription fees. Sure, a subscription fee for a major OS upgrade may not sound bad, but what happens when one must have a subscription for every minor upgrade or fix, as happens with anit-virus programs, for example? As someone else said, it could eventually lead to consumers not having access to the OS at all without a subscription, or simply lead to major security lapses as consumers stop paying for upgrades. Bad idea of the century--just say "NO" to more of these insane subscription fees.
I'd like to see some proof of that, if you have it.
http://www.infoworld.com/t/networking/app-store-feature-subscription-in-app-purchases-047
I mean, if you thing about it, our cellphones are already that way. Whether you use a BB, iPhone, Android, or even a cheap phone. The carrier sends out updates or you download them. They also provide a level of support for free. That level will depend on the company, but the consumer can feel a bit more confident someone will help them.
http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/apple_announces_in-app_subscription_model_for_iphone_app/
Granted that it may be limited at first and mainly up to the discretion of the app developer, but where will it end?
@ca5ter
Who cares about perception of support for an OS? I'm going to guess that most consumers would prefer to save money over having the constant support for their OS--whatever that means.
I'm looking at it more as a service warranty. I do agree that consumers shop on price, which a subscription model could address if priced low enough.
I'm not advocating a subscription model, especially for the OS. That would be like renting your house forever and the rent going up each year. But, there might be a portion of market out their, say businesses, that would prefer that model over a large purchase every few years.
Microsoft itself is finding that enterprise customers are starting to question the license subscription model that they use. In part, the amount of upgrades, the quality, and the continuity hasn't been high enough to justify the cost (for many shops, anyway). Maybe Win 7 will change that...
That's the mentality of most consumers. They don't upgrade. They just keep using what was originally installed on the system until they buy a new one.
Again, a Cnet writer has failed to see the big picture, the way Joe Consumer views things.
That was ESPECIALLY true with Vista, since they made so many security improvements with adding UAC.
Slowing your existing box is an improvement.
UAC is not a security improvement. It does nothing to make you more secure, it does give MS a way to deflect blame for its shoddy OS. That is the real reason they put in UAC.
A popup with no useful information in it is a security improvement?
It is my belief that software vendors will eventually place all their apps on the "cloud". It makes sense with the mentality of software vendors. They write EULAs thinking that the software program that they sell us isn't actually ours to own; we're just renting it in their minds.(The legal courts have disagreed.)
However, if they move all their programs onto the "cloud" and you cannot install them, then they can charge a subscription rate and tell us that the program is indeed theirs to own - not ours. If they do this, then they will finally be right in saying that we do not own the program and are just renting it from them.
What I am suggesting is that not all of your data is stored on the cloud, but the application itself is store on the cloud. So if you have a bunch of Photoshop PSD files. Those files can still be stored on your hard drive. Although it would be nice if you had the option of storing your files on the cloud along with the cloud software program.
Here's what -I- propose: don't buy upgrades if you don't need them.
Win 98 wasn't from that era so even though it came on boot optical, often you have to work around the computers inablity to boot from the media.
That being said, what obvious advantage would there be to selling an OS on a flash drive? I see few upsides, but a lot of obvious downsides. Many USB flash drives actually read slower than a 16X DVD drive reads a DVD. Even the fastest USB flash drive will max out around 30MB/sec, which isn't dramatically faster than a DVD drive. For $5-10 compared to a $1 for a pressed DVD a flash drive doesn't offer many advantages to the customer. One could put the flash drive in smaller packaging, but at least with current pricing I think any savings on packaging would be lost due to the higher cost of the storage medium. To make matters worse, I could see some people accidentally overwriting their OS. OS install media ought to be on write once media, not rewritable media.
Maybe when USB 3.0 hits the market and we see prices of flash media drop some more we might see the next version of Windows sold on flash drives, but in the meantime I don't see the point. If it offers me as a customer neither a lower price nor a faster install than I don't see the point.
I will decide if Win 7 is the right next step, but if not, I have the option of just keeping the old OS at no charge.
I wouldn't sign up for yet another subscription, it's a terrible idea.
But the subscription model fail when the price is absurd, not less than a 10% - 15% discount, or even worst, you have a subscription AND you must pay for every major update.
I have a co-worker... a tech guy... who still runs 2k as his gaming box.
A Core 2 with win2k? It makes me cry.
I don't want to "subscribe" to an OS. Doing that at an enterprise level would be a motherf***ing nightmare. Things go wrong with subscriptions now - imagine if you had to do a rebuild and you couldn't get through to the sub store that day.
If you want a clean install but are too scared to use a Windows upgrade disk to do it*, just buy the frickin' full disk.
(Seriously? This is one of many reasons why you just don't want to do Windows... Most Linux don't care if you 'licensed' it or not (excepting RHEL and the like in business), and every OSX disk can do a clean install).
- by roc3_dotmac October 30, 2009 6:36 AM PDT
- I'm not willing to cede that level of control to the software companies. I want physical product in my hands that can manipulated and changed or whatever. It's a fine distinction, but pay forever software is no more palatable than pay forever, music, TV, movies or whatever.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by blusky08 October 30, 2009 7:18 PM PDT
- Exactly. The ease and support of centralized MAC and MS operating systems makes them much more convenient than Linux at this point. But I promise you that if MAC or MS ever move to a subscription model I will switch to Linux in heartbeat, and so will millions of other consumers.
- Like this
-
- by bsharkey November 1, 2009 8:35 PM PST
- I agree with blusky08. businesses likely wouldn't defect en masse, but for individuals the total overall cost would likely become higher and they'd start abandoning their product(s).
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (216 Comments)