I'll be curious to find out the exact details about ProfessionalStudent, it's amazing how the details still haven't leaked
Somewhere between $119.99 and $199.99 I'm mostly curious if it's a Dreamspark-only edition, or if anyone can buy it, student or not. And what features are missing compared to Pro.
#1. Curiosity ... . #2. Seems all have a VOLUME_KMSCLIENT channel, so emulators will activate them, only keys are missing so far .
I think the whole point of Pro versions was to enable logging onto network Domains For the end-user there's little point going over Core versions. In the past they used to severely limit ram and capabilities, but that's not really the case with Core versions... Wow that was really off topic.. sorry
I myself use the VHD boot feature a lot, that's Pro/Ent-only. Yeah, you're right, we should probably get back on topic
It's not the issue that people who can't really afford or warrant buying the new version getting it, it's those that can easily afford to buy it who don't buy it that is the problem. The difference is, those that can't otherwise warrant or afford it wouldn't get it if they couldn't get it for free, whereas those that could easily afford to buy it and would if there were no other way don't. In English; Microsoft isn't losing on the first group, they're losing on the second group. Unfortunately with Windows 8/8.1 Microsoft misread the market. Sure, there are those that believe Windows 8/8.1 interface is the best thing since sliced bread, but there is something about freshly cutting your own slices, to the thickness of your liking, that you just don't get with a one size (thickness) fits all slice of bread. The ideal interface that people want is a desktop with a proper start menu, and an interface that actually looks good. Aero does help a lot here, but it could be a little lighter on. You could have metro apps as tiles on the desktop (non-flat tiles, they would have to be aero-ised), even if it's normal program icons on the left and the tiles on the right of the screen (or the option to have metro apps on a different screen etc). You could have a horizonal or vertical scrollbar and even and adjustable width of the metro side. It's not all about strict functionality an supposed efficiency, there does need to be some attractiveness about it. You could still have aero disabled on battery etc. It's not like Vista days, computers are significantly faster now, and that is couple with the UI code being significantly faster and more efficient. It really wouldn't be an imposition on todays computers to run aero (the updating of the tiles on the metro screen probably uses more CPU power...). Also look at Office 2013, selecting the 'dark grey' theme automatically turns it in to a much more pleasant environment to work in. In fact, I strongly believe Microsoft should bring an update out that chooses that theme by default, the white theme really isn't good for prolonged use. Why is this relevant to the topic of discussion? A good looking interface and a more pleasant environment is actually more conducive to people wanting to pay for it. If there is a lower rate of people using it without paying for it, Microsoft will be much less inclined to spend money and resources to ensure people pay for it and not just use it. People aren't going to pay for something they don't like, and Windows 8/8.1 UI is bland, boring, and lifeless. There are more people that dislike it then those that like it (and they probably like it more because it's new rather than because it's actually any good). Conversely though, the flat interface actually suits phones and tablets, but you have to remember it is a different operating environment.
Its a popularity contest if you think about it. Why did they make bing? Why did they make silverlight? It's the same reason they made Win8 with the store stuff integrated, and it's the same reason it'll continue in that direction. They see what other people are doing that make money and are popular and make their own version. Sometimes their own version isn't good enough to charge $199 for. Honestly, even the Core version's $100 or whatever is pushing it... They have a lot more app advertising to do. They need to get a lot of buzz around their store. They need to get some serious horsepower in their store apps so that they could run AAA titles in Modern UI. Until then, just consider it a fad.
There's a lot of truth in that. Bing was an answer to Google, Silverlight to Flash, and, if you will, the whole .NET platform to Java, although they actually made a better job there (IMO). The list of "answers" goes on... but there's one exception: It's their mobile computing vision from about a decade ago, when they introduced Windows XP-based Tablet PCs and no one liked them because both software and hardware weren't ready for this kind of devices. Well, if they hadn't stopped there, maybe things would be different today. It's the root for a lot of problems they face today.
Ideal interface my tired feet. That is the interface people are USED to - it's the interface Windows has had since 9x/NT4. I call it what it is - the "I'm happy with the way things are and I don't want to change!" user interface. The Start menu is an interface designed for pointing devices in general, and mice in particular. (That is actually laid out there - for all to see - in "Introducing Windows 95" from Microsoft Press.) However, what happens when the user is not necessarily married to their pointing device? I'm not talking touch-screen users, either - I'm talking about keyboard-centric users (lots of those from the NT side of Windows). The command-line jockeys, Runboxers, etc. This rather large group of users - not a majority, but not small, either - basically got thrown under the bus. I don't have touch-screen hardware, yet I'm actually quite happy that the Start menu got banished - and that's because the pointing device is secondary to my usage of Windows; the keyboard comes first. You don't NEED to run AAA titles in ModernUI - the desktop applications and game have not gone anywhere. What ModernUI DOES need are the same sort of smaller applications and games that are popular in Android and iOS; it says something (quite bad) when developers are targeting Android and iOS instead of ModernUI - and I'm talking developers with a Windows gaming history, such as PopCap/EA Mobile. It's even worse in the case of NEW developers, such as Plarium - how many ModernUI games have they written? Simple - none. I HAVE asked why (and I have not gotten an answer yet).