Microsoft No Longer Sells Windows 7 to Retailers

[MidnightDistortions]

That's pretty much what i summed up in my question there.

Though, this is only encouraging people to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 before it becomes a scarce find.. at least for those who refuse to try Windows 8 and after that will encourage those that are not yet on W7 to move to Linux or Apple. They did make the mistake of extending XP's lifecycle because then they did the same with Vista, 7 and 8. Windows 7 was originally supposed to gone by 2017, not 2020. I know it is rough to try to keep 4 diff OS's updates (and it's service packs) but then it's MS who decided to have 4 different OS's to begin with. They should have ended XP when W7 was out for a few years and had Vista users migrate to W7 but MS wants to rush things and pull the plug (which has already been extended and is in writing) on the many XP users still wanting to stay on it for whatever reason.

Microsoft can certainly do whatever they want with that, but at the same time they are going to lose business because they don't want to deal with older OS's. While i do agree that it would be better to get off of XP in favor for W7 or W8 but at the same time it doesn't cost much of anything to stay on an existing system and they know it works with their software just fine.

[janedoe]

They did make the mistake of extending XP's lifecycle because then they did the same with Vista, 7 and 8. Windows 7 was originally supposed to gone by 2017, not 2020.

No, XP was and remains an aberration, No other Windows or Service Pack version has had its support dates extended so far. As per Microsoft's support lifecycle policy which has remained unchanged for almost a decade now, every OS receives "10 years of support (5 years Mainstream Support Phase and 5 years Extended Support Phase)". Thus Win7's Mainstream Support Phase ends on January 13, 2015 and Extended Support Phase ends on January 14, 2020, with no extensions announced so far. I don't know where you got the 2017 date from.

I think you must have read about the Extended Support Phase somewhere and confused it with a general extension of support. This is incorrect. Extended Support Phase is not a generic but actually a clearly defined term in the context of Windows' support lifecycle and there are specific differences in what's supported during it as opposed to the initial Mainstream Support Phase. You can check the MS site for details if you're interested.

They should have ended XP when W7 was out for a few years and had Vista users migrate to W7

I guess they could have, but it would not have reduced the howls of protest any compared to what we're hearing now. Clearly after the Vista debacle they didn't know whether Win7 would take off, so they thought it best to extend XP's support till 2014. Whether that was a wise decision... well, hindsight is always 20-20, isn't it?

BTW, I have no idea why people are crying or getting upset over this decision of MS to stop retail sales of Win7 5 years post release. If you've pirated Win7 obviously this changes nothing for you and also you have no legal right to complain. For legit buyers, you have till October 30, 2014 to buy copies of the OS or PCs with Win7 pre-installed. Even after that date I'm sure there will still be copies of the OS for sale elsewhere. Moreover, and this is the important part, even after that date if you are forced to buy a PC with Win8/8.1 pre-installed, you can always exercise your downgrade rights and switch to Win7 or Vista instead. The downgrade rights will not magically go away just because Win7 is no longer being sold, so you can still very much legally use Win7 on your new Win8 PCs. So again, why all the howls of protest? Is it just out of plain ignorance? :huh:

Edited December 7, 2013 by janedoe

[ShEsHy]

...I mean, why make fun of someone who actually chooses to do things the legal way and pay for something instead of stealing it? Here's an analogy - if you're old enough I'm sure you've bought household goods, right? How would you feel if a burglar came up to you and laughed in your face for buying a TV, stereo and so on?

I'm tired of people equating copyright infringement to stealing. Show me one legal definition which says so, other than when the MPAA/RIAA or their foreign counterparts claim it. Read up on copyright infringement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

A copyright infringer doesn't steal anything, they "infringe" on the owner's right to control. The owner can still do everything they want with the item they own the copyright for.

Edited December 8, 2013 by ShEsHy

[janedoe]

I'm tired of people equating copyright infringement to stealing. Show me one legal definition which says so, other than when the MPAA/RIAA or their foreign counterparts claim it. Read up on copyright infringement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

A copyright infringer doesn't steal anything, they "infringe" on the owner's right to control. The owner can still do everything they want with the item they own the copyright for.

Look, I'm not a lawyer. I know you can argue endlessly about the nuances of terms like piracy, copyright infringement, theft and so on, and as far as I know there is no settled legal definition yet valid world-over about what these terms mean. Heck, a lot of the language in the laws has never been properly debated or modified yet to deal with digital theft as opposed to simple theft of tangible goods. There is no consensus about these things and many definitions will change over time as their existing language is legally challenged. That said, as a pure lay person I'll say this - as far as I am concerned if you (not you specifically of course) illegally procure a copy of some software and circumvent the protections built into it to activate it without paying a cent, you have stolen it. I don't want to be hypocritical and beat about the bush with word definitions, and am not adopting a holier than thou attitude either as if I haven't done it myself (not the OS but other software certainly). Unlike the person I was rebuking however, I don't pretend it's an accomplishment to be proud of.

Finally an analogy that just occurred to me, might be right or wrong, you tell me. Suppose your credit card details were copied when you handed the card over in a commercial establishment, or using a skimmer in an ATM. The card remains with you, the numbers on it remain with you, you are not prevented from using it in any way... kinda like when people say it's not theft because they are just using a "copy" of the software since there's no original that the developer is missing at its end. When you go to the cops would you say that the details were not stolen because the original is still in your possession? Would you tell them it's not theft, but copyright infringement or something?

It might not be a perfect analogy, but I just feel it illustrates some of the many serious problems we have with existing definitions and laws. People talk about "lost sales". Well how do you quantify these? Most certainly not using the BS methods used by the RIAA and MPAA to come up with ridiculously inflated figures. But one can't very well claim that the creator has lost nothing at all either, can we? Can we honestly say that if most users of a program/game pirated or stole it or infringed the copyright (or whatever), the developer has suffered absolutely no loss at all just because no tangible copies were stolen from, say, a warehouse? As a society we are still struggling with the ever changing digital landscape and perhaps in future we might have a utopia where terms like copyright infringement, piracy, theft etc. don't exist, but till then all these terms are kinda like potayto, potahto as far as I am concerned.

[ShEsHy]

I'm tired of people equating copyright infringement to stealing. Show me one legal definition which says so, other than when the MPAA/RIAA or their foreign counterparts claim it. Read up on copyright infringement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

A copyright infringer doesn't steal anything, they "infringe" on the owner's right to control. The owner can still do everything they want with the item they own the copyright for.

Look, I'm not a lawyer. I know you can argue endlessly about the nuances of terms like piracy, copyright infringement, theft and so on, and as far as I know there is no settled legal definition yet valid world-over about what these terms mean. Heck, a lot of the language in the laws has never been properly debated or modified yet to deal with digital theft as opposed to simple theft of tangible goods. There is no consensus about these things and many definitions will change over time as their existing language is legally challenged. That said, as a pure lay person I'll say this - as far as I am concerned if you (not you specifically of course) illegally procure a copy of some software and circumvent the protections built into it to activate it without paying a cent, you have stolen it. I don't want to be hypocritical and beat about the bush with word definitions, and am not adopting a holier than thou attitude either as if I haven't done it myself (not the OS but other software certainly). Unlike the person I was rebuking however, I don't pretend it's an accomplishment to be proud of.

Finally an analogy that just occurred to me, might be right or wrong, you tell me. Suppose your credit card details were copied when you handed the card over in a commercial establishment, or using a skimmer in an ATM. The card remains with you, the numbers on it remain with you, you are not prevented from using it in any way... kinda like when people say it's not theft because they are just using a "copy" of the software since there's no original that the developer is missing at its end. When you go to the cops would you say that the details were not stolen because the original is still in your possession? Would you tell them it's not theft, but copyright infringement or something?

It might not be a perfect analogy, but I just feel it illustrates some of the many serious problems we have with existing definitions and laws. People talk about "lost sales". Well how do you quantify these? Most certainly not using the BS methods used by the RIAA and MPAA to come up with ridiculously inflated figures. But one can't very well claim that the creator has lost nothing at all either, can we? Can we honestly say that if most users of a program/game pirated or stole it or infringed the copyright (or whatever), the developer has suffered absolutely no loss at all just because no tangible copies were stolen from, say, a warehouse? As a society we are still struggling with the ever changing digital landscape and perhaps in future we might have a utopia where terms like copyright infringement, piracy, theft etc. don't exist, but till then all these terms are kinda like potayto, potahto as far as I am concerned.

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that copyright infringement is technically only about half theft (you get something, but the owner doesn't lose anything (other than those lost sales numbers RIAA likes to pull out of their ass)), and the main reason why many people call it theft is because so far, the only people who we've been hearing from are the copyright holders in whose best interests it is to criminalise copyright infringers.

Yup, it's somewhat similar (if you ignore the identity thing that goes along with cloning credit cards), but that's only until the person who copied your details charges anything on it, then it becomes completely different.

I had a whole paragraph written about how the closest thing to digital copyright infringement in the real world are matters involving paintings (you can copy a painting exactly and it's not a crime until you either claim it as the original or try to sell it), but then I realised that all copyright is messed up and needs major reworking.

But, you also can't refute that copyright infringement has a positive effect as well (millions of people encounter a song/band/film/program/game/... via infringing methods that they would've never encountered otherwise, and hundreds of thousands buy products/merchandise/go to concerts after testing and liking them).

Edited December 11, 2013 by ShEsHy

[janedoe]

But, you also can't refute that copyright infringement has a positive effect as well (millions of people encounter a song/band/film/program/game/... via infringing methods that they would've never encountered otherwise, and hundreds of thousands buy products/merchandise/go to concerts after testing and liking them).

Why would I want to refute what I believe to be true as well? I'm not an RIAA or MPAA employee :), and things aren't as black or white as they think. As I mentioned above, as a society we're still in the nascent stage of the digital economy. Things will continue to evolve - laws, methods of selling to customers and many other aspects.

A personal anecdote connected to what you said - I downloaded some music from a band I'd never heard of on the insistence of a close friend. I found it really nice and so we both attended their live gig. As we were walking out afterterwards I found they were selling CD-Rs and flash drives with a live mix of the show itself! I thought that was really cool and innovative and of course bought a few copies for myself and a few friends too. Note that I never would have paid for concert tickets and the recorded copies if not for the pirated MP3s I heard.

These are the types of things I'd like to encourage and see more of, instead of corporate studio types getting fat off banal and exploitative offerings, with the actual good artists often getting more or less shafted. The Humble Bundle is another concept I support wholeheartedly, and the idea of donating parts of the proceeds to designated charities is brilliant and drives up sales for sure. I am not hung up about piracy-related terminology and not interested in nit-picking over legal definitions that are in flux, but I do not agree with completely ripping off creators of software, music, whatever either. That's a disturbing trend I see BTW in many who have been pirating so long they think they are entitled to get everything for free. Drop a dime or two at least sometimes in the tip jar you scrooges, it won't kill you or drive you to bankruptcy! There are ever newer and more innovative means and ways of supporting creativity and hard work without either party feeling ripped off, and it's our responsibility to support and encourage these as best as we can. Don't you think so?

[ShEsHy]

But, you also can't refute that copyright infringement has a positive effect as well (millions of people encounter a song/band/film/program/game/... via infringing methods that they would've never encountered otherwise, and hundreds of thousands buy products/merchandise/go to concerts after testing and liking them).

Why would I want to refute what I believe to be true as well? I'm not an RIAA or MPAA employee :), and things aren't as black or white as they think. As I mentioned above, as a society we're still in the nascent stage of the digital economy. Things will continue to evolve - laws, methods of selling to customers and many other aspects.

A personal anecdote connected to what you said - I downloaded some music from a band I'd never heard of on the insistence of a close friend. I found it really nice and so we both attended their live gig. As we were walking out afterterwards I found they were selling CD-Rs and flash drives with a live mix of the show itself! I thought that was really cool and innovative and of course bought a few copies for myself and a few friends too. Note that I never would have paid for concert tickets and the recorded copies if not for the pirated MP3s I heard.

These are the types of things I'd like to encourage and see more of, instead of corporate studio types getting fat off banal and exploitative offerings, with the actual good artists often getting more or less shafted. The Humble Bundle is another concept I support wholeheartedly, and the idea of donating parts of the proceeds to designated charities is brilliant and drives up sales for sure. I am not hung up about piracy-related terminology and not interested in nit-picking over legal definitions that are in flux, but I do not agree with completely ripping off creators of software, music, whatever either. That's a disturbing trend I see BTW in many who have been pirating so long they think they are entitled to get everything for free. Drop a dime or two at least sometimes in the tip jar you scrooges, it won't kill you or drive you to bankruptcy! There are ever newer and more innovative means and ways of supporting creativity and hard work without either party feeling ripped off, and it's our responsibility to support and encourage these as best as we can. Don't you think so?

I agree with what you've written, except about terminology. We should most definitely be hung up on it, as it will define the public opinion (ignorant masses such as politicians and other lawmakers who don't have the slightest idea about anything digital other than what's written in their speeches), and if we let the MPAAs and RIAAs of the world dictate the terms we'll end up being worse criminals than >insert any non-violent type of crime here<. Just look at the disgustingly large fines and penalties people are getting hit with and keep in mind that copyright infringement is still not illegal in most countries, then imagine what will happen if it becomes illegal globally (besides that it would criminalise a huge chunk of the world's population).

[janedoe]

I agree with what you've written, except about terminology. We should most definitely be hung up on it, as it will define the public opinion (ignorant masses such as politicians and other lawmakers who don't have the slightest idea about anything digital other than what's written in their speeches), and if we let the MPAAs and RIAAs of the world dictate the terms we'll end up being worse criminals than >insert any non-violent type of crime here<. Just look at the disgustingly large fines and penalties people are getting hit with and keep in mind that copyright infringement is still not illegal in most countries, then imagine what will happen if it becomes illegal globally (besides that it would criminalise a huge chunk of the world's population).

Until we can all agree on the terminology there's no point being hung up on it. What I'd like to see is a consensus (probably at the WTO level) about what each term means and what precisely it covers. That way organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA can be outright sued if they overreach and use the wrong terms. However, the bickering over terminology is merely a symptom IMO of the deep-seated malaise that afflicts the entire system. As it stands we have rubbish copyright term extensions being pushed through Congress by Mickey Mouse politicians, overly broad patents being granted by the bushel and then wielded by copyright trolls thus stifling innovation and progress... it's all rotten to the core. The terminology needs to be discussed, no doubt about it, but it's far from being the most pressing issue at hand.

[oliverjia]

This may piss a lot of ppl here off, but I think it's only nature to move on to a newer OS when new technologies emerged. Sure, a lot of ppl complained about the metro UI and I agree it's a stupid idea (in a tech aspect, not considering business aspect) to put Metro UI onto a desktop OS. However, there are more useful features such as native support for USB 3, support ISO files, and enhanced performance and security, on top of many others. After using windows 8 for a couple of weeks, I am actually used to the desktop interface of windows 8/8.1 (almost no difference form that of windows 7), and I think the dash search is not a bad idea after all - you can quickly search programs/files/settings you want without going through multiple layers of menus. Ubuntu use the same dash search scheme and works quite well also.

I think being open-minded and willing to try out new stuff a bit more patiently is really worthwhile.

Edited December 13, 2013 by oliverjia

[ShEsHy]

This may piss a lot of ppl here off, but I think it's only nature to move on to a newer OS when new technologies emerged. Sure, a lot of ppl complained about the metro UI and I agree it's a stupid idea (in a tech aspect, not considering business aspect) to put Metro UI onto a desktop OS. However, there are more useful features such as native support for USB 3, support ISO files, and enhanced performance and security, on top of many others. After using windows 8 for a couple of weeks, I am actually used to the desktop interface of windows 8/8.1 (almost no difference form that of windows 7), and I think the dash search is not a bad idea after all - you can quickly search programs/files/settings you want without going through multiple layers of menus. Ubuntu use the same dash search scheme and works quite well also.

I think being open-minded and willing to try out new stuff a bit more patiently is really worthwhile.

It might be for Apple users (we've all seen the lines when a new product comes out, and the fanboys defending Apple), but normal people don't always move to newer products, that's just marketing (which coincidentally is what Apple is all about), We follow convenience, and will move on to newer things if and when it's convenient for us (ie the new product has a function we want/need that isn't present in the current version,...). Just look at the sales numbers for Win8, they had that discount when they were practically giving it away and it still didn't reach Vista's numbers. Why? Because it was inconvenient for us to leave our reliable, easy to use OS for a new one that had a completely unintuitive UI.

Also, just because you got used to it doesn't mean it's better (I could beat you with a stick every day until you got used to it, wouldn't mean you like it). The question is, do you like it more than you liked Win7?

[oliverjia]

:P

Your argument does not really apply to me. I am not a fan of any company, or specifically, any OS for the topic. I just use the OS. I use Mac and Windows in my office, and I mainly use Ubuntu at home. I learn the strength of each OS and take advantage of them.

I won't blindly follow any new versions of OS without knowing what I am getting from it. I moved on to Win8 because I am kind of enthusiastic about new hardware technologies, such as USB 3.0, UEFI/Secure boot, which are all all very useful new features introduced in Win8. I know I am getting these new features by installing Win8 on my new computer to take advantage of all these new advancement in IT.

Besides, I like to try new software, many of which are distributed in ISO format. In Windows 7 I have to use a 3rd party software to either extract the content of the ISO to HDD, or burn to CD, or use a virtual drive, while in Win8 I can just double click in Windows Explorer and the contents will be mounted automatically so that I can just install it. So much easier.

The search charm in Windows 8.1 is also very useful. You can search for File, Settings and installed programs and conveniently launch them using just one click.

The task manager in Win8/8.1 is also vastly improved as compared to Win7. You can test drive it and you;ll see the difference.

Now as with any things in the world, there are pros and cons. The things I don't like in WIn8/8.1 are the Metro UI, the Win store and the Microsoft account integration. Now I managed to set up a local account without telling MS my hotmail account. For the Metro UI and Win store, I just simply ignore them, so they won't bother me much.

Now as you can see, when I said I am used to Win8, I really meant I've learned to enjoy the new features that I like. I did not mean I was forced by myself to adapt Win8 metro UI.

So my conclusion is yes I like Win8.1 a lot more than win7. I tried going back to Win7 on my laptop (genuine licence) but I finally gave up and installed a pirated Win8.1 :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

Also ppl have different user experience, therefore it's only nature there will be different choices when it comes to which OS to use. After all, these are all just opinions of us each individual and everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

Have a nice weekend..

This may piss a lot of ppl here off, but I think it's only nature to move on to a newer OS when new technologies emerged. Sure, a lot of ppl complained about the metro UI and I agree it's a stupid idea (in a tech aspect, not considering business aspect) to put Metro UI onto a desktop OS. However, there are more useful features such as native support for USB 3, support ISO files, and enhanced performance and security, on top of many others. After using windows 8 for a couple of weeks, I am actually used to the desktop interface of windows 8/8.1 (almost no difference form that of windows 7), and I think the dash search is not a bad idea after all - you can quickly search programs/files/settings you want without going through multiple layers of menus. Ubuntu use the same dash search scheme and works quite well also.

I think being open-minded and willing to try out new stuff a bit more patiently is really worthwhile.

It might be for Apple users (we've all seen the lines when a new product comes out, and the fanboys defending Apple), but normal people don't always move to newer products, that's just marketing (which coincidentally is what Apple is all about), We follow convenience, and will move on to newer things if and when it's convenient for us (ie the new product has a function we want/need that isn't present in the current version,...). Just look at the sales numbers for Win8, they had that discount when they were practically giving it away and it still didn't reach Vista's numbers. Why? Because it was inconvenient for us to leave our reliable, easy to use OS for a new one that had a completely unintuitive UI.

Also, just because you got used to it doesn't mean it's better (I could beat you with a stick every day until you got used to it, wouldn't mean you like it). The question is, do you like it more than you liked Win7?

Edited December 14, 2013 by oliverjia

[Mandy]

@Tezza

Say that again!

Daz really made it fun for all to know and appreciate that knowledge is power and it liberates the enlightened and his /her associates from chains.

As for the headaches I am sorry if you say learning is difficult try ignorance

[OrioNeXus]

they are releasing OS like movies :angry: :P

[smokeyjoe]

Windows 8 is a failure any not many people want it. (made for touchscreen) So I think their idea is to discontinue Windows 7 so more people buy windows 8.

[John_Anonymous_Doe]

I also first test all my apps first before I buy it, usually with patch/crack, if app is good enough and bug free then I might buy it.