I was just thinking, what is the aftermath of this process?
It will be interesting to see. If you say "No" - and we still haven't seen how that "No" is presented, what happens next? GWX uninstalls itself and never bothers you again? Or will Microsoft keep using 3GB+ in your storage with the Windows 10 files, and keep the GWX nagware icon on the taskbar and harassing you every week to reconsider the "No"? How did Microsoft plan to play this game?
It's just because in a way, PR wise, this is their last move. People had the chance to reserve it, the GWX nagware was automatically installed and reminded them multiple times already over the months and thus the opportunity to say "Yes" was there, IE also tells people about it, not to mention that you also have the Windows Media Creation tool freely available that lets you download Windows 10 and create a bootable USB pen or an .ISO to record to a DVD. Usually when something is "free" people flock to it, they go the extra mile to get to it and know more about it. Unless, of course, something is fishy. Considering that people have had so many opportunities to pick it up and haven't, what will Microsoft do next if they say "No"?
Originally Posted by F3ERS 2 ASH3S
Odd question, but, When has Microsoft not gotten a lot of negative feedback when launching a new OS? Most people now are claiming the Win 7 was way better and they are entitled to their opinions, however wasn't there enough negative feedback that a lot of users stuck on XP and how about win 98 to 2000 or 2000 to xp (me is excluded cause date driver support)
You also have to think about how bad of an image that MS has due to vista, and win 8 and 8.1.. 8 and 8.1 where really the MS killers and there is a lot of hesitation because of that. the General populous are not raising the concerns that I am reading here. they are basing it off of what they have seen and experienced with past OS models..
All this shows what I am saying. in addition an entire crowd doing so in sociology is considered mob mentality, you get a handful of people and they can control a crowd. And lets not forget how media manipulates response. Just like how media controls elections and the backers. ie fox news for republicans and MSNBC for democrats.
IMO this was staged to create ratings.. cause well.. thats what the business is for.. and what better way to get more ratings by exploiting the potential hate.. Especially in America we live for hate and the messed up. If it was portrayed as being a good product, in the terms of the media, it would be just another bland segment.
You can say otherwise however just look at what the reaction that was manipulated caused.. Talk about the show.. aka their product is now advertised due to the controversy. I just can't with media and talk shows like that aim for this situation.. so im just writing it off as media will manipulate.... and thats just what they did.
Not really, the negative feedback you are recalling was towards Windows Vista and a lot of people stuck to XP. When 7 came out it wasn't so much a question of not liking it, but rather people that either didn't want to upgrade, couldn't (incompatible hardware or old systems where it would feel sluggish) or even pirated versions of XP mostly in Asian countries that add up to a lot of pirated licenses being online.
Windows 98 to 2000 wasn't even a reality as 2000 was marketed as a workstation OS. "Windows Me was the consumer, Windows 9x based version, and that one was quite problematic but had a shelf life of around a year before Windows XP launched and thus the negative image stuck despite Microsoft having fixed many of the problems later. You also get people claiming Windows Vista wasn't that bad... after SP1 (a year later) or SP2 (two and a half years later). Windows Me never got that chance, so you see, there is always some subjectivity around these stories because people selectively ignore some historical data that helps frame what happened properly. The fact that Windows Vista after one / two and a half years was decent doesn't erase the hours of troubleshooting, BSODs, incompatibility and lack of drivers people encountered during the first / two and a half years. And the bloat, HDD trashing, UAC aggressiveness was never fully fixed until 7.
2000 to XP also wasn't a thing because there was really no push for people on 2000 to upgrade to XP, the intended markets were different and people on 2000 usually knew what they wanted it for and what their options were.
Windows 98 and 98 SE to XP took a long time and Microsoft had to extend the support period for them. It was also a major platform change from a 9x based OS to an NT based one and usually that takes time. Windows XP presented some major benefits because of the NT kernel but it also presented a lot of backwards compatibility problems. Having all the software and drivers available took time and then with the advent of broadband it became apparent that Windows XP had been released unprepared for that reality and thus SP2 was born.
There are different reasons why some transitions were good and some bad. Different times, different needs, different pace of tech, etc.
As to the TV show, Microsoft really doesn't need the bad publicity, reverse psychology doesn't work like that in this case. Due to Microsoft's aggressive stance people on Windows 7 and 8 / 8.1 already know about it from GWX nagware and then they can search online for it, read about it, watch videos, etc. This isn't an obscure product that needs all the publicity - good or bad - it can get.Edited by tpi2007 - 2/3/16 at 12:47pm