As someone who is both a heavy Office user and who plays AAA games, I pretty much have to use Windows at least some of the time, which I'm OK with; it works and I'm used to it. And I would be perfectly OK to pay money to get a work-focused OS that doesn't have any of the Windows monetization tricks where it tries to harvest my data or bombard me with ads, so this sounds promising on the surface.
But then I realize that I already pay for a work-focused OS, because Windows wasn't free - I bought a (somewhat expensive) copy of Windows 10 Professional when I built my current machine, and they still try to do all of that crap. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you have to buy Windows 12, then pay a monthly fee to keep using it, then get bombarded with ads and all your activity tracked and then sold to third parties.
Source site seems to be down. Windows Central has some clarifications:
> Now, references to a subscription model were found in the latest Windows preview builds, suggesting that Microsoft is finally going to force users to pay a monthly subscription to use Windows, right? No. These references are almost definitely tied to the newly discovered "IoT Enterprise Subscription" edition of Windows 11, not the client version of Windows vNext.
> I've wondered why microsoft hasn't done this already.
Step 1 was to make TPMs ubiquitous. As soon as everyone's computer can make attestations on behalf of (or, more accurately, against) them, then it's game over. I bet Microsoft starts splitting out app features and charging for them individually similar to how Adobe does with Acrobat.
Nah - the alternative is choosing software that is stable and open.
Not some crazy "not made in house - gonna code it myself" crap... that seems like some weird personal thing.
Approach software as a set of tools, with the expectation that you must learn and master its use, but then you will be functional and productive for a long time.
That's what stand-alone installers or self-hosted alternatives are. They require more learning, but they don't sell you out, close down, jack up the price, or turn off features because it's "not generating new users".
They also don't randomly rework the UI nearly as often because "if it's not shiny we can't sell it".
But they do require more work and learning up front. For me, at least... that tradeoff is a clear and easy win.
---
Good software is like good woodworking tools - hard to master, but very productive once you're there. SaaS is always the opposite: Super easy to start, incredibly frustrating to be a power user.
Saas doesn't want power users - it wants more subscriptions.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, especially in the context of something as monumental as Microsoft Windows. But just in general, how does a subscription model prevent naive competitors from trying to make an alternative?
The kernel team doesn't use either version, they use release monikers internally (ie. Threshold, RS1-RS5, 19h1-22h2, Sun Valley 1, SV2 etc.)
But also, internal interfaces and external interfaces are rev'd so teams tend to talk about the different interfaces they work with (ie. dxgi 1.2, dx12_3, wddm 3.2, UMDF 2.1) or the different internal versions of apisets.
> Wasn't windows 10 supposed to be the "last windows ever"
Microsoft has never said that.
Edit: since people are still confused.
1. What was said was "...and because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10".
This was said by a Microsoft developer evangelist, never it was an official corporate position or an announcement. And most certainly no one said "ever".
2. You could argue "the last version" meant "the most recent".
3. When Microsoft has been reached for a comment, they produced a usual corporate speech about how Windows 10 is going to be "reflective of the way Windows will be delivered as a service" (whatever this means) but they never confirmed there won't be the next version.
I had both friends and family working in Microsoft when Windows 10 was released, and it definitely was sold as the last OS that would just get free updates forever. And that they would run it as a loss-leader.
I believe it was heavily implied, but either way, it was clearly something they didn't handle well if tons and tons of people believe they said it when that wasn't their intention.
Accepting that “charge a large amount of money up front for the OS” is a dead end business model I’d be okay with this if they stripped all the user hostile and adware crap back. They won’t.
Valve investing in SteamOS and Proton looks really prescient. It took years, but the investment has really paid off (for me, not sure Valve).
Games is/was my only need for Windows and I finally ditched my Windows machine last year. I have had to give up on playing some incompatible titles, but there is still a wealth of options available.
When I started college in the early 2000s my one and only computer dual booted so I could run games and Windows-only university software on the Windows side and everything else under Linux.
In the middle of college, I went full Linux with Wine for some games but moved the rest of my gaming to console.
After college, I went back to dual booting because PC gaming was the more economical choice and I had bills to pay.
Then I went back to full Linux with Wine for a number of years because I didn't have a lot of time to play anyway and keeping Windows running was a pain.
After I made the jump to full time employee from contractor I went two machines - a Linux machine for everything but gaming and a gaming machine for gaming, moving the gaming machine to the every day driver for a couple of newly built gaming rigs.
Now I'm full time Linux with Proton for most games and a single GPU-passthrough for anything that doesn't run on that.
I could probably spend my entire time gaming and never touch a title that doesn't run under Proton and still have plenty of things to play with my friends and plenty of new releases to try.
It is amazing how much a company run by former Microsoft employees has dumped into never having to deal with Windows again. It's been good for their bottom line too.
Windows is already a subscription OS, usually for businesses. Subscription licenses are included with higher Microsoft 365 tiers. It's just one of the many ways that it's sold. This doesn't indicate that the perpetual licenses are going away, but it seems logical that they would package certain services in a subscription tier like bundling Microsoft 365 with Copilot and other future features.
I think they will offer two options, advertising or advanced features. The advertising option speaks for itself. The will put ads in different parts of the O/S. Kiss goodbye to any privacy you thought you had.
The features option will make more O/S options like photo and video editing apps a subscription type model. Pay $10 a year and get the advanced features.
Either way, I think this should help Apple and open source operating systems.
$1/year is entirely unreasonable. They build a product, they sell it to you, transaction ends there. They should sell you a product that works. Bug fixes are part of making the thing you bought closer to what was advertised, so it's part of the initial purchase. An OS is not a SaaS, and nobody considered doing it until it became popular, because it's a fad.
If your average user buys a new version every 5 years and the Pro version costs $250, they could charge $50/yr. $10/yr would be quite generous, unless they think they can get lots of people to stop pirating the OS. $10/month seems like an unlikely price point.
Readit News
But then I realize that I already pay for a work-focused OS, because Windows wasn't free - I bought a (somewhat expensive) copy of Windows 10 Professional when I built my current machine, and they still try to do all of that crap. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you have to buy Windows 12, then pay a monthly fee to keep using it, then get bombarded with ads and all your activity tracked and then sold to third parties.
> Now, references to a subscription model were found in the latest Windows preview builds, suggesting that Microsoft is finally going to force users to pay a monthly subscription to use Windows, right? No. These references are almost definitely tied to the newly discovered "IoT Enterprise Subscription" edition of Windows 11, not the client version of Windows vNext.
https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/windows-11/no-o...
The $oftware boys already have a full explainer about why $aa$ is the best thing since open source, so why shouldn't Microsoft jump on board too?
C'mon SaaS devs, tell me again about value add and how you love paying monthly for the software you use...
Step 1 was to make TPMs ubiquitous. As soon as everyone's computer can make attestations on behalf of (or, more accurately, against) them, then it's game over. I bet Microsoft starts splitting out app features and charging for them individually similar to how Adobe does with Acrobat.
Not some crazy "not made in house - gonna code it myself" crap... that seems like some weird personal thing.
Approach software as a set of tools, with the expectation that you must learn and master its use, but then you will be functional and productive for a long time.
That's what stand-alone installers or self-hosted alternatives are. They require more learning, but they don't sell you out, close down, jack up the price, or turn off features because it's "not generating new users".
They also don't randomly rework the UI nearly as often because "if it's not shiny we can't sell it".
But they do require more work and learning up front. For me, at least... that tradeoff is a clear and easy win.
---
Good software is like good woodworking tools - hard to master, but very productive once you're there. SaaS is always the opposite: Super easy to start, incredibly frustrating to be a power user.
Saas doesn't want power users - it wants more subscriptions.
From their perspective, the latest Windows 11 update is just Windows 10.0.22621.2361!
But also, internal interfaces and external interfaces are rev'd so teams tend to talk about the different interfaces they work with (ie. dxgi 1.2, dx12_3, wddm 3.2, UMDF 2.1) or the different internal versions of apisets.
Dead Comment
Microsoft has never said that.
Edit: since people are still confused.
1. What was said was "...and because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10". This was said by a Microsoft developer evangelist, never it was an official corporate position or an announcement. And most certainly no one said "ever".
2. You could argue "the last version" meant "the most recent".
3. When Microsoft has been reached for a comment, they produced a usual corporate speech about how Windows 10 is going to be "reflective of the way Windows will be delivered as a service" (whatever this means) but they never confirmed there won't be the next version.
Games is/was my only need for Windows and I finally ditched my Windows machine last year. I have had to give up on playing some incompatible titles, but there is still a wealth of options available.
When I started college in the early 2000s my one and only computer dual booted so I could run games and Windows-only university software on the Windows side and everything else under Linux.
In the middle of college, I went full Linux with Wine for some games but moved the rest of my gaming to console.
After college, I went back to dual booting because PC gaming was the more economical choice and I had bills to pay.
Then I went back to full Linux with Wine for a number of years because I didn't have a lot of time to play anyway and keeping Windows running was a pain.
After I made the jump to full time employee from contractor I went two machines - a Linux machine for everything but gaming and a gaming machine for gaming, moving the gaming machine to the every day driver for a couple of newly built gaming rigs.
Now I'm full time Linux with Proton for most games and a single GPU-passthrough for anything that doesn't run on that.
I could probably spend my entire time gaming and never touch a title that doesn't run under Proton and still have plenty of things to play with my friends and plenty of new releases to try.
It is amazing how much a company run by former Microsoft employees has dumped into never having to deal with Windows again. It's been good for their bottom line too.
You love to see it.
enterprise rigs normally come blank, and get imaged in-house from corporate standard image masters (and against corporate licensing)
The features option will make more O/S options like photo and video editing apps a subscription type model. Pay $10 a year and get the advanced features.
Either way, I think this should help Apple and open source operating systems.
They have already been doing this.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/1790329/i-paid-for-microsoft...https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/17/microsoft_windows_sta...
Perhaps you mean third party ads from their ad network? https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en-us
Wait, they already do: https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/ad-products/...
> Kiss goodbye to any privacy you thought you had.
If you haven't already, it's too late.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/3684413/how-to-protect...
https://www.wired.com/story/windows-10-privacy-settings/
> Either way, I think this should help Apple and open source operating systems.
Doubtful. They've not cared so far, I don't know what's going to really have to change.
Most folks I know don't really care about the OS, but many or all they apps they've learned are only on Windows. So they see themselves as trapped.
Dead Comment