• With Windows 10, Microsoft could move to a subscription-based model
    166 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46683055]One step forward, and then all the steps backward.[/QUOTE] It's just a rumour dude, maybe you should wait just a moment to say everything's ruined.
I personally don't think they will move to a subscription based approach. MS probably wants to keep things similiar to windows 7, and don't do any radical changes. They learned that by radically changing the user experience they fucked up. I don't think they will risk it again anytime soon.
Honestly, if WINE didn't suck so badly/more programs ran Linux natively, I'd just use Linux. But nope, you're fucked if you don't use Windows. Moreso if you're a gamer.
Yep, if this ever happens, Linux awaits. More and more programs are becoming Linux-compatible all the time and this could easily multiply their number.
[QUOTE=Frosty_Avo;46683775]Yep, if this ever happens, Linux awaits. More and more programs are becoming Linux-compatible all the time and this could easily multiply their number.[/QUOTE] Maybe it's a conspiracy plot by MS to slowly move people to Linux while not being obvious to shareholders.
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;46679297]Can't wait for Linux based OSes that are as simple as Windows for the normal person.[/QUOTE] in a lot of ways linux mint is drastically more simple than windows has ever been.
[QUOTE=Frosty_Avo;46683775]Yep, if this ever happens, Linux awaits. More and more programs are becoming Linux-compatible all the time and this could easily multiply their number.[/QUOTE] Linux in general is never going to take off in the public space at the current rate. The ludicrous number of distros, with different packaging systems, kernel support and so forth create a troubleshooting nightmare for the average user. The GUIs are all kinds of wacky, very few actual work simply enough to keep a normal office user happy. If the guys who maintain the various DE/ WM projects, software projects, etc. could actually agree on some shit properly, maybe it would become more unified and work better for the average user. But almost every single person I've installed Linux for, or has had Linux pre-installed, has wanted to go straight back to Windows because Linux for the average user still isn't there yet, it's still far too techy.
M$
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46684161]Linux in general is never going to take off in the public space at the current rate. The ludicrous number of distros, with different packaging systems, kernel support and so forth create a troubleshooting nightmare for the average user. The GUIs are all kinds of wacky, very few actual work simply enough to keep a normal office user happy. If the guys who maintain the various DE/ WM projects, software projects, etc. could actually agree on some shit properly, maybe it would become more unified and work better for the average user. But almost every single person I've installed Linux for, or has had Linux pre-installed, has wanted to go straight back to Windows because Linux for the average user still isn't there yet, it's still far too techy.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. Linux suffers from major lack of unification unlike Windows/OSX. It also discourages developers since if you support only 1 distro, you lose a lot of users who use other distros. If you support as many as possible, you lose manpower and money. Not to mention even the newest user oriented linux desktops look and feel like something from 2004
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46684161]Linux in general is never going to take off in the public space at the current rate. The ludicrous number of distros, with different packaging systems, kernel support and so forth create a troubleshooting nightmare for the average user. The GUIs are all kinds of wacky, very few actual work simply enough to keep a normal office user happy. If the guys who maintain the various DE/ WM projects, software projects, etc. could actually agree on some shit properly, maybe it would become more unified and work better for the average user. But almost every single person I've installed Linux for, or has had Linux pre-installed, has wanted to go straight back to Windows because Linux for the average user still isn't there yet, it's still far too techy.[/QUOTE] The thing with keeping normal office users happy, is not really about linux being bothersome, it's more about the fact that they expect it to handle exactly the same as windows.
[QUOTE=kaukassus;46684599]The thing with keeping normal office users happy, is not really about linux being bothersome, it's more about the fact that they expect it to handle exactly the same as windows.[/QUOTE] So it's about Linux being bothersome to learn/ use/ maintain? One key concept of usability is consistency, every version of Windows is largely consistent with previous versions (introduction of the Start Menu and Start Screen changed it drastically, but a lot of it works exactly the same as a previous version). Users migrating to Linux have to learn new DE things on a semi-regular basis if using a major distro (Ubuntu and Fedora (okay Fedora is a stretch) both upgraded to GNOME 3, vastly different from GNOME 2). Let alone the inconsistencies between distros themselves on a lower level. [editline]10th December 2014[/editline] Full disclosure: I use Linux as my main working machine for university work and programming projects now. It works okay if you spend the time to adjust to it, most users don't want to think, Linux requires thinking to start using after years of Windows, and making users think kills their drive to use a system.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46684917]So it's about Linux being bothersome to learn/ use/ maintain? One key concept of usability is consistency, every version of Windows is largely consistent with previous versions (introduction of the Start Menu and Start Screen changed it drastically, but a lot of it works exactly the same as a previous version). Users migrating to Linux have to learn new DE things on a semi-regular basis if using a major distro (Ubuntu and Fedora (okay Fedora is a stretch) both upgraded to GNOME 3, vastly different from GNOME 2). Let alone the inconsistencies between distros themselves on a lower level. [editline]10th December 2014[/editline] Full disclosure: I use Linux as my main working machine for university work and programming projects now. It works okay if you spend the time to adjust to it, most users don't want to think, Linux requires thinking to start using after years of Windows, and making users think kills their drive to use a system.[/QUOTE] If you compare the different versions of a Linux distribution, it's also largely consistent. The structure mostly stays the same, even the Desktop Environment is the same. (Except on Ubuntu, because Canonical is batshit crazy and rewrites their DE every second release.) The main differences start when you start to compare different Linux distributions with each other, and criticize the fact that they are not the same. That's the whole point of a Linux distribution. each one is different, and that's good. What if there was only one Linux OS? that would only be possible if Linux would be closed-source and development restricted to a single company. The open nature of Linux allows you to create your very own version of Linux, just the way you like it. That's why there are so many flavors of Linux. Even if people tried to create the one true linux distro, it would fail horribly, because the developers would bitch and moan and have different opinions on what it should be like. To be honest, most linux distros are very similiar, as they are mostly based on another linux distro (Debian, Fedora, etc...), and mostly just have a different set of software installed by default. Linux provides a large amount of choice regarding how your workspace should look like, and it may seem overwhelming at first, but once you start using it, you realize that the core concept still remains largely the same on all Desktop Environments, and even applies a lot of concepts that can be found on Windows and OSX. That said, I personally mainly use Windows, as my job requires a windows machine, and I can't use Linux on my Personal PC, as I do like to play games, a lot of which are not available on Linux. I do work with Linux on a daily basis, but that is restricted mainly to servers. [editline]10th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Teddybeer;46684935]We just need a company that would do for desktop linux what google did for linux on phones.[/QUOTE] I don't think that would be the way to go. it would basically start out as a very open OS, and then they are gradually moving software into the closed source sector, gradually restricting the freedom that has made Linux what it is now.
[QUOTE=kaukassus;46685493] I don't think that would be the way to go. it would basically start out as a very open OS, and then they are gradually moving software into the closed source sector, gradually restricting the freedom that has made Linux what it is now.[/QUOTE] And what is it now exactly? A server os that is used as desktop by nerds and loonix nuts? An actually decent distro would be a great rival for MS. All current ones fall short on different things, most, if not all, having awful UI and UX. I hoped chrome os would be something like a proper desktop linux but sadly it's not. Google is one of those rare companies that I feel could pull it off if they had a desire to.
I don't get why people are so up in arms about this. I mean, first off, it's way to early to tell if this is a good or bad move. But it could potentially be a good one. I mean, honestly, what's the difference between these two? $6-10/mo, free upgrade to the "next windows" every year $72 - $120 one time payment every year to get the "next windows" If paying monthly for a "subscription based" windows means I can: -Upgrade to the next version of the OS without having to go out and buy a disc -Add/Remove content as I need it (Add a license for Microsoft Office Suite) -Potentially have built in streaming media service (Microsoft movie/tv streaming, microsoft music streaming, etc) I'd honestly prefer that
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46685805]And what is it now exactly? A server os that is used as desktop by nerds and loonix nuts?[/QUOTE] what are you on about
"You haven't paid your Windows 10 subscription this month! Downgrading system to Vista."
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46684161]Linux in general is never going to take off in the public space at the current rate. The ludicrous number of distros, with different packaging systems, kernel support and so forth create a troubleshooting nightmare for the average user. The GUIs are all kinds of wacky, very few actual work simply enough to keep a normal office user happy. If the guys who maintain the various DE/ WM projects, software projects, etc. could actually agree on some shit properly, maybe it would become more unified and work better for the average user. But almost every single person I've installed Linux for, or has had Linux pre-installed, has wanted to go straight back to Windows because Linux for the average user still isn't there yet, it's still far too techy.[/QUOTE]The thing about Linux I like is that it's Unix based so if you can move from one distro to another and the commands will still work and the file structure is similar, even OSX is similar to Linux in some ways. The GUIs are different but they do have similarities unlike Windows. So Linux does have some familiarities between versions, the trouble I have that there's no middle ground in terms of usability, something is either fairly easy or really hard. There aren't as many GUI system administrative elements like computer management and a lot of command line elements, which isn't so great for people used to Windows.
There are a lot of people in this thread who are forgetting the 'could' in the title. I highly doubt Microsoft are going to go with an option that they now know for sure is a terrible one, considering they've seen what happens when they make mistakes in everything else they've made (Xbox One not being as powerful but more expensive than the PS4, Windows Phone not taking off, Windows 8) not to mention the fact that this could have been when Steve Ballmer was still CEO and not Satya Nadella.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;46687526]There are a lot of people in this thread who are forgetting the 'could' in the title. I highly doubt Microsoft are going to go with an option that they now know for sure is a terrible one, considering they've seen what happens when they make mistakes in everything else they've made (Xbox One not being as powerful but more expensive than the PS4, Windows Phone not taking off, Windows 8) not to mention the fact that this could have been when Steve Ballmer was still CEO and not Satya Nadella.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I sort of said something similar. It's all speculation.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp2;46687354]The thing about Linux I like is that it's Unix based so if you can move from one distro to another and the commands will still work and the file structure is similar, even OSX is similar to Linux in some ways. The GUIs are different but they do have similarities unlike Windows. So Linux does have some familiarities between versions, the trouble I have that there's no middle ground in terms of usability, something is either fairly easy or really hard. There aren't as many GUI system administrative elements like computer management and a lot of command line elements, which isn't so great for people used to Windows.[/QUOTE] And for the average user, it's the GUI that will make or break the system. A lot of troubleshooting I've had to do with my install required me going through terminal, which isn't a problem as I'm not an average user, learning that helps me in the long run. Even security things like SELinux (admittedly, most users probably shouldn't need this) have no reasonable way to fixing it blocking safe applications without the terminal. I can't think of many graphical troubleshooters for Linux thinking about it. Day to day internet browsing is probably fine for most users, it's productivity stuff that becomes a problem. LibreOffice is fucking terrible still, but it's basically the best we've got.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46687701]And for the average user, it's the GUI that will make or break the system. A lot of troubleshooting I've had to do with my install required me going through terminal, which isn't a problem as I'm not an average user, learning that helps me in the long run. Even security things like SELinux (admittedly, most users probably shouldn't need this) have no reasonable way to fixing it blocking safe applications without the terminal. I can't think of many graphical troubleshooters for Linux thinking about it. Day to day internet browsing is probably fine for most users, it's productivity stuff that becomes a problem. LibreOffice is fucking terrible still, but it's basically the best we've got.[/QUOTE] I think Linux needs a computer management console for it's GUIs. I can solve most Windows issues by going though the GUI elements and rarely have to use command prompt for anything, I understand terminal commands are a big thing in Linux, but users like me don't understand when something doesn't work in terminal eg when I type in the command and the terminal sits there and then closes, I have to resort to more basic troubleshooting which isn't great when there's a better solution. I need more mid level control. A user friendly device manager and an easier way to install drivers would be nice.
[quote] Another option might be that you get a basic version of Windows 10 for free, but a subscription would unlock more advanced features [/quote] I'd rather see that over a monthly fee
I paid for Office 365 for one month, cancelled the subscription and got it free without any limits.
I sincerely doubt they'll do this. So many people would just sit on win7/8 - and others would switch to Linux. The time's getting ripe for that, with game devs porting their shit left and right.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;46689757]Because Microsoft repeatedly demonstrate their wonderful grasp of UX, right?[/QUOTE] It's still miles ahead of linux desktops.
-
If Microsoft does this, I think the most important question would be what happens when you can't pay? Do you lose the right to use your computer? Does it lock out a lot of things? Does it format your HD? [sp]Ha, no[/sp] Or does it just stop updating, like UE4?
[QUOTE=Vipes;46690139]If Microsoft does this, I think the most important question would be what happens when you can't pay? Do you lose the right to use your computer? Does it lock out a lot of things? Does it format your HD? [sp]Ha, no[/sp] Or does it just stop updating, like UE4?[/QUOTE] Stops updating most likely. Which is a horrible way to do it since you will have a ton of unlicensed out of date win10 machines on the internet. XP all over again?
[QUOTE=meharryp;46689712]I paid for Office 365 for one month, cancelled the subscription and got it free without any limits.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between getting updates for software that works fine-ish out-of-the-box, and security and performance updates for your OS. You wouldn't want to be cut off from the latter, IMO.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;46690159]Stops updating most likely. Which is a horrible way to do it since you will have a ton of unlicensed out of date win10 machines on the internet. XP all over again?[/QUOTE] Important security updates will almost certainly be available even then. The only updates people wouldn't get under a format like that would just be standard bugfixes and anything new.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.