That makes sense for a business context. But on a home computer, that I own? Heck no. What is Windows thinking? (Answer: all of our data, no matter the cost.)
That makes sense for a business context.
But on a home computer, that I own? Heck no. What is Windows thinking? (Answer: all of our data, no matter the cost.)
I don’t think there’s any indication that Microsoft is going to make windows cloud only any time soon. They’ll expand cloud functionality but the rest is just fear mongering from bored content...
I don’t think there’s any indication that Microsoft is going to make windows cloud only any time soon. They’ll expand cloud functionality but the rest is just fear mongering from bored content creators.
Ding ding ding ding ding. Microsoft is talking about launching a new Windows-based product and overzealous tech journalists and internet nerds automatically assume that it will be the only WIndows...
Ding ding ding ding ding.
Microsoft is talking about launching a new Windows-based product and overzealous tech journalists and internet nerds automatically assume that it will be the only WIndows product. These headlines make absolutely no sense if you rub two brain cells together for more than a few seconds. Microsoft isn't going to kill desktop Windows any sooner than Apple is going to stop selling laptops.
So you can access it from anywhere on any device and get near the same advantage. RDP has been a thing for a long time. Back in the days of Unix it was common to have thin clients connect to the...
So you can access it from anywhere on any device and get near the same advantage.
RDP has been a thing for a long time. Back in the days of Unix it was common to have thin clients connect to the server and everything happen server side. This is exactly the same. Being in IT for almost three decades means I've seen the circle of do it local, do it server, do it local, do it server. Don't be fooled by the name Cloud, it just means someone else's servers in their data centre (buildings) rather than your own or your companies. Big companies have lots of clever people working there to keep it all more secure, but when mistakes happen they affect far more than just a small amount of people.
Back to your question: you'd want your OS in the cloud if you were rendering a 3D CAD drawing that would cost you an expensive GPU if you did it local, but only 25p for the one off render in the cloud. You'd want your OS in the cloud if you wanted to have exactly the same machine available if you logged in from a Chromebook at home, an Apple at the office and a public PC at the airport. You'd always get your apps, your files and everything else with your settings.
I get the point you're making, and agree there are many potential benefits to greater and lesser degrees depending on your use-case, especially in the business context you're describing. I'm a big...
I get the point you're making, and agree there are many potential benefits to greater and lesser degrees depending on your use-case, especially in the business context you're describing. I'm a big fan of the "the cloud is just someone else's computer" maxim.
Back in the days of Unix it was common to have thin clients connect to the server and everything happen server side. This is exactly the same.
But it's not exactly the same thing, is it. The big difference is that your Unix server was still local, and your connection was an ethernet cable directly into your server (I'm sure this is simplified but still true for my point). What MS is talking about is applying this model over the internet. Right now only about 80% of adults in the U.S. say they have broadband internet, excluding many rural and low-income (urban and rural) populations. And we can safely speculate that a large percentage of them are forced to use one provider, typically Comcast or one of the other providers which have monopoly contracts around the country, all of which have famously... spotty... reliability and customer service records. So you're talking about having access to high-speed internet, and having that internet be reliable -- you're only talking about business use, and only businesses that can afford that kind of connection and customer service from ISPs.
There's zero chance that Microsoft would kill local desktop. Absolutely none. All that would do is drive Linux adoption, not make people migrate to cloud. Besides, the cloud offering will still be...
There's zero chance that Microsoft would kill local desktop. Absolutely none. All that would do is drive Linux adoption, not make people migrate to cloud. Besides, the cloud offering will still be a local windows install, just on a server. So they'd still have to create some form of local Windows anyway.
What's really going to happen is that they'll try and use this to get more people to buy into 365 and online backup storage. They'll have features like "sync all your content anywhere", while still letting you have your local install. This is an upsell not a replacement.
What you're saying is true in theory but may not be in practice. This assumes a rational actor who takes management decisions but from many recent corporate examples, one can see this may not...
There's zero chance that Microsoft would kill local desktop.
What you're saying is true in theory but may not be in practice. This assumes a rational actor who takes management decisions but from many recent corporate examples, one can see this may not always be true. For example, the Meta and Threads debacle, what's happening with Twitter and Reddit right now, etc. In all these cases, the decision maker is either irrational or takes advice from sycophants who are just telling them what they want to hear.
For all their faults, Microsoft has been a fairly stable company. Investment wise, most are upset they are too conservative and missed the train on modern things like phones and wearables. Sure...
For all their faults, Microsoft has been a fairly stable company. Investment wise, most are upset they are too conservative and missed the train on modern things like phones and wearables. Sure they could change but it's unlikely. The board the directors are not at risk of being bought out nor putting in an ego maniac.
They don't have to "kill" it. They just have to make it expensive enough and difficult enough to use as to make it impractical to use for all intents and purposes. And we know their track record,...
They don't have to "kill" it. They just have to make it expensive enough and difficult enough to use as to make it impractical to use for all intents and purposes. And we know their track record, they've done exactly that numerous time for a variety of different things, so how do you think that's going to pan out?
Still not happening. Why would they give up domination of the home market? And what track record are we talking about here? I can't recall many software products Microsoft has killed. I really...
Still not happening. Why would they give up domination of the home market?
And what track record are we talking about here? I can't recall many software products Microsoft has killed. I really can't think of any that they've changed the pricing structure of in a way that makes it harder for normal people. If anything, they've steered their pricing lower to capture even more of the home market. Office 2000 was $500 ($900 today money) for a new license while currently 365 is $70 a year for a single. Yeah it's subscription based which sucks but it is a much lower cost.
So... they're just going to support Windows 10 forever? That would be... unusual... given their past history. Eventually, Microsoft will stop supporting old versions of Windows that don't do what...
There's zero chance that Microsoft would kill local desktop.
So... they're just going to support Windows 10 forever? That would be... unusual... given their past history.
Eventually, Microsoft will stop supporting old versions of Windows that don't do what they want. And new computers will be sold with new versions of Windows. Eventually, we'll all be forced on to the new cloud-based Windows, whether we like it or not.
Google might have our emails, but Microsoft has realised it can get access to our documents, and it won't stop till it gets its grubby paws on our data.
Windows 11 is local install so I'm not sure why you're talking about 10. Think about it for a moment and you'll realize your statement is nonsense. You think Microsoft would rather have to create...
Windows 11 is local install so I'm not sure why you're talking about 10.
Think about it for a moment and you'll realize your statement is nonsense. You think Microsoft would rather have to create enough cloud computing to support the entire worlds basic computing needs than just letting them buy some software which requires no expensive maintenance? And you think the entire consumer hardware ecosystem would just roll over and die since no one would be able to use hardware anymore.
It's absolutely insane that anyone is taking the "threat" of cloud only computing seriously. The only real threat is Microsoft taking away the perpetual licenses and moving to recurring ones but even that I doubt as they won't be allowed to brick a machine just because you stopped payment on the OS.
Well, just apply my statement to whichever version of Windows will be the last locally installed version, just before Microsoft migrates everyone to a cloud-based operating system. In this modern...
Windows 11 is local install so I'm not sure why you're talking about 10.
Well, just apply my statement to whichever version of Windows will be the last locally installed version, just before Microsoft migrates everyone to a cloud-based operating system.
You think Microsoft would rather have to create enough cloud computing to support the entire worlds basic computing needs
In this modern digital world, data is money. Google knows this. Facebook/Instagram/Meta knows this. Even Reddit knows this. It doesn't surprise me at all that Microsoft now wants a piece of the action.
It's absolutely insane that anyone is taking the "threat" of cloud only computing seriously.
In an internal “state of the business” Microsoft presentation from June 2022, Microsoft discuses building on “Windows 365 to enable a full Windows operating system streamed from the cloud to any device.”
Moving “Windows 11 increasingly to the cloud” is identified as a long-term opportunity in Microsoft’s “Modern Life” consumer space,
How do you keep misunderstanding. "Moving Windows to the cloud" does not mean "There shall never be local Windows again". They're saying that consumer based cloud deployments are a new avenue for...
How do you keep misunderstanding. "Moving Windows to the cloud" does not mean "There shall never be local Windows again". They're saying that consumer based cloud deployments are a new avenue for growth that Microsoft wants to explore. That's it. No more. It's an upsell not a replacement!
I don't know. Maybe I read a headline like "Microsoft wants to move Windows fully to the cloud". Surely, you mean downsell? Hosting the operating system, and all my personal documents, on...
How do you keep misunderstanding. "Moving Windows to the cloud" does not mean "There shall never be local Windows again".
I don't know. Maybe I read a headline like "Microsoft wants to move Windows fully to the cloud".
It's an upsell not a replacement!
Surely, you mean downsell? Hosting the operating system, and all my personal documents, on Microsoft's servers, where my access to them can be withdrawn at any time, and where Microsoft gets to trawl through that information at their leisure, seems like a reduction of utility, rather than an increase.
I'm not talking about features or quality. I'm talking about money here. It's going to be an upsell that costs you more and generates them more revenue, but it'll be in addition. Look I'm done...
I'm not talking about features or quality. I'm talking about money here. It's going to be an upsell that costs you more and generates them more revenue, but it'll be in addition.
Look I'm done arguing this as this conversation is going nowhere. I don't believe you're looking at this objectively at all.
By the way... I let this slide last time, but you've done it twice now. If I took this tone with you, I would have people jumping all over me for being aggressive and rude. It happened repeatedly...
By the way... I let this slide last time, but you've done it twice now.
Think about it for a moment and you'll realize your statement is nonsense.
How do you keep misunderstanding.
If I took this tone with you, I would have people jumping all over me for being aggressive and rude. It happened repeatedly in the past, so I've made a commitment to myself to avoid behaving like that on Tildes any more.
I would ask you to please do the same.
Or... I could take the gloves off, respond in kind, and get us both chastised for aggression.
Yeah, the security aspect isn't what bothers me. I don't want to be forced to pay a subscription to MS to continue to own my own computer. There are some benefits, many of which aren't super...
Yeah, the security aspect isn't what bothers me. I don't want to be forced to pay a subscription to MS to continue to own my own computer. There are some benefits, many of which aren't super appealing to me, that they will use to hook you in with low introductory rates. Then 3-5 years later when they need to show quarter over quarter growth to shareholders they will decide that the $25 a month I was paying should actually be $60, or else I lose all my data. Fuck. That.
Not to mention I travel for work and often have limited internet in many locations. I have 4 TB in my laptop for media and games and it's still not as much as I would like. Cloud is great when you're generally in your own home near a city. When you go to remote locations and your laptop is one of your few creature comforts, cloud based OS sounds like absolute hell.
Absolutely. I was simply answering OPs question of "Why would I want my computer operating system to be cloud based?". The thought of this for me, from a user perspective, is horrific. Spotty...
Absolutely. I was simply answering OPs question of "Why would I want my computer operating system to be cloud based?".
The thought of this for me, from a user perspective, is horrific. Spotty internet, no computer. That email once a year of the 18% price increase to keep it "secure". Urgh.
Putting on my business hat, this is a great idea if my company IT is OpEx and we're embracing cloud from a global perspective. Everything uniform, data inside is better protected from exfiltration as only company cloud machines can touch it.
Business hat and big company data, urgh again. Editing video over the net is horrid. Even Teradici and the PCoIP clients cannot make a good experience on shitty internet. Yeah, it's not bad, but it isn't good either. They cannot fix low bandwidth internet connections for the world, so this is only going to be good for city dwellers. Even then, not all cities are on fast internet.
I feel like MS is really trying to turn your day to day OS into a subscription and "cloud" is just their excuse. From a business perspective cloud is already super achievable with existing...
I feel like MS is really trying to turn your day to day OS into a subscription and "cloud" is just their excuse. From a business perspective cloud is already super achievable with existing offerings, even for small businesses. This is purely a subscription money grab that will massively hurt the end users. I guess it's time to finally go full Ubuntu.
Most everything I want to do online, like email, docs, &c. I can already do from any PC with a web browser. I'd still rather just have a proper operating system on my home PC. I can sort of...
Most everything I want to do online, like email, docs, &c. I can already do from any PC with a web browser. I'd still rather just have a proper operating system on my home PC.
I can sort of understand why a business might want this. Though my current company we all have Mac laptops and all of our business apps are online, so again no need for a remote desktop or operating system that's dumbed down to a terminal.
The advantages for MS are as obvious as disadvantages for the end user, but that was also true for Windows 10 and Windows 11. This is presented as convenience vs privacy/control. The...
The advantages for MS are as obvious as disadvantages for the end user, but that was also true for Windows 10 and Windows 11.
This is presented as convenience vs privacy/control. The funny(tragically) thing is that the only thing preventing you from having both is people overwhelmingly choosing convenience without understanding or caring about the tradeoff they are making. It is not that hard to use a Linux distro of your choice, it is not that hard to use Firefox, it is not that hard to not deliberately use FB/Google whatever. If you need Windows you can run it alongside other os. I also question the convenience of being at the end of one sided agreement that can be altered anytime and also whatever monetization MS decides they can shove into consumer versions of Windows, if it is in the cloud they can trivially disable any workaround.
If your whole digital presence is in the "cloud" in the hands of a single entity what are you going to do when some algorithm decides that you violated some rule and you do not have enough publicity to raise attention to your problem? You can not argue/convince or reason with a chatbot.
My experiences with cloud service providers have taught me that any time a vendor wants me to use a cloud service, there's a hidden knife they plan to twist. I won't name the provider, but I've...
My experiences with cloud service providers have taught me that any time a vendor wants me to use a cloud service, there's a hidden knife they plan to twist.
I won't name the provider, but I've caught them selling mutton as lamb through clean benchmarking more than once. For the price of a month worth of VM time, I can buy physical hardware and a year worth of connectivity.
The very existence of FinOps as a discipline is evidence enough to me that cloud service providers are not your friends.
Do you think your grandmother is going to do the FinOps work when Microsoft sells her an "WinAzure" tablet for 50 bucks?
Previous discussion: https://tildes.net/~tech/173e/microsoft_wants_to_move_windows_fully_to_the_cloud#comments wait i just realized you're the same OP again LOL
Why would I want my computer operating system to be cloud based?
You probably wouldn’t, but your company’s IT staff would. It’s like half of Citrix’s business is providing remote desktops.
That makes sense for a business context.
But on a home computer, that I own? Heck no. What is Windows thinking? (Answer: all of our data, no matter the cost.)
I don’t think there’s any indication that Microsoft is going to make windows cloud only any time soon. They’ll expand cloud functionality but the rest is just fear mongering from bored content creators.
Ding ding ding ding ding.
Microsoft is talking about launching a new Windows-based product and overzealous tech journalists and internet nerds automatically assume that it will be the only WIndows product. These headlines make absolutely no sense if you rub two brain cells together for more than a few seconds. Microsoft isn't going to kill desktop Windows any sooner than Apple is going to stop selling laptops.
So you can access it from anywhere on any device and get near the same advantage.
RDP has been a thing for a long time. Back in the days of Unix it was common to have thin clients connect to the server and everything happen server side. This is exactly the same. Being in IT for almost three decades means I've seen the circle of do it local, do it server, do it local, do it server. Don't be fooled by the name Cloud, it just means someone else's servers in their data centre (buildings) rather than your own or your companies. Big companies have lots of clever people working there to keep it all more secure, but when mistakes happen they affect far more than just a small amount of people.
Back to your question: you'd want your OS in the cloud if you were rendering a 3D CAD drawing that would cost you an expensive GPU if you did it local, but only 25p for the one off render in the cloud. You'd want your OS in the cloud if you wanted to have exactly the same machine available if you logged in from a Chromebook at home, an Apple at the office and a public PC at the airport. You'd always get your apps, your files and everything else with your settings.
I get the point you're making, and agree there are many potential benefits to greater and lesser degrees depending on your use-case, especially in the business context you're describing. I'm a big fan of the "the cloud is just someone else's computer" maxim.
But it's not exactly the same thing, is it. The big difference is that your Unix server was still local, and your connection was an ethernet cable directly into your server (I'm sure this is simplified but still true for my point). What MS is talking about is applying this model over the internet. Right now only about 80% of adults in the U.S. say they have broadband internet, excluding many rural and low-income (urban and rural) populations. And we can safely speculate that a large percentage of them are forced to use one provider, typically Comcast or one of the other providers which have monopoly contracts around the country, all of which have famously... spotty... reliability and customer service records. So you're talking about having access to high-speed internet, and having that internet be reliable -- you're only talking about business use, and only businesses that can afford that kind of connection and customer service from ISPs.
There's zero chance that Microsoft would kill local desktop. Absolutely none. All that would do is drive Linux adoption, not make people migrate to cloud. Besides, the cloud offering will still be a local windows install, just on a server. So they'd still have to create some form of local Windows anyway.
What's really going to happen is that they'll try and use this to get more people to buy into 365 and online backup storage. They'll have features like "sync all your content anywhere", while still letting you have your local install. This is an upsell not a replacement.
What you're saying is true in theory but may not be in practice. This assumes a rational actor who takes management decisions but from many recent corporate examples, one can see this may not always be true. For example, the Meta and Threads debacle, what's happening with Twitter and Reddit right now, etc. In all these cases, the decision maker is either irrational or takes advice from sycophants who are just telling them what they want to hear.
For all their faults, Microsoft has been a fairly stable company. Investment wise, most are upset they are too conservative and missed the train on modern things like phones and wearables. Sure they could change but it's unlikely. The board the directors are not at risk of being bought out nor putting in an ego maniac.
They don't have to "kill" it. They just have to make it expensive enough and difficult enough to use as to make it impractical to use for all intents and purposes. And we know their track record, they've done exactly that numerous time for a variety of different things, so how do you think that's going to pan out?
Still not happening. Why would they give up domination of the home market?
And what track record are we talking about here? I can't recall many software products Microsoft has killed. I really can't think of any that they've changed the pricing structure of in a way that makes it harder for normal people. If anything, they've steered their pricing lower to capture even more of the home market. Office 2000 was $500 ($900 today money) for a new license while currently 365 is $70 a year for a single. Yeah it's subscription based which sucks but it is a much lower cost.
So... they're just going to support Windows 10 forever? That would be... unusual... given their past history.
Eventually, Microsoft will stop supporting old versions of Windows that don't do what they want. And new computers will be sold with new versions of Windows. Eventually, we'll all be forced on to the new cloud-based Windows, whether we like it or not.
Google might have our emails, but Microsoft has realised it can get access to our documents, and it won't stop till it gets its grubby paws on our data.
Windows 11 is local install so I'm not sure why you're talking about 10.
Think about it for a moment and you'll realize your statement is nonsense. You think Microsoft would rather have to create enough cloud computing to support the entire worlds basic computing needs than just letting them buy some software which requires no expensive maintenance? And you think the entire consumer hardware ecosystem would just roll over and die since no one would be able to use hardware anymore.
It's absolutely insane that anyone is taking the "threat" of cloud only computing seriously. The only real threat is Microsoft taking away the perpetual licenses and moving to recurring ones but even that I doubt as they won't be allowed to brick a machine just because you stopped payment on the OS.
Well, just apply my statement to whichever version of Windows will be the last locally installed version, just before Microsoft migrates everyone to a cloud-based operating system.
In this modern digital world, data is money. Google knows this. Facebook/Instagram/Meta knows this. Even Reddit knows this. It doesn't surprise me at all that Microsoft now wants a piece of the action.
This isn't the first time this has come up. In that other article:
How do you keep misunderstanding. "Moving Windows to the cloud" does not mean "There shall never be local Windows again". They're saying that consumer based cloud deployments are a new avenue for growth that Microsoft wants to explore. That's it. No more. It's an upsell not a replacement!
I don't know. Maybe I read a headline like "Microsoft wants to move Windows fully to the cloud".
Surely, you mean downsell? Hosting the operating system, and all my personal documents, on Microsoft's servers, where my access to them can be withdrawn at any time, and where Microsoft gets to trawl through that information at their leisure, seems like a reduction of utility, rather than an increase.
I'm not talking about features or quality. I'm talking about money here. It's going to be an upsell that costs you more and generates them more revenue, but it'll be in addition.
Look I'm done arguing this as this conversation is going nowhere. I don't believe you're looking at this objectively at all.
By the way... I let this slide last time, but you've done it twice now.
If I took this tone with you, I would have people jumping all over me for being aggressive and rude. It happened repeatedly in the past, so I've made a commitment to myself to avoid behaving like that on Tildes any more.
I would ask you to please do the same.
Or... I could take the gloves off, respond in kind, and get us both chastised for aggression.
Your choice.
Yeah, the security aspect isn't what bothers me. I don't want to be forced to pay a subscription to MS to continue to own my own computer. There are some benefits, many of which aren't super appealing to me, that they will use to hook you in with low introductory rates. Then 3-5 years later when they need to show quarter over quarter growth to shareholders they will decide that the $25 a month I was paying should actually be $60, or else I lose all my data. Fuck. That.
Not to mention I travel for work and often have limited internet in many locations. I have 4 TB in my laptop for media and games and it's still not as much as I would like. Cloud is great when you're generally in your own home near a city. When you go to remote locations and your laptop is one of your few creature comforts, cloud based OS sounds like absolute hell.
Absolutely. I was simply answering OPs question of "Why would I want my computer operating system to be cloud based?".
The thought of this for me, from a user perspective, is horrific. Spotty internet, no computer. That email once a year of the 18% price increase to keep it "secure". Urgh.
Putting on my business hat, this is a great idea if my company IT is OpEx and we're embracing cloud from a global perspective. Everything uniform, data inside is better protected from exfiltration as only company cloud machines can touch it.
Business hat and big company data, urgh again. Editing video over the net is horrid. Even Teradici and the PCoIP clients cannot make a good experience on shitty internet. Yeah, it's not bad, but it isn't good either. They cannot fix low bandwidth internet connections for the world, so this is only going to be good for city dwellers. Even then, not all cities are on fast internet.
I feel like MS is really trying to turn your day to day OS into a subscription and "cloud" is just their excuse. From a business perspective cloud is already super achievable with existing offerings, even for small businesses. This is purely a subscription money grab that will massively hurt the end users. I guess it's time to finally go full Ubuntu.
Most everything I want to do online, like email, docs, &c. I can already do from any PC with a web browser. I'd still rather just have a proper operating system on my home PC.
I can sort of understand why a business might want this. Though my current company we all have Mac laptops and all of our business apps are online, so again no need for a remote desktop or operating system that's dumbed down to a terminal.
The advantages for MS are as obvious as disadvantages for the end user, but that was also true for Windows 10 and Windows 11.
This is presented as convenience vs privacy/control. The funny(tragically) thing is that the only thing preventing you from having both is people overwhelmingly choosing convenience without understanding or caring about the tradeoff they are making. It is not that hard to use a Linux distro of your choice, it is not that hard to use Firefox, it is not that hard to not deliberately use FB/Google whatever. If you need Windows you can run it alongside other os. I also question the convenience of being at the end of one sided agreement that can be altered anytime and also whatever monetization MS decides they can shove into consumer versions of Windows, if it is in the cloud they can trivially disable any workaround.
If your whole digital presence is in the "cloud" in the hands of a single entity what are you going to do when some algorithm decides that you violated some rule and you do not have enough publicity to raise attention to your problem? You can not argue/convince or reason with a chatbot.
If Microsoft moves windows to the cloud, it will be a lot easier to dual boot on Linux.
My experiences with cloud service providers have taught me that any time a vendor wants me to use a cloud service, there's a hidden knife they plan to twist.
I won't name the provider, but I've caught them selling mutton as lamb through clean benchmarking more than once. For the price of a month worth of VM time, I can buy physical hardware and a year worth of connectivity.
The very existence of FinOps as a discipline is evidence enough to me that cloud service providers are not your friends.
Do you think your grandmother is going to do the FinOps work when Microsoft sells her an "WinAzure" tablet for 50 bucks?
Yeah, I'm kind of done. SaaS only works if I can trust the provider to not backstab me once I'm stuck with them, and I do not trust the provider.
Previous discussion: https://tildes.net/~tech/173e/microsoft_wants_to_move_windows_fully_to_the_cloud#comments
wait i just realized you're the same OP again LOL
I forgot I even posted that
Your internet is bad that you can’t play on xcloud? Now even steam is going to be xcloud.