Rumour. Windows may rent Windows.

[deathjester]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-wzor-wpc-update-microsoft,27214.html

 

Kevin Parrish doesn't think this is a bad idea.

 

"What's interesting about the WZor post is the use of the term "rent." Does Microsoft plan to offer a monthly subscription? Microsoft has already crossed that bridge with Office 2013, allowing customers to pay $9.99 per month and receive updates immediately rather than three years down the road. We've heard in the past that Microsoft was toying with the idea. Honestly, a five-seat subscription bundle would be an interesting product." (I hate you Kevin Parrish)

"Right now developers of the new activation system and experts of new products promotion are discussing on these topics. To be more specific, they are discussing how to make possible to rent a product or working time on it," WZor writes.

Interesting."

 

I really hope Mantle takes off and goes to Linux. Was very encouraging to see that games list someone posted the other day. I think I can live without MS Paint, Notepad, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, and that fine movie maker they have. 

[Dredgy]

So long as it's still fully purchasable as well.

[ROK]

might be something like TechNet that they killed a few months ago.

[Victorious Secret]

Hate Kevin? Hate is a strong word. 

 

The subscription model has a lot of merit. Of course MS might very well still sell Windows separately, but renting out a OS? Not the worst idea to be perfectly honest. Its all in the EXECUTION. If they execute it right, it would be great. I won't blast MS before they even attempt anything. 

 

Mantle taking off means very little, since Nvidia and Intel can then just incorporate that back into their existing drivers. Thats assuming Mantle ever goes open source like AMD claims it is, when in its current format it isn't. 

 

Linux getting games is great, but Linux is genuinely baffling to AVERAGE CONSUMERS and even to Pros, who wants to burn time trying to get Adobe CC working through Wine? I sure as hell don't. 

 

Till Linux has mass market appeal, they'll stay last. Even OSX is more consumer and professional and gamer friendly than Linux. 

[Imaginaerum]

So long as it's still fully purchasable as well.

That's what we said with Adobe... I wouldn't mind a subscription as long as it's not $100 every 10 months.

[Dredgy]

That's what we said with Adobe... I wouldn't mind a subscription as long as it's not $100 every 10 months.

 

Yea, Adobe's fine with me? I paid for CS6 outright, which is what I want to do with Windows.

 

Windows bothers me less though, since I have a volume licenses available through my developer subscription. And I can't see them taking away developer copies.

[Victorious Secret]

That's what we said with Adobe... I wouldn't mind a subscription as long as it's not $100 every 10 months.

 

I'm not a fan of how Adobe did it in the start (but then they went and gave me 20 bucks a month for all access, so I got less upset). CS6 Photoshop on its own costs as much as a few years worth of CC subscription to Photoshop AND Lightroom. That gap however narrows when you get a full subscription for normal pricing, since CS6 was/is around 2 grand, so the CC subscription costs added up faster. 

 

 

Its all in the execution, if they do it right it could work well. If they STP, well; I'm sure OP will have a field day about them screwing up. But time will tell how they implement it. 

 

Whether we approve or not, subscription based services are going to be the thing, I'd rather we work with content providers and developers and MS and help refine it, instead of outright negativity and not believing in it. 

[Misanthrope]

So in other words.....Always-online DRM? Called it.

[dandu3]

Windows XP actually had a subscription based version for poor people or something like that.

anyways, tpb is here *AEHSDFSDMFEHEMAHEMAHEMHMEHM*

[Ren]

Paying +10-30%, maybe even more depending on who you talk to, over the entire lifespan of an OS to "rent it", such a shitty term, doesn't sound that bad to me. Even if it weren't that and was just a subscription-based service or something, I'd do it if it were cheap enough per month. Looks like they'd essentially be limited (or limiting themselves) to maybe 8/12/16 month payment plans with this post, though.

 

Edit: Limiting themselves isn't exactly what I want to say. I guess I mean that other options make less sense or are more complicated to the general public, but $1.50 per month over 4-6 years, roughly what a 64bit version of Windows costs, is nothing to me. Even paying up to $3.00/mo is still no big deal to me, as long as the product isn't ass.

 

 

 

OS upfront cost is so dumb when you're trying to limit yourself to a specific budget. And yeah, as long as they leave the option for people to just buy it outright I think it'd work flawlessly.

 

If they don't, people will just rent until the next good thing comes out and drop Windows like it's the deformed child of Lucifer. That may be good in some ways (forcing MS to do certain things to stay relevant) but it'd likely hurt them more than anything. People won't go back if Linux/Ubuntu and/or SteamOS take off at the same time this occurs..

 

 

I say Microsoft should do it.

[Ren]

So in other words.....Always-online DRM? Called it.

 

Some versions of Windows are already like this, I thought? At least I'd thought in theory, it can be turned off/deactivated at any given moment. If it actually required an internet connection, that'd be a different story. I think that a solution to that problem would be to just have certain things locked off when your system has no internet connection. Basically something along the lines of safe mode w/o networking.

 

 

What I don't like is it's forcing more pressure on owning an internet connection. I understand most people almost can't live without one or use some form of internet connection on a very regular basis already, but at this time I don't have much faith in North America's ISPs.

[GoodBytes]

Office 2013 subscription is excellent value, and cheaper than buying the non subscription version if you have more than 1 system.

I expect it to be some sort of family pack. Imagine for the price of 2 Windows, you can install it and use it on 5 PCs, and the Pro version, and get automatically upgraded to the new version of Windows when it comes out.

There is just no down side to this. If you have 1 system, then just get the full disk version. but most of use have at least 2 PCs.

[mr moose]

So long as overall it is either better value or is an optional perk that warrants the extra cost I don't see why it would be a problem. 

[The_Strict_Nein]

 

I want to buy a product like Windows once, then get updates for free till the product is dead. Anything else, I''m going to continue to stick with Windows 7.

[LAwLz]

Office 2013 subscription is excellent value, and cheaper than buying the non subscription version if you have more than 1 system.

I expect it to be some sort of family pack. Imagine for the price of 2 Windows, you can install it and use it on 5 PCs, and the Pro version, and get automatically upgraded to the new version of Windows when it comes out.

There is just no down side to this. If you have 1 system, then just get the full disk version. but most of use have at least 2 PCs.

-This message was brought to you by Microsoft Corporation®

; )

 

 

So in other words.....Always-online DRM? Called it.

Yeah I wouldn't even use that if it was free.

Honestly, for the last few years every single thing Microsoft have said have made me hate them more.

I don't even like Stallman and yet he is starting to seem more and more like a fairly reasonable person when you look at all the copious amounts of bullshit other companies are shoving down the throats of their customers.

[Misanthrope]

-This message was brought to you by Microsoft Corporation®

; )

 

 

Yeah I wouldn't even use that if it was free.

Honestly, for the last few years every single thing Microsoft have said have made me hate them more.

I don't even like Stallman and yet he is starting to seem more and more like a fairly reasonable person when you look at all the copious amounts of bullshit other companies are shoving down the throats of their customers.

 

Obligatory xkcd image

[Misanthrope]

Some versions of Windows are already like this, I thought? At least I'd thought in theory, it can be turned off/deactivated at any given moment. If it actually required an internet connection, that'd be a different story. I think that a solution to that problem would be to just have certain things locked off when your system has no internet connection. Basically something along the lines of safe mode w/o networking.

 

 

What I don't like is it's forcing more pressure on owning an internet connection. I understand most people almost can't live without one or use some form of internet connection on a very regular basis already, but at this time I don't have much faith in North America's ISPs.

 

As long as this is all rumors this is speculation, so bear in mind that none of this is really valid, but nevertheless is fun to speculate so let's do just that shall we?

You're thinking more of an activate/deactivate system. The activation will require an online connection that rumor is fairly credible if you ask me. That alone will have it's issues at launch but let's pretend MS will get magical servers that warp past the speed of light and have infinite performance continously so their activation servers will work fine.

This is specifically talking about windows as a service. This means that it will work as if it was a cloud based service, meaning that it will either require very frequent checks to their servers to stay activated so at least "once every 24 hours" Like I believe they planned with the xbone but maybe even more frequent since they would like to pretend they're delivering the entire OS as a cloud service so it could be possible they want constant connection to the internet. In fact I'm betting that will be the case.

 

Some would say that this might just be aimed at corporations and such and you'd think that they have a lot more reliable internet connections, only if you ever worked at any company that isn't a giant like most of use, you know this is most certainly not the case at all: I've seen most companies that struggle with connections that are as reliable as home hook ups or worst.

So again my educated guess is that this indicates it will be the exact same system they wanted for the xbone but they will try to sell you the (bullshit) idea that the "cloud" will help with compute and such when in reality most of the heavy lifting will be done by the client anyway and you're just paying for potentially the worst and most restrictive DRM method ever conceived.