Windows 8 WTH

[Regenweald]

I'm not going to lie to you guys, I'm a windows lover, I really am, I'm also an Ubuntu and Opensolaris(now oracle solaris express) lover. But if this has a shread of reality in it, The next time I install Ubuntu(probably 11.04 ) will be the beginning of my new permanent life in *.Linux (ehem, cough cough, dual boot with win7 for fun )

[rambaldi]

Originally Posted by Regenweald

I'm not going to lie to you guys, I'm a windows lover, I really am, I'm also an Ubuntu and Opensolaris(now oracle solaris express) lover. But if this has a shread of reality in it, The next time I install Ubuntu(probably 11.04 ) will be the beginning of my new permanent life in *.Linux (ehem, cough cough, dual boot with win7 for fun )

That is so going to blow up in their faces, soon as someone gets into the main system we are going to see the quickest roll out of a bot net ever (not including microsofts own)

[Regenweald]

Or maybe once ChromeOS does a faceplant, they'll come to their senses and create a 'proper' OS ....

[TheHolyLancer]

lol, unless they get Dx11 running naively on there this is for the lower usage users


not to mention VHD!? yeah ok, that crap works much worse than VMware stuff... granted that was with some experience from a few year ago, but hey not a lot of companies even use Hypver-V (or xen) and uses ESX only.


O and another thought, are they trying to do what IBM does with AIX on power? where they have to sell you this hypervisor (PowerVM) on top of the OS just so their OS works? And that you have to subscribe to their OS and hypervisor in order for it to work, thus gaining subscription fees?

O i know microsoft would love that! No more windows xp gap where they can't get paid!

[rich wargo]

It won't sell, except to large end users, who will insist on keeping their own servers, so it's really not much different than "thin client" systems.

But for those of us who use more than standard, vanilla applications, Microsoft's plan is a non-starter. Too many changes required for too many applications.

[Palliot]

I actually think its a great concept. Of course Im assuming MS will provide a smooth upgrade path (as they usually do, whatever you may think of MS), eg I dont see why couldnt allow installing local 'legacy apps' and even a legacy OS VM instance to run them on. But this makes a lot of sense for lot of users.

I do wonder if this is somehow related to MS' obtaining an ARM architecture license (and ARM's sudden focus on virtualization, which is of questionable use for mobile phones, tablets and most other things besides a server). Virtualizing the OS doesnt make it binary compatible with your x86 apps of course, but it would certainly help.

[rich wargo]

I don't like this at all. If your network connection goes, so does your computer.

I will not be held captive by Microsoft's greed. If they pursue this, I will definitely find alternatives.

And what about those systems without Internet access? I'm in the midst of construction that includes a rather large facilities management and control system that will not, repeat, will not be connected to the Internet. I can't imagine my employer going along with Microsoft's nonsensical scheme. And I imagine other large manufacturing and operational companies will be in same boat. Our operations are much more important to us than Microsoft's greed. We can do without Microsoft and Windoze; can Microsoft do without us?

[TheHolyLancer]

oh but you can! internal lan pc that is thin client.

maybe not so far as command and control stuff but the workers that use the thing would be able to be "big brother-ed" by the corporates not to mention the ease of fixing some crap with it not being there (hello this is broken, can you fix, instead of rdc and what nots, they just reboot it to the standard image with the config set).

control systems should be still stand alone for the sake of continuous op in case mainframe dies, but I could see ways to make a server (in house, nothing going to the internet, likely lan) that hosts these command and control systems and push them into the nodes, in essence the computer them selves are simply the actor and the central node does all the thinking, back to mainframes anyone?

do you think something like that will work rich? or would it be too impractical given that the central system may be too expensive / difficult to kill off single point of failure? or some other issues.

[JHFolsom]

Originally Posted by rich wargo

I don't like this at all. If your network connection goes, so does your computer.

I will not be held captive by Microsoft's greed. If they pursue this, I will definitely find alternatives.

And what about those systems without Internet access? I'm in the midst of construction that includes a rather large facilities management and control system that will not, repeat, will not be connected to the Internet. I can't imagine my employer going along with Microsoft's nonsensical scheme. And I imagine other large manufacturing and operational companies will be in same boat. Our operations are much more important to us than Microsoft's greed. We can do without Microsoft and Windoze; can Microsoft do without us?

For the end users that get their operating systems through OEMs I think this could be a fantastic thing. Add local caching and that internet problem goes away.

More than a few things this solves for the consumer.

Application Recovery in the event of catastrophic failure -
A lot of users are on the back up your data train now, but one thing we consistently ran into on the sales floor were people who assumed backing up their data meant their programs are backed up. This can actually happen if this goes through.

When windows users talk to mac users about not being able to back up applications, the mac users kinda laugh and for good reason. This is more of MS trying to blunt the legitimate advantages Apple actually offers to end users.

Reliance on other people to use their computer-

Most end users rely on a family member or friend or professional just to manage their OS, I see this as a step in the right direction on that front.

Liscencing -

This article implies that MS will stop charging for the actual installation as much as having the right to have a user profile. This allows people to liscence people in their home and not computers, which brings me to my next point.

Upgrades -

How many times have those of us that have been using windows for a while run into this. With the focus on liscences being shifted to users I think we have a chance to throw away those pain in the ass moments when Windows says we've changed machines.


Keep in mind this is all pie and the sky, depends on these rumors being true, and microsoft not being unwelcome rashes.

I'm just saying I don't dislike the idea as much as i dislike the thought of how it will be executed.

[rich wargo]

I don't see Microsoft being so generous as allowing users to float between PCs, especially for the dumb-ass, oops, I mean home, market.