No.

[Ferno]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/art ... rc=hm_list

If this actually happens, XP is going to be the last OS i use from MS.

[Grendel]

I could see a market for it, but I'm also sure it won't go over well w/ the average Joe. Should be fun to hack.

[Gekko71]

I could see a market for it, but I'm also sure it won't go over well w/ the average Joe. Should be fun to hack.

(Out of curiosity, which market could you see going for it Gren? Cause I'm racking my brains to think of one. The ONLY plus I could see coming out of such a system would be lower TCO for some enterprise wide applications. But even then, it's dodgey.)

Microsoft have gone drunk with power IMHO. It's not enough to force-feed us a cra[p OS - now we have to pay for each mouthfull on a sliding scale??

And what are they going to do with the data that they collect? The database of information they could potentially collate is scary!

I'm with Ferno on this one - give MS the boot ...preferably a steel-capped one. Linux just started to look a whole lot more attractive. (If only Adobe would support it, I'd be a very happy man)

[Krom]

Its turning a computer into a subscription, you pay little or zero up front cost for it. Surely there are plenty of idiots more than willing to pay for something like that, this forum is just an exceptionally poor audience for this type of product.

Of course even the most powerful system you can possibly buy can only keep up with the software development cycle for about 18 months before you will start to run into things that it simply isn't fast enough to do... Unless all you do is check your email and word processing and other simple home/office tasks. So how often they replace the machines to keep up, how much that costs you, and what you do about your files and preferences could make things more complicated.

Also I would have a LOT of reservations about any desktop computer with a black box \"security module\" installed. The openness of computers is the biggest part of what makes them insecure and susceptible to exploits and cracks, but at the same time it is also an absolute requirement to keeping all the big players honest. Because of the openness of the system, any user that wants to know what their system is doing in the background can find out. Closed systems allow the administrators to do whatever they please while keeping it a secret from all the users, I definitely don't want to see that kind of power available to Microsoft or any other corporation/industry.

[Spidey]

On the surface, that’s about the dumbest thing I ever heard, so I would have to say it’s about control and not what they claim.

And if you wanted to be a ★■◆●, you get a bunch of people to buy this “super duper” computer, and run it at the lowest level possible for years, that would insure they never recouped their investment…lol or just hack it, like someone already said.

Yea, I’m going to buy a computer like that…right after I buy the one with all my apps located online…lol!!!

[Capm]

That has got to be the greediest and dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I don't care how great games are for windows, I'll never use it again if they try to pull that crap.

[Canuck]

So running a puter 24/7 365 a year on all cores is going to cost me $13,140.00 on top of what I paid for hardware? Yup sign me up

[TigerRaptor]

Any kind of software that requires a monthly $ubstitution will never touch my machine. So I don't have a problem kicking Microsoft to the curb.

If Microsoft some how does pull this joke off. I can only imagine Apple will take a big leap in sales.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Knowing how stupid (blindly following their nose to the money) corporations are, it's not hard to imagine that they are at least the initial target (might end up being worth it, in some cases). Some of the things I've heard about it would seem to indicate that that's the case. I can't see them marketing this to anyone else but (old) people who use PCs for word processing and printing.

The real problem is that it's largely a solution to a problem they've created... what do you bet me that compatibility mode will be flawless under this sort of system?

...No... I'm afraid I can see them pulling it off.

If Obama can be elected president of the United States, it's only a matter of time before a lot of people are paying MS a subscription fee.

No thank you.

[DarkFlameWolf]

★■◆● MS, this is stupid.

[dissent]

applying for a patent and actually getting a patent are two very different things.


I'm getting an image of two words with this idea -

Lead and balloon.

[Bet51987]

I think their looking for another source of revenue to take the place of the Windows operating system. I read an article that their aren't many more features that can be incorporated into Windows to cause people to run out and buy the next version. Windows 7 may be the last for some time and is due out late 2009 to take the place of the horrible Vista.

My new Laptop came with Vista and IE7 is always closing on me but my XP desktop computer never fails me. I don't like the pay idea either and will keep what I have or go Apple.

Thorne... I can't believe you brought Obama into this discussion...

Bee

[Gooberman]

Thorne... I can't believe you brought Obama into this discussion...

[Kilarin]

Linux just started to look a whole lot more attractive. (If only Adobe would support it, I'd be a very happy man)

Wine 1.0 supposedly runs Adobe Photoshop pretty well. <linky>

[Nightshade]

Obama is going to be the Windows Vista of presidents. ;P

[Kilarin]

Obama is going to be the Windows Vista of presidents. ;P

I won't use Vista because I feel it's spyware. Which makes me identify it with George W. Bush.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It wasn't a political jab. You may not like it, and you may not agree, but what Obama is all about is not what he ran on. There were essentially three groups of people in this country with regard to the democratic ticket. \"Progressives\"--the idealistic political left who believe that liberal agendas are the salvation of this country; Suckers--naive, gullible people who bought up what Obama was selling and think he's JFK or in any way represents any good thing from America's past; and the people who didn't want him in office.

Guess which of these three is not going to be disappointed?

If this bothers you, then from now on try not to look at me funny when my opinion somehow slips out in my posts.

Obama and Vista, eh? I don't see it. You think Obama is going to grab up resources we would rather put to work for ourselves, force us to change how we do things, yet be livable, thought ultimately leave us less free?

[d3jake]

$10 says some kind of political debate breaks out hiding itself under the veil of comparing Presidents and President-elects.

Anyway, this is similar to what I had said about Vista before it came out. I don't want an operating system to tell me what I can do with my hardware that I purchased and is MINE. In this same way I don't want to be charged based upon how much I use my hardware. If this actually happens I'll ride XP until it dies and jump ship to Linux, which due to a mass exodus, should have enough emulators that are stable to run all of my Windohs only applications.

[Spidey]

Just because MS may offer a product like this, doesn’t imply it will be the only product offered.

[Sergeant Thorne]

That's true. The thought had crossed my mind that if may be only for business. I don't know, I just don't see them going half-way on something like that. Maybe you're right, though. I hope so. Windows does have its good points (or I wouldn't be using it), not the least of which is developer support, which is no accident.

[Dakatsu]

Dude, hell no, imma gonna say f*ck dat if they try this. Apple/Linux/MS-DOS here I come!

[woodchip]

So it seems the \"concept\" wraps around a computer you bought. How would this affect a computer you built with no blackbox parts?

And yeah, MS will loose a lot of the knowledgeable computor users and only be able to harvest the great unknowing masses of computer users

[CDN_Merlin]

Anyone playing WOW is doing what MS wants to do. Pay a monthly or yearly subscription for a game/OS.

I won't do it unless there are no alternatives.

[Foil]

Come on, calm down, folks.

Most of you are acting as if MS announced their next OS was going to be exclusively \"pay-as-you-go\", with no other options.

Like they said, this is an option for specific markets only. I can see it as being useful for things like:

• public workstations
• people who only need functionality for a short time (e.g. business travelers who just need a demo machine for short presentations)
• folks like my grandparents, who only use their computer maybe once a week
• etc.

They aren't going to force this on frequent users, because there isn't a market for it there.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Your grandparents would be better off buying an economy computer and owning it. It's just better not to have people's hands in your pocket when they don't need to be there. This may make sense for businesses, but businesses are crazy.

(functionality for a short time can be rented)

[Foil]

Your grandparents would be better off buying an economy computer and owning it.

They might agree, but if this model allows them to have the machine without the up-front costs (even an economy machine is at least a couple hundred $$ these days), that might appeal to them.

(functionality for a short time can be rented)

Yes, and computer rental companies may want to use this model, especially if their business fluctuates a lot.

------------

There's some level of market for this, apparently enough that MS is going for the business. Maybe they're wrong, and very few people will buy into it... or maybe it'll find a niche like pay-as-you-go cell phones. Either way, we'll see.

[Spidey]

No, lets all panic instead.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, well. Microsoft makes OS software sooooooooo buggy and full of security holes that it wouldn't float in oil and now they want to charge us for the privilege of using it this NEW way? What, so we can pay surcharges for the constant security updates that they have to work on to keep the OS stable and infection free? Bwahahahahahahahahah!:twisted:

Maybe if they worked together with hardware vendors like Hewlett Packard (yes, it's possible) did years ago to make a stable and secure OS, I wouldn't feel so negative towards Microsqish.

Don't forget, they're almost a MONOPOLY when it comes to the consumer PC. They may get what they want. They've already lobbied Congress in the past to protect themselves from damage lawsuits and corporate lost productivity caused by their crappy software. Ever read that stupid EULA? YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS THAT PROTECT YOU!.

[Sirius]

What is this, paranoia-ville?

[Foil]

Apparently.

[snoopy]

Anyone playing WOW is doing what MS wants to do. Pay a monthly or yearly subscription for a game/OS.

I won't do it unless there are no alternatives.

I tend to disagree. People pay subscriptions for services... such as electricity, internet, game servers... They are justified by the fact the there are ongoing costs to the company to continue providing the service.

MS wants to turn computing power into a service... which doesn't seem to properly follow. Once the hardware is produced, all it takes is electricity to run, which is traditionally provide by the user.

Now, on a software level, you could consider use of a given program a lease sort of thing. It'd be kinda a racket if the OS carried that sort of pay per use scheme. It'd certainly get them some revenue on the pre-packaged OSes that they currently don't really make much on.

Either way, I'm on Linux, and don't plan on converting back. I am somewhat scared that Linux will start costing money... but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

[Sirius]

What this is is really a different model for leasing computers. If you're going to use them a lot, I think you'd still be a fool not to buy them outright.

[Ferno]

What this is is really a different model for leasing computers. If you're going to use them a lot, I think you'd still be a fool not to buy them outright.

that's the point. we buy these things because we expect to have the freedom to use them how we wish. not be told how they're to be used and charged for it.

[DarkHorse]

I've never met anyone who leased a PC. I don't see how MS figures there's a market for it.

I looked over this thread as well, but most of you have lost the plot.

[Gekko71]

I've never met anyone who leased a PC. I don't see how MS figures there's a market for it.

I looked over this thread as well, but most of you have lost the plot.

The thing that bothers me DarkHorse is that the whole idea opens up numerous nasty worm-cans.

For example, this technology could potentially (and more fairly IMHO) be applied to a specific app. plugin. This would offer a nice revenue stream for software developers and guarantee them licensing revenues on their IP. I would see this as potentially a *positive* step for developers ...unfortunately it's Microsoft doing the patenting and they have a nasty habit of burying as much IP as they license and keeping the best stuff only for themselves.

(There are software developers in the audience ...am I right in saying this about MS, or have their IP sharing practices improved?)

There seems to be consensus here that there is limited demand for such a service from the average consumer - I agree on this point. Seems to me that this technology patent though is more about controling business computing environments and creating residual revenue streams rather than the actions of consumers.

Suppose Microsoft build such functionality into all their products - then start charging all businesses that use their stuff on a pay-per-use basis? Huge extra revenue for MS and higher costs for us all as the additional expense is passed on.

Patents aren't just about leveraging technology - as Sarge Thorne intimated, they're also about leveraging business environments and slainting the playing field in your favour. This is something that MS have an *appalling* recond with (anti-trust suits, separation of services and products lawsuits, ...remember IE versus Netscape back in the early 90s? Microsoft has been litigated against by more individual states and countries than any other company in history IIRC).

When a company with a long history of international anti-competitive practices and an unshakable market monopoly patents a technology that allows it to charge people/businesses per useage - AND potentially deny other developers/businesses the opportunity to do the same ....that's plenty of cause for concern in my book.

Have a careful read of the wording of their patent application and see for yourself - their patent definition / description statement allows them to apply this technology to everything from PCs to gaming systems, business machinery, GPS Sat-Nav systems and much more besides. That's a LOT of potential residual revenue streams to have control over. Plus they could take this tecnology and expand their core business offerings into new sectors.

( http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Par ... 0080319910\\ )

[EngDrewman]

Ever read that stupid EULA? YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS THAT PROTECT YOU!.

very good point- in fact, to me the EULA is often what you agree to let the software company do with your computer, which is why I use the program EULAlyzer to scan them for interesting phrases, especially the ones that are as long as a book, like M$'s. Easy way to stop spyware.

I have a feeling that this "pay as you go" Winblows won't happen- I've heard rumors of many other such corporate greed technologies that have been developed but not used, at least yet.

[Spidey]

There is no such thing as “corporate greed” corporations are incapable of emotions…all greed is human.

[Sirius]

I don't think MS is likely to start pushing this kind of thing where there isn't a market. Even corporations etc have a habit of biting the bullet and switching if a deal is going to kick them in the arse hard enough. They're more likely to advertise it as an alternative in the hopes that some sectors will want it. Will they? Don't know, but this news isn't actually going to hurt anyone here.

Unless you're planning to do the same thing yourself. It looks like what MS wants to do is make some sort of framework allowing hardware and software vendors to build a pay-as-you-go model into their software, and more than likely that means royalties straight to MS. Even if MS doesn't make that \"black-box\" hardware meter thingy themselves, which they may well not.

Can't tell you about how Microsoft deals with IP though. I do have to note that the bundling-software-with-Windows antitrust stuff actually put them in a somewhat tight spot; do you think an operating system that didn't ship with a web browser would actually be doing very well in this day and age? I don't use IE7, but I had to get Firefox somehow, no? It does of course mean the only viable opposition is free opposition, but that usually works out better anyway to be honest - anything that is generally a \"utility\" of the sort that could sensibly be bundled with the OS... SHOULD have a free (probably open-source) alternative. I honestly think this includes anti-virus software, but something tells me that isn't so likely to happen now.

Also, yeah, I actually read a lot of EULAs these days. Mostly the EA ones and other similar companies. Haven't found anything terrible yet though.

[Krom]

I can recall some court case which ended up ruling that you can't sign away your rights by agreeing to an EULA. Or in other words, your base legal rights override what software companies put in their EULA.

[Sirius]

I've started seeing that more recently. It is a good thing, too; shouldn't be allowed to circumvent laws just because it's in the EULA. Otherwise people will be sucked into that kind of thing, and usually the ones who don't know how to deal with it...