Microsoft moving fully to the cloud, does this mean something to us?
Microsoft moving fully to the cloud, does this mean something to us?
The strategy of Microsoft to move more and more Windows 11 to the cloud is recognized as a long-term opportunity in the “Modern Living”.
It means I’ll continue to happily use Linux.
Lol likewise!
I used to use OneDrive but they recently shrunk down everyone’s free storage capacity to laughably small space and now wish for everyone to subscribe to more paid space.
🖕🏼bye bye OneDrive.
That's cute. But there is software that only runs on Windows. And some people have to use it.
winehq.org runs most everything now. What can't you get to run?
Wouldn't moving Windows into the cloud basically make computers non-functional without internet? Because I can see a few problems with that, particularly for those in rural areas or who are travelling a lot.
I've hesitated to switch over to Linux in recent years, primarily due to concerns about compatibility with software and games, but I'd rather have to find new art software than pay a subscription for an operating system that I can't even use offline.
Omg are you in for a treat!
Steams work with proton, steam OS, and the steam deck means after switching my gaming pc to Linux last year, the only games out of the hundreds I have that don’t work are the ones whose launchers refuse to run on Linux.
Even Denuvo games work with a little effort
Highly recommend you give Linux another shot 😁
Gotta mention Pop_OS! as a fantastic beginner distro. My 72 year old mother refuses to use anything else. It's simple, has automated backups and disaster recovery, and installs non-free drivers for graphics cards.
I don't personally use it since it doesn't yet support Wayland and my gaming rig has a HiDPI screen and X11 doesn't support fractional scaling. Or per screen scaling.
I'm legally obligated to inform you that I run Arch.
Which distro would you recommend starting with?
It does not mean anything for me because I am not a Windows user. For Windows users it means subscription models and renting software. It could also mean eventually booting your computer into a desktop that is in the cloud. I hope to god that does not happen because it may make finding hardware that will run Linux and BSD that much harder.
I don't think it's possible for them to do so, because that would means killing the gaming aspect of Windows. GPU on cloud is stupidly overpriced and expensive, just look at Standard_NV6 for an example, it easily cost $10,000/yr according to this (Just look for anything that have "N" in it's name for GPU enabled VM and they are all expensive.)
If they try to ban everyone from being allowed to use their own computer hardware, I really doubt people would stay on Windows, they most likely would be in the 5 stages of griefs and then contemplate on switching to either Linux or Mac OSX.
My take on this Cloud-First-Windows vision that was leaked from a Microsoft presentation with very little details and just a lot of speculation:
If it actually happens, it will be more similar to a Chromebook, they will provide, likely an ARM based, low specs device with a basic Windows install that perhaps only has the cloud-connector (probably RDP based), One Drive to sync files, and Edge with extensions to run Office365 in offline mode.
Apps would just be either web-wrapper based apps, or RDP Apps, or you could just deploy your cloud desktop to do some work that requires more power.
I also think they would still provide an x86_64 based Windows for more powerful PCs for content creators and gamers.
In the very late 90s or early 2000s there was a leaked "October papers" or something like that. It detailed Microsoft's plan to move to Windows as a service. It seems like it is taking longer than they thought, but they've been moving this way for a long time.
I wish I kept a copy or was better at searching the old internet...
It means Windows is switching to a subscription model. It could be a good thing for some Linux users, if they need Windows for specific applications and don't want to spin up a VM. O can't see a reason for using it beyond that, other than being forced to, because Microsoft kills off yoir local Windows and turns your computer for a bootloader for a cloud system, which is itself a bootloader for your browser, for most people. What a terrible world we live in. Zero privacy guaranteed, a subscription model making Windows more profitable (again).
ALSO, good luck stripping down Windows, removing bloatware, ads and telemetry. I GUARANTEE you it will be impossible to remove ads and telemetry on Windows in the Cloud. And thus that crap will be FORCED on you!
However, since most retail hardware is built to target Windows compatibility, it could mean fewer options for hardware that will be easy to install Linux (or any other OS) on.
In fact, I would count on Microsift making their hardware spec intentionally be difficult to load anything "unapproved" on.
they are doing that already with secureboot.
altho i fortunatley haven't encountered machines yet where you can't disable it.
Precisely. Putting more of the control onto Microsoft server means this: you do anything that they don't like? No Windows for you. Oh, now we need more money so now we're putting in a shitty change, don't like it? Suck it up.
User choice harms companies
I personally don't see the "Eureka!" moment that big tech apparently does in moving EVERYTHING to the cloud when they struggle to design safe and reliable services as is. The whole cloud stuff just kind of says "sure it will be a privacy nightmare rife for exploitation from bad actors, but THINK of the money we could earn from it in the long run!"
That's basically it. They keep control. They can charge subscriptions. They own it. Not you.
Corporations will literally do anything except act remotely ethically towards consumers.
With the state of internet speeds in the US? No. This won't work.
Bingo! Rural in particular is slow and unreliable. Something like this isn't a practical option even if I was OK with it. I'm already planning to switch to Linux when I get a new PC or when Windows 10 hits EoL. This would make the switch a necessity.
I doubt people will pay for a windows subscription. Most will stay on 10/11 indefinitely and Microsoft will probably backtrack pretty quickly (look at windows 10 to 11 migration) 😉
And some will probably give Linux a try. I only stopped pirating Windows because it got free, but I have no intention to pay a subscription to be able to use my fucking PC.
everytime I am tempted at thinking maybe give w11 a try then some news pop up about how badly they put ad in everywhere. :P
"You will own nothing and be happy"
Considering how stadia panned out, this is a nothing burger for at least the next decade.
If they want to make some alternative "enterprise" version that is cloud-based, fine whatever, but the idea that I could theoretically pay for some other unrelated software from a different company and then lose access to it because my subscription cloud-os won't allow me access my own files and documents is ludicrous. It borders on theft.
Absolutely no way I'd go for that, I'd immediately go to Linux, especially now that Steam is supporting it.
I'm not entirely a fan the idea of having my OS run somewhere other than my own computer, unless it's like a remote lab I use for specific tasks. Like if I could use Linux, and just use this for my classes that run Windows exclusive software, then I'd maybe use it. Otherwise I think it's a bit weird to have your whole computer basically be in the cloud.
Yeah, good luck preventing forced "upgrades/updates" every time a new Windows OS comes out too. No thanks, I'll take my software locally thank you haha.
That sounds like a horrid decision. Imagine having to troubleshoot a relative's computer, which isn't working because their internet is down, or is too slow to support streaming Windows like that.
It just sounds like a nightmare all-round, both from a Microsoft Standpoint, since they would have to build all the hardware to support it, people who would have to troubleshoot an issue that might show up on either the local or networked version of Windows, but not both, and from a security standpoint, since it seems like it would make it a lot easier to just hijack the whole computer using that kind of mechanism, with the user being none the wiser, for the most part.
Guaranteed this is so they can run even more malicious proprietary software because client side malware scanners are a blocker for “progress”
And in the peak of all irony, they will likely have Linux running the client to stream in all the proprietary dogshit
honestly if not for DirectX and whatever windows specific thing, I would have use linux for a long time cause I am heavy gamer. I know this version of windows OS is probably experimenting offering stuff that are directly on the cloud(like office/team etc), I don't see them suddenly throw away local OS market and just let whoever wants to take over. (oh, and all the telemetry data, right? )
Telemetry won't be a topic anymore under such circumstances because will be implicit and the least of your worries. Tracking the input of the users will be part of the service they are paying for.
I don't understand what any of this means. Windows is now just Edge?
It means we’re about to see a lot more people asking for help with Linux.
Honestly, I see that as a win.
That's something I want to do, but I'm afraid of missing something while backing up up my files and losing it in the OS wipe. It's a lousy excuse, I know, but it still stops me. Mostly since I play a lot of games and don't want to lose any save files tucked away somewhere unexpected.
That stuff should all be in C:/Users, but what if its not. And would have to go to each of my installed pieces of software to make sure any of my files are properly backed up which is so much work. Which only reveals another issue that I am terrible at keeping my stuff backed up.
Buy a new hard drive, boot and run off that until you’re comfortable
Linux can run off a thumb drive, and continue to use your windows install drive as storage, losing you nothing at all.
I'll be more than happy for more people to migrate to linux (or mac, but many people just can't afford it) so MS doesn't have such a monopoly on the OS space.
Middle term? The phasing out of personal computers, and moving toward a system of servers/terminals where noone owns software.
You'll rent computing power or storage space, you'll only pay for the interface.It’s actually nonsense because you would still need some software on your computer to connect to the internet in the first place
Yeah, but you will get the most basic machine made up of a screen, touchpad, keyboard, basic ARM CPU, wifi and framebuffer. Those will be sold as Windows 365 terminals for a low price. Probably even subsidised and sent free if you subscribe for a year ahead.
I've used what used to be the shadow PC (before OVH got hold of it). That was surprisingly good. Latency often so low I could play FPS, yes not as good as playing local. But still not dying every single round because of it. But it DID need a fair amount of bandwidth to look good (30Mb/s was the point I think quality started to drop).
But in the end I don't want it to succeed, because if it does proper PC hardware will become hobbyist and niche. And we all know hobbyist niche items are expensive!
Why do you think they are suddenly so “friendly” with open source?
More fees.
Long term, there is some benefit to this sort of concept. You aren't going to have as much freedom to turn your cloud based OS into a custom build, but what you will have is a machine which will never have down time for patches and security updates. The user will be running their app remotely, using all the power and hardware of a data center, and the instance of the app can migrate from one host PC to another, seamlessly without any perception to the end user. Furthermore a user can access all their applications and data from whatever client they are using and it will migrate this session from their terminal, to their phone, to their AR HMDs.
It isn't going to be a change which happens over night, and it will be more like how car engine have become less user serviceable but more reliable and efficient. It will be a different experience for sure, but it has potential value beyond being a way to charge people subscriptions.
Ehhh we've been down that road before with thin clients. Anyone who has had to do their job on thin clients will tell you the experience never compares to running it locally
We have, and there are still things to solve before this is completely practical. This is still different than connecting to a mainframe over a 3270 terminal. A closer example of how this would work is port forwarding an X11 to a remote system or using SSH to tunnel to a server where I've ran screen. If I've connected to a GUI application running on a server or reconnected my SSH session, it is less important about where I'm connecting from. Extending this concept to Windows, you wouldn't even need local storage for most needs. It won't be practical for places with poor network connectivity, but where it is reliable, high bandwidth, and low latency, it won't be so discernable from local use for most business applications. This is probably the biggest driving force behind XCloud. If Microsoft can make games run across networks with minimal problems, business applications are going to do just fine. XCloud works great for me, allowing me to stream with few problems. That's less true for others in my family, so clearly this isn't something which can roll out to everyone, everywhere, all at once. I think it would be great to be able to spin up additional vCPU cores or grow drive space or system RAM as needed per process so that I'm not wasting cycles or underutilizing my hardware. It seems like this would become possible with this sort of platform.
a user can access all their applications and data from whatever client they are using
Also, users won't own their most basic data anymore, nor will they be able to control how it is used. Canceling a subscription (or being locked out) could mean loosing it all.
For a business, I see this as a strong benefit for this design. The work done for a company is the property of that company by most hiring contracts, so the work done on a remote system can by tightly controlled. At the same time, it would allow someone to use their own thin client to do both professional and personal work and keep things isolated. For someone doing freelance work, it makes sharing a natural extension of that process and access can be granted or revoked as it relates to contracts. That seems like an advantage to corporate IT departments.
As for individuals, I don't see how this takes away ownership. Regulations will be updated to allow users to request their data in compliance with GDPR requests, so nothing would become completely locked up. Should that be challenged ever, I don't think any jurisdiction would say that Microsoft owns the data. What a user will be able to do with the bits they receive is a different question.
Never underestimate greed is something I learned in my 46 years alive.
A point where could be good, is being able to work from home more easily, I mean I've applied to some companies where I could only work using their computers, so If I can work from home with this. But I don't really understand why they need it
If it wasn't clear from the article, that's already a thing. They can even set up your software for you. I can see how it would make managing hardware in lots of different places a lot easier.
I really don't see any benefit to it (for users) for home use. It's certainly an easy way to make Windows a subscription service and charge you for storage. It also pretty much wipes out any data privacy on your devices.