Microsoft Managed Desktop: Operating System As A Service, Anyone?

[Ace Pace]

Are there actually good alternatives to Windows on a PC or are we still stuck with a crop of other operating systems that aren't gaming friendly, aren't end-user friendly, are incomplete, or just otherwise lack features most PC users expect out of an OS? I'm a little out of date but last I checked even the best Linux distros were having issues with graphics driver compatibility.

There's no serious alternative, not if you want modern things you've gotten used to. But if you're willing to give away some features, you have a lot of choices.

If you want a no frills, just use the web, Chromebooks are amazing. They're basically Android fit for laptop usage, however, they such for anything non casual unless you're a serious techhead. On the more featured and geeky end, more and more laptops are now qualified for Ubuntu, mainly Dells. This gives you Linux on a personal laptop that actually works with everything out of the box.

[Broomstick]

You can actually use an Amazon Kindle without a kindle account or connection to the internet. Sure, if you disconnect your Kindle Amazon will wipe what's on it, but if you've back up your stuff you can re-load it via cable.

[Ace Pace]

You can actually use an Amazon Kindle without a kindle account or connection to the internet. Sure, if you disconnect your Kindle Amazon will wipe what's on it, but if you've back up your stuff you can re-load it via cable.

True, I should rephrase and say, you can't host books using the Kindle's cloud storage feature without it being under control of Amazon.
I end up using both a local backup and the cloud features but that's giving me the best of both worlds.

[Jub]

There's no serious alternative, not if you want modern things you've gotten used to. But if you're willing to give away some features, you have a lot of choices.

If you want a no frills, just use the web, Chromebooks are amazing. They're basically Android fit for laptop usage, however, they such for anything non casual unless you're a serious techhead. On the more featured and geeky end, more and more laptops are now qualified for Ubuntu, mainly Dells. This gives you Linux on a personal laptop that actually works with everything out of the box.

Yeah, none of this would work for running a gaming machine which is what my PC is used for when I'm not streaming media to it. If it weren't for the gaming side I could switch but if I'd be dual booting to play games, or run an emulator which doesn't have Linus support, I don't see the point in making a switch.

[Ace Pace]

Yeah, for gaming there's still no serious alternative. Specific games do run really well on Ubuntu, but that's a very specific fraction.

[Jub]

I get why, publishers won't optimize for a small platform and Ubuntu has a smaller coding base and less access to source code to attack things from the other end. It just sucks when a proper third option to Windows and OSX would be welcomed by so many.

[Zaune]

I'm just going to find your horrible thoughts and point them out. This shitty attitude is responsible for every serious malware outbreak in the past decade, from Conficker till Wannacry and then I have to handle the mess.

Your data? Sure, lose it all you want. But when your machines are infected with some crappy malware, they're spewing out spam, more copies of themselves, internet DDoS traffic, proxying malicious traffic and other fun things. So please, can the crap, if your machine is connected to the internet, the same vaccine argument that applies to humans applies to it.

Patch your fucking shit.

I do patch my shit. As soon as I have finished what I'm doing.

I accept that there is some legitimate reason for forcing patches through same-day, thanks to Vendetta's and your posts about Zero-Day Wednesday. (Something I and a lot of other people had genuinely never heard of, by the way.) But even taking that into account, it's not always possible for someone to drop everything and let their computer install updates the instant they're released. Having to spend twenty minutes standing around doing nothing when you're supposed to be working is annoying enough, but what happens when you're in the middle of compiling some code, rendering a 3D animation or some other process that takes several hours and can't be interrupted? To say nothing of what happens if the latest update and a third-party application don't get along, like what happened back in May.

[Vendetta]

Orrr make sure you're patched and up to date before you start the long process.

Shocking idea, I know....

Also it's not like these major build updates come out as a surprise. You have plenty of time to plan your schedule around "make sure my tools are appropriately maintained".

[Gandalf]

I'm not Microsoft. I tend to view things from the consumer's viewpoint.

And?

What if you have no choice? Who are the potential alternatives?

Doesn't have to encrypt the files - just store them at a different location than where you are, then cut your connection.

In this case, if your connection is cut after non-payment that IS the system working properly.

Now, with sufficiently large customers, like a government, there might be other arrangements than simply "you're immediately cut off" but for the little guy, why wouldn't it be an instant cut-off? Don't pay your Netflix bill or your World of Warcraft subscription your access ends. Stored all your data in the "cloud"? Too bad - you no longer have that either. MAYBE if Microsoft is being nice they won't instantly delete everything, but I don't see where they're obligated to be that nice.

So for some reason they're going to create ransomware, but also bring in the layer of complexity wherein some smaller customers get the ransomware, and everyone else gets a functioning OS?

I can't "crack open" a dog and "modify it" but I can still own one.

Sure you can. It's just an horrific thing to do unless you're a vet doing vet things.

Ownership isn't about "modifying" something - it's about paying once and then being able to do what you want without additional payment.

It used to be you went out and purchased a copy of Microsoft Windows. It came on physical media. You then installed it. You could install it on a different machine. And - best of all - you never had to pay Windows another dime ever for your continued use of it. That's why my spouse could continue to run a 20+ computer controlled lathe and several equally old software packages off a Windows 98 system as late as 2005. Granted, that's a bit of an outlier (and for damn sure that computer system was physically isolated from external networks at that point). Regardless, Microsoft never got any more money for that OS than the initial purchase price. Assuming the system is still intact, I could go into his workroom right now and fire up the system and use it today.

In your rush to bring about another round of Broomstick's patented stories from times gone by, you didn't really address what I said. Though I am curious, was it legal at the time to take an install and put it on several machines simultaneously?

But Microsoft would have loved to have collected a monthly payment on that thing these last two decades.

Big companies certainly do like money.

[Broomstick]

What if you have no choice? Who are the potential alternatives?

Doesn't have to encrypt the files - just store them at a different location than where you are, then cut your connection.

In this case, if your connection is cut after non-payment that IS the system working properly.

Now, with sufficiently large customers, like a government, there might be other arrangements than simply "you're immediately cut off" but for the little guy, why wouldn't it be an instant cut-off? Don't pay your Netflix bill or your World of Warcraft subscription your access ends. Stored all your data in the "cloud"? Too bad - you no longer have that either. MAYBE if Microsoft is being nice they won't instantly delete everything, but I don't see where they're obligated to be that nice.

So for some reason they're going to create ransomware, but also bring in the layer of complexity wherein some smaller customers get the ransomware, and everyone else gets a functioning OS?

What I describe is no more "ransomware" than taxes are theft.

If you rent a storage locker and don't pay rent your access to the box can be cut off. If you're renting software or storage and don't pay the rent your access can be legally cut off. If you keep your data locally, on your machine or local detachable drive, then you still have access to it, but not the operating system and if you need the operating system to access it... well, too bad, pay your rent and stop whining.

It's no different than if I didn't pay the rent on my apartment the landlord can change the locks and deny me access to the unit, even if my stuff is still inside. That's not "ransomware", that's what renting is.

If you're renting your OS and cloud storage and don't pay the fees the owner of all that most certainly can cut off your access to the remote locations and you're screwed. That's different than ransomware, which fucks up your local storage.

It used to be you went out and purchased a copy of Microsoft Windows. It came on physical media. You then installed it. You could install it on a different machine. And - best of all - you never had to pay Windows another dime ever for your continued use of it. That's why my spouse could continue to run a 20+ computer controlled lathe and several equally old software packages off a Windows 98 system as late as 2005. Granted, that's a bit of an outlier (and for damn sure that computer system was physically isolated from external networks at that point). Regardless, Microsoft never got any more money for that OS than the initial purchase price. Assuming the system is still intact, I could go into his workroom right now and fire up the system and use it today.

In your rush to bring about another round of Broomstick's patented stories from times gone by, you didn't really address what I said. Though I am curious, was it legal at the time to take an install and put it on several machines simultaneously?[/quote]
Yep.

Or rather - it wasn't addressed. Partly because at the time very very few people owned more than one computer (outside of larger corporations). It was legal because there was nothing against it in the user agreement, it wasn't forbidden so it was permitted. Then it went to where you had an option to purchase licenses that allowed either one installation or several. These things evolve over time.

[Zaune]

Orrr make sure you're patched and up to date before you start the long process.

Shocking idea, I know....

Also it's not like these major build updates come out as a surprise. You have plenty of time to plan your schedule around "make sure my tools are appropriately maintained".

Patch Tuesday only applies to the Enterprise edition as of 2015. Everyone on Home or Pro gets their updates pushed out ad-hoc, and they're apparently doing away with Current Branch for Business for the latter.

[Elheru Aran]

Renting things as a service, rather than owning them outright, only works to a certain extent. Residences, yes. Cars, sure. Even software in certain contexts, yeah. But say, pants. Would you want to rent a pair of pants? Underwear? Something you put your most valuable information on and access it regularly... actually belonging to someone else, who in theory could yank your access to it? I don't know how well that'll fly.

Do you use Facebook? GMail? Outlook? Amazon Kindle? Congrats, you're giving some company your most valuable information in a subscription platform where they can and will block your access at will, with no real recourse granted.

So what's the difference between this and your PC? The physical aspect?

The difference is that you can't use a PC without an OS. If Microsoft yanks OS access from my PC, it's useless. I can do whatever I want on the Internet, that's a conscious choice, but I don't really have a choice when it comes to actually operating the PC. Yes, I could figure out Linux or buy a Chromebook or whatever... if I had the time and money to invest in something like that. A lot of people don't. Rich people, businesses, and governments, yes. Most citizens, no. And a PC with Internet access is too important to most people to just do without, for work, communication, what have you. (Yes, I'm aware that it's something people can live without. That's not really the point here though)

One possible way to go, I suppose, might be upsizing the Android OS to PC scale. Mobile computing is fairly close to PC as far as ability goes, the only real difference is the amount of hardware and the capacity a mobile can handle vs a PC. I think MS owns Android though?

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Google owns Android, IIRC.

[Elheru Aran]

Google owns Android, IIRC.

A market opportunity then should MS go the OS-as-a-service model. Android is already the OS on many if not most tablets anyway, it should be no great leap for them to translate it to PC. I could well see this becoming the preferred option for casual home users. Unless Google becomes evil too of course...

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Google already is evil. Just less evil than the Micro$oft organized crime syndicate, and its apologists.

My issue with Android devices and Chromebooks is the paltry amount of offline storage, remedied slightly with SD cards, but those can get expensive.

[Broomstick]

Well, yeah - with little on-board storage then you have to pay for cloud storage, which is another rental opportunity. PROFIT!

[phongn]

Android is already the OS on many if not most tablets anyway, it should be no great leap for them to translate it to PC.

First, Android on tablet is a terrible experience and most software developers barely bother optimizing for the Android tablet experience.

Secondly, it's an enormous leap to translate it to PC. The expectations of the WIMP metaphor on the desktop are vastly different from the single-application direct-interaction model on the desktop. Microsoft's first great mobile mistake was trying to port the desktop to mobile - the interface did not work - and it doesn't work the other direction.

"Growing" a mobile OS to the desktop requires complete rethought. Windows Mobile looks nothing like Windows (Desktop) despite both being NT under the hood, and iOS looks nothing like macOS despite sharing the same Darwin foundation.

I could well see this becoming the preferred option for casual home users. Unless Google becomes evil too of course...

The preferred option for the most casual home user is either an iPad or a Chromebook, both of which are highly restricted walled-garden systems.

Just less evil than the Micro$oft organized crime syndicate, and its apologists.

Seriously, are you 13? Is this 1999? I think you can figure out how to spell Microsoft and leave the histrionics of "organized crime syndicate".

[Gandalf]

What I describe is no more "ransomware" than taxes are theft.

If you rent a storage locker and don't pay rent your access to the box can be cut off. If you're renting software or storage and don't pay the rent your access can be legally cut off. If you keep your data locally, on your machine or local detachable drive, then you still have access to it, but not the operating system and if you need the operating system to access it... well, too bad, pay your rent and stop whining.

It's no different than if I didn't pay the rent on my apartment the landlord can change the locks and deny me access to the unit, even if my stuff is still inside. That's not "ransomware", that's what renting is.

If you're renting your OS and cloud storage and don't pay the fees the owner of all that most certainly can cut off your access to the remote locations and you're screwed. That's different than ransomware, which fucks up your local storage.

Your analogy sucks. The OS is on my hard drive. My files are on my hard drive. 3/10, Must try harder.

Also again, why have this weird conspiracy?

Yep.

Or rather - it wasn't addressed. Partly because at the time very very few people owned more than one computer (outside of larger corporations). It was legal because there was nothing against it in the user agreement, it wasn't forbidden so it was permitted. Then it went to where you had an option to purchase licenses that allowed either one installation or several. These things evolve over time.

Are you sure about that? I looked at some Win98 EULAs, they're pretty upfront about limiting each installation to one computer. It's buried all the way in section one.

Like I said, you didn't own it. They just weren't as able to enforce their IP in your weird little den of IP violations. It's like media then and now. You didn't own Jurassic Park on VHS, but you owned the tape and the ability to view the cassette with the protected material in approved circumstances. Now with streaming they make it harder for one to pirate the shit out of it.

[Broomstick]

Your analogy sucks. The OS is on my hard drive. My files are on my hard drive. 3/10, Must try harder.

Right now your operating system is on your hard drive. If they make O/S a "service" there's no guarantee that it will be there anymore, or won't need an on-line key, or something of the sort.

Or rather - it wasn't addressed. Partly because at the time very very few people owned more than one computer (outside of larger corporations). It was legal because there was nothing against it in the user agreement, it wasn't forbidden so it was permitted. Then it went to where you had an option to purchase licenses that allowed either one installation or several. These things evolve over time.

Are you sure about that? I looked at some Win98 EULAs, they're pretty upfront about limiting each installation to one computer. It's buried all the way in section one.

Yeah. I'm sure about that. Microsoft didn't start in 1998. Go back further.

I have old systems around this place dating back to the early 1980's - Og knows if they'll even fire up any more, but I still have them. Couple years ago we even found an old cassette tape drive. Might even have the old user agreements around here but frankly I don't care enough to spend 12 hours digging for them in a pile formed from 30+ years of living with an electronics enthusiast.

[Tribble]

So, does this mean that if I purchase a retail copy of Windows 10 today it will one day expire and I'll have to pay if I want to keep using it?

Or is this for the next MS OS?

[Gandalf]

Your analogy sucks. The OS is on my hard drive. My files are on my hard drive. 3/10, Must try harder.

Right now your operating system is on your hard drive. If they make O/S a "service" there's no guarantee that it will be there anymore, or won't need an on-line key, or something of the sort.

And...? Doesn't this logic apply to anything subscription based on a HD with Windows?

Are you sure about that? I looked at some Win98 EULAs, they're pretty upfront about limiting each installation to one computer. It's buried all the way in section one.

Yeah. I'm sure about that. Microsoft didn't start in 1998. Go back further.

In your story you invoked Win98, so I found the relevant documentation. Don't be annoyed that thirty seconds of internet research proved your claims to be wrong, or that you were just lying.

I have old systems around this place dating back to the early 1980's - Og knows if they'll even fire up any more, but I still have them. Couple years ago we even found an old cassette tape drive. Might even have the old user agreements around here but frankly I don't care enough to spend 12 hours digging for them in a pile formed from 30+ years of living with an electronics enthusiast.

If you don't want to back up your claims, just say so. Don't try to move goalposts.

[Ace Pace]

So, does this mean that if I purchase a retail copy of Windows 10 today it will one day expire and I'll have to pay if I want to keep using it?

No.

Or is this for the next MS OS?

Always in motion is the future.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah they aren't going to screw the current OS, and home and student products are probably not going to change anytime soon; that is, OS offerings at a lower price point, generally bundled with new computer purchases, are probably going to stay fairly similar to the current status quo. Further down the road as cloud services and increased use of remote access and mobile computing grows... who knows.

[Broomstick]

Are you sure about that? I looked at some Win98 EULAs, they're pretty upfront about limiting each installation to one computer. It's buried all the way in section one.

Yeah. I'm sure about that. Microsoft didn't start in 1998. Go back further.

In your story you invoked Win98, so I found the relevant documentation. Don't be annoyed that thirty seconds of internet research proved your claims to be wrong, or that you were just lying.

Yeah, so fucking sue me because I don't have 100% perfect recollection of shit from twenty fucking years ago. Or more. No malice but hey, throw the word "lying" around you sad sack of shit. I didn't deserve that accusation, fuckface.

[SolarpunkFan]

Are there actually good alternatives to Windows on a PC or are we still stuck with a crop of other operating systems that aren't gaming friendly, aren't end-user friendly, are incomplete, or just otherwise lack features most PC users expect out of an OS? I'm a little out of date but last I checked even the best Linux distros were having issues with graphics driver compatibility.

A Hackintosh?

In seriousness I have to echo Ace Pace here, there's really nothing out there that's on par with Windows/MacOS/Android triumvir insofar as games/software availability go, and I say that as a happy user of Antergos.