So Windows 11??
-
@hobbit666 said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
Not that easy currently, either.
I find it very easy, just don't have it connected to the internet when installing. You then select offline account.
Assuming you're using something other than Windows Home edition (possibly). I would assume Microsoft wouldn't force this on businesses, but I see them trying to lead people down the path of the "Desktop as a Service" route and charging a routine fee.
Microsoft is likely seeing how this pans out and if there is an appetite to spend additional monies on something that has traditionally been a "non-seen cost" of the home PC.
-
Then of course there is the question of why would Microsoft even consider this as an option? Why are people forced to have a Microsoft Account tied to something that as traditionally been a personal device.
This article makes a pretty strong argument for not using an MS account.
-
For something to compare this against, I liken this move to what Adobe did when it was originally released. Free for Colleges and course work and after however many years they confirmed people were locked into the software (didn't know anything else) and force people to open a subscription to use it.
There's a ton of money just sitting out there, waiting to be dumped into Desktop as a Service, but Microsoft has likely missed the true mark on this one, as the Linux community is pushing hard to make some extremely strong competition.
If and when gaming is Linux Ready for the blockbuster type games, I can see the Windows Desktop experience almost completely going away.
-
@hobbit666 said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
Not that easy currently, either.
I find it very easy, just don't have it connected to the internet when installing. You then select offline account.
You don't know if they will disable you doing this on the the final release of the Home Edition.
-
@dustinb3403 said in So Windows 11??:
Then of course there is the question of why would Microsoft even consider this as an option? Why are people forced to have a Microsoft Account tied to something that as traditionally been a personal device.
This article makes a pretty strong argument for not using an MS account.
Why not? Apple and google have basically made you do the same for iPhones and Android (google'fied ones) for ages... While it is possible to use these devices without an account, it's severely limited.
-
@dustinb3403 said in So Windows 11??:
@hobbit666 said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
Not that easy currently, either.
I find it very easy, just don't have it connected to the internet when installing. You then select offline account.
Assuming you're using something other than Windows Home edition (possibly). I would assume Microsoft wouldn't force this on businesses, but I see them trying to lead people down the path of the "Desktop as a Service" route and charging a routine fee.
Microsoft is likely seeing how this pans out and if there is an appetite to spend additional monies on something that has traditionally been a "non-seen cost" of the home PC.
I disagree. Desktop as a service has no money in it. The way they license to OEM is the only way to make money on most users. I don't believe people are willing to pay monthly subscription for an OS. There are so many platforms that are better for users, and they don't/won't pay. Google and Apple would never charge for an OS because the real money is on selling software / apps and getting a cut of every sale. Providing the OS just gives the user an easy path to their store.
-
@irj said in So Windows 11??:
I disagree. Desktop as a service has no money in it.
It absolutely does have money in it, specifically so ads can be targeted to people who use said desktop. What other reason could there be for this push to need a Microsoft account to use a desktop?
It's all driven by money and to believe that there is no money in DaaS is looking at a tree but ignoring the forest...
-
@dustinb3403 said in So Windows 11??:
@irj said in So Windows 11??:
I disagree. Desktop as a service has no money in it.
It absolutely does have money in it, specifically so ads can be targeted to people who use said desktop. What other reason could there be for this push to need a Microsoft account to use a desktop?
It's all driven by money and to believe that there is no money in DaaS is looking at a tree but ignoring the forest...
They can use ads without it being a service. Look at what Ubuntu did how many years ago with Amazon.
-
@dustinb3403 said in So Windows 11??:
@irj said in So Windows 11??:
I disagree. Desktop as a service has no money in it.
It absolutely does have money in it, specifically so ads can be targeted to people who use said desktop. What other reason could there be for this push to need a Microsoft account to use a desktop?
It's all driven by money and to believe that there is no money in DaaS is looking at a tree but ignoring the forest...
What @IRJ was saying is that you can't get people to subscribe for the desktop, that's where there is no money...
But you're right, MS can monetize the desktop through ads and other included junkware.
-
@pete-s said in So Windows 11??:
Microsoft of course knows they will sell more OS as more people will need to get new computers.
Isn't that the opposite? People don't pay for the OS, it's essentially a loss to MS on new hardware. And pissing people off at a time when a huge percentage of new computers aren't MS (Apple and Chromebooks are huge market shares on currently purchased machines) seems utterly foolish. Because triggering people to want to try out another ecosystem is a bad idea because trust me, no one uses Windows once they are comfortable with an alternative.
Forcing people to get new computers forces them to evaluate their OS choice instead of allowing them to just stay with it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
y purchased machines) seems utterly foolish. Because triggering people to want to try out another ecosystem is a bad idea
For home users that might come pretty close to true.. but in business, not so much.
-
@dashrender said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
y purchased machines) seems utterly foolish. Because triggering people to want to try out another ecosystem is a bad idea
For home users that might come pretty close to true.. but in business, not so much.
You say that, but every business I know certainly does that. You'd have to be some pretty dysfunctional business owners (we know, your one case is like that, but you can't use that to reflect the populace) to get screwed over by your vendor that doesn't even make a good product or provide support and not do your due diligence when that happens.
-
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
@dashrender said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
y purchased machines) seems utterly foolish. Because triggering people to want to try out another ecosystem is a bad idea
For home users that might come pretty close to true.. but in business, not so much.
You say that, but every business I know certainly does that. You'd have to be some pretty dysfunctional business owners (we know, your one case is like that, but you can't use that to reflect the populace) to get screwed over by your vendor that doesn't even make a good product or provide support and not do your due diligence when that happens.
Yet millions of Windows machines still are out there running in businesses.
-
@dashrender said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
@dashrender said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
y purchased machines) seems utterly foolish. Because triggering people to want to try out another ecosystem is a bad idea
For home users that might come pretty close to true.. but in business, not so much.
You say that, but every business I know certainly does that. You'd have to be some pretty dysfunctional business owners (we know, your one case is like that, but you can't use that to reflect the populace) to get screwed over by your vendor that doesn't even make a good product or provide support and not do your due diligence when that happens.
Yet millions of Windows machines still are out there running in businesses.
You say that as if that refutes what was said. Are you making the claim that ALL evaluation of needs would result in not running Windows, and therefore any company running Windows has an incompetent IT department that didn't do their jobs?
That seems harsh, granted that is the case sometimes. but to imply that Windows, by definition, is always a bad decision is taking things pretty far. That it should be evaluated is fundamental business (or even just fundamental adulting, really even a child should know that), but leaping to "choosing it is always wrong" is quite a leap.
If that's not what you meant... then what was the purpose of the statement? What did you mean to imply it?
-
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
@dashrender said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
@dashrender said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
y purchased machines) seems utterly foolish. Because triggering people to want to try out another ecosystem is a bad idea
For home users that might come pretty close to true.. but in business, not so much.
You say that, but every business I know certainly does that. You'd have to be some pretty dysfunctional business owners (we know, your one case is like that, but you can't use that to reflect the populace) to get screwed over by your vendor that doesn't even make a good product or provide support and not do your due diligence when that happens.
Yet millions of Windows machines still are out there running in businesses.
You say that as if that refutes what was said. Are you making the claim that ALL evaluation of needs would result in not running Windows, and therefore any company running Windows has an incompetent IT department that didn't do their jobs?
That seems harsh, granted that is the case sometimes. but to imply that Windows, by definition, is always a bad decision is taking things pretty far. That it should be evaluated is fundamental business (or even just fundamental adulting, really even a child should know that), but leaping to "choosing it is always wrong" is quite a leap.
If that's not what you meant... then what was the purpose of the statement? What did you mean to imply it?
I feel - nothing to back me up - that most, definitely not all - don't need it. And if they do, it's because they are holding onto some legacy something that they likely should really get rid of, upgrade away from.
Like us. We can't get away from Windows - Our EMR requires Windows to get all of the functionality that we want. The vendor simply doesn't provide the functionality we want on any other platform.
Now that we have a totally new management team will we investigate a new EMR - maybe, but I doubt it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
@pete-s said in So Windows 11??:
Microsoft of course knows they will sell more OS as more people will need to get new computers.
Isn't that the opposite? People don't pay for the OS, it's essentially a loss to MS on new hardware. And pissing people off at a time when a huge percentage of new computers aren't MS (Apple and Chromebooks are huge market shares on currently purchased machines) seems utterly foolish. Because triggering people to want to try out another ecosystem is a bad idea because trust me, no one uses Windows once they are comfortable with an alternative.
Forcing people to get new computers forces them to evaluate their OS choice instead of allowing them to just stay with it.
I mean Microsoft sell the OS to the PC manufacturers. So when people need new hardware they will get Windows because Dell, HP, etc put it there. The consumer is of course paying for it but indirectly.
And even if you install something else on it, Microsoft have already received their cut..
-
@pete-s said in So Windows 11??:
@scottalanmiller said in So Windows 11??:
@pete-s said in So Windows 11??:
Microsoft of course knows they will sell more OS as more people will need to get new computers.
Isn't that the opposite? People don't pay for the OS, it's essentially a loss to MS on new hardware. And pissing people off at a time when a huge percentage of new computers aren't MS (Apple and Chromebooks are huge market shares on currently purchased machines) seems utterly foolish. Because triggering people to want to try out another ecosystem is a bad idea because trust me, no one uses Windows once they are comfortable with an alternative.
Forcing people to get new computers forces them to evaluate their OS choice instead of allowing them to just stay with it.
I mean Microsoft sell the OS to the PC manufacturers. So when people need new hardware they will get Windows because Dell, HP, etc put it there. The consumer is of course paying for it but indirectly.
And even if you install something else on it, Microsoft have already received their cut..
They get a little. But I wonder how much really. Long ago it was rumored to be $50. It is hard to believe that it is still that high. And the OEMs are paid so much to fill it with malware, I think that they make money on it, which is why they push it.
-
@pete-s said in So Windows 11??:
@nadnerb said in So Windows 11??:
Not impressed. Have to replace my CPU (Ryzen 5 1600) if I want to upgrade.
Yeah yeah, TPM blah blah blah. Still not happy about it. I've only had the CPU for 3 years.Granted I don't have to move until 2025 (WIN10 EOL) if I want to retain my hardware that long.
Just irritated that I can't upgrade straight away.These requirements may not seem too strict, but having a look at the list of supported processors, you’ll notice that the 1st Gen AMD Ryzen CPUs aren’t supported, and the 2nd Gen Zen+ processors are a bare minimum on AMD’s end and the 8th Gen Kaby Lake-R is the least supported on Intel’s end. Keep in mind that although the OS will run on systems using older processors, it’s “not recommended”. Microsoft’s list of supported processors doesn’t make sense as there’s little to no difference between the 1st and 2nd Gen Ryzen processors. Similarly, the Kaby Lake-R (8th Gen Intel Core lineup) is essentially a rebranding of the 7th Gen offerings.
- BBQ Sauce: https://www.hardwaretimes.com/windows-11-wont-support-1st-gen-amd-ryzen-processors-tpm-required/
More Dipping Sauces
It's called planned obsolescence. It's not done for any technical reason whatsoever, so looking for what makes "sense" doesn't make sense.
This @Pete-S you're spot on. It's just about making more money. If the software is kept up to date security wise, why would anything ever need to be replaced/updated, but we all know that.
When's the release date for 11?
-
@siringo said in So Windows 11??:
@pete-s said in So Windows 11??:
@nadnerb said in So Windows 11??:
Not impressed. Have to replace my CPU (Ryzen 5 1600) if I want to upgrade.
Yeah yeah, TPM blah blah blah. Still not happy about it. I've only had the CPU for 3 years.Granted I don't have to move until 2025 (WIN10 EOL) if I want to retain my hardware that long.
Just irritated that I can't upgrade straight away.These requirements may not seem too strict, but having a look at the list of supported processors, you’ll notice that the 1st Gen AMD Ryzen CPUs aren’t supported, and the 2nd Gen Zen+ processors are a bare minimum on AMD’s end and the 8th Gen Kaby Lake-R is the least supported on Intel’s end. Keep in mind that although the OS will run on systems using older processors, it’s “not recommended”. Microsoft’s list of supported processors doesn’t make sense as there’s little to no difference between the 1st and 2nd Gen Ryzen processors. Similarly, the Kaby Lake-R (8th Gen Intel Core lineup) is essentially a rebranding of the 7th Gen offerings.
- BBQ Sauce: https://www.hardwaretimes.com/windows-11-wont-support-1st-gen-amd-ryzen-processors-tpm-required/
More Dipping Sauces
It's called planned obsolescence. It's not done for any technical reason whatsoever, so looking for what makes "sense" doesn't make sense.
This @Pete-S you're spot on. It's just about making more money. If the software is kept up to date security wise, why would anything ever need to be replaced/updated, but we all know that.
When's the release date for 11?
Oct 2021
-
@dashrender said in So Windows 11??:
@siringo said in So Windows 11??:
@pete-s said in So Windows 11??:
@nadnerb said in So Windows 11??:
Not impressed. Have to replace my CPU (Ryzen 5 1600) if I want to upgrade.
Yeah yeah, TPM blah blah blah. Still not happy about it. I've only had the CPU for 3 years.Granted I don't have to move until 2025 (WIN10 EOL) if I want to retain my hardware that long.
Just irritated that I can't upgrade straight away.These requirements may not seem too strict, but having a look at the list of supported processors, you’ll notice that the 1st Gen AMD Ryzen CPUs aren’t supported, and the 2nd Gen Zen+ processors are a bare minimum on AMD’s end and the 8th Gen Kaby Lake-R is the least supported on Intel’s end. Keep in mind that although the OS will run on systems using older processors, it’s “not recommended”. Microsoft’s list of supported processors doesn’t make sense as there’s little to no difference between the 1st and 2nd Gen Ryzen processors. Similarly, the Kaby Lake-R (8th Gen Intel Core lineup) is essentially a rebranding of the 7th Gen offerings.
- BBQ Sauce: https://www.hardwaretimes.com/windows-11-wont-support-1st-gen-amd-ryzen-processors-tpm-required/
More Dipping Sauces
It's called planned obsolescence. It's not done for any technical reason whatsoever, so looking for what makes "sense" doesn't make sense.
This @Pete-S you're spot on. It's just about making more money. If the software is kept up to date security wise, why would anything ever need to be replaced/updated, but we all know that.
When's the release date for 11?
Oct 2021
Right is is simply Windows 10 21H2 with a new GUI and rebranded as Windows 11
