Microsoft to Force Microsoft Store Account to Activate Windows 9

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
The only real difference between 'local credentials' and 'online credentials' is that the latter enables more features. Oh, and the identifier is in the form of an email address instead of a more typical arbitrary username format.

Is that the sticking point, perhaps? The at symbol in the identifier? Ghastly thing, that swoopy 'a' with the circle around it.
 

flu!d

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
562
Sure mobile has gotten much bigger, particularly tablets. But how many of the complaints about Windows 8 have been along the lines "I don't want a tablet/smartphone UI on my desktop!" You've made such comments many times.

Windows 7 was adopted relatively quickly partly because of the long time between it and XP and the unpopular Vista between. There will be about 6 years between 7 and 9, that gap and the unpopularity of 8 should get 9 considerably more traction than 8. How well it will do in comparison to 7 is difficult to say without seeing it first. Many businesses that did XP to 7 migrations haven't long ago finished them, we just finished ours last year, so 9 certainly want be on the radar. I think many people believe that 7 came out and that everyone hopped on board immediately but it was a long process, it took 7 two years to surpass XP in market share.

I used Vista, IMO even Vista was better than Windows 8.1.

If I could natively run Diablo III and BF4 under Linux I can tell you right now that I would dump Windows for Linux Mint 17 in a heartbeat. I have a problem with trust and parting with my hard earned $$ when theres a perfectly good, free alternative avaliable.

There's nothing hard about navigating this desktop and it's very polished:

 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,463
Updated the original post with some more information.

Microsoft is having difficulty implementing their draconian DRM scheme.

Of course within days of release, pirates will find a way around this, leaving legitimate customers like me forever stuck with forcing me to use their stupid fucking Microsoft store.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I used Vista, IMO even Vista was better than Windows 8.1.

Having used both OSes extensively there's simply no way I can agree with this assertion. 8.1 is considerably faster on the same hardware that I've seen running with clean copies of Vista, more stable, better with multiple monitors, etc.

There's nothing hard about navigating this desktop and it's very polished:

I've never said modern Linux desktop distros were hard to use and not polished. The major problem with desktop Linux is 3rd part support.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,463
You do understand that these are unconfirmed rumors, correct?
Does any of it seem uncharacteristic of Microsoft or unbelievable? Plus the source has been very accurate in the past. Microsoft is forcing Microsoft Account for Home Office 2013, why wouldn't they do it for Windows?

Decision after decision that Microsoft has been making the past few years has been nothing but a nightmare.

It's going to get so bad that Microsoft is going to have to send people door-to-door to get people to upgrade from Windows 7.
 

Romale23

Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
866
Does any of it seem uncharacteristic of Microsoft or unbelievable? Plus the source has been very accurate in the past. Microsoft is forcing Microsoft Account for Home Office 2013, why wouldn't they do it for Windows?

Decision after decision that Microsoft has been making the past few years has been nothing but a nightmare.

It's going to get so bad that Microsoft is going to have to send people door-to-door to get people to upgrade from Windows 7.

Microsoft will never have a business product that requires internet to activate. There will always be a way to activate it without internet and there will always be a way to do licensing through a server that doesn't have to talk to the internet either. That being said, the home editions, maybe i can see that.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,566
Microsoft will never have a business product that requires internet to activate. There will always be a way to activate it without internet and there will always be a way to do licensing through a server that doesn't have to talk to the internet either. That being said, the home editions, maybe i can see that.

Office 365. Subscription based, and it does require the internet to activate. At least right now it does. Every 30 days, it checks for the valid subscription. We just had to open some IP's on our firewall to MSFT's activation servers for a O365 rollout.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,463
Microsoft will never have a business product that requires internet to activate. There will always be a way to activate it without internet and there will always be a way to do licensing through a server that doesn't have to talk to the internet either. That being said, the home editions, maybe i can see that.
I'm not concerned about my volume licensed software at work. I'm concerned about the DRM being added to the home versions that I buy and forcing me to use a Microsoft account to activate and use it.\

I'm surprised so many of you are willing to bend over and give up the freedom you've had up until now.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,519
Office 365. Subscription based, and it does require the internet to activate. At least right now it does. Every 30 days, it checks for the valid subscription. We just had to open some IP's on our firewall to MSFT's activation servers for a O365 rollout.

And if you don't want Office 365, Office 2013 is a perfectly good alternative without cloud based features. And I expect there will continue to be a standalone Office alongside Office 365, so it is likely something similar will happen with Windows as well.
 

flu!d

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
562
Having used both OSes extensively there's simply no way I can agree with this assertion. 8.1 is considerably faster on the same hardware that I've seen running with clean copies of Vista, more stable, better with multiple monitors, etc.



I've never said modern Linux desktop distros were hard to use and not polished. The major problem with desktop Linux is 3rd part support.

As stated, I had major issues with multiple monitors that are reported numerous times in the Nvidia forums. Stability was good with Windows 8.1, although I never had any issues with stability running Windows Vista. In terms of speed, 8.1 is vastly quicker than previous Microsoft OS's in regards to boot times, but that's really the only percieveable difference I could notice when comparing W7 to W8.1. As stated, I also had numerous driver issues under 8.1. The improved boot times also means that it is vastly more difficult to dual boot Linux and W8 on the same machine due to changes in the boot loader.

I was also forced to use Start8 when running 8.1 in order to get the feel of the previous Microsoft OS's back and at times running Start8 would result in some strange issues with the start bar that could only be resolved via a reboot.

The biggest problem with 8/8.1 is that there's nothing wrong with Windows 7.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
The only thing wrong with 7 is that it's not a very good experience for tablets, but if you're a desktop user, the issue is not very compelling.
 

flu!d

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
562
The issue is that Microsoft wants the whole desktop/tablet experience to be unified so that when people think about buying a tablet they'll automatically want to buy a MS tablet as that gives them an experience that they're supposidly used to on their desktop machine - The whole concept is purely driven by marketing.

What MS refuses to understand is that people dont want their desktop PC acting like a tablet, and if forcing users to adopt their philosophy means destroying the desktop experience as we know it than I'm prepared and ready to switch to whatever OS provides my PC with a true desktop experience with the freedoms that I'm used to.

If switching to another OS means that the OS in question is cost free than it's all a win for me.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
As stated, I had major issues with multiple monitors that are reported numerous times in the Nvidia forums. Stability was good with Windows 8.1, although I never had any issues with stability running Windows Vista. In terms of speed, 8.1 is vastly quicker than previous Microsoft OS's in regards to boot times, but that's really the only percieveable difference I could notice when comparing W7 to W8.1. As stated, I also had numerous driver issues under 8.1. The improved boot times also means that it is vastly more difficult to dual boot Linux and W8 on the same machine due to changes in the boot loader.

I'm at my old 3x SLI 680 GTX system with 3 independent monitors running 8.1 and haven't had any problems. The modern UI I think works pretty well with multiple independent monitors. In Surround mode it's a pain but even 7 has it's issues there.

What MS refuses to understand is that people dont want their desktop PC acting like a tablet, and if forcing users to adopt their philosophy means destroying the desktop experience as we know it than I'm prepared and ready to switch to whatever OS provides my PC with a true desktop experience with the freedoms that I'm used to.

The idea on 8.x working as a hybrid isn't the problem, was the implementation. Given everything that Microsoft has said since Build in April to all of the rumors to what was said about the next version of Windows today at WPC, it's pretty clear Microsoft has gotten the message. The question is how are they going to deal with it. We're going to see a Start Menu and windowed modern apps, I think that's a done deal. The next question will be if there will be some sort of off switch for the modern UI altogether for the modern UI, and that I don't think they'll do, not be default even on the desktop at any rate. I think they'll try to see if they can make the modern UI fit in the desktop well enough to be acceptable to desktop users, which I think is quite doable.
 

flu!d

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
562
I'm at my old 3x SLI 680 GTX system with 3 independent monitors running 8.1 and haven't had any problems. The modern UI I think works pretty well with multiple independent monitors. In Surround mode it's a pain but even 7 has it's issues there.

Windows 8/8.1 has more issues with a surround desktop than Windows 7, trust me.

Yes, Nvidia are most likely partly to blame as the surround desktop seemed to go from a Workable solution for an SLS configuration to a total mess as soon as support for 4k displays was announced, but the fact remains that under W7 you encounter less issues than what I experienced under W8/8.1.

In total honesty, the SLS desktop works far better under Linux than it does under Windows with Nvidia hardware.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Windows 8/8.1 has more issues with a surround desktop than Windows 7, trust me.

I agree, and trust me, I've run both extensively under Surround. Both work better with multiple independent monitors and 8.1 I think is a bit better with multiple independent monitors.

In total honesty, the SLS desktop works far better under Linux than it does under Windows with Nvidia hardware.

You mean SLI? Perhaps, but the main reason I and most people would run SLI is for games. Though having a super wide Excel spreadsheet has had its purposes for me on occasion.
 

flu!d

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
562
No, SLS (Single Large Screen).

ie: all connected display devices are treated as one large display device.
 

PCMusicGuy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,212
And if you don't want Office 365, Office 2013 is a perfectly good alternative without cloud based features. And I expect there will continue to be a standalone Office alongside Office 365, so it is likely something similar will happen with Windows as well.

Except that they still force you to create an account to install Office 2013.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,512
Except that they still force you to create an account to install Office 2013.

So? That is how they know that you are a legitimate user and owner. After that, all you have to do is put in the email address and you are set if you ever have to reinstall it. I guess with Apple, no biggie but with Microsoft, OH NOES! THE END OF THE WORLD! :D

Oh, and that screen shot of Linux Mint was a customized version because out of the box, it looks nothing like that. (It looks plain jane, boring and ugly out of the box to me.)
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
I'm not concerned about my volume licensed software at work. I'm concerned about the DRM being added to the home versions that I buy and forcing me to use a Microsoft account to activate and use it.\

I'm surprised so many of you are willing to bend over and give up the freedom you've had up until now.


And how many years has apple been doing this? You can't even turn on an ipad without first setting up an account and connecting to iTunes. No one seems to care about that, but lose their shit when MS follows suit. It's not like they are trying to find a way to stop pirating or anything...
 

flu!d

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
562
So? That is how they know that you are a legitimate user and owner. After that, all you have to do is put in the email address and you are set if you ever have to reinstall it. I guess with Apple, no biggie but with Microsoft, OH NOES! THE END OF THE WORLD! :D

Oh, and that screen shot of Linux Mint was a customized version because out of the box, it looks nothing like that. (It looks plain jane, boring and ugly out of the box to me.)

That is plain Cinnamon with a Cairo dock and a Conky clock/date widget, nothing more. I also use Rainmeter and Rocket Dock on my Windows system and you haven't even seen my MorphOS desktop yet.

You obviously use purely Microsoft systems.
 
Last edited:

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,422
Yeah, this may be an option, but its not going to be the only one. It would literally make it impossible for the government which is a non-insignificant portion of revenue to utilize windows 9.

Why, Government don't buy individual copies, they buy volume license which i am sure will still have VL based activations with local KMS servers.

who this can screw is smaller businesses that only need 10,15 copies of windows..now they need 1 I.T account i guess to sign in for them all? And can 1 account be associated to multiple computers?
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,512
Why, Government don't buy individual copies, they buy volume license which i am sure will still have VL based activations with local KMS servers.

who this can screw is smaller businesses that only need 10,15 copies of windows..now they need 1 I.T account i guess to sign in for them all? And can 1 account be associated to multiple computers?

Yes, in the same way you can tie multiple Office 2013 Keys to one Microsoft account.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,104
And how many years has apple been doing this? You can't even turn on an ipad without first setting up an account and connecting to iTunes. No one seems to care about that, but lose their shit when MS follows suit. It's not like they are trying to find a way to stop pirating or anything...

Irrelevant how long apple's been doing it, most Windows users including myself couldnt give a rats ass what Apple is doing. Thats why we are on Windows, because it hasn't historically tried to dictate and harang and upmarket the end user into a closed ecosystem.

The more Microsoft tries to imitate others the more it will hemorrhage mindshare and userbase.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,463
And how many years has apple been doing this? You can't even turn on an ipad without first setting up an account and connecting to iTunes. No one seems to care about that, but lose their shit when MS follows suit. It's not like they are trying to find a way to stop pirating or anything...
You've never had to use an iTunes account to set up a device, you just had to plug it into iTunes (which itself does not require an account to have installed). You've only needed an account to download software.

Anyways, like I said earlier, this isn't going to stop pirating it's only going to affect legitimate users like me. I'm not sure on 8 but at least up until Windows 7 pirates could easily bypass activation. I'm sure it will eventually happen with 8 and will happen with 9. Only people affected are those who don't steal it. DRM worx!
 

CEpeep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
6,061
You do understand that these are unconfirmed rumors, correct?

Stuff from WZOR isn't really rumors. It's stuff that might not make it into the final product, but WZOR always has access to the very latest builds of the OS. If WZOR says "Windows 9 has X" then that's because feature X is in a build they have access to. They are one of the most consistently reliable release groups, they're not going to sully their own reputation by pulling shit out of their ass. They don't even have to though since half the stuff Microsoft does these days is crazier than anything you could make up.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Stuff from WZOR isn't really rumors. It's stuff that might not make it into the final product, but WZOR always has access to the very latest builds of the OS. If WZOR says "Windows 9 has X" then that's because feature X is in a build they have access to. They are one of the most consistently reliable release groups, they're not going to sully their own reputation by pulling shit out of their ass. They don't even have to though since half the stuff Microsoft does these days is crazier than anything you could make up.

WZOR has been an excellent leaker, but Microsoft threw the hammer down on leaks recently with the conviction of that Windows 8 leaker. There have been no public leaks of Windows 8.1 Update 2 nor the supposed post 8.x builds of which screenshots have leaked. So it's kind of hard to know how good any info being leaked now truly is. Some have even suggested that Microsoft is intentionally leaking disinformation in order to root out leakers.

My guess is that Microsoft, especially with a new CEO, was getting tired of having everything leaked early with nothing really new or interesting to say at official launches. Everything about Windows 8.1 Update 1 was totally known well before Microsoft even officially acknowledged its existence.

As for the Microsoft account activation, I could see that for some devices like tablets where it makes sense but not desktops and laptops.
 

CEpeep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
6,061
Some have even suggested that Microsoft is intentionally leaking disinformation in order to root out leakers.

Possible. All I meant by my post is WZOR isn't making things up. If MS is making things up and then feeding them to WZOR then they're just going to pass it off as "truth." I'm not sure what MS would have to gain by convincing people they need an MS account if they actually don't, though.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Possible. All I meant by my post is WZOR isn't making things up. If MS is making things up and then feeding them to WZOR then they're just going to pass it off as "truth." I'm not sure what MS would have to gain by convincing people they need an MS account if they actually don't, though.

I'm not doubting WZOR's veracity and what he's saying might very well be true. But it's unlikely I think that this would be the only way to activate all versions of Windows. It looks like there's going to be both free and at cost versions of Windows 9, that's already the case with 8.1. I could see free versions requiring a Microsoft account and the at cost versions not.
 

flu!d

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
562
I am not paying a monthly subscription for the right to run Microsoft's OS on my machine. I think paying a monthly subscription for Office is a little different to paying a monthly subscription for the all important operating system.
 

CEpeep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
6,061
I am not paying a monthly subscription for the right to run Microsoft's OS on my machine.

Cool, that's the great part about having a variety of different operating systems to choose from. Most of the customers Microsoft would retain after moving to such a model don't have the luxury of simply choosing something else.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,512
Who the hell said there was going to be a subscription based OS? Also, rumor's are like butt holes, everyone has one and they all stink.
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,780
Who the hell said there was going to be a subscription based OS? Also, rumor's are like butt holes, everyone has one and they all stink.
The rumor mill loves to run this one through every release or so.

I still have no idea how it would even work. Does the $299 Walmart PC have a Windows that has a monthly fee, or are the OEM versions excluded? If not, why would it be in MS's best interests to rig up an entirely separate activation system just for people who buy Windows retail?
 

MrCrispy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
3,950
Why is a subscription plan so evil?? Office 365 is a very good value esp for families and students and removes a lot of the hassle. Same would apply to Windows, and would enable MS to move to faster release cycle, less disruption for customers and more value add.

And its never going to be mandatory, just an option (just like 2 editions of Office). I really don't see the problem.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Why is a subscription plan so evil?? Office 365 is a very good value esp for families and students and removes a lot of the hassle. Same would apply to Windows, and would enable MS to move to faster release cycle, less disruption for customers and more value add.

And its never going to be mandatory, just an option (just like 2 editions of Office). I really don't see the problem.

Not sure how it would work as a business model. Office 365 makes a lot of sense in that if you're always going to use Office then paying a little each month to use it on multiple devices and always having the latest version makes sense.

Most people get their copy of Windows with a device. Tying that copy of Windows to a subscription that's always been obtainable for indefinite use with a one time cost just doesn't add up. Perhaps if it worked like Office 365, where multiple copies of Windows could be obtained for a monthly cost could work. But then what happens to those devices if you stop paying the subscription?

With the moves that Microsoft has made recently, it looks like it's trying to get away from Windows licensing as revenue stream and more to using hardware and services to generate revenue. Windows as service makes sense if you have a non-Windows device and need access to Windows software, others have done that already. But I just can't see how a subscription for a host OS works.
 

xLokiX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
263
I think that a subscription could work. If they charge $50 a year, and have major updates\version changes every 2 years. Everyone would essentially be buying a new OS every two years, at OEM prices. There would be less fragmentation because everyone would be on the same version, less work patching on Microsoft's part.
 

MrCrispy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
3,950
Not sure how it would work as a business model. Office 365 makes a lot of sense in that if you're always going to use Office then paying a little each month to use it on multiple devices and always having the latest version makes sense.

Most people get their copy of Windows with a device. Tying that copy of Windows to a subscription that's always been obtainable for indefinite use with a one time cost just doesn't add up. Perhaps if it worked like Office 365, where multiple copies of Windows could be obtained for a monthly cost could work. But then what happens to those devices if you stop paying the subscription?

With the moves that Microsoft has made recently, it looks like it's trying to get away from Windows licensing as revenue stream and more to using hardware and services to generate revenue. Windows as service makes sense if you have a non-Windows device and need access to Windows software, others have done that already. But I just can't see how a subscription for a host OS works.

Office 365 is licensed for a certain number of devices. Windows would also follow the same model. If you stop paying, the activation expires, just like a trial copy today.

It'd make a lot of sense for people to buy e.g. 1 Windows 9 subscription for 5 devices, then they could seamlessly upgrade all their existing pc's and buy a new one, and never have to worry about updates. They will probably have a discounted plan bundling it with 365 as well. I see nothing but advantages for end users and small businesses.

Most people today buy a pc and never upgrade the version of Windows it came with. This is lost revenue for MS, as well as extra support costs. MS isn't like Apple where they simply discard backwards compatibility and ignore users of older versions. Having everyone run the latest is better for everyone.
 
Top