Microsoft to Force Microsoft Store Account to Activate Windows 9

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,755
Office is not vital to the function of a computer. You stop paying the Office monthly, Office stops working, you switch to <whatever>Office, deal with the quirks, and keep playing your games and otherwise your computing experience changes little.

If you have a subscription to Windows, and you stop paying the fee, and they disable it.. well..

You're not going to convince someone buying a $299 WalMart PC to pay an OS rental fee. Just like they likely won't buy Office anyway.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,486
Office is not vital to the function of a computer. You stop paying the Office monthly, Office stops working, you switch to <whatever>Office, deal with the quirks, and keep playing your games and otherwise your computing experience changes little.

If you have a subscription to Windows, and you stop paying the fee, and they disable it.. well..

You're not going to convince someone buying a $299 WalMart PC to pay an OS rental fee. Just like they likely won't buy Office anyway.

QFT! This is the exact reason it will never happen.
 

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,505
Office is not vital to the function of a computer. You stop paying the Office monthly, Office stops working, you switch to <whatever>Office, deal with the quirks, and keep playing your games and otherwise your computing experience changes little.

If you have a subscription to Windows, and you stop paying the fee, and they disable it.. well..

You're not going to convince someone buying a $299 WalMart PC to pay an OS rental fee. Just like they likely won't buy Office anyway.

Except I doubt the subscription model are for those $299 PCs. The subscription model will most likely be for $99 tablets, or for people that for one reason or another want a cloud-based device (Chromebook buyers, for example). Or possibly $299 PCs sold at a discount ($199 or so), but highly doubtful.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,486
Except I doubt the subscription model are for those $299 PCs. The subscription model will most likely be for $99 tablets, or for people that for one reason or another want a cloud-based device (Chromebook buyers, for example). Or possibly $299 PCs sold at a discount ($199 or so), but highly doubtful.

Except that $99 tablets will be getting the free Windows OS for OEM's. Also, the only way the a discounted machine will take place is if Microsoft were to heavily subsidize it. However, cheaper machines will an AOL subscription never really sold and neither would a Windows based subscription.
 

MrCrispy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
3,950
A pc sold at retail will include a few years of Windows license fees, just like it includes a valid key today. And even then people would have an option to buy a full license upfront and not annual.

This is just an option, I listed benefits for those who choose it. Whether or not MS chooses to offer it, or how successful it will be, cannot be predicted.

Its not any different than paying for your monthly ISP/phone/utility bill, most people cannot survive without one of those, and a computer is tied to all of that. So how is it any different paying a small *yearly* activation fee which will guarantee a better experience? For all the naysayers and people who will inevitably cry foul, I bet the actual public will welcome the idea. No one wants to maintain their pc or worry about updates.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
Except I doubt the subscription model are for those $299 PCs. The subscription model will most likely be for $99 tablets, or for people that for one reason or another want a cloud-based device (Chromebook buyers, for example). Or possibly $299 PCs sold at a discount ($199 or so), but highly doubtful.
Imagine the marketing field days Google, Apple and Amazon would have if Microsoft were to do something like that. "To unlock your tablet, please pay $19.95".

Remember: incompetent, not stupid.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,435
Office is not vital to the function of a computer. You stop paying the Office monthly, Office stops working, you switch to <whatever>Office, deal with the quirks, and keep playing your games and otherwise your computing experience changes little.

If you have a subscription to Windows, and you stop paying the fee, and they disable it.. well..

You're not going to convince someone buying a $299 WalMart PC to pay an OS rental fee. Just like they likely won't buy Office anyway.
I would expect the base OS to still function, what you would pay for is upgrades.
 

zero2dash

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
6,081
Something will have to be in place for VLK/MAK otherwise they can go ahead and kiss corporate adoption goodbye.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,047
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.

Now we're agreeing on something, my man. Heh, is this a first? You make many good points on this forum. A subscription based Windows would mark the beginning of the end of Windows. It would be enough of the nudge that the critical mass needs to get over the hump of finally trying something else, and that's not what Microsoft wants.

After the controversial performance of Windows 8, and with "the enemy at the gates" - Google, Valve, Apple and friends - slowly bleeding mindshare and marketshare, well let's just say now is not the time for Windows to be polarizing again. Maybe Windows 10+ will dabble in subscription based versions, but Microsoft isn't going to rock the status quo with Windows 9.

The only way a subscription based Windows works is if Microsoft dreams up something completely revolutionary to incentivize it, something irresistible for end users, and that's a tall order because most people see the OS as commodity and utility, like a microwave, like the car that you don't think about when you're not driving it and when you do you're thinking about something else.
 
Last edited:

AndreRio

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
1,240
this is scarry. everybody is seriously talking about leaving windows!! oh oh. Microsoft is really dropping the ball.
 

Gorankar

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,836
Relax, it's mostly just talk. Most of them will not actually leave at all, many of the few that do, will come back, or continue to use it as needed.
I tried to leave a couple times. I was pretty much forced back by the software market catering to Windows nearly exclusively. No time to tinker with machines I use to earn money.
The devs catering exclusively Windows is weakening though. As time goes by, more and more people/companies will be able to leave MS behind if they want to.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
This will be interesting to see. Any updates on Windows 9 release? Anybody? Huh huh huh?

Nothing that definitive. Microsoft has tightened down the hatches considerably since the arrest of a Windows 8 leaker. There were those screenshots floating around of post Windows 8 builds with a new Start Menu but many have questioned their authenticity. Whatever 9 will be, Microsoft wants to keep a very tight lid on it until they're ready.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,435
In positive news, Microsoft is likely going to offer virtual desktops with Windows 9 as well as remove the charms menu.

Information has also leaked that Windows RT and Phone will combine and will not have the desktop. The OS is being labeled "Windows Mobile".
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
this is scarry. everybody is seriously talking about leaving windows!! oh oh. Microsoft is really dropping the ball.

I would without issue switch to Linux for my main desktop if they prevented local users. I hate all this "cloud" shit. I want my files on my hardware, I'm not about to start handing over control of my files to some fucking third party. I already run multiple VMs in ESXi on my home server. If I can set everything up in the CLI of Linux for multiple services (Bind DNS, OpenVPN, SquidProxy, NN+ w/LAMP stack, VSFTPD, Postfix/Dovecot mail server, etc.) I'm pretty sure a GUI swap won't be an issue. The only reason I haven't switched is games, and I find myself playing less and less as time goes on. I'd be completely fine with a dual boot to Linux/Windows 7.
 

Autopia

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
246
Except that $99 tablets will be getting the free Windows OS for OEM's. Also, the only way the a discounted machine will take place is if Microsoft were to heavily subsidize it. However, cheaper machines will an AOL subscription never really sold and neither would a Windows based subscription.

you forget the moto, one operating system to rule them all. i'm sure mircosoft will figure a way to charge people for their junk, everyone is moving in that direction.
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
you forget the moto, one operating system to rule them all. i'm sure mircosoft will figure a way to charge people for their junk, everyone is moving in that direction.

They can try. I won't participate. I don't participate in third party clouds and I don't pay for software as a service. The day I'm required to pay a perpetual fee for software is the day I give that piece of software up. I'm much more interested in data security and long term costs more than I am about one time costs today. It's a matter of principle and I won't bend or compromise.

Here's how I look at it: They need my money more than I need their product. I wish more people principled and took a hard stand on things like this. Instead of these morally vacuous corporations shoveling whatever they fucking feel like at us in an attempt to squeeze our wallets they'd be wary of the consumer's boot coming down on their neck.
 
Last edited:

CEpeep

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
6,061
Here's how I look at it: They need my money more than I need their product. I wish more people principled and took a hard stand on things like this. Instead of these morally vacuous corporations shoveling whatever they fucking feel like at us in an attempt to squeeze our wallets they'd be wary of the consumer's boot coming down on their neck.

Yeah, man. We should all just boycott buying things. We could all be millionaires if only we didn't have to keep spending money. What would you rather have than money anyway? Correct answer: nothing.

Seriously though, everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. If people will pay for a Windows subscription, why shouldn't Microsoft sell it to them? It's not moral bankruptcy to sell someone something they will buy, it's just Capitalism.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
I'm much more interested in data security and long term costs more than I am about one time costs today. It's a matter of principle and I won't bend or compromise.
What if the long-term costs are lower than the initial costs today? Will you bend at that point?
 

SuperSubZero

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
3,755
you forget the moto, one operating system to rule them all. i'm sure mircosoft will figure a way to charge people for their junk, everyone is moving in that direction.
I'm not aware of any distro of Linux that does this, and Apple doesn't do it.

Who is this "everyone" of which you speak?
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
Seriously though, everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. If people will pay for a Windows subscription, why shouldn't Microsoft sell it to them? It's not moral bankruptcy to sell someone something they will buy, it's just Capitalism.

There is nothing wrong with offering a windows subscription at all. I do have a problem with mandating non-local profiles/accounts. If someone wants to pay for that shit, let them, however I'm not going to pay for it, and I certainly don't trust Microsoft's cloud storage.


What if the long-term costs are lower than the initial costs today? Will you bend at that point?
I have a priority list: Data Security/Privacy > Long term Price.

I'll pay more to maintain my data myself. Sure, any business wants to keep costs reasonable, but ask yourself - how important is your data to your business and how would it impact your business it it was stolen or lost? For many businesses their data is far and away their most valuable asset. I'm not going to trust some third party with that. I keep local backups and remote offsite backups (Site A backs up to Site B, and vice-versa). You have to consider that the more hands that have access to your data the more likely that it will get compromised in some fashion. Large pools of data are titanic sized targets and as we all know large sets of data never get stolen... *AHEM* Sony PSN and Target *AHEM*.

Now if we're in a situation for a subscription somehow costing less long term than an outright purchase I'd look into it's viability, but I'm yet to come across that circumstance. IE. We bought copies of office 2003 standard for $229 per copy near launch date - about 10 years ago. We are still using it as it suits our needs fine, or roughly a cost of $23/year. A low end office365 subscription cost $5/month per user [source], or $60/year. The low end license doesn't even include locally installed applications, you need to upgrade to the $150/year per user package to get that. So, if your network connection drops (which never happens in a small business, hahahahah) your employees are sitting there twiddling their thumbs.
 
Last edited:

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,047
There is nothing wrong with offering a windows subscription at all. I do have a problem with mandating non-local profiles/accounts. If someone wants to pay for that shit, let them, however I'm not going to pay for it, and I certainly don't trust Microsoft's cloud storage.

Perfectly said. Let a "pay forever" version of Windows have all the cloud account crap baked in that MS wants, and if they want to capture people into their online services net there, so be it. But if someone's paying money for a retail copy of the OS, don't insult the user and hit them over the head with the cloud account bullshit by deceptively hiding the local account option and making it hard to find, particularly for first time users.

The apologists will usually sputter "Well, Apple does it, why is it okay for Apple?" and I say WGAF - there's a reason we're all running Windows, there's a reason Apple's desktop share is a joke. Microsoft hasn't played Apple's games historically up until this current Metro era of suck, and MS would do well not to forget that, not to forget what users have always liked about it and what made Windows great.
 
Last edited:

Tsumi

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
13,505
Perfectly said. Let a "pay forever" version of Windows have all the cloud account crap baked in that MS wants, and if they want to capture people into their online services net there, so be it. But if someone's paying money for a retail copy of the OS, don't insult the user and hit them over the head with the cloud account bullshit by deceptively hiding the local account option and making it hard to find, particularly for first time users.

The apologists will usually sputter "Well, Apple does it, why is it okay for Apple?" and I say WGAF - there's a reason we're all running Windows, there's a reason Apple's desktop share is a joke. Microsoft hasn't played Apple's games historically up until this current Metro era of suck, and MS would do well not to forget that, not to forget what users have always liked about it and what made Windows great.

I would like for you to point out which apologists are saying it's okay to do away with the permanent retail license and force everyone into the subscription model.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
The apologists will usually sputter "Well, Apple does it, why is it okay for Apple?" and I say WGAF - there's a reason we're all running Windows, there's a reason Apple's desktop share is a joke. Microsoft hasn't played Apple's games historically up until this current Metro era of suck, and MS would do well not to forget that, not to forget what users have always liked about it and what made Windows great.

We live in an economy driven by avarice, envy, and greed. Without a strong leader companies like Microsoft are not capable of seeing the threat that the endless pursuit of greater profits poses to their existence. They see lots of new tablet devices, so Windows needs to be a tablet OS. They see Apple and Google making money from apps, so Windows needs to be appified. They see how much money they could make from subscriptions, so they transition everything to subscriptions and become a services company. Its a company run by accountants rather than software developers. Their decisions are being driven by expected profits rather than a desire to create something. We've seen the results. Accountants and business majors suck at actually figuring out what people want and their decisions are frustrating users and undermining their trust.
 
Last edited:
Top