Software as a Service is STUPID.

[bloodrain]

Well if that happens ill buy Mac.

I hate Mac's, but if Microsoft decides to do that, Im either going Linux full-time or *gasp* Apple.

[PGHammer]

I hate Mac's, but if Microsoft decides to do that, Im either going Linux full-time or *gasp* Apple.

Apple (who has already gone that route)? Linux (who went that route even earlier)?

Puh-lease.

MobileMe used to be the .Mac mail service (absolutely unnecessary, yet the client has been included with OS X since Panther; the only difference that the changeover to MobileMe brought is that you can now have non-Apple (Windows) clients).

Pretty much the only thing separating the various Linux distributions are the back-end services (either paid or free, they are still SaaS).

For all your whining, it is *Windows* that is late to the SaaS model.

[-KJ]

Woah dude, you're a little late to the game...

[cropcircles]

I'd be surprised to see a subscription based OS from MS but wouldn't put it past them. They are a greedy bunch, however they can call the shots. I would think they might want to get back some customer loyalty after Vista's poor release and developement so far. A subscription OS will not fly for that reason. Whatever came of the google discussions about their interest in developeing an OS, was this a web based dream they had.

[shihchiun]

Apple (who has already gone that route)? Linux (who went that route even earlier)?

Puh-lease.

MobileMe used to be the .Mac mail service (absolutely unnecessary, yet the client has been included with OS X since Panther; the only difference that the changeover to MobileMe brought is that you can now have non-Apple (Windows) clients).

Pretty much the only thing separating the various Linux distributions are the back-end services (either paid or free, they are still SaaS).

For all your whining, it is *Windows* that is late to the SaaS model.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you do not have to pay a subscription fee for OS X... or many Linux distributions.

[Kirkburn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you do not have to pay a subscription fee for OS X... or many Linux distributions.

Nor for Windows. If it actually came to pass that Windows really was going subscription, then you can compare.

However, software which runs on the OS...

[CelticWhisper]

Oh WOW! Some of you are insane! Switch to mac? LAMO...ive tested macs for years and nothing has changed with their damn extensions ALWAYS causing a system crash!

Took me long enough to notice this, but WHAT?

In OS9, yes, it was definitely a problem. I worked in a computer lab where there were 6 G3s and we commonly had issues like that. Every month or two one of them would have go to into a no-extensions boot to remedy some bizarro problem. Granted it was usually some idiot schoolkid that screwed them up, but they were definitely screw-uppable.

Since OS X was released, though, I've never once had a problem with extensions rendering the system unstable. The only time I've ever had a serious problem with it was when I was dual-booting my G4 with OS9 (and OS X was in its infancy, and I had little experience with it) and accidentally moved the "Library" folder while booted into OS9. Trying to boot into OS X ended up in a kernel panic, but big surprise there considering I hid half the system without realizing it.

Linux? YES its GREAT but for the simple fact its not good for most un-experienced end users it will never rival windows.

Never say "never." MAJOR inroads have been made in terms of usability and novice-friendliness. Ubuntu gets a lot of the credit there, but then so do projects like OLPC, Netbooks like the Eee driving development of specialized interfaces, and integrated Linux devices like Tivo. Right now I'll agree that it's not quite perfect, but I'm going to be bold and say that when Ubuntu hits version...10.04, it's going to be sufficiently user-friendly for mom-spec/grandma-spec PCs and will be sufficiently able to hide the CLI from users who don't know how to navigate around without a GUI.

As it is, Linux already rivals Windows. It just hasn't surpassed it yet.

SO on that topic you gotta admit windows has the market by the balls.

No I don't. I don't and, frankly, I won't. UNIX and its derivatives run the vast majority of servers on the internet, Linux is embedded in a lot of specialized devices, and as netbooks/UMPCs rise in popularity Linux will follow suit, as it's much easier to trim down and customize and runs more efficiently on scaled-back hardware. Windows has the business desktop in a vice-grip, I'll give it that. Windows has the basement-dweller/my-computer-is-a-toy gamer market in a vice-grip, I'll give it that too. And it has much of the home-PC market as well. These are large markets, but they are far from "the market." Once you start examining servers, network appliances (firewalls, concentrators, IDS), embedded devices, and other commonplace-but-less-thought-of systems, you realize that Windows is far from having "the market" "by the balls."

GRANTED windows is the most bloated OS to date BUT windows 7 is according to my studies supposed to be faster then ever before!

WOW. Did you major in marketing or what? Please, clarify for us what these studies entail. What are your sources of information? Who broke their NDA to tell you what you know about Windows 7? And why should we believe what you have to say? What proof can you give?

To have a subscription service to me is nuts BUT will thwart the hackers which in my mind may costs MS money but help them keep money in the long run.

Bear in mind, though, that if they make Windows too hard to pirate, pirates aren't going to start buying Windows - many of them will use free alternatives instead, which Microsoft absolutely does NOT want to see happen.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Never say "never." MAJOR inroads have been made in terms of usability and novice-friendliness. Ubuntu gets a lot of the credit there, but then so do projects like OLPC, Netbooks like the Eee driving development of specialized interfaces, and integrated Linux devices like Tivo. Right now I'll agree that it's not quite perfect, but I'm going to be bold and say that when Ubuntu hits version...10.04, it's going to be sufficiently user-friendly for mom-spec/grandma-spec PCs and will be sufficiently able to hide the CLI from users who don't know how to navigate around without a GUI.

As it is, Linux already rivals Windows. It just hasn't surpassed it yet.

Linux perhaps now rivals Windows 98 for desktop users. It's still a far cry from rivalling XP, Vista, or OS X.

[Rudy]

Linux perhaps now rivals Windows 98 for desktop users. It's still a far cry from rivalling XP, Vista, or OS X.

maybe on the workstation front but on the server front it's right up there with Windows Server

[markwolfe Veteran]

Linux perhaps now rivals Windows 98 for desktop users. It's still a far cry from rivalling XP, Vista, or OS X.

Oh, please.

Might I say that Vista now finally rivals Linux/Unix in security setup?

If you like to play the splitting hairs game, that is.

[Argote]

If you read the Ars Technica article you'll know that the subscription model was for businesses, not end users.

And they're already doing this...

[travisc]

Windows 7 WILL NOT be subscription based. it was an idea and was turned down nearly instantly. Microsoft was considering making Ultimate only subscription based saying they could develop further technologies better and upgrades to newer OS would be free as long as you continued your subscription. But unless something changes it will not happen.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Oh, please.

Might I say that Vista now finally rivals Linux/Unix in security setup?

If you like to play the splitting hairs game, that is.

Linux has never been particularly great at security setup either =P

I don't want to turn this into a Linux vs Others thread. But that's not what we're talking about here. For an average user, Ubuntu does as good a job hiding the underpinnings and providing generally the same level of useability as Windows 98. I'm talking about the file browsers, configuration UIs, and general application experience. It's a good accomplishment, but there's a reason consumers return Linux machines WAY more often than they return Windows or Mac machines. There's a reason only a super tiny segment of the market buys them to begin with.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Linux perhaps now rivals Windows 98 for desktop users. It's still a far cry from rivalling XP, Vista, or OS X.

I don't want to turn this into a Linux vs Others thread.

You fooled me!

You must have just been in the mood to post crap, then. You usually aren't like that.

[Kirkburn]

You fooled me!

Note he was responding to someone else who brought it up.

Aaaanyway, back on topic :)

[markwolfe Veteran]

still off-topic for one more post...

If I wanted to keep a thread "on topic", I sure as dickens wouldn't post "Vista perhaps now rivals Windows ME" as my post, and expect things to settle down in agreement. ;)

See what I mean about him saying one thing, then posting he doesn't want to go off-topic?

Thanks for your time.

</offtopic>

[PGHammer]

Nor for Windows. If it actually came to pass that Windows really was going subscription, then you can compare.

However, software which runs on the OS...

I was referring to *bundleware* included directly with the operating system (often a services front-end, for which a separate fee is charged, which was exactly the case with .Mac, now MobileMe). Anybody heard of Xandros Desktop? That actually started as the no-cost (as in free) RPM-distribution-native RedCarpet software-update/delivery service (at the time, it was closer to Windows Update more than anything else available for Linux); however, it was Xandros' transition to a fee-for-service model that inspired the raft of free alternatives (including Synaptic and YOU) as a protest to Xandros Desktop. RedHat (and Novell, and IBM, and even Canonical, the distributors of Ubuntu Linux) may not make a dime on their distributions of Linux for the most part; however, they DO make money on optional services for Linux and the users thereof, especially IBM and Novell. Has anyone ever seen Apple's annual reports and seen a breakout of what portion of Apple's revenue comes from services? Don't be surprised if a greater portion of Apple's revenue comes from services (both in terms of absolute dollars and as a percentage of all revenue) than Microsoft. It is already known that even IBM earns more in terms of services provided to Windows-based clients than Microsoft does.

SaaS (even for Windows) is not a field in which Microsoft plays (though quite a few OTHER companies do so, often based on not just Microsoft operating systems, but Microsoft's development tools as well).

[kaiwai]

I was referring to *bundleware* included directly with the operating system (often a services front-end, for which a separate fee is charged, which was exactly the case with .Mac, now MobileMe). Anybody heard of Xandros Desktop? That actually started as the no-cost (as in free) RPM-distribution-native RedCarpet software-update/delivery service (at the time, it was closer to Windows Update more than anything else available for Linux); however, it was Xandros' transition to a fee-for-service model that inspired the raft of free alternatives (including Synaptic and YOU) as a protest to Xandros Desktop. RedHat (and Novell, and IBM, and even Canonical, the distributors of Ubuntu Linux) may not make a dime on their distributions of Linux for the most part; however, they DO make money on optional services for Linux and the users thereof, especially IBM and Novell. Has anyone ever seen Apple's annual reports and seen a breakout of what portion of Apple's revenue comes from services? Don't be surprised if a greater portion of Apple's revenue comes from services (both in terms of absolute dollars and as a percentage of all revenue) than Microsoft. It is already known that even IBM earns more in terms of services provided to Windows-based clients than Microsoft does.

SaaS (even for Windows) is not a field in which Microsoft plays (though quite a few OTHER companies do so, often based on not just Microsoft operating systems, but Microsoft's development tools as well).

There is a difference; those 'subscription' services still allowed you to continue to use your software even after the subscription had finished. The subscription wasn't for the software - it was for the support; the software itself is essential free.

If Microsoft started to give away Windows at a rock bottom price THEN charged for the service through a subscription model - then I along with many others would have no qualms with it. What causes us grief is the idea of having an operating system that locks us out if we don't renew a subscription.