Posted on 05/07/2015 9:05:31 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
M icrosoft unveiled Windows 10, its forthcoming operating system for the desktop, mobile, Xbox, and IoT late last year. The Windows 10 moniker was interesting, as ideally, Microsoft was expected to call the successor to Windows 8 (and 8.1) as Windows 9. The Redmond-based company explained why it didn’t go with ‘Windows 9’: it would have created conflict with older versions of Windows. Alright, so what will the next version of Windows be called? Windows 10, apparently.
At Ignite conference earlier this week, Jerry Nixon, a Microsoft Developer Evangelist, said that Windows 10 “is the last version of Windows (so we’re always working on Windows 10).” The company apparently isn’t going to release anymore versions of Windows as instead it plans to keep updating the existing version.
"Windows 10 is the last version of Windows so we're always working on Windows 10" – Jerry Nixon. Very interesting #msignite #YouthSpark
— James Croft (@jamzc92) May 6, 2015
Nixon’s comment solifies Mary Jo Foley’s report from late last year where she had casually mentioned that Windows 10 will be the last major version of Windows. “Microsoft went instead with Windows 10 because they wanted to signify that the coming Windows release would be the last “major” Windows update.” Okay, but what does it mean?
Changing Windows’ business model from software as a product to software as a service.
Windows as of now is sold as a standalone product. You buy it, you use it for months, and when the next version of the operating system hits the retail, you have to purchase it again and replace your existing Windows’ version. You, however, have the ability to keep using your old version of Windows forever. Sure, the company will stop providing security updates after a couple of years but you still own that software and are lawfully entitled to use it for as long as you want. This is known as software as a product business model.
The company is seemingly moving to software as a service model wherein you purchase the software for a specified period of time. Once the duration expires, you have to pay the company again to use their app. If Microsoft does change gears on how it wants to sell Windows operating system to you, it won’t be the first time the company is opting to use software as a service model. Office 365 — the productivity suite from the company is also sold in a similar way.
Come to think of it, Windows as a service makes perfect sense. Microsoft has announced that Windows 10 will be available to people for free for the first year. Afterwards, the company is likely to charge users every few years to renew their licence. If it works, it could boost the revenue it is making from its operating system.
We’ve contacted Microsoft for confirmation and the company has requested for some time before it could offer a statement. We will update the post as it develops.
Everyone say it with me: PaaS (Platform as a Service)
If you think it’s not already here, you’re not paying attention.
I am in the process of transitioning to Linux finally. to hell with Microsoft.
Win10 is apparently dropping Windows Media Center.
That could render previous versions of some hardware and software useless.
I use to think that way until I started buying engineering software. The initial license for one package I use was $18,000, then every year, you have to pay the subscription of $2200. A new package was just released by their competitor that gives the same level of functionality for $120 per month with NO initial license purchase. Then again this situation is different then going out and buying a seat of Quickbooks.
With an OS I am with you. I have a few computers that I never put on the web. I have been buying up high end laptops (used) with XP. I need them for some of my shop equipment. I go crazy with unrequested mandatory updates from Windows 8. I can’t imagine how bad it would be if I have to subscribe every month to a Windows 10.
They might have made much more if they just went for volume say maybe $10.00 a pop.
| Red Hat Enterprise Linux has been using this marketing model for at least 10 years now. The difference is that with Red Hat, the software and all the source files are free. However, if you want updates and security fixes, you need an annual subscription. IIRC, there are three levels of tech support, silver, gold, and platinum, starting at $50/year for silver support for a single system. There are probably discounts for multiple users and enterprise subscriptions. Alternatively, there is Red Hat’s CentOS, which is completely free, including sources, and tracks Red Hat Enterprise Linux, release for release. CentOS includes updates, but tech support is limited to their user forum and your favorite search engine. I think Ubuntu Linux runs on a donation basis. Don’t know offhand how the other Linux flavors make their money. |
“Apparently whoever came up with Device Guard didn’t get that memo.”
Device Guard is just another bag on the side. It’s not real security: real security is built-in right from the start.
Malware targets the user as the vulnerability, not the OS. Show me the OS that can fix that.
“Malware targets the user as the vulnerability”
Indeed it does - for secure systems. For insecure systems like Windows and IE, malware targets the system insecurities directly, which is why Microsoft issues a steady stream of SECURITY UPDATES. These security updates are not fixing broken users, they’re fixing broken software.
Please provide the source documentation.
“Please provide the source documentation.”
"Despite what the anti-Redmond crowd have blogged over the years, however, hackers didn’t target Microsoft products exclusively because they were insecure, or because the people involved had some ideological death-wish on the company. No – they did it because Microsoft was the most used end-point device environment in the world. Bill Gates’ “Windows Everywhere” ambition, once realised, made it the most obvious of all targets."
So?
How about the FIRST link in the search:
http://www.howtogeek.com/141944/htg-explains-why-windows-has-the-most-viruses/
Why Windows Has the MOST Viruses
The Sad Security History of Windows
Historically, Windows was not designed for security. While Linux and Apple’s Mac OS X (based on Unix) were built from the ground-up to be multi-user operating systems that allowed users to log in with limited user accounts, the original versions of Windows never were.
DOS was a single-user operating system, and the initial versions of Windows were built on top of DOS. Windows 3.1, 95, 98, and Me may have looked like advanced operating systems at the time, but they were actually running on top of the single-user DOS. DOS didn’t have proper user accounts, file permissions, or other security restrictions.
Windows NT – the core of Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and now 8 – is a modern, multi-user operating system that supports all the essential security settings, including the ability to restrict user account permissions. However, Microsoft never really designed consumer versions of Windows for security until Windows XP SP2. Windows XP supported multiple user accounts with limited privileges, but most people just logged into their Windows XP systems as the Administrator user. Much software wouldn’t work if you did use a limited user account, anyway. Windows XP shipped without a firewall enabled and network services were exposed directly to the Internet, which made it an easy target for worms. At one point, the SANS Internet Storm Center estimated an unpatched Windows XP system would be infected within four minutes of connecting it directly to the Internet, due to worms like Blaster.
In addition, Windows XP’s autorun feature automatically ran applications on media devices connected to the computer. This allowed Sony to install a rootkit on Windows systems by adding it to their audio CDs, and savvy criminals began leaving infected USB drives lying around near companies they wanted to compromise. If an employee picked up the USB drive and plugged it into a company computer, it would infect the computer. And, because most users logged in as Administrator users, the malware would run with administrative privileges and have complete access to the computer.
etc.
"Windows is a big target because it powers the vast majority of the world’s desktop computers and laptops. If you’re writing malware and you want to infect average computers users – perhaps you want to install a key logger on their systems and steal their credit card numbers and other financial data – you would target Windows because that’s where the most users are.
This is the most common argument for Windows having such a history of malware, and it’s true"
Maybe both you and your customers might be better off if you just didn't work on Windows systems any more.
But if Windows were ACTUALLY secure, it wouldn’t matter HOW big it was. But it’s not, which is why the various NT Windows-based OSes have had to have hundreds of security patches over the decades.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/173674/adding_up_six_years_of_microsoft_patch_tuesdays.html
Nothing is absolutely secure. If you can't deal with that, maybe you should just leave it alone.
Heh I’m running f21 on a workstation and as a Vbox guest on a W8 desktop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.