this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
1107 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
55744 readers
3398 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whatever happened to windows 10 being the last windows? Like windows was moving to the os as a service model.
It did though, you aren't paying for 11.
Just paying for a whole new computer required for compability with 11.
You cheeky bastard
Fair enough. It just was funny to me that they were so adamant about it when windows 10 launched.
Apple moved from X to 11 and onwards
And the latest macOS has pretty much the same user experience as the original OS X, just with added features and whatnot. They didn't do a massive overhaul like Windows does every release.
What's an OS as a service model?
You pay a subscription for support, kind of like with RedHat or SUSE. Or with Office 365, if you want something more consumer-oriented.
There wouldn't be major releases of the OS, just continual improvements as long as you keep paying. So instead of paying $100-150 every 5 years or whatever, you'd pay $20-50 every year.
That sounds lame, what are the benefits of this?
For who?
For the user, generally smaller changes and staying up-to-date. It's why I use a rolling-release Linux distro (openSUSE Tumbleweed) instead of a release-based distro, I don't like big changes and I like staying up-to-date. I think Windows 10 users were excited to have something similar, where they get the same UX, but with improvements coming in a steady stream instead of periodic major releases.
For the company, a more steady income stream. That's part of why big, online games like Apex Legends are so popular for big gaming companies, getting a steady income stream is preferable to a bunch of money every game release with nothing between launches. In fact, my company is selling off part of the business because it's too variable (profitability is based on commodity prices) and focusing on the segments of the business that are more consistent. I've heard we'd rather have lower average profit margins than highly variable profit margins.
I get it now. It does sound reasonable. I just have an aversion to having to make repeated payments.
Same. But if I'm getting value from it, it may be preferable to making larger payments less frequently.
But if you remove the payment aspect from it (i.e. it's free either way), there are plenty of reasons to prefer a steady stream of updates to an infrequent dump of updates.
So then the steady stream vs dump comes down to cost, would you rather pay $120/year, or $10/month? Some may even prefer the $10/month to a modest discount (e.g. $100/year) if it means avoiding the larger, one-time payment.
Personally, I prefer one-time payments w/ discount and a steady stream of updates.
I totally agree with your last statement. Honestly, I usually pirate or buy keys so I'm not one of those people paying full price for software, but regular updates are preferable.
Apparently Microsoft didn't get the memo :-)