Windows 10 is "the last version of Windows," says Microsoft dev

[TooNice]

Just like Google's browser gets updated as and when required and updates are pushed from Google, the same will happen to Microsoft's OS.

I made some adjustment so that it only gets updated when I want to. More than once did I lose all my existing tabs after an auto-update, so now, I won't update before I have the chance to save my tabs first.

[GuidoLS]

The claim that pirates also get a free copy was widely reported but turned out to be incorrect, while they can upgrade from an illegal copy of Windows 7/8.x there not suddenly going to have a legal copy of W10, a pirated version of Windows will remain a pirated Windows 10.

Yes and no - they'll have a 'legal' copy of Win10 - it will just be an unsupported version of 10 (no updates, no customer support internally or externally). And they'll have the illusion of safety in knowing that the product came, unadulterated, from Microsoft, and not 2nd/3rd hand, from sites that some would call less than reputable. And there's no doubt in my mind that there will be a provision to make it into a fully operational product.

Are they doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Not a chance. But I understand the reasoning behind doing it this way. Get them in, get them hooked, and make them part of law abiding world (and line their pockets with a bit more green).

[GuidoLS]

Well from the published system requirements for W10 it seems that's the intention, specifically the dropping of the requirement for vendors to include the ability to disable "Secure Boot" mode.

(broke this in 1/2, as it is 2 very different topics)

This is not entirely accurate. The current rumor (there's no actual documentation that's been release from MS on the topic) is that if an OEM wants to be able to post a "Designed for Windows 10" sticker on the case, the machine will have to have secure boot as the default. OEM's have had the option of doing this, and similar things, for quite a while now. There are hundreds of sites/how-to's/etc to get around such things to install alternate OS's, non-approved software, etc.

As it stands, Windows 10 runs on pretty much anything Windows 8 does, and despite the 'official' MS specs, will run on even older kit. I've successfully installed it on a P3 600mhz machine with 512k memory and onboard ATI Rage video - well under the 'requirements'. Why? Because it's part of beta testing. Bend the rules, break the rules, make things break.

In my opinion, this one falls right in line on the list of other FUD regarding Win10, at #2, right behind subscriptions...

[Corky34]

Yes and no - they'll have a 'legal' copy of Win10 - it will just be an unsupported version of 10 (no updates, no customer support internally or externally). And they'll have the illusion of safety in knowing that the product came, unadulterated, from Microsoft, and not 2nd/3rd hand, from sites that some would call less than reputable. And there's no doubt in my mind that there will be a provision to make it into a fully operational product.

Are they doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Not a chance. But I understand the reasoning behind doing it this way. Get them in, get them hooked, and make them part of law abiding world (and line their pockets with a bit more green).

Until it actually happens we can't be %100 certain, but going on the statement released by Microsoft they said "If a device was considered non-genuine or mislicensed prior to the upgrade, that device will continue to be considered non-genuine or mislicensed after the upgrade."

How they deal with those non-genuine versions of Windows 10 in the future remains to be seen, but your hypothesis about no updates, no customer support internally or externally does seem to be the general consensus, my guess would be that may well happen once the upgrade for free year is over and we find out the true price of Windows 10.

This is not entirely accurate. The current rumor (there's no actual documentation that's been release from MS on the topic) is that if an OEM wants to be able to post a "Designed for Windows 10" sticker on the case, the machine will have to have secure boot as the default. OEM's have had the option of doing this, and similar things, for quite a while now. There are hundreds of sites/how-to's/etc to get around such things to install alternate OS's, non-approved software, etc.

I'm not sure if it counts as documentation but in a presentation from MS they used this slide that on it's own probably doesn't mean much, but when compared with the requirements that needed to be meet to carry a designed for Windows 8 logo things become a little clearer. The requirement of the designed for Windows 8 logo specified that every system must have a user-accessible switch to turn Secure Boot off, in the Windows 10 certification that mandated requirement has been dropped, perhaps OEMs will still include a user-accessible switch to turn Secure Boot off, or perhaps they will follow the path of least resistance and won't.

[GuidoLS]

I'm not sure if it counts as documentation but in a presentation from MS they used this slide that on it's own probably doesn't mean much, but when compared with the requirements that needed to be meet to carry a designed for Windows 8 logo things become a little clearer. The requirement of the designed for Windows 8 logo specified that every system must have a user-accessible switch to turn Secure Boot off, in the Windows 10 certification that mandated requirement has been dropped, perhaps OEMs will still include a user-accessible switch to turn Secure Boot off, or perhaps they will follow the path of least resistance and won't.

I'm not seeing this as an issue, any more than I saw it as an issue for Win 8/8.1 for system builders. It's strictly an OEM issue, and their desire/need to have a sticker. The big outcry that I've been seeing has had nothing to do with what hoops the OEM builders have to jump through, but the FUD that builders and upgraders will have to have certain hardware, etc - which simply isn't true. Microsoft is still, in spite of the Surface and budding phone side of things, a software company, and there are multiple millions of systems out there that do not need to be replaced to upgrade to 10. They may be a lot of other things, but they aren't stupid - they're not going to lock out that market. Especially the business market, which has been historically very slow to upgrade anything, especially hardware.

That, and to put it politely, Peter Bright is a drama whore. Love Ars Technica - there are times I'll quote them here. Peter, not so much. But you'll note that the sub-title on that article says one thing, and then contradicts itself just ahead of the graphic - there's a major difference between the words MUST and OPTIONAL. And the OEMs are at a point where MS is no longer in a position to bully them. It's a small one, but Steam gave them an option with the SteamOS overlay, and as I said to Saracen, the Linux community has roughly 8 years until people are forced to abandon Win 8.1, and 5 more for Win 7, which is plenty of time to create something that gives the OEM's even more options. Like I said, MS isn't stupid. They won't let it get to that point.

As for the piracy thing, I'll not lose sleep regardless of how it goes. I personally have 6 legitimate Window 7 licenses and 2 for Win 8. That they're going to allow any upgrade path from a pirated piece of software is really sort of astounding, regardless of how they play it after. We'll just have to see what happens. Only a couple of more months to go.

[Saracen]

You can go back and read what I said to you, if you like. You were arguing that Windows 10 was going to be a subscription service, and I told you that nobody could know if that would be the case in the future but we had a solid assurance right then that Windows 10 would not be a subscription service. And it still won't be.

Windows 10 will be supported for years, and it will not be a subscription service. Eventually there might be a Windows that is, but I never said it wouldn't. "Free for the first 12 months" was only a foul-up of explaining W10's grace period for accepting the update. If Windows goes subs-based in the future, that won't validate your position at the time, and nor was there some kind of hint contained within this. It'll only be coincidence; MS did not set-up a year's grace period because of subliminal leanings towards subscription models.

No, I was not arguing that W10 "was" going to be a subscription service. I was arguing it might be. I was arguing that MS moves were consistent with that ... though they're consistent with other things, too. I was arguing that, at some point, it looks like becoming that, and that that appeared (and appears) to be a "direction of travel".

Even if it is a direction of travel, it could be two, five or ten years off. Or it could happen this year, with Win10. Personally, I consider that latter to be very unlikely. I think MS are entirely aware that that would cause a huge backlash.

Will it go subscription, eventually? I don't know. I don't have inside information, Not these days. But based on everything they've done, and said, from offering subscription versions of Office, to repurposing it as a "service", to remarks about changing monetisation strategy, I think it absolutely plausible that, at the very least, they're subtly floating the prospect to see how it goes. That, in all likelihood, us what's behind dropping of ambiguous remarks, like 'changing how it's monetised". It's actually quite subtle. If you drop a hint or two, plant a rumour and sit back and watch, you can assess reaction and, if negative, change course and deny everything, or delay implementation and change marketing strategy.

Not that subscription is inherently a bad idea. I'm sure, at the right price, it will appeal to some people. It just does not appeal to me, at all, and is actually a red line for me, so IF MS go that way, I leave the Windows world for upgrades and future system's OS.

[Percy1983]

What I fail to see about people saying its over is it goes subscription is...

I have unofficially been paying a subscription since XP, ie upgrade costs every new version.

So if 10 became a subscription for updates/new features and the cost is reasonable then I will just carry on as I have been... putting some money into keeping my OS legit and up to date every once in a while.

For something I use everyday a couple of quid every month is and would be excellent value.

[Saracen]

What I fail to see about people saying its over is it goes subscription is...

I have unofficially been paying a subscription since XP, ie upgrade costs every new version.

So if 10 became a subscription for updates/new features and the cost is reasonable then I will just carry on as I have been... putting some money into keeping my OS legit and up to date every once in a while.

For something I use everyday a couple of quid every month is and would be excellent value.

If you update with every new version. I don't.

Currently, I have over a dozen machines here, about 10 of which are still running XP. Have been for years. For what I want, XP did then and does now do what I need of it. So, that couple of quid a month is £20 a month, £240 a year, and over the years since XP, what? £2400 or so in total. And, since those machines STILL do niw what I need of them, it would be £2400 for absolutely no gain. A huge waste of money.

As I said, for some people a subscription may be a good idea. For me, it isn't. Just as with Photoshop, if it's a package, I decide when, and indeed if, I upgrade. And with PS, that tended to be every second or third release, saving me a couple of hundred quid every time I skipped one. A couple of those old PCs are still running Office versions dating back to Office XP, or even Office 97. But again, they do all I need, so while new versions may have new features, like an old, trusted screwdriver, they just do what I need. And not constantly upgrading Office has saved me hundreds.

I could go on, but I have a lot of old software that worked then, and still worked now. If you add a pound here, a couple of quid there, every month, month-in, month-out, it soon amounts to a serious sum.

And some of those machines aren't turned on often. Some may go weeks at a time with being used. So, I'd be paying a subscription for something I wasn't even using much.

Now sure, these are old machines and not subject to this Windows offer anyway. But today's new machines are tomorrow's old ones. Fast forward a few years and, if I go subscription, then I'll have been paying out, use it or not.

As I said, if it suits you, great, go for it. But my situation is, clearly, different to yours.

[Steve Works]

They keep changing stuff without reason. They're more and more like Apple everyday.

[excalibur2]

Yes and no - they'll have a 'legal' copy of Win10 - it will just be an unsupported version of 10 (no updates, no customer support internally or externally). And they'll have the illusion of safety in knowing that the product came, unadulterated, from Microsoft, and not 2nd/3rd hand, from sites that some would call less than reputable. And there's no doubt in my mind that there will be a provision to make it into a fully operational product.

Are they doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Not a chance. But I understand the reasoning behind doing it this way. Get them in, get them hooked, and make them part of law abiding world (and line their pockets with a bit more green).

h'mm what pirate is going to update to win 10 if they can't get updates for bugs and say MS anti virus etc

[crossy]

What I fail to see about people saying its over is it goes subscription is...
I have unofficially been paying a subscription since XP, ie upgrade costs every new version.

Fair enough, other people haven't been buying every new version - I for one, skipped both Vista and Windows8. And in both cases I've been glad that I did.

So if 10 became a subscription for updates/new features and the cost is reasonable then I will just carry on as I have been... putting some money into keeping my OS legit and up to date every once in a while. For something I use everyday a couple of quid every month is and would be excellent value.

Hmm, and therein lies the problem, if* Microsoft go for a Windows subscription - Windows360 in effect - then how much and, more importantly, what happens to those people who decide to let their subscription lapse? Some suggestions I've seen have perhaps downgrading itself to a kind of tablet/netbook mode, so only one program at a time and limitations on memory size etc. Others have suggested that a machine with a lapsed subscription will work, but you get no new content from Microsoft, and if you're using OneDrive then that machine won't sync.

(* I've underlined "if" because all the gen I've seen have said that Microsoft themselves "aren't sure" how they're going to proceed with this - many options are being looked at).

Oh and for me, any Windows subscription would be poor value - my main system is Ubuntu Linux, which cost me exactly £0/$0 - and personally I'd prefer to pay that "couple of quid every month" for Ubuntu than that god-awful collection of just-flying-in-formation parts that is Windows. Soon as AAA gaming titles appear on Linux then as far as Microsoft is concerned, I'm "outta here".

[GuidoLS]

h'mm what pirate is going to update to win 10 if they can't get updates for bugs and say MS anti virus etc

I didn't say a thing about defender. Most people I know don't use it as a first line anyway, if at all. As for anything else, it's just speculation based on things that have been said or put in to print by people from MS. That they've considered offering anything at all is a complete turnabout, and far more than *I* would have ever expected. I won't get into the potential ramifications for shop owners who, at some point, may have to work on those machines.

[GazP172]

I don't see this as Windows as subscription, they'll make the money by selling their cloud services / ad revenue. I wouldn't be surprised though if they charged a license fee to Hardware suppliers and or corporate users.

[Saracen]

I don't see this as Windows as subscription, they'll make the money by selling their cloud services / ad revenue. I wouldn't be surprised though if they charged a license fee to Hardware suppliers and or corporate users.

Not from me they won't. I don't want their cloud services if they're free, let alone paying for them. And while I'm happy to pay for both OS and application software, I do not want ad-supported software, even if free. I'd rather buy it, ad-free .... or use something else. Or just do without.

[GazP172]

Not from me they won't. I don't want their cloud services if they're free, let alone paying for them. And while I'm happy to pay for both OS and application software, I do not want ad-supported software, even if free. I'd rather buy it, ad-free .... or use something else. Or just do without.

I should imagine their cloud services will be free for the basics just like its free now when you use outlook.com or Bing a bit like Android / Google. But they'll offer a more complete package for people / organisations that need that bit more e.g Office365 for a charge. As for ads if you use Google, Gmail, Outlook, Google maps or what ever, you get ads surely or have to pay for the service. If I put it this way, you buy a PC with the OS as a 1 off, then browse to Google do a search and get adverts then log into webmail and get adverts again. What's the difference?

The other thing is sometimes the adverts can be good, such as via a mapping service to show me where a local petrol station is for example, this will generate money and is useful.

The other source of revenue would be the Windows Store, so again like Android.

[shaithis]

I am wondering if in the future we will be the installer process change so that all apps must be installed via the Windows Store.

That way, Windows could be a free "service" that will be subsidised by Windows Store purchases.....could explain a lot of what's being said/implied.