Microsoft outlines the Windows 10 21H1 feature update

[HEXUS]

It discusses features of the upcoming Office 2021 for consumers and Office LTSC too.

Read more.

[Primey0]

Extremely disappointing update

[Saracen999]

Though it is encouraging customers to move to online cloud subscription products like Office 365 and Microsoft 365, Microsoft still recognises the need for unconnected standalone versions of its Office software suite.

Well, good. But a bit late in my case, having already bitten the bullet and migrated entirely (and so far, without regret) to Libre. I can't say I'm either a heavy user, or an especially sophisticated one (despite being nose-buried in Libre Calc all day today).

Why did I migrate? Because, given Adobe's hard-nosed attitude to this, and MSs clear subscription "preference" that model gives me zero benefits and plenty of reason to dislike having their hand constantly in my wallet. In short, I don't trust them to not do an Adobe in the future and suspect it's when, not if. So I jumped ship. I'm minimising my exposure to Adobe-ism as best I can.

[Scryder]

I never understood why you'd want to subscribe to get office as a home user. I can understand for business, but home, zero benefit (as @Saracen999 said above). Libre Office does a decent job for the past few years for me. I did enjoy doing some Access programming once in a while, but that's hardly worth paying a subscription.

I do still have Office installed, as my last couple of workplaces had Office 365... but it's not being used at all right now.

I knew this was coming as more and more companies are going the subscription route... sooner or later people will wake up and realise that these subscriptions add up monthly. The fact that you don't own software you pay money for, unless you keep paying them, just doesn't sit right with me. Again I understand the business case, I just mean for home users.

[JerryTheC]

I knew this was coming as more and more companies are going the subscription route... sooner or later people will wake up and realise that these subscriptions add up monthly. The fact that you don't own software you pay money for, unless you keep paying them, just doesn't sit right with me. Again I understand the business case, I just mean for home users.

Exactly - I can see why the developers love it, but long term it's just too expensive for non-business users. If you're a home user and want to try something, it's cheaper initially, but use it for any length of time and it ends up more expensive. I'd much rather have the option of buying something ONCE
and then having the choice whether or not to buy updates depending on whether the changes are worth the cost for me, rather than having a continual money leak.

So personally, I just avoid subscription only services. And I suspect that a lot of other people will too, and that'll eventually come back to bite the subscription only products - if your potential new user base starts using other products, then they're likely to prefer to keep on using those when they get jobs.

[fend_oblivion]

Libre Office is free, lightweight and more competent than the crap MS is pushing these days.

[Saracen999]

I largely agree with Scryder. I would point out that subscriptions can be appealing to some home users too, and it can make sense. It depends, IMHO, on both the extent to which you use whatever it is, and the pattern.

It also depends on what the alternatives cost (if anything) and, of course, if one of those alternatives is software you already have.

My brother,for instance, does a lot of photography and figured £100-ish/yr isn't bad for Photoshop and Lightroom. I agree.

BUT .... I've been using Photoshop since, IIRC, v2 (might have been v3), and I don't mean CS2 OR CS3. Before that, I used Micrografx Picture Publisher which, like Photoshop over a couple of decades, was not cheap. I mean, initially, nothing competed with that class of products and consumers were left high and dry. Then consumer versions of such software genres came out but they were pale imitations, compared to the power (and complexity) of Photoshop.

But over the years, the gap has closed hugely. Now, compare Affinity Photo (currently £24, outright licence) or GIMP (v3 imminent). Or many others. Photoshop is still the market leader, and for sure, if you're wanting very high-end tools such as preparing for commercial print runs, like a Vogue cover or the Argos catalogue, maybe you're still best off in Photoshop.

But with a little care and careful choices, you can put together a suite of products that are either free (Adobe Bridge, RAW Therapee plus GIMP, for example), or way cheaper (ACDSee, Affinity Photo, etc) and while maybe not having all very very latest Photoshop tweaks or the high-end print-oriented tools, are still easily enough for pretty much any consumer or jobbing pro photographer.

Never mind Photoshop at £700, or £100/month subscription, there are perfectly viable, and highly competent alternatives at far more budget prices, or even free.

Over the last couple of decades (until subscriptions), I've been a continuous user not just Photoshop, but :-

- MS Office (including Access)
- Adobe Pagemaker
- Adobe Premiere
- CorelDraw
- CoolEdit (which, IIRC, became Adobe Audition)
- several more. (EDIT - Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Paradox, dBase, FoxPro, Delphi, etc)

Add that little lot up, including periodic upgrades, and the total is staggering.

So my question, to myself, is .... what do new versions of these give me, in terms of additional and/or improved capabilities, that I don't already have, and does it justify a subscription?

What, for instance, do I get from a Photoshop subscription that I don't get from my existing CS3 (or whatever it is) perpetual licence? The answer is, nowhere near enough.

So for me, either sticking to CS3, or switching to maybe (free) GIMP, or pretty cheap (but still excellent) Affinity Photo makes way, way, way more sense than £100/yr for Photoshop/Lightroom, and a lot more than that if I want Premiere, and the current versions of CoolEdit/Audition, PageMaker/InDesign, Premiere, AfterEffects, Illustrator, and so on. Oh, and note, Affinity do "Publisher" and "Illustrator" at (currently) £24 outright, too.

There are just too many very competent free or low-cost alternatives, ibcluding LibreOffice, for me to much care any more what MS and Adobe, etc, do with subscriptions.

Oe more thing. Usage pattern. I might spend weeks buried up to my eyebrows in Photo Editing, or video editing, or DTP layouts, or whatever, then barely touch them for months.

With a perpetual licence purchase, I can decide in advance, is an upgrade worth £x to me, or do I stick with what I have? With subscription software, it's dipping into my wallet every month, regardless of whether I'm using it loads, little or not at all. And they ruddy well add up.

So while a business case exists, and a home user case might too if you're using it constantly, and perhaps taking courses in the market-leading software like Photoshop, for me, it just doesn't. Cheap or free alternatives get me there. Which is why I either am migrating from the above softwares if they go suscription, or will when they do, or if I want modern features. I'll put up with the learning curve from GIMP, etc.

On the other hand, modestly priced software, like ACDSee and Affinity, not to mention my genealogy software, VintyStudio, dbPowerAmp, and more, I'll cheerfully pay for just to try to encourage and support such developers. But not on subscription, even if it's £1 or £2 a month. Not doing that. ACDSee offer that as an option. Fine. But not for me.

For me, it's not just the business case, and certainly not just the money. It's not liking the principle of subscriptions.

[Dreaming]

I never understood why you'd want to subscribe to get office as a home user. I can understand for business, but home, zero benefit (as @Saracen999 said above). Libre Office does a decent job for the past few years for me. I did enjoy doing some Access programming once in a while, but that's hardly worth paying a subscription.

For us it was to get 1TB of cloud storage as well as being able to share this perk with my nieces and nephews so they can do their homework. The standalone would need multiple purchases required.

[AGTDenton]

Why did I migrate? Because, given Adobe's hard-nosed attitude to this, and MSs clear subscription "preference" that model gives me zero benefits and plenty of reason to dislike having their hand constantly in my wallet. In short, I don't trust them to not do an Adobe in the future and suspect it's when, not if. So I jumped ship. I'm minimising my exposure to Adobe-ism as best I can.

I fired up my old Macromedia Fireworks 8 last month, to my amazement it still works, and activated, though I think there's a bug because the activation servers are long gone. But this is what I learned with and everything fell back into place. Today it's simplicity shines. A great investment 12 years ago.

It does seem with the last couple of releases from Microsoft that they're giving up or working towards something else. In 6 years they've failed to crack Control Panel Vs Settings. We're still left with a complete mess on the table. I never really know if they're designing Windows for a phone or a desktop or a tablet.

[Saracen999]

I fired up my old Macromedia Fireworks 8 last month, to my amazement it still works, and activated, though I think there's a bug because the activation servers are long gone. But this is what I learned with and everything fell back into place. Today it's simplicity shines. A great investment 12 years ago.

It does seem with the last couple of releases from Microsoft that they're giving up or working towards something else. In 6 years they've failed to crack Control Panel Vs Settings. We're still left with a complete mess on the table. I never really know if they're designing Windows for a phone or a desktop or a tablet.

Oh, yeah. In the "several more" category in my list, I'd have to include both Dreamweaver and Fireworks. Which version? I'd have to check. v6, I think.

Yeah, it does feel like they're migrating, though rather less brutally than Adobe did. As a precaution, I've already moved from Office, and in large part, from Windows (to Ubuntu) too.

I do have a Surface Pro, running W10 Pro though. And, I do rather like it. Tablet? When I want it to be. And pretty good to use with a pen, too, though I also have the Arc Mouse and KB. It's a a great machine for sitting in bed and using. Though be careful where you rest it if YouTubing because it can get flipping hot!!!!.

[sinhaomar]

Microsoft summed up feature update version 21H1 with just three bullet points. Such is the small scale of this update that the release will have a fast installation experience, installing like a monthly update.

[Ttaskmaster]

21H1... Is that Computer Flu?

[Rubarb]

I largely agree with Scryder. I would point out that subscriptions can be appealing to some home users too, and it can make sense. It depends, IMHO, on both the extent to which you use whatever it is, and the pattern.

It also depends on what the alternatives cost (if anything) and, of course, if one of those alternatives is software you already have.

My brother,for instance, does a lot of photography and figured £100-ish/yr isn't bad for Photoshop and Lightroom. I agree.

BUT .... I've been using Photoshop since, IIRC, v2 (might have been v3), and I don't mean CS2 OR CS3. Before that, I used Micrografx Picture Publisher which, like Photoshop over a couple of decades, was not cheap. I mean, initially, nothing competed with that class of products and consumers were left high and dry. Then consumer versions of such software genres came out but they were pale imitations, compared to the power (and complexity) of Photoshop.

But over the years, the gap has closed hugely. Now, compare Affinity Photo (currently £24, outright licence) or GIMP (v3 imminent). Or many others. Photoshop is still the market leader, and for sure, if you're wanting very high-end tools such as preparing for commercial print runs, like a Vogue cover or the Argos catalogue, maybe you're still best off in Photoshop.

But with a little care and careful choices, you can put together a suite of products that are either free (Adobe Bridge, RAW Therapee plus GIMP, for example, or way cheaper (ACDSee, Affinity Photo, etc) nd while maybe not having all very very latest Photoshop tweaks or the high-end print-orientedtools, are still easily enough for pretty much and consumer or jobbing pro photographer.

Never mind Photoshop at £700, or £100/month subscription, there are perfectly viable, and highly competent alternatives at far more budget prices, or even free.

Over the last couple of decades (until subscriptions), I've been a continuous user not just Photoshop, but :-

- MS Office (including Access)
- Adobe Photoshop
- Adobe Pagemaker
- Adobe Premiere
- CorelDraw
- CoolEdit (which, IIRC, became Adobe Audition)
- several more.

Add that little lot up, including periodic upgrades, and the total is staggering.

So my question, to myself, is .... what do new versions of these give me, in terms of additional and/or improved capabilities, that I don't already have, and does it justify a subscription?

What, for instance, do I gfet from a Photoshop subscription that I don't get from my existing CS3 (or whatever it is) perpetual licence? The answer is, nowhere near enough.

So for me, either sticking to CS3, or switching to maybe (free) GIMP, or pretty cheap (but still excellent) Affinity Photo makes way, way, way more sense than £100/yr for Photoshop/Lightroom, and a lot more than that if I want Premiere, and the current versions of CoolEdit/Audition, PageMaker/InDesign, Premiere, AfterEffects, Illustrator, and so on. Oh, and note, Affinity do "Publisher" and "Illustrator" at (currently) £24 outrright, too.

There are just too many very competent free or lowcost alternatives, ibcluding LibreOffice, for me to much care any more what MS and Adobe, etc, do with subscriptions.

Oe more thing. Usage pattern. I might spend weeks buried up to my eyebrows in Photo Editing, or video editing, or DTP layouts, or whatever, then barely touch them for months.

With an outrright purchase, I can decide in advance, is an upgrade worth £x to me, or do I stck with what I have? With subscription software, it's dipping into my wallet every month, regardless of whether I'm using it loads, little or not at all. Andthey ruddy well add up.

So while a business case exists, and a home user case might too if you're using it constantly, and perhaps taking courses in the market-leading software like Photoshop, for me, it just doeswn't. Cheap of free alternatives get me there. Which is why I either am migrating from the above softwares if they go suscription, or will when they do, or if I want modern features. I'll put up withthe learning curve.

On the other hand, modestly priced software, like ACDSee and Affinity, not to mention my genealogy software, VintyAStudio, dbPowerAmp, and more, I'll cheerfully pay for just to try to encourage and support such developers. Butr not on subscription, even if it's £1 or £2 a month. Not doing that.

For me, it's not just the business case, and certainly not just the money. It's not liking the principle of subscriptions.

I couldn't agree more , I went back to photoshop cs6 for this reason.