A recently-filed patent from Microsoft gives us a glimpse into a possible future strategy from the software giant, wherein people buy a computer, but only pay for that portion of the computer's performance and capabilities they actually use. There's a pretty detailed summary of the plan in a Cnet article that's worth a read. It actually sounds a lot like a "cloud computing" strategy for the consumer, and it all seems to make sense, until you start to really think about it.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-01
Ok this is just ridicolous and I am furious about it:
The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels utilized, along with a "one-time charge"
A computer with scalable performance level components and selectable software and service options has a user interface that allows individual performance levels to be selected"
"The scalable performance level components may include a processor, memory, graphics controller, etc. Software and services may include word processing, email, browsing, database access, etc. To support a pay-per-use business model, each selectable item may have a cost associated with it, allowing a user to pay for the services actually selected"
Are you for real? Seriously! Perhaps they'd start charing how many times you've played a song with WM even non-protected or how many times you've visitted a web site or how long you have spent on linux.com and may be they'd be an extra charge when you go to distrowatch.com. This is so dumb. I so hope the patent does not go through.
Edited 2008-12-30 20:11 UTC
Member since:1997-10-01
Member since:2005-07-24
This would be better handled through default settings in either "MS Parental Controls", or perhaps in the firewall of MS Pay Per Use Windows. Distrowatch encourages your children to install software which is "illegal" from the perspective of your Pay Per Use PC. An alternate viewpoint would be that distrowatch is a potential source for malware, and should simply be blocked at the firewall level.
Edited 2008-12-30 20:25 UTC
Member since:2006-01-06
You're objecting to the idea, not the patent. And, really, the market will decide on the worthiness or worthlessness of the idea. So, why be outraged over things you have no control over? It's like being pissed off about gravity or the color of the sky.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-08-09
That's hardly stupid from MS' perspective. ;-)
I agree with you, to be sure, but rather because this thing shows how completely uninspired they've become.
A couple of years ago I actually thought some day MS might come up with their own Linux distribution, and even manage to make money off of it.
From the Redmond point of view, it's never stupid if it makes 'em money. Which is the only type of ethic they'll ever cling to. (FWIW, this is a purely descriptive statement. :-) )
http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/anykey.jpg
I've never found it hard to find the any key. :-P
Member since:2006-01-01
Thanks!
Member since:2005-07-24
Does that mean we agree that most computer users today would go for it, as long as the initial buy in cost was low? Say they were offered a free one as a "gift" for opening a checking account with Bank X?
Edited 2008-12-30 21:14 UTC
Member since:2006-06-26
I seriously doubt it. Microsoft thinks PC users are a stupid bunch - maybe that was true of the past. Nowadays - at least in part thanks to open source - that's not longer the case. Funnily Microsoft seems not to have realized this - or they have ignored it. Either way would be silly and utmost stupid. But then, brotha, it's Microsoft ...
Member since:2009-01-01
Didn't MS and Intel work on a system called palladium some years ago? It was I thought meant to check your computer at boot up make sure your hardware and software were all legal. If there was a problem it wouldn't allow the system to boot. I heard they dropped it because of negative publicity, so I am not really surprised at your comments.
Member since:2009-01-01
Thank you! Good point.
The nefarious Palladium system, which harkens to the "blackbird" of the Win 4.0/Chicago days (later Win95), was an insidious attempt by Microsoft to control individual freedom. It never died. It is still alive, albeit in a different guise.
Heck, even "Blacbird" still exists. ActiveX, anyone?
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
This is a bowel-loosening, Orwellian vision that Microsoft and their cohorts are promoting. I encourage all readers to check up on this, and take heed.
Clearly, this is simply another move in their grand strategy.
Member since:
2006-01-01
In my opinion this is the most ridiculous, most stupidest and dumbest idea Microsoft has ever come up with. Basically, MS will be in control of your PC. They tell you what you can use and what you can't use. They will own your life. So what happens when you decide to install new software that runs of the hard disk? Will they even let you? What happens if you try to install a non-MS OS. will there be some type of software in the BIOS that won't let you partition your hd or perhaps every hour the PC (Windows) would have to send a "ping" to one of MS's servers to make sure that your PC is still active and running jail-ware. Everyone agreeing (but being able to afford the real thing) to buy such a control chip in your home does not deserve to own a computer. Only the "where is the any key" user or "why does my PC not work (while there is a power outage)" would agree to such a computer.
Edited 2008-12-30 20:05 UTC