Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Apr 2014 23:12 UTC

Peter Bright making the case for subscription-based Windows.

Microsoft has already made Windows free to OEMs for tablets with screens below a certain size. Making it free to everyone but without the desktop would be a logical extension of this. It gives Microsoft the tools to compete with both Android on tablets and Chrome OS on laptops, while still not cutting it out of the revenue loop entirely. Desktop-less Windows should provide Microsoft with some amount of revenue through applications bought in the Store.

To this, add a couple of levels of unlocks: one tier for regular Windows desktop features (offering parity with the feature set of Windows 8.1 today), and a second, higher tier for Windows corporate features (offering parity with Windows 8.1 Pro). These could be both persistent unlocks or periodic subscriptions. Microsoft has already had persistent operating system unlocks since Windows Vista's Anytime Upgrade feature, so none of this would be hugely different from what's gone before.

The facts and rumours do line up, but honestly - free/subscription-based Windows is right up there with a TV from Apple when it comes to long-running, always-returning but never materialising rumours.

Thread beginning with comment 587571
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

is the day I witch to linux...

I've been using OpenSUSE 13 since its release and I can't be happier. It's KDE implementation is really solid.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Drumhellar Member since:

Any idea how OpenSUSE's KDE implementation compares to Fedora's KDE spin? I've been using Fedora for a while, having moved from Kubuntu, and while I enjoy it well enough, I still wonder if I'm missing out on something more KDE focused. I know OpenSUSE has traditionally been KDE-centric, but not sure if the better KDE focus is worth doing the work for the switch...

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:

Any idea how OpenSUSE's KDE implementation compares to Fedora's KDE spin?

I haven't used Fedora in any way, I was always an Ubuntu user before. I must say though that on my machine, I do have a Samsung SSD* and 16GB of RAM, half of which goes to /tmp under the default tmpfs scheme so perhaps it helps. But other than that, the only issues I have was I went with a cheaper ATI card, but I've had no trouble for that either after a few updates.

In terms of configuration, I think the only thing OpenSUSE provides is YaST. All the other KDE configuration stuff is there. I don't really consider myself a power user, even though I am a programmer, I can't be bothered fiddling with stuff, but YaST seems really polished.

* I also have no swap partition and I've never run into memory problems even while having multiple Chrome tabs open watching Youtube and compiling GCC.

Edited 2014-04-26 02:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

grat Member since:

openSuSE hasn't been "KDE Focused" since about the 8.x series. KDE and Gnome (and XFCE) are all three well supported, and easy to pick at install time (You might have to turn off "automatic configuration" during install, but even so, the desktops are easy to install afterwards).


Historically, the SuSE guys have done a very nice job of making all three desktops highly polished and similar in appearance. Gnome 3.x has made this a bit more difficult, since the Gnome team believes they should be in charge of "branding" for Gnome.

I've been very happy with 13.1.

Reply Parent Score: 3