Microsoft wants to move Windows fully to the cloud
themadcodger@kbin.social to 
Technology@kbin.social – 106 points – 
theverge.com
If this happens, will it be a mass exodus to Linux/Mac? Or will people just live with it? The fact that the Steam Deck has shown great promise in playing games on Linux has made me reconsider Windows yet again.
You are viewing a single comment
That's a click-baity headline that doesn't really match the content of the article. Microsoft isn't going to be replacing desktop Windows installations with cloud installations, and nowhere in the article does it suggest it is. Many, many businesses require Windows installed on the desktop (and no, many of those can't switch to Linux, because the software they use is usually Windows-only). The article doesn't dig into who is currently using Windows 365 to stream the OS, but I would assume it's companies that are running computer kiosks, point-of-sale systems, or systems that would otherwise be extremely locked-down (like bank teller systems). Businesses that need system flexibility and resource-intensive applications aren't going to be using a cloud-based OS. Pretty-much any business that does engineering or creative work falls into that bucket.
My interpretation of the article is that they want to extend cloud-based Windows to other users that have extremely lightweight requirements. The biggest market I see is the education market, where you generally want to provide students with very locked down functionality. The article mentions competition with Chromebooks, which is also huge in the education space. I could see this as a competitor to an iPad/tablet too, for those who mostly do browsing, email, or lightweight web-based MS Office tasks and want to have a keyboard and mouse.
TL;DR: People are wildly misinterpreting this article, and there isn't going to be any kind of mass exodus to Linux because of Microsoft investing in Windows 365. Microsoft isn't going to stop selling installable copies of Windows.
How might it be different from something like Citrix? Just an official way to do it? Maybe some integration with hosting?
I think it's basically the same idea as Citrix. They're targeting the same market, anyway, as far as I understand. I assume they each have their own pros and cons.
Its probably different in that money goes to Microsoft instead of Citrix.
I'm not an economist but that seems like a pro for Microsoft and a con for Citrix. Though, seemingly, Microsoft's approach, naturally, centers around their own devices and OS rather than Citrix's approach where just about every device/OS has an available application that can be used.
Its probably in direct competition to citrix.
For a recent job I had to sign into citrix to open a windows VM to access a corporate network. It was a pain, to be honest.
MS could have made that much easier if it was just a matter of signing in and getting some form of windows image streamed directly.
Citrix can do what you’re asking.
As an example, we're currently evaluating it as an option for doctors to access certain EMRs offsite where it doesn't make sense to provide them an entire workstation, e.g., community doctors working from their private practices.
I'd say Microsoft's long term needle-moving strategy including the bullet point "Move Windows 11 increasingly to the cloud" suggests it pretty strongly. Calling it "needle-moving" says to me that they want the cloud to be more and more the expected default, rather than an option that exists alongside desktop installs.
Perhaps I've just read too many Microsoft business documents (I used to work for them years ago), but that's not how I interpret that slide. It looks more to me like they want to "cloud-ify" functionality that could be used either from a desktop install or from a cloud streamed version. The key phrase in that slide to me is "Use the power of the cloud and client to enable improved AI-powered services and full roaming of people's digital experience".
That kind of fits with what they've been doing by moving Windows login to use a Microsoft Account by default (which I hate, btw -- I'm one of those local account people), as well as integration of OneDrive as default file save location. It's the same kind of thing Apple's been doing with macOS for the past few years, adding iCloud integration with everything. If you move that functionality for desktop installs to mostly be cloud-based, it also allows you to create a more viable cloud-only offering. But it doesn't mean there's a reason to stop selling a desktop-installable version.
Microsoft is still a business, and they'd lose a ton of market-share by killing off desktop installs, especially in the enterprise sector, which is their bread and butter. They're looking to expand into other markets, not kill off large existing ones.
Microsoft still sells single, non subscription licenses for Office. I think Windows is safe for the forseeable future, especially since they sell it to OEMs...
This was to be expected... But eventually.. Microsoft will force people to the cloud.. I just feel it.. it's happening..
I'm absolutely with you. Boiling frog and all. 10 years ago nobody would have believed that you'd require an online account to log into your local machine.
As soon as it's viable from a business point of view (as in people will swallow it), it will be cloud only.
But what does Microsoft gain by that?
Subscription fees instead of single-buy licenses are generally more profitable after 1-2 years. This whole cloud crap is a pure vendors' market.
Also, telemetry isn't required anymore when users just use cloud services. That's what made Google and Facebook big after all.
I agree with most of your comment, but I bet Microsoft will what do whatever the market says will be most profitable, so nothing is off the table.
Yep, you're absolutely right. I think my main point is that switching to only offering a cloud-streamed OS as their only offering would kill off a massive market where they have market dominance (enterprise desktops). It doesn't make business sense for them to leave that market. If the demands of that market change, then you're right -- they're going to do whatever is most profitable. But we're nowhere near there yet.
Glad someone is calling this out. Came from a link elsewhere and the headline just screamed no fucking way. Users won’t tolerate buying a machine only to stream the fucking OS from elsewhere. Sounds more like when I had to stream a desktop from AWS to access my schools licensed Adobe suite.
Because why would a business buy a computer for $1k that they can write off by depreciating the value of, when they can not own a less useful, less powerful one that only works when there is internet for only $100 per month instead?
yup, microsoft has made great strides in creating individual windows instances in the cloud for business purposes. This makes sense to their long term goals to support business. local installations are a different discussion.