I can go on the Google Apps website right now and buy myself seats with a few clicks and a few minutes. If I want to buy Windows Enterprise licenses it will take weeks, cost an unclear amount (at the onset), and I'll have to talk/negotiate with pointless sales drones.
I worked for a startup, under 20 machines, I tried to buy then Windows 7 Enterprise. Microsoft's partners were super unhelpful, disinterested in a small account, refused to provide clear pricing, and I was getting upsold even before we got the basics squared away ("I'll just add on 20 CALs, a Windows Server license, and let's talk exchange!"). Ultimately we just gave up, and used Windows 7 Home(!) for three years.
People want to give Microsoft money, but Microsoft is intent on making the entire thing as painful as possible and their licensing as obtuse as possible. Office 365 Business gets a lot of shit, but it is a dream come true for startups, you pay one cost, and one user gets their Office license key, email, and some cloud storage taken care of.
Where is the Windows version of Office 365? Why can't I just pay a per user fee and get one Windows Enterprise key, the CAL, and Azure-based AD?
Time is money, and Microsoft likes to waste a lot of time. I'd prefer to spend a few dollars more a year and have a simple streamline process of licensing, than spend weeks being jerked around just to maybe get a few bucks off of a fake price anyway.
Eventually I got some person at a Microsoft Store felt bad about the whole thing and took 2 days to get a number for a rep a CDW who could get me the price. That rep didn't have the price, but took my information after a 15 minute call and promised to get it to me. When she did days later, she couldn't give me a final price because she forgot I needed a user CAL and a remote access CAL. When I went to make the final purchase, she said oh, actually we can't do it because Microsoft won't sell the Windows 7 license anymore only Windows 10.
The whole process made me feel like I was losing my mind.
Nobody knows what Microsoft wants to do, they have Acquired Nokia but nothing goes well.
I'm not sure why you're trying to do that.
Windows 7 cannot run Hyper-V. You can install the Hyper-V Manager on Windows 7, but that only requires Pro or Ultimate. 
Client Hyper-V was only added in Windows 8, and you only need Pro. 
Oh. Then I agree with you that Microsoft screwed up the licensing -- but it's a different screw-up.
Windows 7 Ultimate is just like Windows 7 Enterprise, except for the virtualization rights. With Enterprise, each license allows 4 concurrent VMs. With Ultimate, you only get one.
The original idea of Ultimate was to be a consumer version of Enterprise. You didn't have to go through a salesman. You could just buy Ultimate on Newegg or Amazon.
However, Microsoft crippled Ultimate by putting in the 1-VM restriction. Considering how much Ultimate cost, this was a really cheap move on Microsoft's part.
Might it be easier to just get an OS-level subscription to MSDN ? I got one of those a few years ago for rsync.net and it was quick and easy to purchase ... and then we had everything.
Certainly more expensive to get MSDN than a single OS license, but it's not that expensive ...
MS Partner on the other hand is licensed for internal-only production use.
Yes, we just used it to test clients against rsync.net.
Recommended (MSDN, that is), if you're in that situation...
And perhaps Microsoft shareholders are beginning to feel as if they might be losing their capital soonish... This sounds like The End.
This is the sort of thing that helped kill Sun, although the circumstances were sufficiently different it wouldn't play out in the same way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11601146 (especially when much of the competition is entirely free, e.g. AWS doesn't run on Windows).
Same thing with Xerox not all that long ago, they had a near death experience because the salesmen got so much pointless process larded into what they had to do to do their jobs. Note also one of the newer HP CEOs who upon getting his job said that one of his top priorities was streamlining the sales process.
At some point, the hyperbole starts looking like a plausible assessment.
The Microsoft Windows ecosystem is a god send for those wanting to enforce single sign on, roaming profiles and group policy to control things deploy Chrome, 7-Zip or all manner of apps straight to the desktop or lock down access for say the demo room machines but give full access to engineering notebooks and enforce things like password policy, mapped network drives, etc.
It honestly just works and is fantastic in practise for companies wanting to enforce good IT policies with 10+ employees (in comparison try doing the above with Mac OS X + Mac OS X Server - like pulling teeth).
However Microsoft's licensing is absolutely fracking byzantine.
* I first need a server license - is it per socket or per core?
* Then I need my desktop licenses - do I need Pro or Enterprise? Or heck, maybe Ultimate only has the regional language options I need?
* Then I apparently need a fracking Client Access License for not only Windows Server to Windows Desktop services but for god damn DNS and DHCP services too! Like seriously MS - are you kidding me? So every iOS or Android device which pops up on our Windows DHCP/DNS needs a CAL apparently.
Now the whole cluster fudge above would be barely tolerable for any well funded startup or company IF Microsoft made buying these licenses easy.
If the above nightmare sounds bad however, just try getting licensed for it all and ensuring you're compliant.
It's seriously, a real damn shame because Microsoft Windows Server + Windows desktop is fantastic. When put together it really does work beautifully. It's just such a shame that MS seems to shoot itself in the foot consistently when it comes to figuring out their licensing.
Only if you have Device CALs. If you are using User CALs then each user is licensed for as many devices as they/you want.
We have good sales company (in the UK) with a really great sales REP. We moved with him when he changed companies a couple of years back. We call him up, and we have an open license the next day. That said there are some pretty aweful MS partners.
Except for the forced reboots because their OS still can't completely update itself at run time.
Enterprise Linux also has the feature of updating the kernel on-the-fly. The infrastructure for it has been open-source, and anyone could build a similar service for themselves if they wanted.
In fact, with Nano server, Microsoft is trying to go that direction too -- the less you have running, the easier to avoid reboots.
But the real solution is trying to be reboot-tolerant by having a slight bit of redundancy, I would think. Uptime matters more for pet/snowflake servers than for cattle....
What you go on to describe sounds a lot like kexec, and a kexec is the same thing as a reboot for everything on a computer except the hardware. The new kernel during a kexec starts with a freshly-booted state.
What I meant was – and perhaps I wasn't clear enough – updating the kernel in-memory, while it runs so that even your userspace apps notice nothing - except perhaps a few fractions of seconds of time slipping by - and continue running while the kernel they're running on top of is patched with new code.
This has been possible for a while on Linux. It began with, IIRC, Ksplice as a college-project, then a startup, then bought-out by Oracle for Oracle Linux, then independent efforts at similar implementations by both Red Hat and Suse, which eventually got merged together and mainlined into Linus's tree.
At home I run Arch Linux, and I do updates almost every day. Usually my uptime can easily be measured in weeks.
At work I have Windows 7 on my laptop. I have to restart my laptop twice a week at a minimum, because every tiny fucking update requires a restart. And if I don't then it nags like a little bitch every 2-4 hours and breaks my concentration. And if you take too long then it forces the update and your work is lost. I hate having to close all my apps every 2 days and wait for ages while it restarts. From a user's perspective, Windows is the shittiest desktop experience available in a corporate environment.
Because OS X Server is complete crap. As is ARD. Not even Apple uses OS X Server to manage their devices. I believe they use JAMF's Casper.
It used to be an optional tier of Windows Intune (now known as Microsoft Intune), which they have since killed (stupid decision, IMO). However, you can just directly join a Windows 10 (Pro?) system to Azure AD, Enterprise is only necessary for things like DirectRoute, you may not be able to block the Windows Store entirely but you can restrict people from using non-whitelisted applications IIRC.
If you want to manage software updates, deploy applications, Microsoft Intune is still a great option (even includes endpoint protection for PC's) at $6/usr/mo. It's just too bad they got rid of the $10/usr/mo tier that had the Windows Enterprise license.
The reality is that for your corporate/enterprise-fully-entrenched-fiefdom-building management person easily buying things or having someone read documentation and configure something is just not compatible with how they operate. They need net 30/60/90, sales drone wine, dine & golf, "is this in the Gartner Magic Quadrant?", a drawn out high-touch sales engagement and consultants they can blame.
Risk averse is the name of the game and it doesn't matter if it makes the business too slow to compete because a middle manager will never be held directly accountable for doing exactly what every other politics-first middle manager is doing. You want to sell to enterprises? Get in with the developers but be prepared to provide all of the above to the people actually making the purchasing decisions.
I'm sure any individual middle manager would give you a very reasonable explanation for any of these behaviors. If you're operating in a political environment and you don't play the game you're going to end up the sucker sooner or later. How do you fix the problem when you need to be part of it to have any leverage to fix it? The only thing you have power to do in that situation is behave ethically or unethically (depending on who's definition of unethical you're using of course).
I'd like to think that startups that grow enormously will prove over time that slow enterprise-y corporations are at a huge disadvantage and that will slowly make it's way into business schools. But part of the reason risk averse behavior takes hold is because the stakes get higher as you get larger. Today's spectacularly successful startups are tomorrow's enterprises unless they make a deliberate effort not to be.
You were likely talking to the wrong people. You need to go through bizspark if you're a startup and you'll end up with a super-helpful dedicated Microsoft representative and lots of free stuff. It's been never anything but super in my experience to work with Microsoft as a startup.
If they didn't, then it is absolutely Microsoft's fault.
It's the same with Cisco, and really a lot of stuff in the enterprise space.
Plebes don't get to talk to Microsoft employees.
EDIT: I will add that I have worked for a few such resellers of various enterprisey tech companies. Your partner account buys you a hotline to competent vendor support engineers. They aren't reading scripts, take you at your word for the troubleshooting steps you've already tried, are happy to work a problem systematically with you, and will also readily admit that a product is defective and grant an RMA or even make a bug report, collect diagnostic logs from you, and tell you when a fix is slated for release. It's amazing.
IBM, in the mainframe era, was very good at this. It was IBM policy that if you called anyone within IBM sales with a problem, it was the IBM employee's job to get you to the right people. All IBM salespeople had a little printed pocket book of phone numbers within IBM, a directory of contacts for various types of problems.
"Hi, Microsoft, I'd like to give you money but fuck me if I can figure out which SKU or how much." "You did it wrong, sir. You should have called this other number. Or you should have Googled it. But the last thing you should have done is called me, have a nice day. <click>"
I ran into this almost ten years ago trying to price the various SKUs we needed for Visual Studio. It was appallingly ridiculous how much time I spent on that, in contrast to just going to a web page, comparing features, click a few radio buttons, click "Buy", sorted. It was the last place I've worked since that I've had to beg Microsoft to take my money. Now they just plain don't get my money.
A very disappointed ex-MSFT employee and ex-shareholder
1) I guess if the switch its connected to gets reset, the older version of the OS cannot reconnect automatically.
2) accounting software will make you buy strange things
Don't let confirmation bias and an MS persecution complex make you put up a wall to legitimate concerns.
That's why you aren't getting favourable comments.
"We failed to sell you something you wanted, and it's your fault."
Besides, BizSpark is solely for startups, not for established SMBs, who would quite reasonably expect to be able to sign up for Enterprise by searching for "Enterprise".
Is this too obvious, perhaps?
Putting the responsibility on the customer to find the right set of keywords - in Google no less! - to purchase copies of enterprise software is bizarre.
Shouldn't Microsoft make that clear then? If I wanted Windows 10 Enterprise for a business, I'd search for "windows 10 enterprise", follow the link to "Windows 10 Enterprise for your enterprise business - Microsoft", and go to the "Buy>How to buy" page. There is zero mention of BizSpark in that process as far as I can see.
It's also non-obvious from your link that BizSpark includes Windows 10 Enterprise. I had to download the "Products by benefits level" Excel sheet to be sure, and it appears to be limited to five people regardless.
I understand that Microsoft's enterprise licensing typically involves going through a reseller, but Microsoft certainly could be doing a better job pointing people (esp. small businesses) in the right direction. Even if I go through to "Contact a Windows Solution Provider", it defaults to searching for UK and an 8km radius (accurate enough), sort by "Most relevant". Top 5 results:
* German-language result
* Scandinavian/Nordic-language result (doesn't look like Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian to me. Possibly Finnish?)
* English-language result, but located in the Netherlands
* French-language result
* Italian-language result
Maybe these companies can help me, or maybe they are the "wrong people" to whom you refer. Following what I would see as the obvious path to try and purchase Windows 10 Enterprise, I'd have no idea how to tell the difference.
if ($number_of_clients * $client_license) > ($number_of_processors * $processor_license) buy per-proc, else buy client licenses.
Per-processor licensing is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30K (per CPU). Standby servers and processors aren't counted toward that total. Clients are any machines or users that directly or indirectly (like via a web app) use the database. That last point is important because sales reps at vendors who's software requires SQL Server will sometimes be ignorant of it or will lie and when you get audited you're the one left holding the bill.
I don't know if this is still the case, but a few years ago I bought an MSDN subscription, and it took weeks. I could never figure out why they made it so difficult, nor why they forced me to go through partners. Just add a subscribe button on your own website, let me pay and be done with it. How you handle distribution is not my business (and I reckon distribution is not an issue anymore, since I think nobody chooses to have CDs delivered instead of downloading what they're interested in).
Again, this was a few years ago. I hope by now they have fixed this process, because it was completely broken.
I think Windows Intune also comes with Enterprise licensing as well, but I'm not certain.
When you're ready to spend big bucks on Azure, please let them know.
I am talking about the process you have to go through to buy Windows licenses and licensing in general with Microsoft. I literally had to take a exam at one point on Microsoft licensing to be eligible for a program of theirs.
I wasn't complaining about the price, or available options, I was complaining about how hard they make it to actually give them money, see how much things cost, and to be clear about exactly what licenses you need.
There is a noticable delay when I click to focus on the search bar, and often I have to retype because I click and go to start typing in my search term and lose the first few characters.
Almost always, when I search for an email in the Android app, it just hangs and even if I leave it to sit for minutes...
It's not about trust in motivation at this point. It's about trust in competency.
We'd have migrated to Google, except the system administrator had booked a holiday for two of the weeks.
"Microsoft is focused on helping enterprises manage their environment while giving people choice in the apps and devices they use to be productive across work and life."
You can take this sentence, and without knowing any other details at all, figure out that the company is somehow preventing enterprises from managing their environments properly or restricting app and device choice or both.
I think the people who write this stuff are usually presented with "Here's the bad parts of our reputation. Make sure your blurb fixes that"
If a company has poor customer service, byzantine purchase process, etc., that stuff will crop up.
Then again, so will all the standard things -- trust, etc.
This sort of doublespeak is not restricted to Microsoft. About "choice" and freedom/personalisation in general, Mozilla is the other one that comes to mind with this amazing article:
Recent task: Run a Windows Server VM on Azure, with 4 remote desktop users connecting in.
Result: almost a MONTH of back and fourth with THREE different MSPs since none of them knew details of proper licensing. In fact, even Azure support did not know licensing terms and said just to contact the MSPs, who in turn advised we contact Azure support. In the end, after a couple of days of googling and reading obscure MSDN entries, we THINK we got the right licensing approach.
Oh, and total cost difference between different MSPs on even such a small order was over 40%.
Sadly, its currently a classic example of "please take my money" and the company doing everything in their power not to. Until microsoft clears up their licensing terms and makes pricing transparent, they will be hated.
> Effective January 1, 2014, Volume Licensing customers who have active Software Assurance on their RDS User CALs are entitled to RDS CAL Extended Rights, which allow use of their RDS User CAL with Software Assurance against a Windows Server running on Windows Azure
Licensing costs for Remote Desktop Services (not Azure RemoteApp) is not built-in to the virtual machine pricing.
To make matters worse (and this is unclear) you can only do RDS User CALs in Active Directory mode, but must use Device RDS CALs in workgroup mode, making an install scenario where a couple of users just want to share a desktop app (quickbooks, for example) a freaking nightmare.
In essence, it seems that RDS licensing is currently targeted only at hybrid deployments (e.g. you're taking your RDS from on-premises to hybrid via SA/Extended Rights).
As of this summer, it should be possible to also use RDS via SA/ExRights on AWS, which, ironically, costs materially less than Azure for a Windows Server license on top of decent hardware+ssds.
Oh, and because its microsoft, every single possible combo of user/device/rds/sa/whatever licenses carries its own SKU. After this "exercise" I know far more than i ever wanted to about Microsoft licensing :(
EDIT: Oh i see, ONLY administrative stuff if you need more than 2 users.
Windows is becoming more and more like Facebook. Too many users changed a setting you don't agree with? Just block access to that setting or call it something else to confuse enough people to the point that the numbers are "good enough" for management.
Almost every time I visit my parents, my mother's Windows 10 laptop has reverted at least one of the changes I have made.
I used to keep a copy of Windows available via dualboot on all of my laptops, just in case I needed to print something in a remote location where whichever flavor of linux I was using didn't support. Not anymore. Linux Mint serves that requirement just fine.
I'm just wondering: why the hassle? Just release a 'stand alone' win10 client without all the gunge. The clue is in the name - it is a client to services currently based on Microsoft software.
I would not be surprised if somehow installing or opening a font was tied into some sort of telemetry system (or maybe DRM-ish licensing crap) that requires Internet access in some way or another. Unbelievably scary and deeply disturbing.
I feel like there MUST be some way of...
1) Asking 'correctly' now...
2) Automating this from a .cmd script or something so I don't have to manually hunt through the GIANT, UNSERACHABLE (it is now sort-able thankfully), REFRESHING on EVERY CHANGE list of file associations.
Unfortunately I haven't actually looked in to how to do this... but if new versions of open source applications that I use aren't doing this automatically that sort of indicates that such a search might not be the best use of my time.
So, having moved house recently, I had no internet for my win10 gaming PC, not even the cable plugged in. Most days it'd be turned on for a bit of a play. After about a week of this, Win10 then told me it had updates to install, and took me through the install process!
Ergh, agreed. Ever try to change the default search engine in Edge to something other than Bing? Hoops galore.
Also, that process is not immediately obvious and certainly not intuitive. I can definitely imagine many people just giving up and using Bing.
Edit: I'm genuinely interested... not sarcastic - promise :-)
I don't know when I'll be able to get off of windows, but I do know that my next computer won't run it on the bare metal. I plan on getting a CPU with good virtualization (non 'k') and only ever running windows inside a VM. Things had already gone too far about 5 revelations ago.
It was once an accepted standard in IT. Now, can anyone name a current handheld or desktop system that provides end-user control?
If you don't think security, including privacy, is important, consider what a U.S. president with fascistic tendancies would do with all this access to citizen's devices and data (and how many companies would risk their enterprises when he leaned on them?).
Isn't the bootloader locked down?
Also, that's probably not a realistic option for most end-users.
Microsoft taking away control from users, especially when it came to forcing them to take updates, is probably the biggest change they could possibly have made to improve the overall security of the internet.
If you don't control something, you de facto don't own it. You're advocating for a future without personal property. If you doubt this, see John Deere.
> improve the overall security of the internet
When someone else has remote control over your system, your system is - by definition - insecure. The recent drama involving the FBI and an iphone is a perfect example: the phone is insecure if the OS can be forcibly updated by the manufacturer.
Remote control of the OS may improve the security of the internet, but it happens at the expense of user security.
> The end user wanting a system he/she controls [is insecure]
This attitude is incredibly insulting. Instead of providing more secure products that people cant successfully maintain, or spending the time and effort to properly educate users, you're claiming they cannot be trusted with complicated tools.
> taking away control
"Freedom" necessarily includes the freedom to make bad decisions. You want to take away that choice. You might want to consider the long-term effects of advocating against freedom.
But supposing and to the extent that they are, I'll bite that bullet. If I have to trade away security for freedom, then I'm willing to do exactly that.
> If an individual has control then by definition he can chose to be more secure or less secure by his actions
He can in theory, but he does not in reality.
>He can also chose to do the opposite of these things and be less secure but there is obviously no direct implication either way.
Again, reality shows us that the vast majority of users choose to be insecure.
>But underlying this is a one-dimensional view of security, consider more complex scenarios where users are forced to use a single software to perform a task. If that software is insecure then 100% of users are vulnerable whereas if there are a diverse range of programs the users are more resilient to attacks.
Correct, a diverse set of platforms would also be good for security. But that is a separate argument.
This is incorrect. The vast majority of users choose to use the things they purchase for the intended features. They usually make no choice whatsoever about security. Your posts in this thread have been trying to blame users for poor product design; if something is badly insecure when used for the intended features, then it is defective.
This is where you probably want to assert that remote management is the solution, which takes control away from the user and allows defects to be fixed at a later time. You have asserted many times that allowing users to control their own devices is "less secure". This conclusion may be true in some cases, but it is simply incorrect most of the time.
When you take control away from the user and give it to the manufacturer (or other remote location), you are creating a backdoor that the user cannot override. Adding a remote backdoor is weakening security for the user. If you want to argue this, you're going to have to explain why both the FBI and Apple were wrong in their recent conflict about pushing a broken OS to a certain iphone.
Yes, users have very little knowledge about computer security. The solution to that is to educate them and make better products that don't need as much technical knowledge to use safely. Only then will security be improved. Your solution of handing over control to someone else is trying to keep users ignorant while lowering user security.
I could argue the same way and claim that removing user choice might make the computer less secure e.g. by forcing updates to an insecure version, installing backdoors etc. In the real world, this is exactly what happens. Therefore removing user control makes computers less secure. Now do you agree or do you think that my argument is deeply flawed?
Very well said. There's this relevant Gandhi quote:
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes."
The whole approach to computer security seems to be based on an argument along the lines of "let's just throw everyone in jail and treat them guilty by default because they might possibly do something we don't like", which (fortunately, at this present time) seems preposterous in the real world, and yet that's what people are silently accepting --- or even strongly advocating --- with respect to online matters and their computing devices.
A world of perfect security and perfect safety, where no one can make mistakes, where no "bad things" can happen to anyone, and in which everything is controlled by some authority would be immensely boring, dystopian, inhuman, and quite frankly not worth living in.
Its mostly the:
poor upgrade/reinstall behavior resulting in lost licenses
overly complicated licensing structure (with articles like this showing the professional license feature set degrading over time)
forced integration of unrelated products (cortana, bing)
integration of advertising into the OS (lockscreen and wallpapers)
lessening control enterprises have over their systems
Windows overriding user settings
Playing whack-a-mole with the privacy settings
Bloated with unwanted softwares
Two control panels
And most important: loss of trust in Microsoft. This is the one thing that will be hard for them to reverse.
> poor upgrade/reinstall behavior resulting in lost licenses
I have never experienced this. If you bought Windows 10 straight up (or your computer came with one) then you have a product key you can use, just like before. If you upgraded from 7/8 or are in the Insider Program, then you get a digital entitlement to your Microsoft account which gets restored automatically when you next sign on. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10/activation-in-...
> overly complicated licensing structure
There are two editions for consumers: Home, and Pro. With the differentiator being fairly clear from the name alone (home is for home users, pro gives you things you aren't going to ever use at home but might at work, like AD join). There are other editions like Enterprise and Education, but an end user will never even see them.
> forced integration of unrelated products
Cortana is a part of Windows. It started as a Windows Phone feature, and got brought over to desktop. There's nothing unrelated about it. Bing is integrated to Cortana because that's the backend powering it. It's like how Ok Google uses Google on Android. Using a third party provider would not give nearly the amount of insight it currently has, since the two teams can work together to improve results and the overall experience.
> integration of advertising into the OS (lockscreen and wallpapers)
Spotlight has shown one ad that I am aware of (Tomb Raider). Otherwise, it gives you curated images rotated every so often. Your wallpaper does not change, that is not a feature of Spotlight. It's also completely disableable; you just set your own image.
These free upgrades cost me about 15 hours of lost time, $80 in hardware, and a lot of goodwill. Or I guess I should say, two upgrades, since one had to be undone.
How about being opt-in?
Can we please just give you money and have a edition of Windows 10 LTSB for consumers where you don't have to wrestle with all this crap?
Also will this "surprise motherfucker" style of updates continue when the free update period runs out in July 2016 and MS starts charging money? Because if it won't, get prepared for some heavy legal action.
Why would I want this in a software I am paying for? Particularly the Pro version!
Shouldn't the end user get to decide for themselves whether Microsoft can control the computer the user paid for, that sits in their home or office, and that contains their private and otherwise confidential information?
> Shouldn't the end user get to decide for themselves.
Not for the typical user who is not working in IT. None of my friends or relatives want to decide themselves about how their computer works. They just want their system to work and let them do their daily activities. Most of them use phones and tablets for much of their online stuff and they want the system to take care of itself.
Personally, I want to have full control of my system. But as the default sysadmin for my family and extended family, I dont have the time to maintain all those PCs, phones and tablets.
Chrome and Firefox auto updating without user intervention by default is a good thing. If Chrome were to ask permission before downloading updates, many of them will just cancel it and get on with whatever they wanted to browse. If the system is compromised by malware because of an unpatched security issue, it is the vendor who takes the blame.
If Google were playing beta testers with Chromebooks and messing around like MS does, you'd think there would be anything positive written about them ?
That's a good thing too.
Taking away the right of individuals to make bad decisions that harm others is the entire point of society.
Thanks, this has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've read this year.
That's funny because it's the folks in IT that always want to limit users freedom. But when someone even higher up the chain takes control they get upset about it ;-)
Man, I really wish Google would release their desktop Linux. Ubuntu is OK, but someone with pockets like that could finish the job, and make a credible, consumer-accessible, 3rd alternative to keep BOTH #1 and #2 on their toes. If I could just run Linux-supported games with the same performance as under Windows -- I'm not even talking Windows games under Wine -- I might finally get rid of my Windows partition to get away from such things. Valve has got to be working on a Linux distro, which they will release on their SteamBox (along with Half-Life 3, mark my words), but who knows when THAT will be.
Today, we have like 10 Ubuntus, a couple of Windows PCs, a couple of Macs and a couple of Chromebooks (not counting our tech staff since we all know how to deal with whatever we're using).
Ubuntu is by far the easiest to deal with (only had a single issue related to LibreOffice crashing Linux because of some DRM issue, but the fix was already released and all we had to do is to update the system). Chromebooks are by far the worst (it took me forever to figure out how to add a damn printer). That's why I think that Chrome OS will never be more than a toy.
As for Valve, their OS is out for about a year now (don't know it it's stable yet) and you can already purchase some Steam boxes I think (I'll have to verify this).
Edit: yes they are, for half a year now: http://store.steampowered.com/sale/steam_machines
Unless you're trying to keep music on your computer and use iTunes, in which case they upload all your music to the cloud and delete it off your PC.
>Man, I really wish Google would release their desktop Linux. Ubuntu is OK, but someone with pockets like that could finish the job, and make a credible, consumer-accessible, 3rd alternative to keep BOTH #1 and #2 on their toes.
Have they actually talked about doing this?
It really wouldn't take much to make a "credible, consumer-accessible" version of Linux. Most of the pieces are already present, and Linux Mint for instance is already very easy for a non-expert to install and use. The main problems are 1) graphics drivers for non-Intel chips and 2) software compatibility. Lots of games already work on Linux thanks to Steam. A little more work with WINE maybe, and some improvements to Nouveau, and some more polishing and you'd easily have something that a casual PC user can install easily and use. It'd probably help too if they finally finished Wayland and got the whole systemd thing settled. Then they'd just need to use their influence to push other companies to do their part, such as stupid printer manufacturers who don't make Linux drivers for their winprinters (not a problem for good printers, but for the cheapo inkjets it still is).
Hoenstly, I find it pretty disappointing that Red Hat hasn't done more in this area, particularly considering they're the ones who created systemd and employ many Gnome3 devs. You'd think they'd be pushing corporate Linux desktops hard, but they don't seem to be.
Me too. Especially now that the 2 things that kept Linux from being a player in the corporate space were 1) Office, and 2) Exchange. Now you can get Google Apps or iCloud or any of a number of hosted applications for these things. Unfortunately, the last time I tried Fedora, a couple months ago, I got a couple of cryptic selinux-related errors, and quickly decided "ain't nobody got time for that," but if a company would get serious about an image (as they do for Windows, anyway), the path is wide open for a Linux desktop in the enterprise, at vast cost savings.
Now there's another opportunity with Windows10, but not much has changed for the desktop and I won't even mention their mobile success.
I don't see Google as likely to move into the space either, at least in a way that doesn't increase their cash flow from advertising. Their focus with business and enterprise sales has been on services, insofar as there has ever been such a focus at Google.
Not saying it'd be completely trustworthy, however...
Also, Valve released their Linux distro awhile ago.  And Phoronix  has some good Windows vs Linux gaming benchmarks. My impression was that they were getting pretty comparable.
There can't have been that many end users who had Windows 10 Pro and went into group policy to turn off the store. So you're looking at small businesses who were using PCs with Win10 Pro on them (likely that came with the PC) that were turning off access to the store but can't any more. The IT admins for these companies are the people Microsoft wants to upsell.
Lets say that there are 500 businesses who care about this feature each with an average of about 20 PCs (probably a high estimate for PCs, low estimate for number of businesses). That's 10000 PCs that Microsoft could potentially convince to upgrade, at (a quick guess based on Google) $120/PC, to Win10 Enterprise, or a potential $1.2M more in revenue that doesn't cannibalize one of their other businesses (assuming more changes to differentiate Pro vs Enterprise). Probably the people who will upgrade are people with factory computers running Win10 Pro.
And for people that don't upgrade, they get to promote their app store. Win-win.
This is a classic example of two divisions who cant get along, both fighting for the same territory.
It becomes painful when you type in your username, to have to wait for it to ask work or personal TWICE, for EVERY SINGLE MICROSOFT APP. Word, onedrive, skype, sharepoint sometimes prompts 3,4,5 times in a row with slightly different interfaces. I shouldnt have to type my O365 password EVERY SINGLE time I open a Microsoft app on iOS (except outlook which only forgets it like once a month)
A new user would get prompted for their password
1) sign into windows
2) activate office
3) sync sharepoint library
4) sync sharepoint library didnt pass the last cred to the app right.
Microsoft's credential management is atrocious for end users. Guess how many times Chrome and Facebook have made me retype my password when logged into my own computer this year.
I know some of your pain :)
Or you're looking at small businesses (4-80 users) in regulated industries who have remained on Windows 7 and the IT folks who have recommended doing so in large part due to the ongoing concerns with what Microsoft is doing.
As a simple example: regardless of whether it does this or "just disable that (and work out something to ensure that Microsoft doesn't silently turn it back on)," I don't want to have to EVEN BE CONCERNED about the possibility that a local user searching locally for documents containing the words "John Smith neoplasm" has just submitted PII and PHI to Microsoft.
Yes but by "upsell" you mean "extort by way of feature removal after the product was purchased".
Yeah it was a bait-and-switch for small businesses.
Or remove the app store entirely, which is technically possible as it's not an essential part of Windows. (if it is, then I invite them to review the times they were forced to state that Internet Explorer was an essential part of their operating system during anti-trust...)
I don't think they've thought this one through very well.
Microsoft is just following the other companies that are winning and somehow doing so without pissing their userbases off. Their main asset, as I see it, are people that cannot or will not switch. So as it is for most companies with a semi-loyal userbase: lock it down before the garden empties too much.
IOS has an appstore, Android has an appstore, Mac has an appstore, Chrome has an appstore, Firefox has an appstore, Ubuntu kind of has an appstore. Firefox, iOS and Chrome don't allow you to install outside of their appstore without running different builds. Android makes it difficult, removing it is even more difficult and you lose half your phone in the process. Sure there's homebrew, f-droid, cydia and chocolatey for hackers, but that's a tiny subset. Windows really wants control like everyone else. The internet has changed a lot since the decentralized software and hardware days Microsoft is used to. Microsoft doesn't get to sell their user metrics, control what users install on their systems or where they're installing from. They don't get to charge uploaders or put fees on downloaders/purchasers. The Windows store is pretty much a flop at this point, but they want it to be the canonical way to install software on Windows like every other platform.
Not a Windows problem really, they just get the negative press that every system should get for trying to force people into a garden. If it gains steam years down the road, I could see them pull a Firefox and lock down external installs without 'approval' for security.
Just a few weeks ago I bought a Microsoft Miracast dongle, OS independent or so it claimed. Only way to configure it was to have a Windows10 computer and download the driver/configuration software from their Appstore. I no longer own it. I really don't think this is an isolated problem though.
At least companies apparently can create their own appstore for their custom apps: https://developer.apple.com/programs/enterprise/
Get-AppxPackage Microsoft.WindowsStore | Remove-AppxPackage
I grant Microsoft today is a much better corporate citizen than it was 15 years ago, and I appreciate that. But a move like this feels very much like the bad old days to me.
No, unfortunately they haven't. They're just putting on a new coat of paint. They have improved, sure, but rising one or two levels when you've dug yourself down twenty isn't actually that much of an improvement.
That attitude is what causes multi-million dollar breaches. It's all right if your customers pay for it tho.
Windows XP -> Windows Vista
Windows 7 -> Windows 8
Xbox 360 -> Xbox One
It's endemic in their company, and that won't change unless the company's back is up against a wall (financially).
Enterprise is for computers owned by your company.
In the era of bloated/invasive OSes and arbitrary pricing according to the customer's profile rather than according to the value of the product, you don't pay more for more features.
You pay more for the right to deactivate the unwanted features.
Some day you will have to pay for disabling all the "telemetry" and "unique advertiser ID" stuff. Or maybe that's already the case, I didn't bother checking.
since blocking access to the store is in fact an enterprise requirement... why not restrict it to the enterprise edition?
... and besides that. how about employers trusting their employees anyway?
this is much less than what other platform holders have done in this respect too... Apple being foremost amongst the worst in this category - and yet still receiving fanboy support to the level of religiosity.
That's a reasoning that does not justify the act. "We are friendly to developers" should not translate to "Users, you don't get to control your own computers (as much)".
> how about employers trusting their employees anyway?
Wut? That is a terrible argument, it does nothing to contribute to the discussion – which is about a recent Microsoft act, policy, and behaviour, and instead tries to swerve the discussion away from it into unrelated, unagreeable sociological and human-resource-management points.
> is much less than what other platform holders have done in this respect too
Doesn't excuse Microsoft
> Apple being foremost amongst the worst in this category - and yet still receiving fanboy support
Are they receiving support for a similar action. Support for an unrelated action is inadmissible here, because a corporation can be condemned for one thing and praised for another.
Plus, is it the same people doing both the Apple-praising and the MS-bashing?
People just like to hate on MS due to their feelings from the 90's and early 00's imo.
You mean the "Chrome/Firefox Install Downloader"? But that's a great product for what is was made for!