lmao
The most relevant part of the article, for me, isn’t that it might become subscription-based (keep paying to use it), but that it would be mostly stored and run from someone else’s computer (“the cloud”).
Yea, not a chance in hell I’d be ok with that.
Neither I would. I’d expect it to be a nightmare on security, privacy, access (offline = shit breaks), and performance. It doesn’t really benefit the end user, as software should.
… of all the ridiculous promises marketers have made for computing-as-a-service, how in the goddamn is an operating system supposed to run from the cloud?
It’s especially stupid when power and storage are comically cheap. Microsoft themselves sell a $300 console that’s a whole-ass computer and runs all modern games okay. Any smartphone is a few weird dongles away from being a shockingly capable desktop. The hacker who was arrested for leaking GTA VI footage, and put on probation with no access to PCs, continued hacking big-name game studios from a goddamn Amazon Firestick. When in the history of home computing has big-iron mainframe time-sharing bullshit made less sense than right now?
It’s theoretically possible; you’d need an offline core that does nothing but dial home and download the rest. However I agree with you that it’s pointless, the only benefit is to give MS an easier time cutting off your access if you don’t pay your subscription.
Why stop at selling everyone a computer, when you can sell everyone another computer in the cloud for their computer. XzibitIHearYouLikeComputers.gif
