And the biggest feature to date: Microsoft has removed Candy Crush and the other consumer junk from the start menu.
So 'consumer' means 'you don't get to decide what's installed on your own PC?'
Is this Satya Nadella I'm talking to?
Readers with good memories may recall that when Windows NT was launched, it came in Workstation and Advanced Server editions, with the former fulfilling most duties of a server. There were no limits on TCP/IP connections, for example. Just as its developer Dave Cutler intended. When, a little later, Linux vendors packaged …
Consumer versions of Windows 10 are "free" and paid for by providing telemetry data. The Enterprise editions, and Windows 10 for Workstations, are paid for by license fees/subscriptions. And yes, the consumer editions are also free billboards for advertising and drivers of Microsoft Store revenue.
That's the big shift - Microsoft used to care very much about selling a Windows and Office license per box and ensuring that you couldn't use more than one copy. Now, the focus is on making sure that someone is paying the monthly fee to run the software, and they're not as concerned with *where* it runs. And for the free users (Home and Pro,) Microsoft gets sent data about usage that can be disabled in the Enterprise versions.
"Consumer versions of Windows 10 are "free" and paid for by providing telemetry data."
That's only true if you had a Windows 7/8 version to upgrade from, and you upgraded in the allotted time. Otherwise, you pay for it upfront, then pay for it again through telemetry.
"That's only true if you had a Windows 7/8 version to upgrade from, and you upgraded in the allotted time. Otherwise, you pay for it upfront, then pay for it again through telemetry."
Just yesterday I was still able to upgrade and activate a few systems to Windows 10 that had never been reserved (domain policy preventing any hint of upgrade), by starting a fresh install and plugging in the product key. Did a couple OEM and one retail, same result. Even if you'd rather upgrade than start fresh, you can still find multiple ways (the "accessibility technologies" link is the most popular).
It's patently obvious that Microsoft actually wants everyone on 10, come hell or high water, and all those deadlines are just there to get some holdouts nervous enough to do it.
Actually, you still can - although officially ended, the upgrade tool still works, and issues valid licences (assuming the previous version is properly licensed too - although using Daz loader works). I actually upgraded a Windows 7 VM three days ago without a hitch...
You're obviously not getting the same full screen 'nag' as my laptop yet then.
"Your device needs the latest security updates
Microsoft can't install important security updates on your PC..." (disk space etc due to SSD).
On 1607 Aniversary Update, the latest nag screen is worst than Windows Vista when it deactivated during a hardware change and gave you full screen notices that you must activate, withholding access to your device.
This thing pops up all the time.
I've been running my "Creators" without any nags other that once per boot whining from "Defender" (its days are numbered anyway as CPU cycles are too few to waste on this underpowered PC). Simply remove all crap from the base image (before it's applied), don't use MS login for everyday account and set all network interfaces to metered (and don't use MS browsers to maintain acceptable level of security and privacy). Still the endgame will likely be switch to Linux or whatever can run FireFox (bitcoin miners have cured me of my gaming inclinations).
> Consumer versions of Windows 10 are "free" and paid for by providing telemetry data.
You are confused. If you buy a computer from an OEM or retail and it has Windows installed then part of the price that you pay goes to Microsoft for the Windows licence. It may be bundled so that you don't see this component of the cost, but it is not free in any sense.
Certainly, if you had already paid for Windows 7 or 8.1, then Microsoft had, for a limited time, allow an upgrade to 10, but that was not free, it was just part of the price that you paid for the earlier version.
There have been versions of Windows that were free (of cost) such as 'Windows with Bing', and 'Windows 10S' may be free of cost (to the OEM) but these require the user paying Microsoft if they are to overcome the limitations, or if they want any useful software which they must buy from the store.
" If you buy a computer from an OEM or retail and it has Windows installed then part of the price that you pay goes to Microsoft for the Windows licence."
Having just had to do this for a bunch of desktop machines (where we had the choice between Freedos or "some flavour of windows"), it's about £80 for Windows10 home and £87 for Windows10 pro. The retail price is about £110
It's slightly cheaper for laptops, presumably because they tend to have fewer cores.
"Was a free upgrade from 7 an if you used assitive technology or whatever the name of the gadgets as the onscreen keyboard or the reader."
It was a free upgrade anyway. Assisted technology just had a later upgrade deadline. And the free upgrade still works!
@"Consumer versions of Windows 10 are "free" and paid for by providing telemetry data." so those users who were force upgraded from windows 7 and 8 had a "free" OS replace the one they paid money for?
As I remember Windows10 was only offered for "free" to exisiting win7 and 8 users
@"Microsoft used to care" and "Now, the focus is on making sure that someone is paying the monthly fee" suggests that even though they are slurping fast it isn't making enough money.
Until they remove the spyware and adverts then why pretend windows is any fitter than say android both are built to maximimise the money to be made by selling their user's personal data.
That they have effectively discontinued support for windows prior to 10 is so akin to android vendors abandoning their old products as to be indistinguisable.
It is a telling shame that MS is only ripping offing off the worst inventions in computing now and yet still want to charge for the priviledge of running some of the windows compatable software.
"Is this Satya Nadella I'm talking to?"
no, just us, the choir. *crickets* from Micro-shaft and Mr. Nadella
Back in 2015, Micro-shaft swallowed their own koolaid and is now Win-10-nic bound in thought and deed, full speed ahead over the cliff like good little lemmings. You will NEVER convince them otherwise.
The only thing that will fix it is a serious loss in the revenue stream, and a board of directors that's LIVID about it.
And for this, customers need to have a PROPER CHOICE.
hint: see icon
So, changing the UI on Windows 10 would make it not utter garbage?
It would be a good first step, but as long as there is still "Windows as a Service" and its insane update schedule, as long as users are denied full control of updates like we had in Windows 7 or 8, as long as there is not a master "telemetry off" switch that really does what it says on the tin (no "minimal" here; when I say OFF I mean OFF) and stays put where the user sets it, Windows 10 will still be garbage.
I don't want any apps on my PC. I run programs... you know, those things that end up being placed in "\Program Files," which is named that for a reason. An "app" is a program designed for a mobile device that has limited resources (local storage and screen space being most notable, though processing power, RAM, and GPU power are also well behind typical "regular" PCs) and that is written to cope with the handicap of not having a hardware keyboard or pointing device.
None of those handicaps that require an "app" to be so limited apply to my PC, so they have no reason to be on such a relatively robust device. I don't need them, I don't want them, and I won't tolerate their presence, no matter how much Microsoft's marketing department tells me it wants me to have them. My PC exists to serve my needs, not those of Microsoft or anyone else.
As long as "bring back the UI from $older_version_of_windows includes deep-sixing everything UWP or Acrylic and returning to a full Win32 UI, these are the other things that need to be fixed before 10 stops being complete crap, Microsoft.
I don't know if I would ever go back to Microsoft-land after what they have done. Even if they saw the light and fixed all the things I've highlighted here, I don't know if the trust that has been lost can be overcome. I never wanted to leave Windows; I've been using it since 3.0, so it's been my "home" for more than a quarter of a century. It's never been perfect, but I have spent most of that time thinking that it's really pretty decent, particularly in its NT-derived forms. It has its flaws, of course, but all things considered, I found XP and 7 to be the best choices for me, ahead of Linux and OSX/MacOS.
Windows 10, though... no, just no. As Hall and Oates said, "I can't go for that." As the old adage goes, with appropriate substitutions, "I didn't leave Windows... Windows left me." From the start of my relationship with Windows, it was designed strictly for the PC platform, including a hardware keyboard and a mouse, along with a reasonably large screen (though in 1990 that meant 14 inches). That's what Windows has always been, and what I still expect now. The last version of Windows built to those specifications was Windows 7... after that, Windows left me behind in pursuit of mobile users that it could never get (and even though MS has conceded loss in that market, it still insists on staying the course).
I'm not getting on the Windows 10 train, Microsoft. I know you think that you're so big that you can bully and force people to accept the utter crap you offer, but that doesn't work on all of us (and over time, I would guess most of us will tire of it). Thanks to your Windows 10 efforts, Microsoft, I'm typing this from Linux right now on my laptop, a PC that now spends 97% of its time in Linux (Windows is still there as dual boot, but I hardly ever use it). I still have five years of life left in Windows 8.1 (heavily modified to get the stupid out), and I might still be using that if you hadn't pushed "the last version of Windows ever" so heavily. I thank you for making your intentions so clear, Microsoft; with GWX and the continued efforts to force Windows users into the Windows 10 prison, I can clearly see there's no future for me with Windows. As long as the insane update schedule and permanent beta quality rule the day, Windows 10 doesn't even exist for me as an option.
I wondered if perhaps they meant cores rather than actual physical processors (though 4 seemed stupidly low).
But, googling around it looks like it is definitely physical processors than cores that are limited.
Not had much luck finding hex socket workstations from a quick search, so a limit of 4 does seem reasonable (especially given they don't want this used on a server). Looks like server edition supports up to 64 sockets.
> a limit of 4 does seem reasonable (especially given they don't want this used on a server). Looks like server edition supports up to 64 sockets.
This is a pricing issue more than a technical one. The cost of a server licence can depend on the number of cores (not CPUs). The base price is for 16 cores. If you want to run more cores than you need to pay more. (you also needs CALs per client).
"""**Datacenter and Standard edition pricing is for 16 core licenses."""
For desktop and workstation, Microsoft will also, it seems, be charging based on the number of cores and/or CPUs basis. The 4 core (not CPU) will be the base price desktop OS, while systems with more cores (or more than 1 CPU) will have to pay more for the workstation licence.
"""One customer said he was told there could be a price increase of roughly $70 per operating system for use on systems with processors with four or fewer cores. For machines with Xeon processors with more than four cores, there could be a price increase of roughly $230 per operating system, I was told. """
"""Windows 10 Pro for Workstations is designed for high-end hardware with Fast I/O with persistent memory, fast file sharing, Resilient file system (ReFS) and up to four physical CPUs and 6 TB of memory. """
"The cost of a server licence can depend on the number of cores (not CPUs). The base price is for 16 cores."
Client of mine paid £8K for server licensing for W2k8R2 a few years back, just asked for upgrade cost to Server 2016 it was £35K, same hardware that runs his loads fine. That was the the charity price, full commercial price £132K for his 7 servers mix of single and dual socket AMD Opteron.
Based on that, I guess the new workstation is going to be based on price gouging.
>Client of mine paid £8K for server licensing for W2k8R2 a few years back, just asked for upgrade cost to Server 2016 it was £35K, same hardware that runs his loads fine. That was the the charity price...
I assume the £35K includes the full take-up of his purchase allowance from TT-Exchange, where two core WS2016DC licences are £44 each.
"Surely your client should be using the CTX program if they are a non profit? "
They do, but no only does MS have some brain dead idea of how many cores = "a tradional unit of processor" which seems to use a formula that costs you more money for the same unit of computing power, but the core count means that what was available under the program isn't licenseable anymore witout aditional full cost licenses.
To me it looks like the MS cores per license doesn't match with the reality of the number of cores in a "main stream" processor and appears to align with an entry level processor. So if you buy a main stream processor now, you need more core licenses.
This will get worse as you can't keeping adding full speed cores to a CPU, the speed goes down as you add more because of the TDP limit, so the ratio of horsepower : core falls while the number of licenses required increases.
"For desktop and workstation, Microsoft will also, it seems, be charging based on the number of cores and/or CPUs basis. The 4 core (not CPU) will be the base price desktop OS, while systems with more cores (or more than 1 CPU) will have to pay more for the workstation licence."
No, Microsoft are not charging by # cores for Windows 10. Only by CPU type.
What they have suggested is that you will need the Workstation Pro license for systems with Intel Xeon or AMD Opteron CPUs. These are server / workstation class CPUs so it makes sense.
You forgot to click  Post Anonymously, but your comments are recognisable anyway.
> No, Microsoft are not charging by # cores for Windows 10. Only by CPU type.
And yet the Microsoft price list disagrees with you:
"""Update: An OEM price list shared with me by a contact shows the list price of Windows 10 Pro for Workstations (up to four cores) is $144; for more than four cores, $214."""
>so a limit of 4 does seem reasonable
I have a Fujitsu Celsius R650 workstation dating from 2007 running XP Pro x64, it has dual quad-core Xeon's. The 2012 R670 gave the option of dual Xeons with 6 cores/12 threads and a choice of XP Pro x86 or x64, Win7 Pro 64 or 32.
So it would seem MS don't really want this version of Win 10 to be used on high-end workstations, unless they mean a maximum of 4 physical processors...
>>so a limit of 4 does seem reasonable
> I have a Fujitsu Celsius R650 workstation dating from 2007 running XP Pro x64, it has dual quad-
> core Xeon's. The 2012 R670 gave the option of dual Xeons with 6 cores/12 threads and a choice of
> XP Pro x86 or x64, Win7 Pro 64 or 32.
So what? These all are still 2 socket machines, irrespective of the number of cores.
> So it would seem MS don't really want this version of Win 10 to be used on high-end workstations,
> unless they mean a maximum of 4 physical processors...
Which is exactly what they mean.
BTW, normal Win 10 Pro runs fine (well, as fine as it can be said for this POS OS) on my HP z840 with two 8 core/16 threads XEON E5's and 128GB RAM.
> BTW, normal Win 10 Pro runs fine (well, as fine as it can be said for this POS OS) on my HP z840 with two 8 core/16 threads XEON E5's and 128GB RAM.
The real question is: will it continue to "run fine" after an update to some future version of "normal Win 10 Pro" ?
The Workstation edition will support up to 4 CPUs and lots of cores, but it will cost much more than a 'normal' edition.
It seems most likely that the changes in licensing are related primarily to sales of new machines and will be restrictive on OEMs. Computers with up to 4 core (probably on 1 CPU) can have 'normal' Win 10 Home or Pro installed, but if it has more than 4 cores, or more than 1 CPU, then it _must_ be sold with Workstation edition. This will increase revenue to Microsoft, which is always the aim of _any_ changes.
A clean install of a retail version may also limit the cores in use to 4 unless the Workstation edition is paid for.
Whether this can be applied to existing machines is a separate issue. It seems unlikely that an update would cripple a computer by only running on 4 of the cores, or stop altogether, until an additional licence is purchased, but it may nag you saying that your machine would be better by sending more money to MS. Also, if (or when) you have to start paying a monthly subscription then this may be based on the number of cores that the computer has, regardless of whether it is Pro or Workstation.
>The real question is: will it continue to "run fine" after an update to some future version of "normal Win 10 Pro" ?
This has to be a genuine concern, given MS have already signalled the dropping of support and thus eligibility for (Win10) updates for some relatively recent Intel CPU families that have entered Intel's End of Interactive Support phase and so have only been receiving security updates for the Windows 10 Anniversary Update version.
Given we've had CPU ID's etc. for some years now, I do wonder if a current or future version of Win10 actually ships with a 'current' supported cpu list, hence making it very easy to turn support on and off for specific cpu's...
I have an H760 8 core, it runs Win10, the hardware is great, the OS simply awful.
I use a mouse, not a digit, I don't need tiles, or Cortana, or Groove, or any of the other myriad of spyware that occupies that thing the pretends to be a front end for idiots with a touchscreen.
If you have average eyesight a flat, colourless UI just sucks, are you listening?
"with up to four CPUs – somewhat short of the thousands supported by Linux "
Not my area, but I'm guessing that only a few businesses running open source use 1,000-CPU desktops.
there are some 8-core AMD processors out there, last I looked. we'd get MORE of that at lower prices if Micro-shaft would stop it with the CPU core limits in the OS. Those limits are from the 90's - NT4 had a 4 core limit (server OS also) in the base OS. Then I think you had to pay a license for additional cores. not sure how that worked internally, though.
4 Processors, not 4 cores.
I have an 8-core Ryzen CPU in my current desktop (with AMD's hyperthreading, so shows as 16 cores to Windows). Both Windows 7 (primary OS) and Windows 10 (popped it onto a spare disk to confirm it is still shit) spotted and supported all physical and virtual cores.
Back then there were no "cores", only CPUs (Sockets). And while NT 4 Server supported up to 4 CPUs, WindowsNT 4 Workstation came with a 2 CPU limit (NT4 Server Enterprise Edition supported 8 CPUs if I remember right, for multi-CPU x86 servers like Tandem Symmetry S20).
"Micro-shaft would stop it with the CPU core limits in the OS. "
Well the limit of 256 Cores in Windows 10 Pro should cover most uses.
" NT4 had a 4 core limit (server OS also) in the base OS"
Not correct. There was never a core limit. The Enterprise OEM version supported up to 32 CPUs.
"I think you had to pay a license for additional cores"
Nope. That's now the case in Server 2016, but not before then. And if you are going to license on scalability, then these days by cores makes more sense than by CPUs.
"I'm guessing that only a few businesses running open source use 1,000-CPU desktops."
The size and power consumption of ARMs means that stuffing fifty to one hundred plus a suitable GPU in a SOC the size of an existing intel socket and a 70W TDP should make sense for most use cases.
Interestingly I'm seeing grumbles that ARM's licensing fees are too high. Perhaps MIPS time has come.
@elDog: sadly, Classic Shell is now abandoned by the author. M$ keeps changing the OS so quickly he couldn't keep up, so he finally gave up.
I don't blame him, mind you. But I despair for the day I have to return my WX system to its normal non-operating configuration. Fortunately it's just a test system, I rarely need to actually interact with it.
The last version of CS is still available for download, last I checked.
The last version of CS is still available for download, last I checked.
And it will presumably always work as well as it does now on Windows versions prior to 10, which are the only versions of Windows that even approach being usable. It (Win 10) just keeps on getting worse and worse... ironic that the one program that made Windows 10 palatable to many people was ended by Windows 10 being what it is. Unless the open source community steps up and continues the development, of course.
For my mind all these games should have only been preinstalled on the Windows home editions anyway. Sure you got a few small games like minesweeper and solitaire games pre-installed on Windows 7 pro but if you then upgrade to Windows 10 Pro it adds a load more like Disney Magic Kingdoms and Candy Crush which takes up hundreds of MB of games on a supposedly 'Professional' edition of Windows.
"For my mind all these games should have only been preinstalled on the Windows home editions anyway."
To my mind, they shouldn't be preinstalled on any edition. Minesweeper and solitaire were OK (although the WIn10 solitaire is definitely not) because they were small, they weren't ads, they were easily removed/ignored, and there were only those two.
The biggest issue however is that Candy Crush keeps coming back. With all previous Windows versions, you could remove the games (either via a custom install, or via the "Turn Windows features on or off" applet), and they were gone for good. Not in Windows 10 where Candy Crush keeps on popping up again like an unflushable turd.
I'm not sure they should be pre-installed at all.
One of the advantages of an app store built into the system is that it's trivially easy to add the stuff you want from the store. If someone wants to play solitaire they could easily find and add it in the app store.
Fact is, Microsoft don't have any confidence in their own store and the constant shovelling of this stuff onto PCs in the way they have been proves that.
Interestingly enough, they're putting more weight behind command-line accessible app repositories like chocolatey for installing apps.... another good idea 'borrowed' from Linux. (Just to be clear, Chocolatey isn't a Microsoft project, someone else started it a while ago, but Microsoft are adding support to make using it easier in newer versions of Windows.
It was quite nice to rebuild my PC last time by just doing the normal windows install then running a powershell script for all the apps (https://itsalwaysmyproblem.com/2017/09/09/easy-pc-rebuilds-with-chocolatey/)
Telemetry can't be turned off according to Microsoft management.
Microsoft states that it can access any file on your system if it believes there is a breach of some law so the remote access is a definite.
Its obvious that Windows 10 has been set up as a major spyware system. The telemetry includes your IP address, the IP address of any VPN's that you are using and massive amounts of other data.
The USA government is advising people not to use Huawei smart phones because they can be used to spy on their citizens. The USA government came to that certain conclusion because it has been do the same thing to the technology under its control for many years.
You will see for Windows 10 Pro for Workstations productivity and enterprise focused applications in place of consumer applications and games. This was one of the top feedback shared with us by our partners and users and we're delivering this in our next update
So basically MS made three tiers where there were two - Home, Pro, and Workstations - and then put start menu spam and slurp on Pro to make people cough up more for Workstations.
I don't think they really asked for that.
"Perhaps that's worth the price of admission alone."
And perhaps not, since the actual price is not mentioned. (Also, shouldn't it be "Perhaps that alone is worth the price of admission"...?)
Incidentally, I've been staring at the enlarged version of that heavily-tiled screen shot for several minutes. I can literally feel it draining my will to live.
On my (Windows 7) desktop I don't have a single icon. Not one.
All I look at is one of a random number of photographs on my desktop and if i want an application it's not too far away under the start button.
That's how I like it. Clean and my shui fenged out to the max.
This screenshot that you refer to is, I agree, utterly bewildering and completely unnecessary.
Remember the desktop picture as supplied by MS which was a grassy field which was being blown in a gentle breeze. That's the sort of thing that I would like to imagine that I can hear when I look at a computer screen not this tiled nonsense which convinces me that I can hear industrial sounds and white noise.
I'm off to rake some sand or something.
On the login screen on this Mac the desktop picture is displayed. I have a translucent picture of a baby blue ringed octopus. If I hit F11 all windows are flung aside and the desktop is revealed is all its glory.
In my other space I have a desktop pic of a transgenic mouse embryo I made once. I find it pretty.
Won't lie, I spent 3 days with my Windows 10 laptop at work learning powershell commands to strip out all the unnecessary bloatware that came with it.
And then when the next update comes rolling down the pike in a few months, they'll all get undone, and there will be enough changes that they probably won't work again. All your settings will have to be checked to make sure they've not been reset... it may take some time to work all the stupidity out of it once again. By the time that you do, it will be time for another update, and it begins again.
I waited and waited for the right version of Windows 10 to come along and glad I waited as I finally went out and bought Windows 10 Professional and I am glad for the wait because I tried earlier free edtions and they were not good at all and were like 10 to 20% slower.
Today I can say with the latest Edition of Windows 10 Professional that is definitely a must buy!
Totally worth to see the speed issues are gone.
I too am waiting, maybe by 2020 or 2021 it will have stabilized some(am not holding my breath though).
To-date my windows 10 usage has been limited to about 1-2 hours(Windows 8 limited to a few minutes). I generally use Linux as desktop/laptop though I do have a windows 7 VM I do a lot of stuff in for work(even use Outlook on occasion and Visio). Also dual boot to windows 7 for a couple of games(few times a year). I have had my fair share of use of Windows 2012 though which was pretty bad, classic shell helped some there.
Agreeing with most of the others, the UI was good enough a long time ago(same goes for Linux I use Mint+MATE now (since switching from Ubuntu 10.04 LTS years ago which has maintained the same GNOME 2.x ish UI for the past decade or more for me if it can go another decade with the stable UI I will be happy).
I timed my recent laptop purchase(about 20 months ago) so I could still get windows 7 on it (Thinkpad P50).
And yes, from Linux it was only about 1 month ago that I started having to mess with systemd, what a mess that is too. Drives me nuts (I wouldn't care if I didn't have to mess with it).
>I waited and waited for the right version of Windows 10 to come along and glad I waited
Enjoy the 'right' version, in a few months MS will be replacing it with another version; no one knows whether it will be an improvement or not, but what we do know MS will be doing it's utmost to get you to install it over the 'right' version...
I finally found this version but it's a preinstall from OEMs... I don't care much about Start Menus since I put everything on the task bar or use Start Run...
I just can't stand how the UI took a huge step backwards... AERO looks modern and Modern looks Crappy... It's fine for low use but my Win7 (typing on it) has windows everywhere and Aero makes finding edges easier... With Win10 you have to hit the right point on the window to grab it but it's a flat single color so I miss A LOT... Especially with Office apps...
Obviously they still aren't testing this crap internally and still having amateurs deciding on features... I had a PM that din't know how to turn the PC on... And that wasn''t the only one...
Still don't want Win10... Put off my Threadripper because of it... Well, I'm also waiting to see Vega come back... The only thing I could get out of Win10 with my usage patterns is DX12... That sucks...
So if you got a nice new AMD or Xeon workstation with more than 4 cores and are running Windows 10.... Is it suddenly going to stop working or stop letting you use most of your cores after the next update?
All those trumpeting how great Windows 10 is have no idea how much Microsoft plans to squeeze every last drop of money and monetary value out of you from their new ever changing ever more expensive ever more intrusive spy OS.
All those trumpeting how great Windows 10 is have no idea how much Microsoft plans to squeeze every last drop of money and monetary value out of you from their new ever changing ever more expensive ever more intrusive spy OS.
And ultimately, when MS has sucked the last remaining morsels of value out of Windows and casts it aside like the dried-up husk it will be at that point, those people who have given so much to stay on the Windows pain train will find themselves wondering what happened. Windows (as we know it) will be gone; Microsoft's entire product line will be "cloud" "services," and their remaining loyal customers will be the ones most harmed by their failure to realize they were fighting to remain on not just a sinking ship, but one that has been deliberately scuttled by Microsoft while they were still on board.
Many have bet on the imminent defeat of Microsoft and their Windows empire, and these predictors of Redmondian doom always been proven wrong. This, though, is different. I'm not betting on Microsoft to fail... I am betting on them to succeed! I think they want to destroy Windows and drive its users away, but only after milking these users for all they're worth until they finally get fed up with it.
The only explanation of Microsoft's behavior since the introduction of Windows 10 that makes any sense is that MS no longer wants to be in the general-purpose OS market. They want out, I think, but for now, the value of that Windows empire is tremendous, and they're not just going to write that off and call it a day on Windows. They would liquidate that asset first, and what we've seen them do since Windows 10 arrived has no better explanation than being Microsoft's means to that end.
If everything is in the cloud, it doesn't matter how you get there. If you make more money from the cloud than the means to get to the cloud, why not let someone else worry about that and concentrate on the big money makers?
If you don't want to mess with regedit etc. Just grab Shutup10 from :
Just run it (no installation needed), select the recommended settings, apply, and restart (don't have ti restart, but some changes only kick in after a restart).
It disables Cortana, removed the Bing/Internet searches from the Start menu search box (so is back to just local searches), disables metrics etc. (It disables more than is done by following the privacy settings in Win 10 itself), and a bunch of other stuff.
You just need to remember to update it and run it again after any major Windows Updates, as those will sometimes re-enable things like metrics again.
Microsoft has stated that they are switching to a "per core" licensing model.
Not "Per Socket".
So that five year old, four socket, 6 core per socket machine (24 cores total) you've just EOL'd and replaced with a brand new, two socket machine with 14 cores per? it's gonna cost more to run yer stuff on it. And IIRC, that's physical cores, NOT vCPU (for you Hyper-V/vmware kids)
Got a single VM running SQL enterprise on it, which is taking up 4 vCPU? Guess what, you have to pay for 28 cores worth of SQL Enterprise as opposed to the previous pricing, which was only four cores. (aka bend over and prey they have lube)
At least that's what I've been led to believe- we can't seem to get a straight answer from our TAM or any of the licensing 'experts' they have access to...
I hope this help you...
The "per-core" licensing model has been around for a while, it kicked in for the Windows Server operating system when Server 2016 come out.
The reason for this is that that Microsoft was missing out on revenue. The old licensing covered you for two sockets (so in your example above, you would have needed two licenses to cover a 4 socket server). Because of this, people tried limiting their servers to two sockets with as many cores as possible.
Microsoft amend their structure with the justification that in aligned their Online Azure licensing (which is per core) with their on-prem licensing, thereby allowing businesses to make a better comparison.
The new licenses are still tied to two sockets. A pack of 16 core licenses is pretty much the same price as one of the old 2 socket licenses. The 16 core licenses can be spread across 2 sockets. You can also purchase 2 core add-on packs. Therefore you have the option of purchasing 2x16core packs (approximately the same price as before) or a 16core pack a 6x2core packs, which should provide a saving.
With SQL Server licening I believe you have two options, license the host (28 cores in your case) or license the VM (4 cores). The latter can mean you move out of license compliance if someone bumps up the number of cores assigned to your VM, but that is something you need to deal with internally. Licensing the host allows unlimited SQL servers to be run on the host. When licensing virtual servers, a minimum of 4 cores have to be licensed regardless.
This should help: https://download.microsoft.com/download/7/8/C/78CDF005-97C1-4129-926B-CE4A6FE92CF5/SQL_Server_2017_Licensing_guide.pdf
We've seen it from VMware already, just wait until the application vendors start charging based on how much RAM you have, CPU cores or mips consumption.
With more and more applications going to the cloud, MS seems to have seen the writing on the wall and are looking to bundle licensing up so you get all the base applications cheaply. Then you pay for all the useful bits you need when you realise you need them. Its a good strategy for them - you save nothing from going elsewhere until you get rid of of all their software.
Personally, if I controlled a large company, I'd be funnelling cash bounties to libreoffice et al for features I wanted as part of my strategic plan to bring it up to spec. 28 cores for SQLserver? You can get that on a single CPU. How much is that dual-proc server going to cost you?
....."When we talk about why we're upgrading the Windows 10 install base, why is that upgrade free? MS CFO asked during a meeting with Wall Street analysts. These are all new monetization opportunities once a PC is sold. Microsoft's strategy is to go low on consumer Windows licenses, hoping that that will boost device sales, which will in turn add to the pool of potential customers for 'Advertising'".....
....."CEO Nadella has referred to the customer revenue potential as 'lifetime value' in the past -- and did so again last week during the same meeting with Wall Street -- hinting at Microsoft's strategy to make more on the back end of the PC acquisition process. The more customers, the more money those customers will bring in as they view 'Ads'".....
Using Win10 (at work) here, but with Classic Shell.
And whenever I present users with Win8.x or 10, I install Classic Shell for them a bit later. They really appreciate it, and they utterly dislike the newfangled Microslop UI.
I also install Classic Shell on Server2016 servers, it is so much better than the default slop that is dished out.
"New today is power management for systems where low latency is important, and where tasks should not be slowed down by aggressive battery conservation techniques."
If you're trying to run a 4-CPU, 6TB RAM workstation on a battery, you're doing something very wrong. Having a slightly more powerful laptop does not make it a workstation in any meaningful sense.
This begs the question. WTF are people still buying laptops? The actual use case must be minute by now.
Laptops are more expensive, a great way to encourage eye strain and RSI unless you stick them in a docking station and use them with adult-size monitors, real keyboard and mice. Then, they use more desk space than a cheaper and faster PC would.
With the money saved, you can buy a 10" tablet and smartphone for when the employee is away from their desk. It can also cut down on security worries when the laptop is pinched.
Because their jobs require actual computing power to do things like crunching sales numbers and the creation/manipulation of content, rather than Googling for the best price on a Carribean vacation or posting a few words of whimsy on the company Twitter (Yammer?) feed. Smartphones are only really good for voice/video messaging (try managing 500 e-mails a day on one), tablets are a child's toy.
Let's try an exercise: go to any of the thousand typing test websites on a normal computer(laptop preferable, but desktops are acceptable) and get your WPM. Then return to the same site and take the test again on a tablet. Compare the two and tell me if you still believe that tablets are serious replacements for laptops.
"This begs the question. WTF are people still buying laptops? The actual use case must be minute by now."
Everything's a compromise. Not everyone needs an all-out workstation, but many people do need something more than a smartphone to do their work. It's also rather silly to complain about laptops causing eyestrain and RSI, but then suggest that a 10" tablet would somehow be better; the only way anyone has managed to make a tablet that's actually useful for any work at all is by nailing a keyboard to it and pretending it's a laptop.
Not exactly, although you could use them to test accuracy they were mainly just productivity killers. I can recall stripping them out of NT 4 during the process of creating base images for distribution (thanks to the Select program and Ghost). Games were never a good idea for business PCs, but the MS strategy of getting onto company desktops through the homes of board members carried them in as a legacy. There was a real struggle for a while between Win 95 and NT 4 for the business desktop. I was fortunate enough to land someplace where the latter prevailed.
Ahhh... memories of the time I subverted the normal approval process and persuaded certain engineers to remove the toys, media player, and "take a tour!" from Windows Server 2003 OOB experience, which was about to launch looking just like XP OOB. Looks like they have re-learned the lesson.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019