SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Microsoft has announced a new version of Windows called Windows 10 S. It only runs apps from the Windows Store, and is positioned between Windows 10 Home and Windows 10 Pro, both of which can run third party applications. Microsoft also announced a new line of Surface laptops running the OS. The laptops have been described as competing with either Google's Chromebooks or Apple's MacBook Air, and aimed at students:
Windows 10 S is Windows 10 with its wings slightly clipped: it can only run apps from the Windows Store, disabling compatibility with the enormous breadth of Windows programs out there, which in the educational context translates to better security, consistent performance, focus for students, and improved battery life. It's cheaper and less versatile than Windows 10 Pro, which is exactly what schools are looking for (and the thing that's had them gravitating toward Google's Chrome OS in recent times).
[...] Immediately upon its introduction, Windows 10 S spans a price range from $189 to $2,199 (for the top Surface Laptop spec). So is this a straightforward and affordable solution for mass educational deployment? Or is it a super streamlined operating system for powering extremely desirable and long-lasting laptops? Yes. Microsoft's answer to both of those things is yes. It's not impossible to achieve both goals with the same software, of course, but it is difficult to position the OS in people's minds.
[...] The Windows on ARM effort is going to be rekindled by the end of this year, and Windows 10 S is the likeliest candidate to be the OS of choice for those new computers, in which case the significance of the S label will once again be complicated. Come the holidays, buying a Windows 10 S PC could mean getting either an Intel or an ARM machine, it could mean cheap and cheerful or it could be a premium portable.
Also at the Washington Post, Engadget, Laptop Mag, and Business Insider.
As well as BGR, Mashable, The Independent, PC World, Tech Radar, ZDNet, Ars Technica, Fossbytes, TechCrunch #1, TechCrunch #2, Venture Beat, and The Street.
What do you think the 'S' stands for?
Previously: Ask Soylent: Ramifications of Removing Windows Store from Enterprise Installs?
Microsoft Adds Store App-Only Restriction as Option in Windows 10
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @06:43PM (13 children)
And they faced legal action [wikipedia.org] over the simple act of including Internet Explorer with Windows, but no other options (though users could download them themselves)?
It's amazing just how much more corrupt our country has become in less than two decades. Stuff like this is bringing me ever more towards the anti-regulatory camp. When rules and regulations simply don't apply or are not enforced (or ineffectively enforced) again regards to mega-scale corporations, they really serve little purpose other than to inhibit competition.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:00PM (9 children)
This isn't the same as their prior case. There's 3 different consumer versions of Windows now: Home, S, and Pro. If you don't like the 'S' version, then you can buy Home or Pro instead. They'll probably even have a way to easily "upgrade" to Pro for $$$. So if you don't like being stuck with Edge and apps from the Windows Store, you're free to use a version of Windows that gives you that ability.
This is really no different than Chromebooks, which are similarly locked-down.
It'll be very interesting to see how far Windows S gets in the marketplace. The main thing that's worrying about it is that they seem to be pushing it in schools, where kids won't have the freedom to opt out, and will be trained to view the walled-garden as normal.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:01PM (6 children)
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-criticism-why-it-costs-money-to-upgrade-windows-10-s-to-pro-2017-5 [businessinsider.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:07PM
> Is Microsoft giving people a crippled operating system and charging them $49 to fix it?
Yes.
If they don't get their cut via the store, they'll charge you for the privilege.
With the GOP in power, they should have gone right away for an annual $49 ... why bother with a one-time fee?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:13PM (4 children)
Is Microsoft giving people a crippled operating system and charging them $49 to fix it?
Well obviously, yes.
I don't see what the problem is here. If you don't want a crippled OS, don't buy it.
Microsoft has been a bad actor for 40 years now. I really don't understand why people act so surprised and angry about it now. By now, you should expect customer-hostile behavior from MS. Any time you see a news report about MS, just ask yourself, "what would a purely evil and greedy person do here?", and this should be exactly what you're reading about MS's latest shenanigan. If you don't like this, it's very simple: stop buying their stuff. Getting mad about it isn't going to help. They're never going to change, and giving them your money is simply enabling their behavior, which means YOU are really to blame for it. If that means you have to suffer some inconvenience, well that's the price you pay. Either choose convenience and put up with MS's shenanigans and stop complaining about it, or choose freedom from their abuse. There is no middle ground.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @08:04PM (1 child)
This!
I, for one, do not give MS my money. I also don't use their OS, so that makes it trivial to not give them any of my money.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:17AM
I am reasonably sure that if you buy a new computer of smartphone, you pay the Microsoft tax: whether Windows is bundled or not.
Aren't software patents great?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 03 2017, @08:23PM (1 child)
The problem occurs when your employer demands documents be written in MS Word, your kids get gift cards good only at the $CORPORATE store for Christmas and birthday presents, the local government's online services require IE or Edge to function fully, etc.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 03 2017, @08:39PM
The problem occurs when your employer demands documents be written in MS Word
No problem: just use the computer your employer has provided for you. Most employers prefer you to use their equipment, not your own, and they buy all the licenses. Let them give their money to MS and deal with all the support problems.
Or use LibreOffice; it usually exports .docx just fine as long as you don't do anything overly complicated. Or Google Docs.
your kids get gift cards good only at the $CORPORATE store for Christmas and birthday presents
What are you talking about? Kids don't want PCs running Windows, they want game systems or phones. Get them a Wii or an Android phone or something.
the local government's online services require IE or Edge to function fully, etc.
Citation needed. This used to be a big problem 10+ years ago with IE6. I've never heard of anything requiring Edge to function, except perhaps some crappy internal-only corporate stuff. Edge has a pitiful marketshare considering it's the standard on Win10 and they constantly try to get you to make it the default browser, even resorting to dirty tricks like forcing it to default with an update. Chrome is just too popular for anyone to require Edge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:43PM
Ultimate Edition [linux.com]
(Gratis and Libre.)
The hardware on which it runs is also more affordable.
MSFT's S must stand for "Suckers".
...or maybe "Stuck on Stupid".
M$: Why shoot yourself in the foot when you can blow your whole leg off?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:32AM
This is far worse than the prior case.
In the prior case you could literally go online and spend a few moments downloading an alternative browser for 100% free. This is a system that, by analog, not only refuses to include alternative browsers (which is what sparked the anti-compete investigation and penalties) but is actually hard coded specifically to exclude anything except Microsoft's own browser. In terms of anticompetitive behavior, this dwarfs their previous unlawful behavior. The only difference of course is that now they have enough politicians in their pocket that they're above the law.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:01PM (2 children)
US v. Microsoft ended with a slap on the proverbial wrist after George W. Bush became President of the United States. His party, the Republican Party (also called the GOP), is perceived as favoring free markets at the expense of fair markets. About 100 days ago, another Republican took office.
Microsoft's antitrust evasion strategy appears to be to wait to introduce anticompetitive configurations until the GOP is in power, and don't try to market anticompetitive configurations in Europe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:58PM
The consent decree was extended and extended and extended. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [seattletimes.com]
In the end, it meant nothing; M$ had moved on.
(It's like the security theater in airports, with al Qaeda saying "Been there; done that; finding new targets".)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:02AM
I'm not sure why some people try to make everything partisan. No, Microsoft's first 'warning' for this behavior was in 1994 and they full steam ahead screwing customers in spite of said warning right smack in the middle of Clinton's term.
Just wait til the day you begin to understand that democrat and republican are one and the same, playing good cop - bad cop. You know that thing almost all of the 'mainstream media' refused to talk about, the TPP? That was going to be the biggest corporate handout that would have come at great expense to the US worker and consumer protection (it was going to amp up our already insane copyright/patent/trademark laws exponentially, legally prohibit signatories from providing certain information on food labels, and so much more), undermine our national sovereignty for the sake of opaque 'corporate tribunals' which could overrule democratic law, and more. That was what Obama was trying his hardest to get passed before he left office. Do you know why companies are now paying Obama $400k for a talk, or $200k for a talk from his wife? It's not because they actually think they're worth anywhere near this. It's quid quo pro. The president panders and peddles corporate agenda, gets out and is paid out in absurd speaking fees.
He'll receive hundreds of millions in 'clean' money from these speaking engagements. This is a relatively new phenomena. The first president to start going crazy with profiteering off 'speaking' was Ford. [fortune.com] He was also lambasted for profiting off what is supposed to a public service. Now we don't even think twice at presidents exploiting their presidency for hundreds of millions. Certainly the promise of hundreds of millions of dollars of completely clean money could never corrupt a person though. To find a president not sold out to corporate interests you'd need to go back many decades.