Windows 11 Pro users will soon need a Microsoft account during initial setup, latest preview...

[Mr Majestyk]

As a PC repair guy, this would be a big problem. No one wants to have to ask a customer for their email login credentials just to setup windows.

Can't they create an account using your email and whatever password they like, which they can give you and later you change the pw. Plenty of businesses ask for email address.

 

[Vanderlinde]

MS is pushing everything into the cloud.. more personal data, logins, bloated stuff. I really dont understand that if you have a succesfull OS, like W7 or W10 was/is, to continue to the same riddle to ever expand or create more people really dont need.

I just need my OS to be a OS, and not the next day come back and have **** changed, lost, end up with a BSOD or completely de-organised because of a pushed update.

 

[waclark]

Why is using software you pay for MORE DIFFICULT than using a pirated version? I could upgrade to windows 11 pro for free, but I won't. And if I ever have to, I will upgrade my license but still use a cracked copy because it is MINE, I paid for it and I should have the right to use it how I please.

I know I'm beating a dead horse talking about Linux all the time, but what options do we actually have at this point? If people paid for a pro-license just so they didn't have to have a Microsoft account and now MS back tracked on that, what happens now?

I have legal keys for windows 7, 8.1 and 10 and I use cracked copies of all of them just because of this crap.

With developers like Valve actively developing Linux and Linux content, MS can't play fast and loose with their OS anymore. I give it 5 years and Linux will be Windows XP level ease of use for "normie" users

Do you know how many years people have been saying this about Linux? Far more than 5 years, try 25 years, maybe more. The fact is Linux is not going to reach the Windows level of ease of use because it's more focused on being a server OS, not a client OS. With no one company to standardize the UI and support customers it's never going to replace the current crop of desktop OSes. Apple has a better chance of overtaking MS than Linux and I don't see Apple getting anywhere close for many years.

 

[yRaz]

Do you know how many years people have been saying this about Linux? Far more than 5 years, try 25 years, maybe more. The fact is Linux is not going to reach the Windows level of ease of use because it's more focused on being a server OS, not a client OS. With no one company to standardize the UI and support customers it's never going to replace the current crop of desktop OSes. Apple has a better chance of overtaking MS than Linux and I don't see Apple getting anywhere close for many years.

Normally I'd agree with you but a few things have changed. First and fore most is ease-of-use. Linux has gotten a lot easier to use without the user having to think about it. This was the biggest barrier to entry for Linux in the past. We also have a company, Valve, actively developing for Linux with the intent of making it easier to use for the average user.

Apple will never overtake Microsoft because it's OS is locked to the hardware and the hardware is stupid expensive and it's horrible for gaming. As much as it pains me, Apple is a "creator" software ecosystem. All of the great applications for drawing, video editing and animating are locked into OSX.

But you brought up UI and I'm glad you did. The biggest complaint I hear about windows 11 is that people HATE the UI. With Linux you have 3 major UIs; GNOME, Cinnamon and KDE. With the way that Linux is coded, you can download a new GUI from a software repository(App store), click on it and you will completely reskin and change your GUI without even having to restart your computer. No command line. You like PopOS! GUI but you run linux mint? Well with a few clicks you can do that. You like the Cinnamon desktop environment but you use Arch? you can do that easily without have to have any knowlegde of how OSs or computers work. This change happened in 2017. All major distros can have their UIs reskined easily and "apps" developed for Linux are designed in a modular fashion around this to avoid compatibility issues.

Things in Linux have changed drastically. Microsoft is only accelerating Linux by pushing users away. I know many people who didn't like Windows but tolerated it because 1) it wasn't THAT bad and 2) Linux compatibility just wasn't there. Now windows IS THAT BAD and Linux compatibility IS getting there. The last hurdle left for Linux is compatibility and with compatibility layers like Proton actively being developed by Valve, it really isn't that far away anymore.

People have been talking about Linux the same way they talk about fusion, I wasn't one of them until a few years ago. I've played with Linux since 2003 to some extent but I didn't really daily drive it until about 2018 when windows 10 started to annoy me. Linux Mint started to give me hope that it wasn't anything more than just a server or niche OS. Like, wow, I can play all almost all of my games on this. I also always used free software because F*** paying for MS office or Adobe photoshop so that was never really an issue for me. But I'm 3 tangents deep on the point I was trying to make. anyway, I never thought Linux was going to be major competitor until a few years ago. Linux Mint made me think it could be 10 years away and with the steam deck, I'm starting to think it's closer to 5.

Go download Linux mint. You can run it in a VM or just boot to the image off a jump drive.

 

[FaTaL]

This is absolutely the most asinine decision ever made by microsoft..... I dont care if its 'insider' the fact its got even this far is a testament to level stupidity employed there.

This has major downstream disruptions. There is no way you can convince me or millions of other IT profressionals the pros outweigh the cons. Ever.
I will NOT upgrade to Win 11 if this goes public. ..|..

 

[waclark]

Normally I'd agree with you but a few things have changed. First and fore most is ease-of-use. Linux has gotten a lot easier to use without the user having to think about it. This was the biggest barrier to entry for Linux in the past. We also have a company, Valve, actively developing for Linux with the intent of making it easier to use for the average user.

I think ease of use is somewhat subjective. I've been using Linux for many years. My first home router was an old PC repurposed as there were no cheap home routers back in those days. I just followed the HowTo, no problem. But getting mom or dad to do something like that, nope.

Apple will never overtake Microsoft because it's OS is locked to the hardware and the hardware is stupid expensive and it's horrible for gaming. As much as it pains me, Apple is a "creator" software ecosystem. All of the great applications for drawing, video editing and animating are locked into OSX.

Well that may be. I think the future is not a full on OS but a lightweight OS that can run on a variety of hardware including tablets, laptops, Chromebooks etc. I see a lot of "connected" computing in the future, and certainly a lot of mobile computing. Certain things like graphics intensive workloads may still require local operating systems but even that is changing. The one thing Apple has going for it, is that their mobile strategy is better than MS.

But you brought up UI and I'm glad you did. The biggest complaint I hear about windows 11 is that people HATE the UI. With Linux you have 3 major UIs; GNOME, Cinnamon and KDE. With the way that Linux is coded, you can download a new GUI from a software repository(App store), click on it and you will completely reskin and change your GUI without even having to restart your computer. No command line. You like PopOS! GUI but you run linux mint? Well with a few clicks you can do that. You like the Cinnamon desktop environment but you use Arch? you can do that easily without have to have any knowlegde of how OSs or computers work. This change happened in 2017. All major distros can have their UIs reskined easily and "apps" developed for Linux are designed in a modular fashion around this to avoid compatibility issues.

Here's the thing with multiple choice UI. As a developer, which one do I target? Now I have to provide support and instruction on how to install for one or more variations of UI, not to mention the many Linux kernels out there? Again, for us techies, no big deal. For the average non-technical person, it's too much to deal with, IMHO. And as a developer, I'm not sure this is a selling point.

Things in Linux have changed drastically. Microsoft is only accelerating Linux by pushing users away. I know many people who didn't like Windows but tolerated it because 1) it wasn't THAT bad and 2) Linux compatibility just wasn't there. Now windows IS THAT BAD and Linux compatibility IS getting there. The last hurdle left for Linux is compatibility and with compatibility layers like Proton actively being developed by Valve, it really isn't that far away anymore.

I don't know that it's changed drastically in regards to home use. I have customers using Linux for servers but virtually no one I work with is using Linux as a desktop OS. With the exception of a few hardcore admin-geeks.

People have been talking about Linux the same way they talk about fusion, I wasn't one of them until a few years ago. I've played with Linux since 2003 to some extent but I didn't really daily drive it until about 2018 when windows 10 started to annoy me. Linux Mint started to give me hope that it wasn't anything more than just a server or niche OS. Like, wow, I can play all almost all of my games on this. I also always used free software because F*** paying for MS office or Adobe photoshop so that was never really an issue for me. But I'm 3 tangents deep on the point I was trying to make. anyway, I never thought Linux was going to be major competitor until a few years ago. Linux Mint made me think it could be 10 years away and with the steam deck, I'm starting to think it's closer to 5.

You may recall Walmart's attempt at selling a Linux home machine. It had a UI that mimicked Windows. Total flop. Just enough different and not enough cost difference so people shunned it in favor of a machine that was compatible with the Microsoft ecco-system.

Go download Linux mint. You can run it in a VM or just boot to the image off a jump drive.

I'll take a look. I still think most average, non-technical people want an appliance-like experience. Meaning they just want it to work. Today I got my wife a new PC. Booted it up, logged in with MS creds, everything updated, connected to OneDrive and voila', ready to rock and roll.

 

[yRaz]

Here's the thing with multiple choice UI. As a developer, which one do I target? Now I have to provide support and instruction on how to install for one or more variations of UI, not to mention the many Linux kernels out there? Again, for us techies, no big deal. For the average non-technical person, it's too much to deal with, IMHO. And as a developer, I'm not sure this is a selling point.

What Linux is doing is all you have to do is input the functions in your code and the Linux GUI will automatically arrange things like menus and buttons within that GUI for you. There is very little in-app GUI from the developers side. I'm trying to google exactly what it's called but I'm having trouble finding it.

 

[Loli Pop Carbon]

The best option is to stay with w10 for now until who knows when.

 

[ET3D]

I know probably confirmation bias on my end but it's like every single time I hear about Windows 11 they find a way to make it even worst almost without fail.

Yeah, I think it is confirmation bias, though also what TechSpot (and most media) want you to think. You see a post saying "here's a bunch of improved stuff in Windows 11, and it will also require a Microsoft account on signup" and you think "Windows 11 just got worse". No it didn't. It got some improved functionality and an added requirement that may be annoying but doesn't really affect usability.

Still, sites like TechSpot want to get the people who are annoyed by this to read and react. They know there are people annoyed by this, so put this front and centre.

Is this Windows requirement annoying? Yes, and completely unnecessary. It's also not that big a deal. My work laptop has Windows 10 Home, which had this requirement for a while, and once I installed it with my Microsoft account there's a Windows feature to switch to a local account and delete the association with my private Microsoft one. I think it was even mentioned on setup (because it's certainly not trivial to find about it online). I haven't set a new Windows 11 machine, but I'd expect to be able to do the same.

 

[captaincranky]

Yeah, I think it is confirmation bias, though also what TechSpot (and most media) want you to think. You see a post saying "here's a bunch of improved stuff in Windows 11, and it will also require a Microsoft account on signup" and you think "Windows 11 just got worse". No it didn't. It got some improved functionality and an added requirement that may be annoying but doesn't really affect usability.

The only problem with this "musta gotta hava M$ account", nonsense, is that it might be an intermediate step to Windows as a subscription only platform.

Nadella keeps yanking your leashes tighter and tighter, while methinks, "thou dost not protest anywhere near loudly enough".

Is there any sane, sensible, or logical excuse, for embracing this more restrictive, hardware obsoleting, turd of an OS, when you still have a full 5 years of guaranteed security updates on your Windows 10? I think not. Other than to be the first kidz on your block to chomp down on this heavily baited fishhook?.Again, methinks not.

 

[ET3D]

The only problem with this "musta gotta hava M$ account", nonsense, is that it might be an intermediate step to Windows as a subscription only platform.

Nadella keeps yanking your leashes tighter and tighter, while methinks, "thou dost not protest anywhere near loudly enough".

Is there any sane, sensible, or logical excuse, for embracing this more restrictive, hardware obsoleting, turd of an OS, when you still have a full 5 years of guaranteed security updates on your Windows 10? I think not. Other than to be the first kidz on your block to chomp down on this heavily baited fishhook?.Again, methinks not.

I've grown accustomed to your crankiness and even enjoy it, but that doesn't mean there's any merit to this.

If Windows ever transitions to subscription only, then make your decision at that time. Alarmism is nice and all, but there's it doesn't actually achieve much.

There are sensible reasons to move to Windows 11, such as liking the new UI, wanting some functionality which isn't in Windows 10 (for example the upcoming Android compatibility), or when the extra performance of Windows 11 matters (for SSDs, in some cases, for Alder Lake).

All my PCs are still on Windows 10, but I was at least a year late even for the Vista to 7 move. Migration is always a hassle, and an in-place upgrade, instead of a clear install, tends to lead to lower performance and chance of problems.

Still, the most sensible reason to use Windows 11 is that it will come with new laptops. I certainly would consider it not sane to get a new laptop and try to downgrade it from 11 to 10. I will likely buy a new laptop this year, so will have Windows 11.

 

[captaincranky]

Still, the most sensible reason to use Windows 11 is that it will come with new laptops. I certainly would consider it not sane to get a new laptop and try to downgrade it from 11 to 10. I will likely buy a new laptop this year, so will have Windows 11.

That's more of what I would tend to think of as, "Windows 11, now available as a suppository".

You need an "alarmist" to counterbalance your complacency. Perhaps it helps produce a central reality of events to come.

Some random thoughts:
Windows 11 was never supposed to happen. (And hey, that's right out of the horse's a**. Sorry, I meant out of Satya Nadella's mouth).

While a native Windows Android emulator can be viewed as a boon, it is also a step toward closing the system even further toward an Apple model. Which IMO, is a big part of Nadella's master plan. View it as, "baiting the hook", in the same way he baited the hook for gamers with DX-12.

Now having previewed an endgame strategy, (and without any subtlety), Windows 11 introduces, "planned obsolescence", into the desktop environment..

TPM 2.0 will eventually fall prey to some sort of hacking workaround. Which leads us to "Windows 12", and the inevitable concomitant "enhanced security" propaganda campaign,
. Which then leads to the necessity of "TPM 3.0", and the need to buy all new equipment that supports it. This is to afford oneself the "privilege" of owning the "vastly improved" and much "faster" <(euphemism for "way more bloated"), Windows 12.

Hey, all of that could happen, and just as likely as not.

Strangely, I don't find myself cranky at all. Oh well, self perception invariably differs from the perception of the individual by the community at large. .

 

[captaincranky]

This is absolutely the most asinine decision ever made by microsoft..... I dont care if its 'insider' the fact its got even this far is a testament to level stupidity employed there.

Actually, it's the furthest thing from "stupidity" you could imagine. It's put forward using spin to mask their ulterior motives. Those being greed, the need to control, and the desire to be a monopoly.

As to the Android emulator, "the dogs are starting to bark again, somebody throw them a bone"..

I will admit, they did one helluva job of making it appear stupid

 

[ET3D]

Hey, all of that could happen, and just as likely as not.

That's my point. Sure, speculating about what will happen is nice, but if your entire reasoning for staying with Windows 10 is that "something might happen" then it's pointless. That's what I call alarmism. Staying with Windows 10 won't really prevent that thing from happening, and moving to Windows 11 won't make it more likely to happen. So sure, if you have other reasons to stay with 10, then stay (I did), but just because something might happen?

 

[ZedRM]

@MicrosoftCorp

If you had not figured this out, you're not making any friends in a sector of your user base you NEED on your side for Windows to continue to succeed.

Here's a few tips:
STOP trying to tell us how to operate our own PC's.
STOP trying to force us to use apps and features we have no interest in.
STOP trying to prevent us from removing features and apps we don't want installed on our PC's.
STOP removing system and UI customization options.
STOP intruding on our privacy.
STOP pissing us off!

Otherwise you are going to have a ton of users getting increasingly angry with you.

 

[waclark]

The only problem with this "musta gotta hava M$ account", nonsense, is that it might be an intermediate step to Windows as a subscription only platform.

It may come to that, but I would say that whether it's good or bad depends on how it is priced. Frankly, I see computing going to a utility model at some point. Pay for what you use, just like power, water and gas. I haven't paid for a MS OS since WinXP, other than whatever cost is bundled into the hardware purchase. I've upgraded from XP to 7 to 8 to 10 and now 11.

Nadella keeps yanking your leashes tighter and tighter, while methinks, "thou dost not protest anywhere near loudly enough".

Is there any sane, sensible, or logical excuse, for embracing this more restrictive, hardware obsoleting, turd of an OS, when you still have a full 5 years of guaranteed security updates on your Windows 10? I think not. Other than to be the first kidz on your block to chomp down on this heavily baited fishhook?.Again, methinks not.

I'm certainly not happy about some of the exclusions for CPUs, my wife's computer was one of those. But, honestly, she was due for a new laptop as hers was 6 years old. As for the MS account, had that already because we use O365 for our business needs. I hope the reason that most people upgrade is for functionality and features. For me, I just like to be current or close to current so I don't have any compatibility issues with any applications I may need to run.

 

[captaincranky]

It may come to that, but I would say that whether it's good or bad depends on how it is priced. Frankly, I see computing going to a utility model at some point. Pay for what you use, just like power, water and gas. I haven't paid for a MS OS since WinXP, other than whatever cost is bundled into the hardware purchase. I've upgraded from XP to 7 to 8 to 10 and now 11.

Well, if it does come to a subscription model, I'd lay odds on the fact it will cost many multiples of the cost of a one time license included with a pre-built machine.

I'm certainly not happy about some of the exclusions for CPUs, my wife's computer was one of those. But, honestly, she was due for a new laptop as hers was 6 years old. As for the MS account, had that already because we use O365 for our business needs. I hope the reason that most people upgrade is for functionality and features. For me, I just like to be current or close to current so I don't have any compatibility issues with any applications I may need to run.

I have the luxury of being a humble, retired hobbyist. Thus, the 13 year old desktop I use to start arguments with here at Techspot, is more than adequate.

As much of a Luddite as it may make me appear, I don't own, or have any use for a laptop or cell phone. I do have an old Celeron powered Toshiba upstairs. It seemed like a good idea at the time when I bought it. I think that was about 10 years ago. AFAIK, it still works.

As for the now infamous subscription model for Adobe products. I just buy DVDs of Photoshop Elements. (Their last free standing imaging program). You only have to renew that purchase when a new camera codec comes out. Since I can't afford a DSLR every year, I don't need a new copy of that every year either.

If I had a need for an office program, I'd most likely install "Office Libre" into one of the other relics I have laying around the house.

So, we're coming at this from different directions, and I admit my meager needs differ from most of the working community's.

Hey, what do you expect from a retired misanthropic bachelor, an orphan, and only child, who likes to fly well under the radar.

 

[waclark]

Well, if it does come to a subscription model, I'd lay odds on the fact it will cost many multiples of the cost of a one time license included with a pre-built machine.

Maybe, I did an analysis on Office a few years back. Buying the full suite of Office back then was, I think, about $150. I see today the cost is closer to $120. So, when I looked at that for the 5 people who use Office in our business that would have been well over $500 in cost, up front. Instead we went the O365 route and pay about $100/year for up to 6 PCs. So for us, it made sense. We get the current versions, can download and install locally if needed and we get lots of OneDrive storage.

For the average home users, that may not pencil out. And while Office Libre and other lesser products can work for many people, they didn't work for us. It's just easier knowing that Word/Excel/PowerPoint documents work across our team.

I have the luxury of being a humble, retired hobbyist. Thus, the 13 year old desktop I use to start arguments with here at Techspot, is more than adequate.

As much of a Luddite as it may make me appear, I don't own, or have any use for a laptop or cell phone. I do have an old Celeron powered Toshiba upstairs. It seemed like a good idea at the time when I bought it. I think that was about 10 years ago. AFAIK, it still works.

As for the now infamous subscription model for Adobe products. I just buy DVDs of Photoshop Elements. (Their last free standing imaging program). You only have to renew that purchase when a new camera codec comes out. Since I can't afford a DSLR every year, I don't need a new copy of that every year either.

If I had a need for an office program, I'd most likely install "Office Libre" into one of the other relics I have laying around the house.

So, we're coming at this from different directions, and I admit my meager needs differ from most of the working community's.

Hey, what do you expect from a retired misanthropic bachelor, an orphan, and only child, who likes to fly well under the radar.

Different strokes...no problem with that. Computing is not a one-size-fits all world, but I do see advantages of metered services. At the end of the day, I think the question anyone has to ask is what am I spending on these things and am I getting value for it? If a one-time purchase works, great. I suspect, somewhere down the road, my computing needs will be more modest. I'm still working and do enjoy playing some video games that require decent GPUs so I tend to upgrade every now and then (but not annually).

 

[jbgtly]

I think ease of use is somewhat subjective. I've been using Linux for many years. My first home router was an old PC repurposed as there were no cheap home routers back in those days. I just followed the HowTo, no problem. But getting mom or dad to do something like that, nope.

Well that may be. I think the future is not a full on OS but a lightweight OS that can run on a variety of hardware including tablets, laptops, Chromebooks etc. I see a lot of "connected" computing in the future, and certainly a lot of mobile computing. Certain things like graphics intensive workloads may still require local operating systems but even that is changing. The one thing Apple has going for it, is that their mobile strategy is better than MS.

Here's the thing with multiple choice UI. As a developer, which one do I target? Now I have to provide support and instruction on how to install for one or more variations of UI, not to mention the many Linux kernels out there? Again, for us techies, no big deal. For the average non-technical person, it's too much to deal with, IMHO. And as a developer, I'm not sure this is a selling point.


I don't know that it's changed drastically in regards to home use. I have customers using Linux for servers but virtually no one I work with is using Linux as a desktop OS. With the exception of a few hardcore admin-geeks.

You may recall Walmart's attempt at selling a Linux home machine. It had a UI that mimicked Windows. Total flop. Just enough different and not enough cost difference so people shunned it in favor of a machine that was compatible with the Microsoft ecco-system.

I'll take a look. I still think most average, non-technical people want an appliance-like experience. Meaning they just want it to work. Today I got my wife a new PC. Booted it up, logged in with MS creds, everything updated, connected to OneDrive and voila', ready to rock and roll.

The only way linux ever becomes more than just a super tech geek project as far a home users is concerned, is if all the distro developers out their work together and develop ONE linux OS for home users. This would be the ONLY Linux home OS the public has access too, period. The different UI's could still be there, just put it under settings\Customization\Themes. Come up with a completely different name for it to separate it from the server version. Do NOT call it "client version", the average user doesn't have a clue what that means.
Which brings me to my second point, do NOT let the coders\developers name ANYTHING. What makes sense to them is nothing more than tech gibberish to the average person, or even your average techie gamer. I mean "Software Repository" seriously? Yea I need to go over to my "chilled and frozen food and beverage repository"(Refrigerator) to get me a drink. Get a small team of marketing types to come up with the names.
Put the biggest team that can possibly be managed to focus entirely on vulcan gaming performance and working with AMD and Nvidia on driver development. Their only goal should be to make vulcan performance on this home OS BETTER than Windows, not as good, BETTER. Let Valve focus on the proton and DX stuff. DX will never be better on linux, but vulcan can be. And that will give them something to brag about, and could be just enough word of mouth to get the ball rolling for this OS.
Also they should charge for it, being free is actually a negative in this situation. It makes it look like it has no value. Even if its just $10 or $20.

 

[waclark]

The only way linux ever becomes more than just a super tech geek project as far a home users is concerned, is if all the distro developers out their work together and develop ONE linux OS for home users. This would be the ONLY Linux home OS the public has access too, period. The different UI's could still be there, just put it under settings\Customization\Themes. Come up with a completely different name for it to separate it from the server version. Do NOT call it "client version", the average user doesn't have a clue what that means.
Which brings me to my second point, do NOT let the coders\developers name ANYTHING. What makes sense to them is nothing more than tech gibberish to the average person, or even your average techie gamer. I mean "Software Repository" seriously? Yea I need to go over to my "chilled and frozen food and beverage repository"(Refrigerator) to get me a drink. Get a small team of marketing types to come up with the names.
Put the biggest team that can possibly be managed to focus entirely on vulcan gaming performance and working with AMD and Nvidia on driver development. Their only goal should be to make vulcan performance on this home OS BETTER than Windows, not as good, BETTER. Let Valve focus on the proton and DX stuff. DX will never be better on linux, but vulcan can be. And that will give them something to brag about, and could be just enough word of mouth to get the ball rolling for this OS.
Also they should charge for it, being free is actually a negative in this situation. It makes it look like it has no value. Even if its just $10 or $20.

I think you're right on all counts. It's great having the ability to customize your experience, but most people won't do that beyond setting their Home Screen wallpaper and maybe dark or light mode.

Yea, don't get me started on techie-speak. I've been in tech a long time and while I understand where some of this stuff comes from, the average non-techie would just look at you like, wut, wut? Yea, dude, search is called grep! Don't you get it? LOL

Gaming would go a long way to home adoption. Many gamers are somewhat technical because they like to mod their PCs to get the best performance. So that might be a good target audience to start with.

You are so right about "free". How good can it be, right? However, I'm not sure the current Linux licensing would allow for that? I haven't read it in a while but originally it was meant to be free to anyone, source code included.

 

[captaincranky]

Also they should charge for it, being free is actually a negative in this situation. It makes it look like it has no value. Even if its just $10 or $20.

You are so right about "free". How good can it be, right? However, I'm not sure the current Linux licensing would allow for that? I haven't read it in a while but originally it was meant to be free to anyone, source code included.

Ir's been over 15 years, but I, "distinctly, kinda, vaguely, almost", remember seeing a paid version of Linux for sale at "CompUSA", (remember them?) for something like $50.00..

"Red Hat" offers a free version, (that I never could get to work), and a commercial version, for money. (Dunno if that's a server -product)

Feel free to fill in the huge gaps in my recollections and information, sil vous plait.

Besides, isn't Mac OS Linux? I know my surveillance DVR runs on it.

 

[ZedRM]

I haven't paid for a MS OS since WinXP, other than whatever cost is bundled into the hardware purchase.

Some people make a habit of buying retail copies of each release for a number of reasons. For me it's a legal rights thing. No matter what MS states in the agreements, users still have rights that can not be forfeit or forcibly surrendered. Getting "free" upgrades can negate some of those protected rights.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Besides, isn't Mac OS Linux? I know my surveillance DVR runs on it.

It's a different UNIX variant, FreeBSD I think.

 

[waclark]

Ir's been over 15 years, but I, "distinctly, kinda, vaguely, almost", remember seeing a paid version of Linux for sale at "CompUSA", (remember them?) for something like $50.00..

"Red Hat" offers a free version, (that I never could get to work), and a commercial version, for money. (Dunno if that's a server -product)

Feel free to fill in the huge gaps in my recollections and information, sil vous plait.

Besides, isn't Mac OS Linux? I know my surveillance DVR runs on it.

My understanding of the "paid" versions of Linux is that you're not paying for "linux" per se, but you're paying for packaging/media (CompUSA) or add-on tools/features/support (RedHat).

I've used the free RH distribution and I've modified the kernel to support certain features that weren't standard in their free distribution. It's a fun little OS but not really ready for mom and pop to install at home.

MacOS is freeBSD, and may have some different licensing requirements, unlike Linux which is free, open-source.

I think the point about free, is that while Linux is free and you can get many different variations of it, the fact that a company like Red Hat (and others) bringing paid support to the product is what is making it popular in the corporate world. No one wants a product that they can't get good support for. When your production line is down you want someone to call to help get it back running.

 

[waclark]

Some people make a habit of buying retail copies of each release for a number of reasons. For me it's a legal rights thing. No matter what MS states in the agreements, users still have rights that can not be forfeit or forcibly surrendered. Getting "free" upgrades can negate some of those protected rights.

Can't speak to the legalities of SW, it's convoluted and complicated. Not to mention that every country can have different laws regarding SW and its use.

At the end of the day, it's no big deal for me to have an MS account. I have one already and I don't see this as a nuisance. For people who feel it is a big deal, there are options. MacOS, Linux and maybe a few others.