So, I paid for Windows 7, and own it outright. Then, I upgraded it to 10. And now, it appears it's just a matter of time until Microsoft wants me to start paying in order to continue using the Windows 10 I essentially already paid for? Not just "NO", but "HELL NO". I'll do whatever I have to do to avoid this. I will NOT pay monthly for an OS. This is nothing but greedy bullshit. HELL NO!

Something tells me this is also going to sound the death knell for cheap grey market Windows keys. Microsoft might not be able to blacklist existing keys (without a huge legal kerfuffle), but you can be damn sure if they want to they'll shut off the tap.

Mark Niebauer:

I totally agree, I would never pay for subscription. These Tech companies want us all enslaved with no freedom just total loyalty to them. They are very sick!

It is actually just the opposite. Instead of making one time decision to pay the software for 5 years, with subscription you pay 5€ or so initially and you can quit any time. If the software is actually worth the money, then it shouldn't be a problem to pay. In any case, there is still the perpetual license available if you want to buy in big time.

Jagman:

Every now and then I download a Linux distro that I like the look of, just in case this subscription crap looks in danger of becoming a reality on Windows 🙄 At least we have alternatives 🙂

If you're a gamer but not a hardcore one, you could probably ditch Windows now. Thanks to Proton and Wine, I've been able to ditch Windows 100%. Of my Steam library (which is somewhere over 100 titles, I forget exactly how much), I think 6 are currently unplayable with no known solution at all. There are a handful of extras that don't work but can with a little tweaking. For example, some games fail to run because of DRM issues, but they'll work fine if you find an "anti-DRM" crack. Others will work fine if you disable esync. Considering how young the Proton project is, it's surprisingly well put together and evolving very fast. To put things into perspective, when Proton was first released a few months ago, my list of non-working games was around 15. But, I would recommend you stick with Windows if you are any one of the following: * You play competitive games * You mostly play new AAA titles, especially ones with their own DRM * You treat stability with a high priority * You hate change * You have a 144Hz+ display (120Hz might be fine if your hardware is good enough) That might seem like a big list, but considering most people aren't hardcore competitive and use a 1080p@60Hz display, the only thing that would hold back the average gamer from switching is their mentality and some (but not all) AAA games being unavailable. Granted, not being able to play AAA games is a significant disadvantage.

Not perspective. Same as Office 365 will have zero popularity outside USA, where MS charging inaccessible price.

schmidtbag:

If you're a gamer but not a hardcore one, you could probably ditch Windows now. Thanks to Proton and Wine, I've been able to ditch Windows 100%. Of my Steam library (which is somewhere over 100 titles, I forget exactly how much), I think 6 are currently unplayable with no known solution at all. There are a handful of extras that don't work but can with a little tweaking. For example, some games fail to run because of DRM issues, but they'll work fine if you find an "anti-DRM" crack. Others will work fine if you disable esync. Considering how young the Proton project is, it's surprisingly well put together and evolving very fast. To put things into perspective, when Proton was first released a few months ago, my list of non-working games was around 15. But, I would recommend you stick with Windows if you are any one of the following: * You play competitive games * You mostly play new AAA titles, especially ones with their own DRM * You treat stability with a high priority * You hate change * You have a 144Hz+ display (120Hz might be fine if your hardware is good enough) That might seem like a big list, but considering most people aren't hardcore competitive and use a 1080p@60Hz display, the only thing that would hold back the average gamer from switching is their mentality and some (but not all) AAA games being unavailable. Granted, not being able to play AAA games is a significant disadvantage.

If Linux ever is going to be looked at as a serious alternative to Windows for games, it also needs to get its performance up to par with Windows in all games. Even the games with official Linux support tend to perform notably worse on Linux. The Linux versions also typically have higher minimum requirements than the Windows versions. These benchmarks are two years old, but Rise of the Tomb Raider on Linux generally has a 10 FPS disadvantage compared to Windows. Official minimum requirement is GTX 680 2GB for Linux, but only the GTX 650 2GB for Windows. Similar gap in specs for AMD cards. https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-is-now-officially-available-on-linux-heres-a-look-at-it-with-benchmarks.11576 Here are some other benchmarks. The only game that performed well on Linux was Metro Redux, it even performed better than the 1060 in Windows. The rest though, are a horrible case for promoting Linux to gamers. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=pascal-win10-linux&num=1

Yxskaft:

If Linux ever is going to be looked at as a serious alternative to Windows for games, it also needs to get its performance up to par with Windows in all games. Even the games with official Linux support tend to perform notably worse on Linux. The Linux versions also typically have higher minimum requirements than the Windows versions.

When ported properly, Linux has a tendency to outperform Windows. When devs are lazy and use a DX to OGL conversion method, performance suffers pretty hard. That being said:

These benchmarks are two years old, but Rise of the Tomb Raider on Linux generally has a 10 FPS disadvantage compared to Windows. Official minimum requirement is GTX 680 2GB for Linux, but only the GTX 650 2GB for Windows. Similar gap in specs for AMD cards.

RotTR is sort of an "in-between" game. They still did a DX to OGL (and Vulkan, I think) conversion, but at least some effort to optimization was made. Also, 2 years in Linux time is a very long time. Although Linux is still overall behind Windows in regards to GPUs as a whole, progress and updates occur at a much faster rate. 2 years ago, there were certain games that weren't playable at all on certain drivers, but now run flawlessly. Anyway, I do take your point - as long as games like Deus Ex Mankind Divided have such horrendous native performance while others like Shadow of Mordor only focus on high-end Nvidia cards, Linux will (on paper anyway) remain a worse gaming platform than Windows. However, it has the potential to be better, and even for games like RotTR, as long as you're above 60FPS, the small performance losses are irrelevant to most gamers (same sort of argument that people make for Ryzen). Tremendous progress has been made in 2 years, and that progress seems to be accelerating. Thanks to Proton and AMD being nearly feature-compliant/complete with their open-source drivers (Nvidia's closed-source drivers have always been pretty complete), progress has been unprecedented.

If it's gonna be 5 Euros a month i will no doubt look into an alternative way to get my Windows OS. Because that would be 60 Euros, which is what you can find keys for to have an ulimited amount of years. Would mean if an OS lasts 8 years it's gonna cost us 480...

I don´t like subscription models but i could consider this if two conditions are met: a reasonable price and full control over Windows, otherwise no thanks.

Yxskaft:

If Linux ever is going to be looked at as a serious alternative to Windows for games, it also needs to get its performance up to par with Windows in all games. Even the games with official Linux support tend to perform notably worse on Linux. The Linux versions also typically have higher minimum requirements than the Windows versions.

For me pure performance is secondary for Linux gaming because we can always lower settings. More important if for all the games to work in Linux the way they work in Windows, that´s what really matters.

schmidtbag:

But, I would recommend you stick with Windows if you are any one of the following: * You play competitive games * You mostly play new AAA titles, especially ones with their own DRM * You treat stability with a high priority * You hate change * You have a 144Hz+ display (120Hz might be fine if your hardware is good enough) That might seem like a big list, but considering most people aren't hardcore competitive and use a 1080p@60Hz display, the only thing that would hold back the average gamer from switching is their mentality and some (but not all) AAA games being unavailable. Granted, not being able to play AAA games is a significant disadvantage.

There are issues in using an high refresh display in Linux???

.....there would be another Windows 10 (cloud based)....like Office 365.... 'Thin Client' somehow???

H83:

For me pure performance is secondary for Linux gaming because we can always lower settings. More important if for all the games to work in Linux the way they work in Windows, that´s what really matters.

I'm not sure what kind of display you have, but with your GPU (listed in your profile), you probably wouldn't have to lower any settings to get good framerates.

There are issues in using an high refresh display in Linux???

Inherently, no. But since a lot of games are either poorly ported and/or need translation layers like Proton/Wine or DXVK (which will eat up CPU cycles and therefore hurt framerate), I wouldn't recommend Linux to gamers seeking the highest frame rates possible.

They're making so much bank on XBox LIVE, that they want to implement that into Windows... Sad times.

am i being misled...... some posts does not stick 🙂 to the title of the thread. Anyway, me too going to "unstick" too.... : Merry Christmas to all of you gurus.... and guest(s) visiting www.guru3d.com -----------------------------------

Dear Microsoft you're drunk please go home...

eh no thanks I not paying a subscription to use there OS we been beta test from them years now. now IF i sub and it wasnt some ridiculous price , 50$ year? and it allowed me to put windows 10 on any PC i build with out have to need a new key i, long as i disable the last pc I might think about but even then. I think my answer would be no. seeing as MS has monopoly on PC which pretty much all use windows OS we might have no choice, less it blow up in there face, and only time that really happen that I remeber was when they said they were gona lock all games phiscal and digital to the system and account on it, and kill off used game sales in process 24 hours later after the announcement they backtracked and removed that feature. Sadly I think the only reason that happen was cause they didnt have monopoly on consoles systems so they reversed it, I dont see same happen on PC and OS monopoly they have there

Evildead666:

It would be q good way for Microsoft to get rid of all those pesky customers that have been bugging them all this time.... Seriously, if they do this, they will lose market share hand over fist. Its been in the pipeline for years, and it seems they never buried it, just waiting for the right time to announce it....

We can only hope they dont do this or they do this, and backlash is so bad they reverse like they did with the above announcement when they first announced the xbox one

HeavyHemi:

I don't understand folks. Every one here willingly subscribes to a bazillion services they pay for..but for some reason Windows is exempt from the normal ways of thinking and exists in it's own special protected (for some) user bubble... Too an extent, I get this, it is not a perfect analog between being captive to your cable subscription and captive to your OS because of limited options. But there is validity to that concern. However, there ARE options to Windows. I don't think I read one single critique to Windows as a subscription versus one time buy, past emotion.

what happen when one stop paying for the sub? and MS say you can no long use the OS and locks it? general when stop subing to something you lose access to what you were subing too, stop subbing from OS we could lose all access to our pc cause they would have balls to do something like that, cause again they have monopoly on PC OS and can get away with it I guarantee I would cease having PC of any kind if they pull something like that and so would many others. and at that point I will never OWN or touch MS product again including consoles when I refuse anyway. And I will be Consoles Only from then on Much rather buy key and have it for the life of system NO MATTER how long it is used VS paying sub for each PC i own pay 100 once for life of system is better then yearly sub of something like 50+ cause it MS it would not be cheap.

HeavyHemi:

I don't understand folks. Every one here willingly subscribes to a bazillion services they pay for..but for some reason Windows is exempt from the normal ways of thinking and exists in it's own special protected (for some) user bubble... Too an extent, I get this, it is not a perfect analog between being captive to your cable subscription and captive to your OS because of limited options. But there is validity to that concern. However, there ARE options to Windows. I don't think I read one single critique to Windows as a subscription versus one time buy, past emotion.

Subscription fees make sense when you regularly get access to new content that you're explicitly seeking. The vast majority of the time Windows has new content, it either took them 10 years to figure out people wanted it, or, it's something nobody asked for. In another way of looking at it, think of it compared to tools vs utilities. It doesn't make sense to pay a monthly fee to own a wrench, and it doesn't make sense to pay a 1-time fee for X amount of liters of water that comes out of your facet. Windows is like a wrench. You don't buy a computer with Windows because it has Windows, you buy it because you want to use software that is only compatible with Windows. Despite what MS thinks, Windows is not the main attraction to owning a PC.

D3M1G0D:

I'm not sure about that. I don't know about you, but when I subscribe to a service I am doing it for features/content that exists right now, not ones that will exist later. I have a subscription to Netflix so I can watch the movies/shows whenever I want, and I have a subscription to Google Music so I can listen to music whenever I want. With regard to new content, the only thing that I expect is that I will be able to readily access it when it's released (won't have to pay extra for it).

I think you're missing my point... You're not subscribed to Netflix because there are X amount of movies and shows you intend to watch and nothing more. Otherwise, you'd have just bought the DVDs and called it a day. You will at some point want to watch more content that has yet to be released. I'm sure some of these shows you watch haven't ended yet, so you'll want to stick around for more. You are paying for the subscription to watch what is currently available but you keep your subscription alive to watch what hasn't yet been released.

Windows subscriptions would be like Office 365 subscriptions, and similar to password managers or cloud storage services. You are paying for continued access to your software/services.

And why would you want to do that? Let's look at the wrench example again: Unless it's corroding, the wrench doesn't gain or lose function. It retains its function indefinitely. Why would you pay a monthly subscription for it? Office 365 is hardly any different. You could argue "I get security patches and bug fixes" and to that I say "so you're willing to continuously pay for an incomplete/faulty product?". You could argue "sometimes I get a new feature here and there, like support for " and to that I say "you're willing to spend $5 for this month for a feature you're probably never going to use? What about each month where no new features are added? Are you willing to pay $5 for no added benefits?" Here's the crux of the matter: Windows 10 is already a complete product and has existed since mid 2015. If you were to pay $5 a month to use Windows 10 since its release date, you would be paying more than a one-time-payment license. How does that make sense? Despite W10 not having a subscription, they still managed to release major updates with new features.

HeavyHemi:

I'm sorry, but a wrench has one use, so it does not make sense as an analog to an OS. An OS would be a collection of utilities in your example, right?

*sigh* fine, let's compare it to the whole toolbox, or the contents of the whole shed if that makes you happier. My point still remains.

And again, you did not actually give a reason. Your 'new content' is your opinion or a feeling. Not a metric. Your claims of what others want, is again, based on your feelings.

Um... no? When a new episode of a TV show comes out, that is objectively new content that people are seeking... Feelings are not relevant here. You've seen me around here long enough to know I disregard feelings as a means of establishing a point.

Fundamentally there's no difference between needing to upgrade (purchase) versus subscribe, other than the mental pardigm of 'ownership'.

Seeing as Windows, an operating system, is a necessity to run your software and hardware, that paradigm is objectively crucial. Fundamentally, the difference with a subscription is you will end up paying more in the end for finite access to your hardware and software. When it comes to stuff like media, nobody cares. No sane person watches the same movie every single day, and anyone who does care about watching a movie frequently goes out and buys it... to watch whenever they want... without subscription. See a pattern here?

What would be the difference in a subscription model that took you from Windows 3.1 to Windows 10 versus the existing paradigm of purchasing new versions? Are you saying WAITING to purchase a NEW VERSION gets you NEW FEATURES quicker than a subscription model?

The difference is I didn't use Windows 95, 2000, Vista, or 8. Of the OSes I did use, I paid a 1-time-fee and still got those "NEW FEATURES" anyway. So, that's a lot of money I would've wasted on a subscription.

The devil is in the DETAILS...of which not a one of us has despite all the 'facts' being thrown around.

Indeed it is. Though, just because you don't agree with the facts, that doesn't make them false.

If you're a subscriber, you don't really 'own it'. If you read the EULA, you don't own a single bit of MS software either...so....the devil is in the details. 😉

This is a great point, however, it doesn't detract anything from mine. I never said anything about ownership [EDIT] of the OS. EDIT: Another way of looking at it: Subscriptions are appealing as new content comes in and old content is phased out. Some people might not like it when old content is gone, but when you pay a subscription fee, you understand it's all temporary anyway, and that you don't actually own anything. As soon as you cancel your subscription, your access to everything is dropped. That model is "sufficient" for something like MS Office (it's stupid but it makes sense) since you can still keep your documents and access them elsewhere, and it usually isn't an emergency if your license runs out. But it's a downright terrible idea for an OS, where literally your entire PC (and let's not forget, that includes things that you do actually own) is held hostage.

mgilbert:

So, I paid for Windows 7, and own it outright. Then, I upgraded it 10. And now, it appears it's just a matter of time until Microsoft wants me to start paying in order to continue using the Windows 10 I essentially already paid for? Not just "NO", but "HELL NO". I'll do whatever I have to do to avoid this. I will NOT pay monthly for an OS. This is nothing but greedy bullshit. HELL NO!

Lol, it's only for new customers, they aren't going to take your paid licence key and dump it. I imagine the worst they could do is stop feature updates and demand payment to get to newer versions of Windows but then they'd be silly not to call it Windows 11/One etc. Life is a subscription...

So I purchase a new desktop or laptop or I build one I install windows 10 and after a year my computer no longer works until I pay to update my subscription? Good luck with that Microsoft. Your O.S has sucked as of late give people another excuse to dump it for Mac or Linux.

I agree that this is not a good business decision if aimed at people who just have their gaming, editing, whatever PC lying around home. On the other hand, this might be an epic super marvellous advantage for many timelined projects some companies may have, if they update their hardware quite often, since today I assume the licences are tied to the hardware. Required to always buy a new license with many new laptops or such costs a long penny, so subscribtion model would cost less in the end when OEMs sell hardware to companies without a tied in Windows license. Same goes for schools and many other industries. This could also clear out some customer support related problems if Microsoft decides to take care of issues directly with the subscribed customers. For a home user like me, who may not even move to the next big Windows version in a while without a big discount, it is better to sell licenses that cover one computer and lasts forever. I happily paid 120 euros for my Windows 10 Home license and I'm still very satisfied, so no need for changes if you already make loads of money and the customer is satisfied. Improvement is the only goal you should aim for if you are already succesful and this new model may be exactly that for different industries.