Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft May Have Price Increases in Store For Windows 10 Pro Workstation, Win 10 Downgrade Customers (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the heads-up dept.

Mary Jo Foley, reporting for ZDNet: Microsoft soon will be adding a new edition of Windows 10 to its lineup. That edition, Windows 10 Pro for Workstations, may include more than just a new name and feature set. It also may come with a change to the way Microsoft licenses and prices Windows 10 for its PC maker partners -- who potentially could pass on these changes to end-user customers. I've heard from a couple of customers recently who've been contacted by different OEMs about the coming changes. One said that Microsoft will begin licensing the Windows 10 Desktop operating system by processor family, and all PCs sold with Intel Xeon workstation processors will be affected by this change. 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 going to be available around the time Windows 10 Fall Creators Update starts rolling out, which is October 17.

101 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Makes sense by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    we've got multiple administrations around the world that are either too weak to enforce anti-trust or simply don't believe in it. Now's the time to put the screws on.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Makes sense by ckatko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I strongly believe that our nation's justice departments and congress have completely collapsed. (Read: regulatory capture)

      When Enron collapsed, love or hate him, Bush Jr.'s DOJ threw their management in jail. They didn't care about effects on "the economy" or "jobs" or anything. They tossed those sum-bitches in jail.

      Meanwhile, GM makes cars that kill teenagers, nothing happens. Wall Street single-handedly PUTS US INTO A RECESSION (that could have become a full on depression) and none of them go to jail. Thanks, Eric Holder! Speaking of Holder, his department SENDS GUNS TO MEXICAN DRUG DEALERS that we know for a fact were used to murder a US border agent (and possibly countless Mexicans) and NO ONE GOES TO JAIL.

      Forget "cops being above the law", you want to be above the law, just pay the $49 fee to incorporate. No need to spend time getting in shape and going through the academy.

    2. Re:Makes sense by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Wall Street single-handedly PUTS US INTO A RECESSION (that could have become a full on depression) and none of them go to jail.

      As a matter of interest, what would you throw them in jail for? I mean I love the sentiment, but which laws did they actively break?

      Holder I understand, the cops I understand, but being a money making fuck knuckle with the conscience of a piece of chewed up gum unfortunately is not actually a crime.

    3. Re:Makes sense by deadwill69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

    4. Re:Makes sense by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Microsoft apparently reports all you do backbto their servers, where they no doubt have a deal to let the government examine it without warrant because of the 3rd party doctrine. Thus there will be no antitrust as this is too valuable.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Makes sense by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Mixed record for Bush. They went after Enron - you could argue that it was because Bush was so seemingly indebted to Enron (his biggest campaign contributor) and what they did was so obviously illegal, that they had to throw the book at them.

      Wall Street got a big pass from Bush's Treasury secretary, Hank Paulsen - he of Goldman Sachs fame. The 'crime' there was to bail them out without any conditions - to the point that the bankers were able to use the money to pay themselves bonuses for the year of the crash. Incredible - but not prosecutable, and y'know, Bush. Holder didn't prosecute the bankers, and you can argue that he should've - if only to set an example. But the crash was caused at least as much by stupidity and corrupt ratings agencies as by criminal fraud. To the extent the bankers knew the bond ratings were bogus, they were surely complicit, but try proving that in court...

      And your description of the 'guns to Mexican Drug Dealers' fuckup is ripped from the pages of Fox News or a Republican witch hunt hearing to imply criminality - when what happened was a law enforcement attempt to catch drug dealers by following a trail of guns to them. A colossal fuckup to be sure, but NO ON GOES TO JAIL? in all caps? Shit like that happens. Don't you watch 'Homeland'? Or the news?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    6. Re:Makes sense by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So looks like they were charged with a crime and settled. Sounds like business as usual in the USA.

    7. Re:Makes sense by deadwill69 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, you appear to be correct. Should have just let them failed, but the precedent has been set now.

  2. Linux User by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Paying $0 more, regardless of what Microsoft decides to charge.

  3. Announced 2 months ago by will_die · · Score: 3, Informative

    Was announced a few months ago. Has a bunch of new features for high end machine. It also increases the number of CPUs from the current 2, and increase memory from 2TB to 6TB.

    1. Re:Announced 2 months ago by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

      uh... more "CPU" (sockets) makes no sense. The world can pretty much run virtualized CPUs. We don't care about the 2 socket limitation of desktop Windows, we just define more cores. It's simply not an issue anymore in 99% of all cases.

      And it's still pretty hard to to outfit a single host (virtualized or not) with 2TB of memory, much less 6TB and much less a 4 CPU+ host with 6TB that is a "desktop".

      Just saying.

    2. Re:Announced 2 months ago by zlives · · Score: 1

      one of two things..
      1. it won't affect any one as you clearly suggest
      2. Microsoft is going to change the system requirements on cores and memory going forward. core based licensing is already in place for enterprise agreements on Server OS.
       

    3. Re:Announced 2 months ago by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "uh... more "CPU" (sockets) makes no sense. The world can pretty much run virtualized CPUs."

      And in the server space, more sockets means more CPUs means more virtualized CPUs means more money potential.

      In before Intel or AMD makes a single-core mega-threaded processor to get around this bullshit licensing and try to make some extra cash off of this bit of a blunder.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Announced 2 months ago by mikael · · Score: 1

      Xeon motherboards can have one two or four CPU sockets; that's the number scheme for Xeon processors. The first number is how many processors can be used together eg. Xeon 2660 is two processor sockets, Xeon 4116 allows four processors on the same motherboard. Each CPU can have anything from a couple of cores to over a hundred, with each being hyperthreaded as well. So having a simple "number of sockets" doesn't affect anyone but the home programmer wanting to learn desktop HPC.

      I've seen ISP's offer virtualized servers, server pools and cloud systems arranged in "droplets, cloudlets" and any other hipster name for dynamically increasing capacity based on demand.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    5. Re:Announced 2 months ago by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Yes this isn't a price increase for Windows Pro Workstation users, this is a price drop. If you wanted to run a system with more than 2 CPUs you previously had to buy Windows Server which starts at substantially more.

    6. Re:Announced 2 months ago by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      it's still pretty hard to to outfit a single host (virtualized or not) with 2TB of memory, much less 6TB and much less a 4 CPU+ host with 6TB that is a "desktop".

      Windows Pro Workstation is essentially just a license to sell to Windows Pro users who were buying Windows Server. We've run a few monster machines before with 4 sockets and lots of RAM for complicated 3D simulations and rendering. They required Windows Server. It was a bit of a PITA because by default it's configured to be a server, not a workstation so everything insanely locked down and has iffy driver compatibility with video cards etc.

  4. License Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Windows should be licensed to the PC, license control is too weak. There are too many hardware changes that can be done.

    It needs to be licensed to the serial numbers of the DIMMs
    it needs to be licensed to the serial number of the mouse and keyboard
    It needs to be licensed to the EDID of the monitor
    it needs to be licensed to the serial number of the HDD
    it needs to be licensed to the serial number of the network card, wireless card

    Now of course, for a small fee, users could add extra hardware.

    -New network card, $5.00
    -New mouse $2.50
    -New keyboard $2.50
    -New Monitor $5.00
    -Dual Monitor $10.00
    -New DIMM $2.00/Gb
    -New Hard-Drive, $0.05/Gb

    People need to learn that they need to pay for software.

    1. Re:License Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "People need to learn that they need to pay for software."

      Hey pal, you are not a real estate developer, just a two-bit software developer.
      On the ladder of "developers" that puts you about 5 rungs below Mark Eden.
      Maybe you should start paying for your lunch instead of stealing other people's food from the fridge. Get a real job.

    2. Re:License Features by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > And it doesn't come with much of an instruction set either.

      Pish posh. That's three more than needed:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Your other three can be like, HALT, XOR, and probably LOCK CMPXCHG8B EAX, just to show Intel that it can be done right.

  5. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The intended audience of this seems like a footnote compared to overall users. The major changes, other than the sensionalist title, are support for 4 Processors, support for up to 6TB RAM, ReFS enabled by default, and and Direct SMB support.

    We are talking about extremely high machines in what is most likely a fairly niche environment. If that is the case then a $70 surcharge for that OS seems reasonable given the cost of one of those computers.

    The rest of us? Likely unaffected.

    1. Re:Meh by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Can you explain why it's justified? It's the same codebase, and I'm assuming whatever extensions are there for the Xeon processors are part of the kernel and/or distribution.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Meh by loonycyborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who buy high core count processors have more spare money. That's the only justification possible or needed.

    3. Re:Meh by zlives · · Score: 3, Insightful

      its justified same way as a hot dog cost 10 dollars at a stadium...

    4. Re:Meh by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a fairly standard business model: develop one product, but sell various versions of it that differ in cost to manufacture by pennies, but cost massively different prices to the end user. The idea is to maximize revenue by getting more money from those who are prepared to pay more, while still getting some from those who can't afford the high prices paid by the premium group.

      In this case, the logic seems to be "You can pay more, as you're proving by buying a motherboard that can support four CPUs, and actually buying four CPUs, so we're going to ask for a little more money from you." Which... makes sense I suppose.

      Microsoft has gone in the other direction too: for cheap netbooks and tablets, they offer Windows 10 without a per-license cost, because they recognize you're not going spend $100 on an OS for a $70 tablet, especially with Android being around. Instead they hope to claw some revenue back from you in advertising and sales of apps (their own and third party) and so on.

      Is this bad? I think trying to relate cost to ability to pay isn't a terrible thing.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Meh by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I think trying to relate cost to ability to pay isn't a terrible thing.

      Yeah, it's basically progressive pricing in the sense that high tax rates for the rich are 'progressive taxation'.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Meh by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      The intended audience of this seems like a footnote compared to overall users.

      Regardless, this should once again be a wakeup call. Even if you can afford to absorb this price increase, you are still a lobster being slowly boiled to death. Some Microsoft nut-job can decide out of the blue tomorrow that you need to pay an additional ten thousand dollars per MHz, and there is nothing you can do about it unless you grow some brain cells and move to something that respects your Freedom.

      And don't console yourself with the delusional insanity that would be required for Microsoft to make such a change, because Microsoft has already done insane things many times without any major consequences.

      I laugh at the notion of, "this doesn't affect me, so it's not a problem." Some insane actions from Microsoft have and will affect you, even if this one doesn't.

    7. Re:Meh by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I think you missed something, those different versions of the same OS tend to have different features. Features that they have to develop that a home consumer would rather not pay the development costs.

    8. Re:Meh by unrtst · · Score: 1

      its justified same way as a hot dog cost 10 dollars at a stadium...

      That price hike for the stadium dog is far more justified. Real estate and labor costs more in the stadium than most other places you can get a hot dog.

      MS charging more to run the same version of Windows on a xeon cpu is, IMO, more like charging way more for business class plane tickets but still giving them economy seats and service. I honestly can't think of anything else quite like that which actually exists/happens and is legal (extortion/kidnapping would be similar - charge more if the parent is rich - but that's illegal).

    9. Re: Meh by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Running desktop operating systems in virtual environments. Typically on the "Xeon" platform.

    10. Re:Meh by mikael · · Score: 1

      They used to call that "UNIX prices". Want a heavy duty RS-232 cable to go between your UNIX server and your line printer? $120

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    11. Re:Meh by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >" Is this bad? I think trying to relate cost to ability to pay isn't a terrible thing."

      It isn't necessarily bad, if there is a free market and competition in that area that guarantees consumers have a choice and alternatives. Such competition will ensure that the prices stay low and consumers have choices and business greed is kept in check. When it is a true or partial or pseudo monopoly, that doesn't work so well anymore. As to how "good" or "bad" this specific example is, well, it depends on how you classify/view MS and also their relationship with OEMS and what they have done, historically.

    12. Re:Meh by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Is this bad? I think trying to relate cost to ability to pay isn't a terrible thing.

      You like being gouged? I think it would be very unfair if the grocery store charged different prices depending on your paycheck. I'd like the price of an apple to be based on how much you want to sell it for, not how much I could pay for it. Now if there's a genuine reason why my niche features add costs and is spread across a low volume, then I'm okay with it. I'm okay with discounts for broad classes like children, students, senior citizens, division between commercial, educational and residential service. But if it's plain price gauging that because I paid a lot for the hardware I can pay more for the same software with a different config setting, then I don't like it. It's like the grocery store seeing that I bought beef tenderloin and then charging double for the vegetables "because I can afford it". Which I probably can, but that's kinda none of your business.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Meh by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      That's not how the PC industry works.

    14. Re:Meh by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      But the rich won't be paying for this. The high-end systems applicable here are bought by companies with the processing need. As do all, these companies pay for all costs out of the revenue their particular business model generates. All sustained increases in overhead are passed down either directly through price increases or offset by cost reductions elsewhere. Reductions often are realized through staff and salary cuts. They are also realized through less money going out the door to other companies such as vendors and suppliers. In the end, the rich will still get their cake, and the rest will be left with an empty serving tray.

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    15. Re: Meh by unrtst · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is a craft person? It sounds like it isn't a "real" job.... like it's designed to allow people to blow money on making decisions for them. How does that really compare?

      Those that have a machine with enough juice to need this aren't even going to blink at an additional $70.

      Bullshit. Serious pros and enthusiasts run this stuff at home all the time (though, while I can't speak for everyone, windows doesn't touch any of my home xeon systems). Big corps aren't going to be happy, nor are their IT departments cause they'll have to cut a little bit out from somewhere else, but it won't really affect their buying habits... you have a point there, but that's really the only group. Small businesses are going to fucking hate this. There techs all surely pushed for it for their little local fileserver and what have you, and now it's going to start costing them more? ... or less if they ditch it and move to Linux, or just not upgrade?

  6. Huh by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I buy computers, I always delete the Windows installation that comes with them. Although I qualify to get reimbursed for the Windows portion of the selling price, I've never bothered -- it just wasn't enough money to be worth the hassle.

    This might change that equation!

    1. Re:Huh by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      Allowing that bundling to be ubiquitous was a really bad thing for consumer choice.

      Negative options are evil.

    2. Re:Huh by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Be careful about assumptions. I'm currently looking to buy some horsepower, and Xeon based systems are certainly in my list of possibilities.

    3. Re:Huh by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Beyond nice things like ECC memory, when you really, really need to move some heavy I/O quickly, it's tough to beat a Xeon-based system. (I bought a used Dell Precision with 2 Xeons, 32GB of RAM, slipped in an SSD and...Man, oh man!!)

    4. Re:Huh by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a problem. Technically, as several court cases have ruled, they have to. Practically, some manufacturers won't as a matter of policy, preferring to force you to sue them. Those lawsuits tend to be expensive, long, and not worth the $50 or so the refund would be.

      Your only realistic option is to ask the OEM what their policy on this is before you buy their equipment. Many of them offer a "naked" option that has no OS installed at all, for a slightly reduced price (even if they don't advertise it), and if they do, then you need to buy that.

    5. Re:Huh by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Ryzen gives ECC for free (you don't need to pony up for a server-class chip).

      More importantly, you do not need to pony up for an Intel ECC enabling south bridge.

      One of the ways Intel makes their low end ECC supporting processors seem less expensive than they really are is by transferring the price premium over to the south bridge and therefor motherboard needed to allow ECC operation. So if ECC is a requirement, the comparison is really with Intel Xeon processors and chipsets where for equivalent performance, Intel's solution is a lot more expensive.

  7. Really? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They just made Macs look a bit less expensive by comparison.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Really? by DogDude · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yes $70. Get back to me when the (multi) thousand-dollar price gap is closed up a bit.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Really? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Look, just because the iMac Pro costs as much as 50% of a low-end car doesn't mean Macs are only for the rich. /Sort-of-quote-from-Tim-Cook

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Really? by Megane · · Score: 1

      There are Macs with a high enough spec to qualify for Microsoft's higher pricing? I mean other than a "hackintosh" that someone built in his garage.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:Really? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The iMac Pro seems to have pretty high specifications. And there's also the Mac Pro.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  8. Re:What? People still use Windows? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I'd love to upgrade to a newer Mac, but Apple doesn't seem to care about the low-end Macs anymore. MacBook Air would be my first pick, but it still has a TN display in 2017 and there's no 16GB RAM option. The Mac mini would be my second pick, but you can't even upgrade RAM anymore, which is ridiculous for a desktop machine especially given the prices Apple ask for the RAM upgrades. And there's still no quad-core option.

    A updated MacBook Air with an IPS display, 16GB RAM option, a good keyboard, both USB-A and USB-C ports, headphone jack and an SD card reader/writer would be nice, but Apple seems to think the future is already here and is dropping USB-A and headphone jacks from their hardware.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  9. Re:Linux is still free, right? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    BSD is still free, but also still dying. Just like Apple.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  10. Losing Telemetry? by deadwill69 · · Score: 2

    I wonder, if at the higher price point, you might get some of your privacy back? At least some decent options? I doubt it, but one can hope.

    1. Re:Losing Telemetry? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Windows 10 doesn't allow you to turn off the spying on any edition below Enterprise. I'm certain that's not changing now.

    2. Re:Losing Telemetry? by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      I'm more wanting to know where I can get a 'slimline' version of Windows 10. I don't want 99% of the bullshit included that I can't remove...

      Stuff like:
      * Onenote
      * Paint 3D
      * The new VR shit

      Where's the 'minimal install'?

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
  11. Re:What? People still use Windows? by RatBastard · · Score: 1

    I had a Mac. Matter of fact, I've had several. From a G5 Power Mac to a 2012 dual 6-core Xeon Mac Pro. But Apple doesn't support Nvidia cards, which I need for my software. While I was able to modify my old Mac Pro to fit one in, the 2013+ units have no ability to install anything but the included, already out-of-date AMD video cards in them. And after waiting a year for GTX-10x0 support to come, I gave up and sold my Mac Pro and built a new rendering monster that does everything I need.

    It seems Apple doesn't give a wet fart about power users anymore. But their competition is more than happy to roll around in my money like little piggies.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  12. Then pay for something GNU by tepples · · Score: 1

    Now of course, for a small fee, users could add extra hardware.

    "Screw all that nickel and diming. I'm trying something GNU."

    People need to learn that they need to pay for software.

    All too true. Freedom isn't free.
    [opens Debian donation form and donates half the price of a Windows 10 license]

    1. Re:Then pay for something GNU by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Methinks that someone hath fallen into yon chasm of sar....

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  13. Running Windows into the ground by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    You'd think a sane company would be happy to be producing an OS which is still on something like 90% desktop/laptop market share.

    https://www.netmarketshare.com...

    Of course if you go to somewhere like statcounter you find that mobiles have taken over from desktops/laptops and if you count all devices you find that Windows is basically neck and neck with Android with iOS and MacOS following up a long way behind. I.e. the move from desktops/laptops to phones/tablets has not been good for Microsoft who managed to go from 10% or so market share with Windows Mobile to 0% with Windows Phone.

    http://gs.statcounter.com/os-m...

    And Metro was an attempt to mix up the popular desktop Windows with the aggressively unpopular Windows Phone. And the end result seems to be that Windows Phone is dead and desktop Windows is dying.

    And of course when it comes to servers the world has moved to Linux.

    The problem with charging more for high end desktop systems is that they run the risk of simply moving those systems to Mac of Linux, just like Metro and the Start Screen didn't make Windows phone more popular, it made desktop Windows less popular.

    Microsoft now are a bit like IBM were after IBM lost control of the PC market. They'll embrace open systems, try to launch new and more proprietary alternatives to the market leader etc. Windows Phone could be considered the Microsoft version of the PS/2 and MCA - i.e. attempt to move people from the cheap, somewhat crappy but multi vendor market leader (PC clones/Android phones) to a system which could only be bought from them.

    I.e. a whole host of ways to avoid irrelevance. However I think irrelevance is probably the end result.

    And it's a shame really. I like my Macbook, but it was noticeably more expensive than an equivalent machine running Windows. And now Macbooks have become the default in so many environments - education, media. startups and especially app development for Android and iOS - it's become harder to think different as it were when buying a new laptop. I.e. all Microsoft have achieved by running Windows into the ground is that people spend an extra $500 or so on a new laptop because they need a Mac to be able to develop for the two platforms, iOS and Android, where people actually make any money out of apps.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:Running Windows into the ground by DogDude · · Score: 2

      Most companies aren't moving to Macs or Linux over $70. That's nutty.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Running Windows into the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, they're moving because they don't need to have 2 people employed 100% just to manage licenses.

    3. Re:Running Windows into the ground by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      Actually, no they aren't.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  14. Not free of incompatibility by tepples · · Score: 2

    GNU/Linux is free as long as bootloaders, chipsets, and applications remain compatible. None of those is guaranteed of hardware in U.S. showroom chains.

  15. Windows 10 Desktop? by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    I didn't know there was a Windows 10 Desktop. Only for tablets/surface type systems (with Mobile disappearing). Oh, yeah, there's that "legacy mode" but even that's still 75% tablet-ified. Maybe that's what they are refering to?

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  16. SCO Redux by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm having a flashback to my days when we were installing SCO Unix systems. (I know - AIX, etc had the same deal) I had 3 separate file cabinets filled with the SCO license numbers, indexed by client as they added/upgraded CPUs, ran more "users", etc. Certainly MS has made things easier, but...when we finished our transition to Linux we had an Office Space-style bonfire where we burned every fucking license to ashes. Felt so good and so right!

    1. Re:SCO Redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, make no mistake. Microsoft has taken that sort of fuckery to a new level. They don't provide any sort of proof-of-license. At all. Ever. Under any circumstances. You can't have a file cabinet full of documents proving that you purchased the use of their software.

      Basically, you can buy a shit-ton of licenses from Microsoft, then a few years later, when they want more Software Assurance money, they can audit your licenses and demand payment for continued use of the software you purchased earlier, because you have no proof-of-purchase/license, because they don't furnish one. And this is why they never will.

      If you were a Windows admin, you could only wish for the good-old-days of SCO's licensing fuckery. At least SCO gave you a chance to keep things organized and prove that your software was "legit". Microsoft doesn't.

    2. Re:SCO Redux by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Run along, you.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:SCO Redux by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      you have no proof-of-purchase/license, because they don't furnish one.

      You do, however, have an invoice and bank records showing the payment. That would be sufficient proof in any court of law.

    4. Re:SCO Redux by rcase5 · · Score: 1

      There was also that silly little sticker that you had to put on your machine (or came pre-stuck if you bought your machine pre-installed). Do they not do that anymore?

    5. Re:SCO Redux by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Nope, which is one of the reasons why I would not use Microsoft software in my business.

      Microsoft licensing is a confusing clusterfuck. I wasn't trying to make the case otherwise. I was just pointing out that you do, in fact, have proof of purchase whether or not Microsoft gives you a special "proof of purchase" document.

    6. Re:SCO Redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ummm, you are obviously being sold fakes or buying from a dodgy reseller. We have detailed invoices for all our license purchases as well as EA and license numbers and even visibility of all of them with the Microsoft Licensing portal. Sounds like your organisation has been conned and you have purchased from a fake reseller.

    7. Re: SCO Redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or you have a valid license agreement (which you clearly have if you are talking about SA) that tells you exactly how many license grants you have.

      Nice straw man.

  17. Price discrimination for bug fixes by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can you explain why [a surcharge for an extremely high-end workstation is] justified?

    High core counts expose bugs and inefficient algorithms that might be expensive to fix, such as process destruction being serialized. Price discrimination based on core count applies the benefit principle to the Windows tax, allowing those affected by a particular defect associated with high core counts to foot the bill for its correction.

    1. Re:Price discrimination for bug fixes by citylivin · · Score: 1

      "High core counts expose bugs and inefficient algorithms that might be expensive to fix"

      Easy solution, take the money spent to fix the issue out of the programmer who wrote the code's paycheque. If your going to be a dick, at least be a dick to the one who actually caused the problem. And that's not the user discovering the bugs. They did not create the bugs, the programmer did.

      If anything, they should be paying the power user a "bug bounty" for QA'ing M$'s code for them!

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
  18. Re:Paid the piper last week... by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or you could just run Hyper-V core 2012, run your Windows machine in one VM, and Docker containers in another VM natively, for free?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  19. Why anti-trust? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Why is this anti-trust when Apple raising the prices for its machines is not? Raising the price of Windows seems far more honest and upfront than many of the schemes MS have pulled in the past with bundling and the more they raise prices the more people will start to look at alternatives like Linux. If they keep up with the price rises perhaps someday we may eventually see the mythical year of the Linux desktop.

    1. Re:Why anti-trust? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Because Apple is so far from a monopoly in the desktop field (for that matter they're not close to a monopoly in any area), it'd be utterly absurd to even hint at anti-trust. Linux has almost as big an install base (roughly half to 2/3rds, depends on which site I look at) on the desktop as OS X.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Why anti-trust? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You're funny.

      As a Unix, Linux could always run circles around any version of Windows when it came to disk IO. Don't even try to pretend that Linux is "unstable".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Why anti-trust? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Why would any professional using Windows Workstation move to Linux? All of the productivity professional applications run on the Windows platform.

      It depends on your profession. Lots of scientists and mathematicians use Linux on their desktop because their productivity professional applications - like LaTeX, Python, analysis code etc. run better under Linux.

    4. Re:Why anti-trust? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Why would any professional using Windows Workstation move to Linux?

      (Excuse me while I jump back to 2005 and ask myself why I did.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Why anti-trust? by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

      Read the post again. It didn’t say 4 socket machines. It said this new version of Windows would be required for any computer running a Xeon. I’m selling Xeon based desktop workstations for well under $2000.

  20. Re:What? People still use Windows? by Megane · · Score: 1

    So true. My "daily driver" is a Late-2011 17" MBP (which I got in mid-2012 when it was announced that they would discontinue the 17" screen size). So far I have replaced the trackpad and keyboard (the hardest repair you can do by yourself), and I had to send it out a few months ago to get the GPU replaced (thanks, Nvidia for that crappy chip build, is it any wonder Apple stopped using them?) I also found a used Early-2011 17" so that I could be sure to have at least one that works. And fuck the touch bar, seriously, fuck it.

    Here we are five years later, and the MacBook Pro has gone from 2.4GHz i7 with up to 16GB of DDR3 RAM and a 2.5" SATA drive to... 2.8 GHz i7 with soldered 16GB of DDR3 RAM, and soldered SSD! Sure, that i7 is a tad more efficient (Intel has been slacking), and more VRAM, but no USB-A or old-style mini-DP/Thunderbolt connectors, crappier keyboard, a trackpad without a physical clicky button, no ESC key, lame. BUT HEY IT'S SO THIN. And let's not even get into the alleged desktop computer that looks like an overgrown Edison wax cylinder.

    I would have been happy with one more generation of non-retina 17". That would have added USB 3.0, swapped the Firewire for a second Thunderbolt, and probably swapped out the ExpressCard (that has proved to be rather useless to me) with an SD card slot.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  21. Just the start?? by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    Get ready for paying more just because you bought a regular CPU with lots of cores/threads too. This announcement appears to only apply to Xeon processors but where will this lead? I have the feeling that all those AMD Threadripper or Intel i9 CPUs with tons of cores (16 or more) will soon cost you a lot more to use Windows than on a plain old Quad-Core CPU.

  22. Uhhh..... by Brostenen · · Score: 1

    70$... 250$???!!!! Wow... Wait WHAT? Oh well... Why do I even care? Been a happy full time Linux user, since Feb. 2017. So I will not be bothered with the price on Win10. I have actually only payd for one preinstalled WinXP and one WinVista. Other than that I have never payd for any operating system in my life. Most of the time, I was given the software for free. Got MS-Dos-6.22, Win95, Win98, Win2000, and 7 for free. Even got Win8 and 8.1 for free. Never used the license. 70 and 250 US Dollars.... Are you freaking kidding me?

  23. Re:What? People still use Windows? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    If any line is going to drop USB-A, it makes sense for the Macbook Air. The USB-A port is really fat for such a small frame and you can deal with the dongle. For the larger machines it makes no sense to drop it.

  24. enterprise gop's? Volume Licensing only? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Now if they have the enterprise GPO's but with out the Volume Licensing / software assurance needs then it will be good for small business

  25. windows enterprise users with out the ties to big by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    windows enterprise users with out the ties to big domains?? Getting the people who run windows server as an desktop/workstation? (in the past had more sockets / ram then desktop os)

  26. Re:What's the big deal by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, Gentoo now costs 100x as much as last year and Linus Torvalds is also talking about increasing his licensing fees by 200%.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  27. Its the time to play Choose a Vista by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  28. mac pro is a joke. Imac pro just as much this is m by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    mac pro is a joke. Imac pro just as much this is market that the HP-Z is in.

    Imac pro at 5K base for 8 cores and only 32GB ram??

    Hell just saying for $1200-1500 (with out screen) you can get a good gaming system with ryzen or Coffee Lake.

    For about $2000-$4000 you can dual intel e5 systems with a wide range of video card choice and better cooling then imac pro.
    Also amd Thread Ripper systems have lot's pci-e IO. So you can have dual 10G + 2 video cards (at full X16 each) + quad pci-e ssd at X4 each and still have pci-e leftover.

    The mac pro at 3K base is a joke for it's hardware.

  29. apple real needs a good gamer desktop at $1200-15 by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    apple real needs a good gamer desktop at $1200-1500 (base I know about $200+ more then a pc) with video card choice at least room for pci-e ssd + hdd.

  30. Re:apple real needs a good gamer desktop at $1200- by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Apple won't do that. They charge $2,399.00 to $2,799.00 for a 15" Macbook Pro with Radeon Pro 555 with 2GB memory or a 560 with 4GB respectively.

    https://www.apple.com/shop/buy...

    Logically if they wanted to sell a machine with a beefier GPU they need to sell it for more than that. Also it's debatable how many people really want a macOS machine for gaming when they can buy a Windows one for so much less.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  31. Re:new edition is more expensive? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    And if you're buying Xeon-processor class systems, this price is immaterial to you.

    That doesn't automatically follow. If price is really immaterial to you and you want Windows, you aren't buying Windows 10 Pro Workstation, you're buying Windows 10 Enterprise.

    At this point, everyone should be migrated up to current operating systems or have plans to.

    Everyone? Really? Why? There are many solid reasons why you might not want to be using Windows 10.

  32. I have a feeling manufacturers won't pass it on by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    It would be like raising the price of a shit sandwich.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  33. That's not all! by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    More licensing!! The new license will say, on the 455th page of fine print, in complicated legal language, that Microsoft executives can go into your refrigerator any time they want, and eat your ice cream.

    Why do they want to do that? They like the feeling of dominance.

    There has been progress in dominance in other areas:

    Spyware:
    Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made
    Quote: "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC."

    Malware:
    Microsoft is using 'malware tactics' to trick people into upgrading to Windows 10

  34. Re:What? People still use Windows? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

    added USB 3.0 ... swapped out the ExpressCard (that has proved to be rather useless to me) with an SD card slot

    For less than $10 you can get an ExpressCard adapter which adds an SDHC/MMC slot. Adapters are also available to add two USB 3.0 ports.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  35. The dealer always says... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    The first hit is free.

    You've had your first hit of Windows 10 now.

    --
    == Jez ==
    Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  36. Bad Microsoft! by bravecanadian · · Score: 1

    We don't need more versions with tiered pricing.. we need less versions and less confusion.

  37. Re:Please, Please, by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    That's not the sort of freedom it's about.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  38. Are these really Pro/Workstation OS products? by Paradroid888 · · Score: 1

    Windows 10 is a decent OS but with a UI full of hangovers from Windows 8 - itself a failed attempt to take over the tablet market.Windows 7 was the last version of Windows with GUI that was ideal for desktop computer use.

    Jacking up the price and slapping a "Workstation" brand onto a product with so many obvious flaws is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as slapping an S on the end of the name and trying to pass it off as a ChromeOS product.

    The disconnect between the product teams and the dev teams at Microsoft must be huge.

    1. Re:Are these really Pro/Workstation OS products? by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      The core of the operating system seems to be pretty decent (Server 2016 has server the company I work for well enough, so far), but the UI and constant changing of included functionality is a major hangup for me. Never had problems with the Start screen (or classic shell) or task bar on Windows 8(.1), but the Windows 10 start menu and taskbar is a horribly buggy mess. The old days where they just passed messages from the taskbar entries to the programs' windows were better (opinion) if only because it didn't take several seconds for their stupid menus to display.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  39. So obscure a niche by Stephen+Battleware · · Score: 1

    Windows 10 Pro for the Workstation ( WPfW ) is such an obscure niche it's not worth reporting on except as a curiosity. 'And it's almost not worth commenting on, but here goes regardless:

    What WPfW does is already done on Server 2016 Std. with the GUI. I suppose they are being anticipatory, hoping to cash in on some future the segment. However, by the time the niche grows to any importance they will want to handle it differently.

    When I first read a headline with WPfW in it, my first thought was thought they might have had "heard" their customers and produced a generally available SKU version for people who wanted to granularly control updating, telemetry and privacy. Oh well, one can hope, but this particular version doesn't appear to be that, so, *sigh*, it is back to workarounds.

  40. Suggestion by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    This suggestion provides you 5+ years to prepare and execute and exit strategy from the Windows ecosystem. It is not suitable for most corporate situations, unfortunately, as doing this at any significant volume could be difficult. If you must use Windows, consider:

    Build using previous-generation platforms (Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge, I believe Haswell/Broadwell are also unaffected by Microsoft's update lockouts for newer chips... though I might be mistaken, and that seems to be possible to bypass anyhow)

    Buy new-old-stock Windows 8/8.1 licenses

    Alternatively, buy off-lease or otherwise used business machines from your favorite auction site; this can save you substantial amounts of money.

    Install Classic Shell or whatever to help cope with Metro if you can't stand it.

    Enjoy security patches until January 2023 while Microsoft either gets its shit together, or other solutions become more viable.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  41. Re:I may have called you intelligent once yesterda by ls671 · · Score: 1

    I run a bare win 8.1 on my 4 GB RAM 300$ dell laptop, I am really serious here! I declined the win10 free update.

    Now, bare means updated, no apps installed, no nothing except virtual box. Then, I run linux in a virtual box guest and performance is acceptable.

    Why did I choose this strategy or is there any strategy in there?

    There isn't any strategy here, just laziness or cost effectiveness (could it be the same?). I didn't have time to play around with "signed boot protected sectors" or whatever it is called in the 300$ laptop BIOS settings that I didn't go into yet although I have done it before on other hardware.

    Don't install anything on windows and you will avoid the registry cluster fuck (systemd anybody?). A bare windows install behaves better than expected if you follow that rule. Maybe they should re-market as microsoft GSX server or something? ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  42. Android is competing. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Good point.