[Outcast_Searcher]

Hmmm. Didn't see that one coming.

But as a Chrome user who ONLY uses Explorer for a diagnostic alternative, if something is going wrong with, say, Netflix on Chrome, I can see how that would happen if folks abandoned Explorer to a huge extent.

Of course, I can keep doing that as long as it works at all (even if unsupported). Or use something like Firefox, which seems to be the default on, say, Linux Mint, though I always install Chrome there as one of the first things I add.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Speaking of retiring popular software, I think a far MORE interesting question, which becomes CRITICAL in 4.5 years to hundreds of millions (if not billions) of users globally, is -- what happens when Windows 10 goes out of support in Oct. 2025?

I've seen nothing (official) to indicate what MSFT will do when that happens.

My current guess, is they will charge UNREASONABLE monthly fees to let you continue to get ongoing "support", mostly being security updates. They can capture GIGANTIC amounts of ongoing revenue from lots of companies, and quite a few users, I suspect, for a TINY amount of value provided and expense, if they do that.

THAT would be the thing that moves me full time to something like Linux or Apple or the Chrome OS when I'm on the internet, and just do whatever old school gaming and apps I do on old windows machines (with lots of redundant hardware) offline.

....

OTOH, I find it hard to believe Microsoft will be willing to give up all the revenue from ongoing PC sales with Windows (something), etc. -- but maybe the desire to sell users software as a service and collect lots of revenue for everything from Office to Windows monthly will trump all else.

[aadbrd]

Speaking of retiring popular software, I think a far MORE interesting question, which becomes CRITICAL in 4.5 years to hundreds of millions (if not billions) of users globally, is -- what happens when Windows 10 goes out of support in Oct. 2025?

The traditional PC business has shrunk considerably but it is still very large and critical. I find it very hard to believe Microsoft would end Windows 10 without providing a backwards-compatible successor.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Speaking of retiring popular software, I think a far MORE interesting question, which becomes CRITICAL in 4.5 years to hundreds of millions (if not billions) of users globally, is -- what happens when Windows 10 goes out of support in Oct. 2025?

The traditional PC business has shrunk considerably but it is still very large and critical. I find it very hard to believe Microsoft would end Windows 10 without providing a backwards-compatible successor.

I hope you're right, but have serious doubts, given their behavior, and the main goal being corporate profits.

1). They've been VERY poor over time re caring about good backwards compatibility. DOS wasn't kept backward compatible. Thank heavens for the folks who made and distributed DosBox, which lets me run all my old DOS games just fine. Windows XP killed off a bunch of stuff that ran in Windows 95. Windows 7 killed off a bunch of stuff that ran in Windows XP. 16 bit Windows apps won't run on 64 bit Windows, normally.

So while they COULD, I don't give them credibility at all, re maintaining decent backwards compatibility, over time.

IBM, OTOH, has been a fantastic example of doing that RIGHT under MVS, for a good 60 years now. As much of a dinosaur as they are, they are truly exemplary in that. (So it can be done. Even keeping 32 bit apps running on 64 bit OS's, with no hassle at all to the normal user).

2). I had a bad thought this morning, when reading about how MS Edge was also going away on Windows 10. Since MS FORCES users to accept their Windows 10 updates -- they could do a very ugly, NASTY thing to users who don't buy their ongoing month to month expensive package of ongoing support -- if they go that way .

They could simply have an update where any license which doesn't contain something showing they're regularly paying, disables or cripples Windows.

And before you say they'd never do that, note that they DID do that with Windows 7 -- re trying to upgrade my PC to Windows 10 when I shut down Windows 7 one evening. They did it to me with NO warning. (Luckily since I keep backups and am a somewhat savvy PC user, I found a patch to get around that.)

Shortly they ended up un-doing that, as it caused a HUGE, ANGRY backlash from the Windows community. But it sets the precedent for that kind of mindset. And their desire to have users on Windows 10, where they're under the control of the MS update system.

....

Given how many hospitals and other significant corporate entities, not to mention lots of small businesses and even random individuals want to keep using Windows, this represents a HUGE ongoing profit opportunity for MS. It would be essentially legal bribery.

And hell, maybe they'll CALL it something else and even LABEL it something else with the first mandatory post-payment update. But the effect would be the same.

....

This is not a conspiracy theory or a claim I know it will happen. This is a possibility I'm concerned about, given the history of MS behavior, and the reality of modern corporate behavior, where profits very often come before the idea of giving the customer VALUE for a service -- i.e. more like a partnership relationship.

Given how very little actual support MS could decide to provide vs. a VERY expensive service, the profit motive would be huge.

For example, installed on a new machine, let's say, round numbers, MS is paid $100 for each Windows license. (Just to give a number for a sense of scale).

Now, let's say they charge the "modest" fee of $20 a month to keep using the product with "support".

So users have been using Windows 10 for roughly $10 or so a year, year after year after year, and been supported with function and security updates. At the drop of a hat, MS could multiply the typical Windows profits by a factor of TWENTY FIVE a year over time, and perhaps ALSO continue to charge $100 or so for the initial install on PC's by the PC manufacturer. And at the same time, they could reduce the amount of maintenance / update efforts (and cost) they provide significantly.

Like I mentioned above, that would cause me (and many other users with some expertise) to jump to something like Apple or Linux or Chrome, etc. But for many businesses who rely heavily on Windows 10 to make their business work -- making such a move would take significant time and effort (while they pay MS out the wazoo AND pay to develop whatever transition process, hardware, software, etc. is needed to get out from under MS's thumb).

[JuanP]

Thank the gods for HarmonyOS!

[Outcast_Searcher]

Thank the gods for HarmonyOS!

Given that I pointed out that Linux is an alternative (and it's usually free, BTW), and Android is based on Linux, and (per some quick reading), HarmonyOS is an Android clone, well... (And given the reputation of the Chinese and Huawei, do you really want to rely on whatever malware they may have packed into the kernel of that, which might do God knows what at some point?)

Or were you being sarcastic?

Yes, thank goodness for Linux. Aside from Windows, MOST things are based on Linux (or UNIX). Apple. Android. Chrome.

It's amazing just how much money corporations can make on an OS based on a free OS. And THEN triple down on that by charging outrageous prices for hardware with the OPPOSITE of the open standards idea, to keep them paying out the wazoo year after year. Apple is a prime example. Outfits like Azus with expensive Chromebooks they don't want you to open and make any changes to is another. At least many Android devices are reasonably priced for the hardware, tend to provide USB ports, etc.

[aadbrd]

They've been VERY poor over time re caring about good backwards compatibility.

You're wrong about that. It's Apple that's been the most cavalier about backwards compatibility, not Microsoft. Microsoft (and Intel) have chosen to carry as much of its legacy as possible from generation to generation.

The biggest two hurdles Microsoft needed to make was the conversion to a full 32-bit kernel (dropping all that 16-bit protected mode nonsense) and then to 64-bit. There was a time when Windows was essentially forked between the Windows 98 branch and the NT/2000 branch. Normies were reluctant to make the leap into the modernized kernel until it was forced upon them, but it had to be done.

The fact is that Win32s written ages ago still run on Windows 10 and I doubt that kind of backwards compatibility is going away anytime soon.

Given the historically rapid pace of computer evolution it's amazing how static things have been for so long now.

IBM, OTOH, has been a fantastic example of doing that RIGHT under MVS

Apples and oranges. What relevance does MVS have to the average desktop computer user (or developer)? None. The needs of the operating system are different.

They could simply have an update where any license which doesn't contain something showing they're regularly paying, disables or cripples Windows.

People don't really buy shrinkwrapped software anymore. They buy a license to use it which can be revoked over the cloud. Unless you want to cut a computer off from phoning home, that's the world we live in. It's hardly new and you're many years late to the party wringing your hands over it.

And before you say they'd never do that, note that they DID do that with Windows 7

Old software is insecure software. A compromised computer becomes a threat to any other systems it links to, viruses operating similar to real-life ones. If end-users fail to upgrade then they are essentially anti-maskers in a way. It's not a right anymore but actually a threat to the commons, as 99.9999% of computers are connected to the internet. That was NOT as much of a factor back before ubiquitous internet and ubiquitous hacking, but it is now.

This is not a conspiracy theory or a claim I know it will happen.

Thou dost protest too much. Do you know how much cheaper Windows 10 is than earlier editions? It's really more of a money sink for Microsoft than anything else. Almost any old Windows license was enough to unlock a Windows 10 upgrade. They are not making much money on Windows 10 itself anymore, especially when you consider how massive the codebase is and how many developers they need to pay to maintain it. Heck, I don't even know how much money they're making on Office either. Microsoft's entire desktop arm is a shell of its former self thanks to the move to mobile (with normies) and Linux (in the enterprise).

Now, let's say they charge the "modest" fee of $20 a month to keep using the product with "support".

Again with the outdated FUD. Windows 10 has been out for how many years now? If it was really a bait-and-switch they would have done it by now. I'm not saying they won't do this. Given the cost structure if MS is losing money hand over fist they may one day be forced into it, but I'm not expecting it anytime soon.

But again, subscription fees are the direction software is headed. Look at Adobe creative cloud, for instance. I don't like it, but that's how it is. Per-seat one time sales doesn't work well after you saturate the market. If the market is shrinking rather than growing then you need to turn your existing customers upside down and shake change out of them.

Like I mentioned above, that would cause me (and many other users with some expertise) to jump to something like Apple or Linux or Chrome, etc.

There's nothing stopping Apple, another for-profit enterprise, from doing likewise. For instance, when was the last time Apple charged for a major OSX update? Aren't all updates free now? They only charge for new installs. So the same loss-leader issues regarding operating system licenses are a factor with Apple. It's just that Apple is so flush with cash from other wings of its business that they don't rely on OSX sales as much as Microsoft may still rely on Windows revenue.

In summary all I'm gleaning from your rant is you don't like Microsoft. Just because Microsoft (or really any software company that offers auto-updates, which is just about all) can extort you or brick your software doesn't mean they will.

[Outcast_Searcher]

They've been VERY poor over time re caring about good backwards compatibility.

You're wrong about that. It's Apple that's been the most cavalier about backwards compatibility, not Microsoft. Microsoft (and Intel) have chosen to carry as much of its legacy as possible from generation to generation.

Do you just want to pick a fight, or do you want to discuss information?

I was talking about MSFT, NOT Apple. I didn't say MSFT was the worst, I said it was BAD. I cited some examples. It doesn't surprise me that Apple gets a black eye there -- they get a black eye on a lot of issues -- just not by their enthusiastic fan base, of course.

I don't know enough about Apple specifics to discuss them, since I generally don't use Apple products. I've only looked around enough to know that I don't like the price of their hardware generally, based on what you get re power and function per dollar, and how they like to use their own expensive interfaces, vs. inexpensive popular standards.

And just because SOME old MSFT apps run, doesn't make them some sort of champions in backwards compatibility by ANY stretch of the imagination.

And based on your responses, clearly you like MSFT and that's your right. I used to LOVE MSFT, until it took to treating its customers with more and more disdain and having more and more quality issues, which became very much a thing. Windows VIsta was the breaking point for me. I refused to even own the damn thing, and just waited for Windows 7 to finally come out.

But you have a different set of opinions / assumptions, so no doubt, you're the only one who could possibly be right about anything to do with computers.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Like I mentioned above, that would cause me (and many other users with some expertise) to jump to something like Apple or Linux or Chrome, etc.

There's nothing stopping Apple, another for-profit enterprise, from doing likewise. For instance, when was the last time Apple charged for a major OSX update? Aren't all updates free now? They only charge for new installs. So the same loss-leader issues regarding operating system licenses are a factor with Apple. It's just that Apple is so flush with cash from other wings of its business that they don't rely on OSX sales as much as Microsoft may still rely on Windows revenue.

In summary all I'm gleaning from your rant is you don't like Microsoft. Just because Microsoft (or really any software company that offers auto-updates, which is just about all) can extort you or brick your software doesn't mean they will.

I didn't say they will. I said they might. That they could.

Perhaps instead of flailing angrily, you should try some reading comprehension first, and then actually respond to the clear intent of the writer. (I specifically said I didn't KNOW that they were going to do that, but that they could.)

Oh, and I also mentioned Linux because they aren't owned (for a variety of popular variants) by corporations who can play such games. So it's not all about corporations. Again, reading comprehension, or at least knowing about the subject.

[Outcast_Searcher]

But again, subscription fees are the direction software is headed. Look at Adobe creative cloud, for instance. I don't like it, but that's how it is. Per-seat one time sales doesn't work well after you saturate the market. If the market is shrinking rather than growing then you need to turn your existing customers upside down and shake change out of them.

Duh. Thank you Mr. Obvious.

Just because that's a fact doesn't mean I have to like it. That fact is why I've bought far less software or had interest in many upgrades, etc. for quite a while. Why do I want to pay Adobe a monthly fee forever, for example, to use Acrobat, when my Acrobat X standard does a perfectly FINE job for what I use it for, as it has for quite a few years?

The same principle goes, in my opinion, for Windows 10. The difference is, MSFT can hijack Windows 10 access by force if it really wants to. I can just stay the hell away from Adobe's website. And I can always reinstall Acrobat 10 from the disk if I have to, if worst comes to worst, and my backups fail.

Oh, and so it's morally OK with you if muggers turn people upside down and shake the change out of them?

I think financial transactions should be voluntary. Taxation seems to be an unfortunate exception, but the government has the rule of law (AKA force) behind it. I don't want to give that to corporations, even if your ilk does.

Now, if MSFT wants to actually improve Windows and come up with a new Windows variant that's compelling, and it's only willing to offer it as a subscription to people who will VOLUNTARILY pay the going rate via an apriori decision, that's just dandy and good for them. In fact, if it's good ENOUGH, I might even agree to do that if the monthly fee isn't too egregious. But it should be agreement, not extortion.

Why do I think, for some reason, that if muggers or thugs in general tried to extort you or take your wallet or steal your car that you'd be asking for legal help? As would be your right, just like any reasonable law abiding citizen.

So why should software be an exception to that principle?

[aadbrd]

So why should software be an exception to that principle?

Look, I don't like it either but it's a take it or leave it proposition. You don't want to deal with a certain business model, you don't have to, but then you don't have access to the software. You think you can do everything you need on Linux? I doubt it. There's a reason why Linux has only been successful in server farms.

I know there are lobby groups challenging EULAs and the DCMA and what not, but they haven't achieved any traction in all these years and I doubt they ever will.

The older I get the more I learn that when faced with situations you can't control, whining about it doesn't really get you anywhere.

[clausmic10]

As I know Internet explorer becomes outdated from the previous version, and Microsoft already denied giving support to the below 10 version.