On 31/07/2015 09:56 AM, scott wrote:
>> I've read scuttlebutt about M$ moving Windows to a SaaS model, but I
>> fail to
>> understand how this could possibly work.
>
> Locally you'd have an OS that was stripped down to just run Remote
> Desktop (or equivalent) and interface with your hardware. When you
> logged on it would start a remote desktop session with an MS VM
> somewhere. *Assuming internet speeds were fast enough* you wouldn't
> notice the difference to running full windows locally.

The more I look at the IT world, the more cyclic it seems to be.

There was a time when you bought the biggest, most powerful mainframe 
that money could buy, and all the users sat at dumb terminals logged in 
to the giant monster in the middle.

And then everybody said "hey, putting a single desktop at each person's 
desk means you can more easily add and remove computer power depending 
on staffing levels, equip different people with different versions of 
software, etc."

And now everybody's like "hey, it's a pain to manage multiple individual 
desktops. Let's virtualise everything to get a bigger return on 
investment..."

And so the industry continues to alternate between centralised and 
decentralised. Because, frankly, each has different pros and cons; it's 
just that every decade or so people forget the pros of one and forget 
the cons of the other.

> The benefits are obvious (a machine that has all your files and looks
> the same no matter where you log on, an almost limitless supply of CPU
> power and RAM if you wanted to do CPU intenstive tasks, automatic
> backups for everyone, etc)

I think you mean "we can give you less and less CPU and RAM while still 
charging the same amount of money for it, so you will continually have 
to give us more money or suffer horrendously unusable system response".

And then of course, you have the problem that each morning, you log into 
your desktop, and there's a 50% probability that the software will have 
changed, and you can't prevent it changing. Already we see every time 
Facebook changes the colour of a button, somebody creates a page 
entitled "if one million users Like this page, Facebook will turn the 
button colour back to how it was before". [Erm, no they won't honey.] 
Imagine if every day, all your software could be deleted and replaced 
with something else that you didn't ask for or want.

To say nothing of the privacy and confidentiality issues of having 
Microsoft have access to every file you ever create. (I doubt too many 
corporate types would like having their propriety data on a hostile 3rd 
party server.)

> Their big problem will be the medium-large corporations that take
> months, if not years to test and roll out major software updates. There
> is no way they would accept the possibility of one day their entire
> company coming to a halt with millions of pounds lost due to an MS
> "update" that has broken something somewhere within their business. Also
> a lot of systems are not connected to the internet for various reasons,
> how would they work?

They also have a problem with SOHO setups where people wouldn't know 
what "computer security" is if it hit them in the face.

Why no, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

Post a reply to this message