The best computer you'll never own.

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere.

Microsoft brings in Pay As You Go Computing!

http://www.redorbit.com/news/techno...es_patent_for_payasyougo_computing/index.html

Now you can buy the box, but it won't work unless you pay, pay, pay by the hour.

Depending on how much you pay per hour, your computer will have varying amounts of RAM, engaged CPU cores, and video card involvement.

How much will they charge for overclocking?

looks stupid to me, I can't imagine this actually working in a standard consumer market.

I like this part:

"The end user then pays to use the computer, with charges based on both the length of usage time and the performance levels utilized, along with a "one-time charge."

However, the end user could end up paying more for the computer"


Rofl!

probably the DUMBEST idea I have heard in a while.

Microsoft DOES realize that within a week, the computer's security features will be cracked.

But i don't understand how this would work...Do you take the PC home? Like rent the PC? but you pay a hourly fee? If so, What's to stop someone from cracking the machine, and making it think you only used the PC for 1 hours, instead of using it 24/7?

And how would microsoft charge people? What if a person cancels their internet connection? Do you have to take the PC into a special shop each week, and then pay? Do you pay in advance, and enter in a special key that unlocks the # of hours you purchased? Again, what's to stop someone from making a key-gen that will unlock nearly an infinite amount of hours?

What about re-installs? What if the O/S gets loaded with viruses, and someone takes a copy of XP/Vista/Linux and formats the HDD, and installs their own personal O/S?

This just has failure written all over it. There's no way this will work. people have found ways to crack the consoles, found ways to crack copy protection in PC games BEFORE their released. There's no doubt in my mind that a PC like this would be cracked within a few weeks.

Hmm, if you have to pay a one-time fee, plus an hourly fee, does it have like some sort of meter? Something like a parking meter that you swipe your credit card? lol

Nebulous said:

Hmm, if you have to pay a one-time fee, plus an hourly fee, does it have like some sort of meter? Something like a parking meter that you swipe your credit card? lol

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I envisioned. You swipe your card, and your computer doesn't work unless it's hooked up to the internet and communicating with their servers. Software is probably not bought, but also 'leased' by the hour. The more processing power the application uses, the more per hour you pay. (YOU PAY NOW!)
***

Last night I was telling my GF... Don't think that just because M$ has a monopoly on the OS market that they won't make some horrible release that drives everyone into the arms of Apple and Linux. This could be the turning point. (Or rather, the tipping point.)

I can already see the commercials: A blue collar looking guy sits at his desk, looks up from his computer and says "I OWN my computer, because I use Linux (insert distro here.)" Apple will have the PC vs. Mac, only PC won't talk until someone swipes a credit card, and Apple explains that 'you only pay for a mac once'.

So far, this is only a patent for a catastrophe, not an actual catastrophe.

No, no. The way it works is you have to bend over and MS will stick a hose up your butt to pay for the computer usage.

This is a businessman's dream, but the consumer PC market will really not allow it.

The concept is already in practice in a cyber-cafe, but you really can't do this in your house, its' just unfair.

If you think about it though, they kinda have this already with softare via DRM.

Where you are not buying a copy of the software, you are simply buying a license to use it. It sucks because over history and collecting purposes and archiving purposes you don't keep it because the DRM will prevent you (years later) from using the software!

My opinion on this whole thing is if they are charging me $50 for a game today that can only be installed a number of times before it becomes useless or I have to call the company (but then what makes you say they will be around forever? they won't and what then?) to reactivate it; just a few years ago it would cost me $50 for a game that I can install an infinite amount of times, make backups/archives, then screw it. I would pay $5 or less and no more if you're charging me the same price as before, but limiting my use of the software. THE SAME GOES FOR HARDWARE!

Hardware is easier to crack though, so this is futile and a waste of money.

madhatter256 said:

No, no. The way it works is you have to bend over and MS will stick a hose up your butt to pay for the computer usage.

Click to expand...

Roflmao!

I was going to write something along the lines of this may be useful for someone who only needs a high end computer for a couple hours a week to maybe play some games online with friends, but then I actually took a quick glance through the article.

If they do start putting this into production, they better realize there is an extremely limited market for this. If they do go the highly subsidized/free route with an extremely cheap web browsing plan, there's the slim chance a few people may get it just to use for an hour a week to check email.

And I agree with oakstave. If they do drop the whole "customers own their own computer" idea, it's corporate suicide. As soon as PC owners stop owning PCs, OSX/Linux will take off.

i dont see how paying a subscription and a one time fee can "extend" the computers "useful life" aside from the fact no one would want to turn it on so you dont get charged

the hose up butt idea sounds pretty spot on i must say

2 words to all of this: Cloud Computing.

Look it up and do your research. It will help explain all of this Pay as you Go bull****. No matter what it will happen but we will not be using it; the general population will.

my question is, with as cheap as computers are now, wouldnt it be cheaper to buy a 499 dell and get all you need in one neat package that will last mom and pop for 6 years ?


seems a no brainer to me. this idea is rather well, dumb in my opinion. leasing a computer sounds more usefull than a pay as you go plan.



who does this option serve to? the low income class imo. if M$ does this right, which they wont because they are out to turn a profit and not benefit a single mother / father that is just getting by.

gangaskan said:

my question is, with as cheap as computers are now, wouldnt it be cheaper to buy a 499 dell and get all you need in one neat package that will last mom and pop for 6 years ?


seems a no brainer to me. this idea is rather well, dumb in my opinion. leasing a computer sounds more usefull than a pay as you go plan.



who does this option serve to? the low income class imo. if M$ does this right, which they wont because they are out to turn a profit and not benefit a single mother / father that is just getting by.

Click to expand...

You would think so, but think of all the people who pay $30/month for unlimited text messaging, and then send maybe 200 texts per month. People just don't do math anymore.

true


i have a unlimited text plan, but its only 10 a month i do alot of texting thoguh, so its worth it.

Dolk said:

2 words to all of this: Cloud Computing.

Look it up and do your research. It will help explain all of this Pay as you Go bull****. No matter what it will happen but we will not be using it; the general population will.

Click to expand...

I know what it is, and still think it's a bad idea. I could see in 15-20 years having the kind of bandwidth needed available to the majority of computer users for a decent price, but at the current rates and prices cloud computing isn't going to take the place of a cheap desktop for anything above simple word processing/web browsing. And I believe that is what MS is trying to accomplish with this, trying to make it so you could have a high end PC that's capable of doing more then that and if you don't have the ability to afford a $2000 computer.

freakdiablo said:

And I believe that is what MS is trying to accomplish with this, trying to make it so you could have a high end PC that's capable of doing more then that and if you don't have the ability to afford a $2000 computer.

Click to expand...

From that perspective, it is a good idea. The problem is that Microsoft will not make the distinction between someone that can afford a $2000 and someone that cannot. The only way for this to work would be for it to be OS based. What is the probability that Microsoft would release both a pay-per-use and unlocked version of their OS?

If this ever happens it will be "hello, year of the apple and linux desktop". No one will ever subscribe to this.

TalRW said:

If this ever happens it will be "hello, year of the apple and linux desktop". No one will ever subscribe to this.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that.

Looking outside of our world of computers, you will see general computer users. People who have never heard of a Pentium IV or Core 2 Duo, or any other piece of hardware unless they look at the advertisment on their case from HP, IBM, etc. To most people, a computer is a computer. The only reason why the buy the differently priced computers is that they know the higher the cost the better the computer. That is the basic forumla of priced merchendice (in most cases) Higher Price = Higher Quality.

Now lets create this senario. Considering this is a normal family, 3 kids, 2 parents, living in the middle class. They have a couple of computers, 2-3 cars, TV + internet, along with all the expensis to life (incurance, etc). This family doesn't do much with a computer besides surf the web, check email, and look up general things. There is no O/Cing, gaming of any sort, on these computers. If they were given the option to buy a computer for $300 and pay $15 a month so that your computer will be taken care of completely. A family would most likely take that computer besides buying a $800+ computer/laptop buy and OS that will be updated once every 2-4 years, Anti-spyware, Anti-virus, Word processing, etc. On top of all that be able to work with it in a way so that they can fix the small issues that may occur.

A computer system that MS is designing would be a total solution to your average Joe. That is why it will work, and that is why MS will never leave. They work with the average Joe (besides ME and Vista).

Again I'll ask... What is the probability that MS will release a full, unlocked version along with their PPU version? I can see MS either not releasing a full version, or charging upwards of $1000 for it.

I, for one, will never touch a PPU version of any OS.

i just seriously can't believe that this would ever be possible. if for some reason it would happen, i would just keep my current hardware, buy tons of extra parts and switch completely over to linux. i am practically there as it is so losing my windows machine wouldn't be the end of the world to me.