Microsoft enables booting PCs directly into cloud PCs
theregister.com
theregister.com
Because you need a basic PC to connect to it which is enough for most usecases anyway. But not for gaming so there it makes more sense.
I'd say those are some stats worthy of appreciation.
It's also bold to assume that everybody plays twitchy FPS. CSGO runs on Linux, the Steam Deck uses Linux in the OOBE, I'm sure that if push comes to shove and MS stops offering native Windows, people who want to play CSGO will just use Linux in the same way that people use emulators and FPGAs and CRT PVMs (hello) to play what they want and have the best experience.
However, what's probably more likely is that latency-dependent games becomes less and less popular if cloud gaming takes over, because more people are probably going to be playing a game that's included in their cheap monthly subscription rather than spending $XY. Making a twitchy niche latency-dependent game makes less sense than reaching as many people as possible where they're playing.
I can't imagine a world where Microsoft kills native Windows though, it just doesn't make sense. How environmentally friendly it is or is not is also a consideration with streaming a desktop.
Never said "everybody" but enough do. https://steamcharts.com/app/730 Current active players 1,458,036 for CSGO alone
Look at how many competitive FPS have tried to take on CSGO and have failed since its launch. CSGO is very much the gold-standard of its genre.
Despite modern PC gaming largely being a better experience (minus bad ports, buggy launches), consoles still sell in huge numbers. If cloud gaming grows, I expect it to replace consoles for a lot of people.
Even now, rather than download a game to my living room Xbox, I'll just stream the game via the cloud to it. However, if I'm sat up close with a game at my desk, of course I'll install it on my PC. But at x feet away from my TV in the living room, whatever is lacking visually or in terms of latency, I'm not gonna care about when my input device isn't exactly all that performant. I dare say that about sums it up for a lot of people using the cloud to game.
This is without even bringing up the number of Nintendo Switch games that are streaming-only as the console can't handle it natively. Doesn't seem to bother Switch owners much.
Could be easier for grandma, could reduce e-waste, will definitely be used to pigeon-hole us into an endless hell of subscription software.
Hybrid? Maybe. But even so, I think it'll still make more sense to just own the hardware and not rely on WANs with variable latency.
For the average schmoe or office worker? Probably makes sense to have it on the cloud, especially as how well Xbox cloud gaming works for most people.
"Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again"
the amount of official spyware on it that enables oversight is astonishing, and it doesn't really function offline (at least during boot it definitely wants to fetch some stuff off the mothership).
it also works just as well as you could imagine -- once somehow the 'delete' key got logically stuck, perhaps through a remote access facility, and the user sat there in shock as outlook kept deleting the mail. also, the constant prompts to 'urgently' close the business software for an update...
so a return to thin clients seems to be a healthy direction to me.
(i'll just keep using my linux laptop).
These over a (possibly flaky) internet connection is another.
Maybe in some countries/cities/locations where there is a "perfect" conection they may work, otherwise the 365 part of the name will need to be changed to the low 300's.
The latency can sometimes cause issues, but for the most part it works and people are able to get things done.
If Microsoft can get the latency down to what I get using Game Pass, I won't even notice that I'm using a remote machine as long as I have a working internet connection.
I'll see myself out!
That is the real measure of a remote PC.
Of course, this is a double edged sword.
I can right click a program and click "Outsource" and send it to the cloud.
For example, I could have my data synchronized and indexed remotely (on cloud instances I control), for searches to happen against the cloud for finding resources fast locally. The searches would be extremely performant because there is more cloud resources than the local machine. Search can be parallelised and distributed.
Another idea of a cloud integrated desktop is to have my settings, open programs and their states synchronized with the cloud, a bit like Linux workstations that you can resume execution from anywhere.
However, that is not the standard configuration of course.
I would want it to be standard and recommended.
If you think about it an AWS account is the equivalent of a virtual machine running an OS. It has users/groups (IAM), storage, processes (lambda), a scheduler (EventBridge), containers (EC2). It would be a fun exercise to build an abstraction layer on top that emulated a posix OS.
- Why do you need local storage? Do you have anything to hide?
It's not for you or me. That's valid. But to ignore that a significant number of people could actually benefit from it is disingenuous.