Do you need Microsoft’s ‘Windows 365 Link’ cloud-only PC?

Topic

New Reply

PUBLIC DEFENDER By Brian Livingston Information-technology pros are agog about the latest entry into the field of highly secure devices: Microsoft’s W
[See the full post at: Do you need Microsoft’s ‘Windows 365 Link’ cloud-only PC?]

7 users thanked author for this post.

ibe98765, Casey S, abbodi86, DLivesInTexas, fisher75, lmacri, Norio

Reply | Quote

Replies

So basically with thin clients we’ve come full circle in the last 40-50 years, back to a centralized megacomputer (the cloud) with VT100 terminals (but with better graphics and a somewhat faster connection). No more individuality, no more personal computing, you get what the sysadmins tell you to use.

And when the network goes down, we’re all left twiddling our thumbs.

7 users thanked author for this post.

ibe98765, IBM1130, Donny H, Cybertooth, SkipH, Mr. Austin, PKCano

Reply | Quote

What could possibly go wrong ~ when the world’s largest computing hegemony wants to control and surveil your devices without you either wanting that or knowing that? Does absolute power corrupt absolutely? Who is who’s pocket here? Is Microsoft in our pockets? Or are we in its pocket?

Human, who sports only naturally-occurring DNA ~ oneironaut ~ broadcaster

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

The whole premise of the internet was to make possible communication between computers without depending on a central server. And someday, someone will break Redmond’s security. Just a question of when.

Reply | Quote

B. Livingston wrote:

Do you need Microsoft’s ‘Windows 365 Link’ cloud-only PC?

NO.

Dumb terminals and Thin clients failed in the 90′ and this will fail as well.
Many employees “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD), many other need a portable laptop/Tablet when out of office…

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

This is just one step back from Sun Microsystem’s “Sun Ray” circa 2000! At least in that system, the user was not tied to one physical terminal. There were lots of terminals, and you plugged a secure (for the time) ID into it. Then you got your desktop, documents, etc. just as you left them, whether on another nearby terminal or across the country. That’s progress?

Reply | Quote

I like the idea of thin clients.  People are on the move all the time these days, often using multiple devices.  Why do I have to deal with a WIndows desktop and an Android phone, two different OS’s, with different file structures, apps, etc.?

Once we have reliable ubiquitous 24×7 communications from anywhere at anytime, I think the majority of people are going to be happier with one computing image that contains all the apps they want, ALL their files, everything they need, regardless of the device they use to access their data.

Of course, the problem as always will be security of YOUR data.  Once that can be assured (quantum computing?) then I’d be happy to use thin client machines.

Reply | Quote

ibe98765 wrote:

I like the idea of thin clients

I have two, a phone and a tablet. I also have a thicker client (laptop) and a thick client (PC). All have their uses depending on where I am and what I’m doing.

cheers, Paul

Reply | Quote

Paul T wrote:

I have two, a phone and a tablet. I also have a thicker client (laptop) and a thick client (PC). All have their uses depending on where I am and what I’m doing.

Yes but you can apply that logic to anything.  But conceptually, for the average person, a single solution would be best and more easily managed.

Reply | Quote

ibe98765 wrote:

a single solution would be best and more easily managed.

A single solution would be a tablet with keyboard

Reply | Quote