The way Windows is developed and distributed is changing. Big releases every three years could be on the way out, replaced by regular releases and Windows subscriptions.

Businesses may still be grappling with getting the user interface-adjusting Windows 8.1 Update deployed onto systems—after complaints, Microsoft had to give them another 90 days to install it—but there's no respite in sight. Indications are that there's going to be another big update for the operating system just a few months later.

Prolific Russian leaker WZor and sources talking to Mary Jo Foley both claim that there will be an update in the second half of the year, with WZor saying it'll arrive in September and Foley's sources saying it's August.

This update could include the Start menu hybrid shown off at Build earlier this month, though Foley's sources suggest it's unlikely to also include the windowed Metro-style apps announced at the same time. Per Foley's sources, that feature is currently believed to ship in Windows 9, still planned for Spring 2015.

Both WZor and Foley have also been told that the range of Windows SKUs will change for Windows 9, though the two have heard different things. WZor claims that Windows 9 could have some form of subscription system, with the base operating system being free but certain features costing extra. Foley suggests that there will be a version of Windows that doesn't include the desktop—available for free—and another SKU or SKUs that will have the desktop for a fee.

Should Microsoft hit this timeline, the company will have delivered three significant upgrades (two updates and a major version) in the 18 or so months since the release of Windows 8.1. That's more or less unprecedented. The last time the company released so many big patches so soon was probably in the Windows NT 4 era, where the first three Service Packs came out within the first nine months after the operating system's release. Since then, major upgrades just haven't been that common.

We suggested last week that Windows was likely to see more of this kind of update: end-user visible feature updates that don't have the Service Pack moniker, and hence don't reset the support window. You'll have to install these updates to remain up-to-date on security patches.

A second update for Windows 8.1 would tend to support this position, perhaps giving indications of the new normal for Windows.

Reconciling the visions of the future

The different claims about Windows 9 that Foley and WZor make could turn out to be different viewpoints of the same underlying facts. With a little extrapolation and speculation, we can see how things could all fit together.

Microsoft has already made Windows free to OEMs for tablets with screens below a certain size. Making it free to everyone but without the desktop would be a logical extension of this. It gives Microsoft the tools to compete with both Android on tablets and Chrome OS on laptops, while still not cutting it out of the revenue loop entirely. Desktop-less Windows should provide Microsoft with some amount of revenue through applications bought in the Store.

To this, add a couple of levels of unlocks: one tier for regular Windows desktop features (offering parity with the feature set of Windows 8.1 today), and a second, higher tier for Windows corporate features (offering parity with Windows 8.1 Pro). These could be both persistent unlocks or periodic subscriptions. Microsoft has already had persistent operating system unlocks since Windows Vista's Anytime Upgrade feature, so none of this would be hugely different from what's gone before.

That would give us both the free operating system that WZor and Mary Jo Foley describe and the additional desktop-equipped SKUs that Foley expects.

Mixing it up a little, those additional features could also be sold on a subscription basis rather than as persistent unlocks.

Subscriptions are a contentious issue. If Windows 9 does indeed introduce subscriptions, it's unlikely that they'll be the sole option. There are fields where validation of each software release is particularly important, especially in areas such as healthcare where there can be regulatory burdens. These fields aren't going to go away, and Microsoft will need some kind of solution for them. As such, it's hard to see a time when perpetual licenses ever go away entirely. Long term there may be a mix of both kinds of licenses. We'd expect that subscriptions would find favor among corporations before home users.

That's because volume license customers with Software Assurance agreements are already paying for subscriptions; it's just that this isn't reflected in the software itself. Right now, there's no version of Windows that periodically checks online to see if its subscription is current or if instead it should revert to the base free functionality, for example. That's not true of all of Microsoft's software, however; Office 2013, for example, has genuine subscription functionality to support Office 365. With Windows 9, at least according to WZor, this kind of capability would be added to the operating system.

This kind of product line-up would neatly fulfill all the rumored SKUs and subscriptions. It also sets Microsoft up nicely for a future with regular updates. Subscriptions can simply provide a continuously updated and upgraded Windows platform, not be tied to any specific version. The focus will no longer be on Windows 9, Windows 10, Windows 11; it'll simply be Windows, with access to the newest version taken for granted.

That's not to say that those version numbers won't still exist. One would expect them to be important to perpetual license holders. And not all features can be developed in a six-month timeframe; major version bumps might still be reserved for the delivery of long-term development work.

Good for just about everyone

A well-constructed subscription system should improve access to new Windows features, something that should both keep end users more secure and make it easier for application developers to take advantage of the latest platform features.

It also makes some of the more awkward aspects of Software Assurance better. With SA, Microsoft is pressured to produce a new major version every three years. That's because SA entitles customers to major version upgrades as part of the subscription, with subscriptions typically having a three-year term. If Microsoft doesn't have a suitable upgrade within that term, then the value proposition of SA is greatly harmed. Corporate customers may decide they're better off with perpetual licenses.

A model of regular updates means that the development process will now match the subscription terms. A continuously upgraded and updated platform ensures that subscribers are guaranteed to get the value they seek.

In fact, one might even argue that the two go hand in hand: without regular updates, perpetual licenses make more sense than subscriptions. Conversely, with perpetual licenses, regular updates result in a proliferation of versions with different customers stuck on different update levels and different support lifecycles. Subscriptions ensure everyone can keep current.

The conservative conflict

In a world where Windows gets moderate updates perhaps a couple of times a year, the big question is, how will this work for corporate customers? As the continued use of the now unsupported Windows XP demonstrates, there are certainly some corporations that appear to want nothing more than one version of Windows that they can deploy once and then just continue to use forever.

The problem is, as we argued before, Microsoft can't really deliver that. Microsoft needs its operating system to be as responsive to change as those of Apple and Google. Pushing out one major release every three years, with virtually no movement in the intervening years, isn't going to cut the mustard.

One might argue that this is mostly driven by consumer concerns and shouldn't influence the demands of the corporate platform, and it's true that even Microsoft from time to time acts as if there is some important difference between the two. The problem is, this has never really been true in practice. People do work on their home PCs in the evenings or on weekends. They check their work e-mail on their privately owned smartphones and tablets. Some companies even do more exotic things, such as play LAN games on their work PCs one evening a month. Companies are buying and deploying consumer-oriented equipment, such as iPads, and integrating them into their workflows.

As such, while there are a few features that are uninteresting to home users and important to corporate ones (domain joining, for example), there are far more features that are in common. Smartphones, tablets, and PCs are all mixed-use devices. There's no meaningful way to have a "home OS" and a completely separate "corporate OS." Quite the reverse; we're seeing Microsoft add features to enhance bring-your-own-device scenarios. For example, Windows 8.1's "Work Folders" and "Workplace Join" allow Windows 8.1 home PCs to have controllable, safeguarded access to domain resources and files without requiring the system's owner to join a domain or completely cede administrative control of their machines.