> I strongly disagree with this view unless you are talking about this server you operate being within your own office network. For anything outside the office/

> I strongly disagree with this view unless you are talking about this server you operate being within your own office network. For anything outside the office/home having to rely on network access, if we are talking about business, simply isn't smart. I mean precisely that. A server you own on your own private network, connected to remote views via IPSec/L2TP or similar. Such a model would allow people who are not interested in running their own compute servers to lease capacity on a managed host. But for users with privacy or control needs, we'd run our own servers on our always-on networks. The model would require progress in network connectivity, bandwidth, and latency. My frustration with modern technology is that many feel we have reached "good enough" plateaus with home networks (and other technologies) and these plateaus postpone the emergence of new ways of computing such as this model I've described. I feel for 99% of my productivity and entertainment needs, today's network connectivity would more or less suffice using an implementation not far from what we today call "remote desktop" paired with RemoteFX. The chief barrier would be transfer limits imposed by wireless carriers. If Microsoft were to seriously pursue such a computing model, an evolved version of RemoteFX could bring the remote/mobile experience more in line with local computing. Reading your message, I think you and I actually agree on a great many things. For example, I too strongly prefer (even) consumption on a high-powered desktop with large displays. (Also, to be clear, I really enjoy my Surface Pro. My earlier point was just confirming the OP's remark that it's not zen-like. For me, zen-like would mean reducing it to a portable view on my persistent, personal, and omnipresent applications.)