I don't Undertand Microsoft - Microsoft fanboys can you defend this?

Associate
Joined
27 Jan 2005
Posts
830
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39261437,00.htm

Naked PCs: Free software supporters are angry that Microsoft is putting pressure on PC vendors not to sell machines without an operating system installed




Microsoft has urged UK PC vendors not to give customers the opportunity to buy a PC without a pre-installed operating system.

Supplying base systems, or 'naked PCs', is a missed opportunity, according to Michala Alexander, Microsoft's head of anti-piracy.

Writing in Microsoft's Partner Update magazine, which is distributed to computer dealers, Alexander estimated that 5 percent of computers sold in the UK in 2006 would not include an operating system.

Alexander is keen to bring that number down, even though customers could want a base system because they want to install Linux, or because their firm already has a licensing agreement for an operating system such as Windows.

"We want to urge all system builders — indeed, all Partners — not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business — with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services," wrote Alexander.

Linux vendors and free software supporters, though, believe these base systems can play an important role in supporting the open source market. Some are concerned that Microsoft may be attempting to use its powerful position in the market to hamper competition.

The European branch of the Free Software Foundation hopes that PC vendors will not be swayed by Microsoft.

"We would be happy to see any kind of hardware being shipped without an operating system, or pre-installed with free software. Furthermore, we would be happy to get in contact with any hardware vendor who wants to free his customers this way," said Joachim Jakobs, of the FSF Europe.

Alexander's role is to combat the use of counterfeit and unlicensed versions of Microsoft's software. In February, Microsoft launched an initiative called Keep IT Real, in which "feet on the street" investigators would visit technology vendors suspected of installing counterfeit software on PCs before selling them.

In the article, Alexander appeared to reveal that these investigators will also have a role in clamping down on the sale of base systems.

"Microsoft is recruiting two 'feet on the street' personnel whose role will be to provide proactive assistance during customer visits, and help you get the value proposition for pre-installed software and related services. Give us a call and let's get those feet walking," Alexander wrote.

The FSF Europe is alarmed by the prospect that customers who request a base systems would risk a visit from Microsoft's investigators.

"It looks like a private sniffing service which is supposed to spy on these who do not want to pay the Microsoft tax anymore. It is an incredible piece of impudence which any politician, customer and journalist should recognise carefully," said Jakobs.

When contacted by ZDNet UK, Alexander denied that operatives would be dispatched into the premises of customers who attempted to buy a PC without Windows.

"I can confirm that the... personnel are not participating in customer visits. This is an error in the copy and will be amended in future material on the subject," Alexander claimed.

Alexander also insisted that Microsoft was simply trying to help its reseller partners by explaining how they could grow their businesses by selling its software and services. But she did reiterate that the software giant is concerned that the sale of base systems may be linked to the use of counterfeit software.

"There will be a concern if we see an increase in businesses selling PCs without Windows and piracy goes into the sky," said Alexander, who also rejected the suggestion that Microsoft was attempting to use its powerful position in the market to hamper rival operating systems.

Both Red Hat and Novell argue that naked PCs can be an important part of the overall market.

"Microsoft is clearly concerned about the threat of Linux on the desktop and is trying to protect its base. Naked PCs provide customers with choice and lower the price of commodity PCs," said a Novell spokesman.

"Customers want to have choice and they don't want to be locked in by one vendor, such as Microsoft," said Red Hat's Dirk Kissinger. "We would like to see more hardware vendors give their customers the choice of pre-installed operation systems, be it Microsoft or Red Hat or other options, or raw hardware without an operating system."

Several PC vendors contacted by ZDNet UK were reluctant to comment on the issues surrounding base systems. One, though, did say that they hadn't encountered any difficulties.

"We've had no pressure from Microsoft, yet," said a representative from Chillblast, a UK PC vendor that sells some computers without operating systems.
 
Because if somebody buys a PC with no OS they are going to get home and not have a working PC. It's going to cause them hassle and isn't really the sort of experience any company wants to give its customers. Microsoft isn't saying "no PC should be shipped without Windows", it's simply saying "no PC should be shipped without any OS or any sort."

PS: Nobody is a "Microsoft fanboy" here. It's just that you are anti-Microsoft.
 
surely people who want naked pcs can buy them any way, and any 1 that doesnt has one with an easy to use OS already installed.

TBH MS is now the platform, most people think pcs they think windows. And any 1 else that thinks different knows what to do about it :confused:
 
NathanE said:
Because if somebody buys a PC with no OS they are going to get home and not have a working PC. It's going to cause them hassle and isn't really the sort of experience any company wants to give its customers. Microsoft isn't saying "no PC should be shipped without Windows", it's simply saying "no PC should be shipped without any OS or any sort."

PS: Nobody is a "Microsoft fanboy" here. It's just that you are anti-Microsoft.

You what, you are either under the pay of microsoft or seriously misguided (ms fanboy) duh!!
 
The idea being, if you sell a PC without windows theres a higher chance of someone going home and useing a fake copy on there machine.
 
there is no reason why they shouldnt be allowed to sell them without an operating system. it's easy enough to put on on. for people who have half a brain cell it wouldnt be a problem.
 
But 95% of PC consumers wouldn't have a clue how to install Windows, let alone an open source one. And I think it must be something like 1% who would actually be prepared to buy a PC with no OS with the full intention of then buying or downloading one and installing it in their own time. This 1% is more commonly called the "enthusiast market".
 
I know from experiance microsoft will try and squeze the last drop out of the consumer market. But for them to turn around and say EVERY pc even naked systems need an OS then they can Go and **** *** i will never buy a microsoft operating system again and am currently moveing all my systems over to linux. I already own several copys of WinXP Pro and Home and refuse tobuy any more! and now that most windows games will play on a linux pc then im happy. just got to convince the girlfriend the same :D

Alexander is keen to bring that number down, even though customers could want a base system because they want to install Linux, or because their firm already has a licensing agreement for an operating system such as Windows.

How they would enforce companies to do this i will never know, as most i have worked for buy DELL pc's that have no OS due to the Volume licence that they have with IBM (REDHAT!!!)
 
Last edited:
Caged said:
It's a lot better now than it used to be, but yes, I wouldn't have stretched to 'most'.

Cant say I'm particularly keen on the statement either. Joe consumer are already encouraged to have their systems pre-installed with XP ("Built For Windows XP" - "Compatible With Windows XP" - "Recommended Windows XP"). I see no justification for why this '5%' that have reasons for not wanting pre-installed OS should have it taken away from them. Other than lining Bills pockets, if course.

Still, it's one thing for MS to say this, and quite another for a large OEM manufacturer to follow it.
 
NathanE said:
Because if somebody buys a PC with no OS they are going to get home and not have a working PC. It's going to cause them hassle and isn't really the sort of experience any company wants to give its customers. Microsoft isn't saying "no PC should be shipped without Windows", it's simply saying "no PC should be shipped without any OS or any sort."

PS: Nobody is a "Microsoft fanboy" here. It's just that you are anti-Microsoft.

So, no store sould offer an option to sell a computer with no O/S? Also 'any company wants to...' comment is assenine since the company selling the computer is different to MS and must have a good demand for it to do the offer.

'Its customers' - what a strange comment...are you refereing to Microsoft. I didn't know when you buy a computer you are a custimer of MS, only when you buy a computer with Windows do you become a customer....

People should have the right to buy a computer with no O.S.

If people can save some money on buying an O/S fully built without Windows then that's great for *** hardware market if the user wants to go and buy Windows, Linux or whatever.

This if true, in my opinion, is a clear abuse of their monopoly. I user Microsoft Office, Xp, FLight Sim and am getting Xbox over PS3, so please don't call me anti Microsoft when I clear am not. I am however, not blind and a realist.

If peopel want to buy O/S with Windows then great, good for them :)...

...but for other they should have O/S without an operationg system, in a strange way that's called competition. Oh yeah, this is Microsoft, they don't like competition in the software scene do they?
 
Last edited:
People seem to be delibrately misinterpreting the article. Microsoft isn't saying "no PC should be shipped without Windows", it's simply saying "no PC should be shipped without any OS of any sort." There is a big big difference.

Personally I agree with them. A PC with no OS is useless to almost everyone. Even if they bunged on a copy of Linux it would at least be a usable and acceptable PC.

Nobody is stopping you disagreeing with Microsoft. You may believe OEMs should ship PCs with no OS. Fair enough. But as yet the vast majority do not because there is no demand for it. Some OEMs have expressed interest in doing it, but Microsoft suggested against the idea. Innocent first time PC buyers may be tempted by the low prices, order one, and then be confused when it's sitting at a "Insert boot disk" BIOS prompt.
It certainly isn't fair to lash out at Microsoft for the simple fact that they hold a differing opinion on the matter.
 
Last edited:
NathanE said:
Because if somebody buys a PC with no OS they are going to get home and not have a working PC. It's going to cause them hassle and isn't really the sort of experience any company wants to give its customers. Microsoft isn't saying "no PC should be shipped without Windows", it's simply saying "no PC should be shipped without any OS or any sort."
Totally agree with that. I still have people asking me if Windows is Office and vise versa..
 
NathanE said:
People seem to be delibrately misinterpreting the article. Microsoft isn't saying "no PC should be shipped without Windows", it's simply saying "no PC should be shipped without any OS of any sort." There is a big big difference.

Personally I agree with them. A PC with no OS is useless to almost everyone. Even if they bunged on a copy of Linux it would at least be a usable and acceptable PC.

Nobody is stopping you disagreeing with Microsoft. You may believe OEMs should ship PCs with no OS. Fair enough. But as yet the vast majority do not because there is no demand for it. Some OEMs have expressed interest in doing it, but Microsoft suggested against the idea. Innocent first time PC buyers may be tempted by the low prices, order one, and then be confused when it's sitting at a "Insert boot disk" BIOS prompt.
It certainly isn't fair to lash out at Microsoft for the simple fact that they hold a differing opinion on the matter.

Not really, considering it will be branded as a O/S less' computer. In fact this could encourage computer users to get bit more interested in how PC's work, and that's good news for everyone.

Keep on trying to defend Microsoft, kid.
 
Duke said:
Totally agree with that. I still have people asking me if Windows is Office and vise versa..
yeah and microsoft are, like, quite happy for people to install linux........not!!!

what land do some of you live in (cloud cuckoo) ms are after one thing and thats money.....

As long as its made clear at the point of sale that you need an os then thats fine.

Do you really think ms care about customers that dont buy windows, well they do...... they want them to buy windows so they can make more money.........

Of course they could sack half the staff at the campus that would improve their earnings ratios :eek:
 
Atomic said:
Not really, considering it will be branded as a O/S less' computer. In fact this could encourage computer users to get bit more interested in how PC's work, and that's good news for everyone.

Keep on trying to defend Microsoft, kid.
OS-less isn't something they will want to promote. It is a negative. It'll be something for the small print.

Encourage users to get more interested in how things work? :D Please.... It's like saying people should fix their own cars.

I think you need to see what the real world is like before you post anymore, kiddo.
 
Selling computers without an OS to the non-enthusiast market could be more hassle than its worth for some companies. Granted, if purple shirt world sold OS'less PC's people may find another way to get it working by using Linux or similar, but if some guy walks into a store, buys a computer, gets it home and it don't work they won't be too happy.

If they find out in store that they have to pay more just to get the thing to start up they aren't going to take to kindly to that company charging them more when they can't see why it's being done or why they should have to pay extra.
 
I don't see the point in OS-less PCs.

Most people I know who install their own choice of OS, or have the the ability to, would rather build their own PCs from the individual pieces of hardware, rather than buy off the shelf.

I'm also quite confused at this threads title. You can't understand why a company as large as Microsoft wouldn't want PCs to be sold without their OS on it? Do you not understand how businesses work?

I agree with that guy who said that Microsoft just wants any OS on the system before its sold, though. Afterall, Microsoft aren't complaining about Barebones PCs or stores that sell components, are they? They're complaining about companies who sell PCs to the public without an operating system, which deems the PC useless unless you know how to acquire an OS and install it.

As for those people who seem to have some 'agenda' against Microsoft, why are you against a company who has made computers what they are today? Of course, it wasn't just Microsoft, but they had a very large part in it.

Anti-Microsoft Fanboys, can you defend this?
 
Back
Top Bottom