I don't Undertand Microsoft - Microsoft fanboys can you defend this?
- Thread starter Atomic
- Start date
I think Microsoft are quite right that there are several big issues with selling OS-free computers. no one's suggesting that the OS installed needn't be a Linux distribution, but a computer sold without an operating system is both a non-working computer from the consumer's point of view, and a big target for piracy from Microsoft's view.
I have to admit (even as a full time Linux user), Microsoft are in the right. Very few consumers have even heard the names of other O/S (Linux, BSD, Solaris - quite a few may have heard of MacOS) but installing them is a different matter. NathanE is very right in saying this is being blown a tad out of proportion - the article isn't being totally MS biased. As stated above, certain people may not understand what the OS is or what function it plays - I'm sure we've all helped people with computer-related stuff and had some daft questions - installing an OS is maybe a bit beyond this kind of user.
However for the above article to apply to business users / bulk business orders then perhaps not. Businesses do tend to take out seperate licences so if the above article was to apply to those types of users (who usually have their own IT staff / department) then I'd disagree.
However for the above article to apply to business users / bulk business orders then perhaps not. Businesses do tend to take out seperate licences so if the above article was to apply to those types of users (who usually have their own IT staff / department) then I'd disagree.
Last edited:
I know *why* MS are trying to nip this in the bud, however I personally do not agree with their stance. I think, as customers, we should have the choice as to whether I wish to purchase a licence for Windows with my brand new PC or not. If I do wish to, then I expect an option to purchase it with the PC as an optional extra at a lower price than purchasing a retail copy separately 
Similarly, I believe I am perfectly within my rights to be able to buy a computer and not be forced to also buy an operating system that I have no intention of using.
This is a fairly valid point actually, as a lot of large organisations purchase corporate/campus agreements for Windows Professional, customised to their companies requirements, yet they will still receive the machine with XP Home OEM pre-installed and bought and paid for! This is slowly changing for the better but there is still some way to go and MS flexing its muscles in this manner hinder this process and it doesn't do their PR much good either, as they are acting in precisely the way the OS advocates portray them to!
Similarly, I believe I am perfectly within my rights to be able to buy a computer and not be forced to also buy an operating system that I have no intention of using.
This is a fairly valid point actually, as a lot of large organisations purchase corporate/campus agreements for Windows Professional, customised to their companies requirements, yet they will still receive the machine with XP Home OEM pre-installed and bought and paid for! This is slowly changing for the better but there is still some way to go and MS flexing its muscles in this manner hinder this process and it doesn't do their PR much good either, as they are acting in precisely the way the OS advocates portray them to!
I love this whole "we hate microsoft" thing, its been around so long its become a type of racism!
yes, Microsoft Windows is the MOST USED OS in the world today.
yes, it DOES have its faults.
yes, its blindlingly easy for anyone and their mothers mother to use.
yes, they ARE sick of people buying a PC without an OS then installing a cracked copy.
no, they are not saying that you should use MS on these PCs, they are saying that there should be SOME OS of some sort installed.
people (ok, maybe its just the OP) seem to think that if you defend microsoft your a "fanboy"!
I work with microsoft every day, I work with the home users who can't even install a printer without help, what chance have THEY got if they tryed linux? they DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO LEARN TO USE THE PC, THEY WANT IT TO BE EASY AND USER FRENDLY, somthing you CAN'T say about ANY linux distro.
Microsoft got it right a while back when they started working to the lowest comman denominater in their user base, people who can't be trusted to install a virus scanner, or a firewall, or to not open attachments from people they don't know.
Just because YOU can install linux (can you btw? from what I've seen of most of these Anti MS people, they don't ACTUALY know how to USE the alternatives) doesn't meen THEY WANT TO!
I think that you only posted this to cause friction, the use of the term "fanboy" is definetly inflamitory.
I've never though of myself as a Microsoft "fanboy" but when I think of the alternative, having to support users who I have today, but when they have to understand about command prompts and not just logging into root all the time, I AM thankful that there IS a Microsoft and windows.
yes, Microsoft Windows is the MOST USED OS in the world today.
yes, it DOES have its faults.
yes, its blindlingly easy for anyone and their mothers mother to use.
yes, they ARE sick of people buying a PC without an OS then installing a cracked copy.
no, they are not saying that you should use MS on these PCs, they are saying that there should be SOME OS of some sort installed.
people (ok, maybe its just the OP) seem to think that if you defend microsoft your a "fanboy"!
I work with microsoft every day, I work with the home users who can't even install a printer without help, what chance have THEY got if they tryed linux? they DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO LEARN TO USE THE PC, THEY WANT IT TO BE EASY AND USER FRENDLY, somthing you CAN'T say about ANY linux distro.
Microsoft got it right a while back when they started working to the lowest comman denominater in their user base, people who can't be trusted to install a virus scanner, or a firewall, or to not open attachments from people they don't know.
Just because YOU can install linux (can you btw? from what I've seen of most of these Anti MS people, they don't ACTUALY know how to USE the alternatives) doesn't meen THEY WANT TO!
I think that you only posted this to cause friction, the use of the term "fanboy" is definetly inflamitory.
I've never though of myself as a Microsoft "fanboy" but when I think of the alternative, having to support users who I have today, but when they have to understand about command prompts and not just logging into root all the time, I AM thankful that there IS a Microsoft and windows.
you do get a bonus its called OEM Software, a retail copy of Windows XP Home costs 2x that of an OEM (iirc).Beerbaron said:
I think you miss the point
5% of consumers buying pcs with no OS is hardly a large fraction - the only reason MS want to reduce this number is to increase revenue - which is understandable from their pov, and our anger is understandable from our pov seeing as us 5% buy without an OS for a reason.
MS can make any statement they want - if they actually interfere the courts are gonna rap their knuckles.
The EU hates them enough as it is.
5% of consumers buying pcs with no OS is hardly a large fraction - the only reason MS want to reduce this number is to increase revenue - which is understandable from their pov, and our anger is understandable from our pov seeing as us 5% buy without an OS for a reason.
MS can make any statement they want - if they actually interfere the courts are gonna rap their knuckles.
The EU hates them enough as it is.
I don't understand why this needs to become either an anti or pro MS thread.
Let us condense what was said in the interview the OP quoted from and then look at it in real simple terms:
Question to Microsoft - Should PC vendors be encouraged to stop selling naked PC's and instead selling all of their machines with an OS license.
Answer from Microsoft - Yes, some 5% of machines sold are sold without an OS and we want to get this figure down.
So what you are doing is asking Microsoft, a company that sells the OS that sits on 90% of machines out there if they would like to try and get a little more market share and also a little more revenue by selling more copies of their OS.
I'm sorry but this is a no brainer - of course Microsoft want companies to not sell naked PC's, they want companies to sell even more PC's with a Windows license on and thus make them even more money.
It doesn't take a "Microsoft Fanboy" as the OP calls those people who really don't have any problems with Microsoft and understand that like any company they are there to make money, to understand that if you asked any company if they wanted to make even more money they would say yes.
Let us simplify the original post even further:
Question to MS: Would you like to see the number of "naked" PC's sold reduced and thus Microsoft make more money.
MS: ....and that requires an answer?
Let us condense what was said in the interview the OP quoted from and then look at it in real simple terms:
Question to Microsoft - Should PC vendors be encouraged to stop selling naked PC's and instead selling all of their machines with an OS license.
Answer from Microsoft - Yes, some 5% of machines sold are sold without an OS and we want to get this figure down.
So what you are doing is asking Microsoft, a company that sells the OS that sits on 90% of machines out there if they would like to try and get a little more market share and also a little more revenue by selling more copies of their OS.
I'm sorry but this is a no brainer - of course Microsoft want companies to not sell naked PC's, they want companies to sell even more PC's with a Windows license on and thus make them even more money.
It doesn't take a "Microsoft Fanboy" as the OP calls those people who really don't have any problems with Microsoft and understand that like any company they are there to make money, to understand that if you asked any company if they wanted to make even more money they would say yes.
Let us simplify the original post even further:
Question to MS: Would you like to see the number of "naked" PC's sold reduced and thus Microsoft make more money.
MS: ....and that requires an answer?
This isn't an issue of vendors asking MS if they want their OS installed on the remaining 5% of machines sold with no operating systems installed though. This is an issue of MS using their market position to put pressure on hardware manufacturers NOT to sell their products without Windows pre-installed. While I do agree that for the majority of the proletariat having Windows pre-installed is the preferred option for them. However what MS are trying to do here is eliminate the choice of the 5% "enthusiast" market who chose not to purchase Windows along with their hardware. This is anti-competitive behaviour and is bad news for the consumer, no matter what side of the MS/anti MS divide you sit on.
So all you people who agree with this would want OCUK to have to sell its full systems with a licence? At the moment with half of its systems you dont have to get one. So companies who sell to enfusiasts and large companies shoould have to include an O/S. I bet 99% of the Naked PC's are not sold to the general public so its a bit pointless continously arguing about it just saying it easy for the general public. If i decided to buy a new PC to replace the built one i have now (with retail XP) why should i have to buy another licence if i took the old pc apart and sold it?
Soldato
Amp34 said:
No! OCUK (and the many others like it) are selling to the enthusiast market directly. They are not selling to average joes. This market is pretty much a lost cause in terms of software licensing from Microsoft's standpoint. They don't care about it. What they do care about is the average joe consumer market. They don't want PCs with no OSes reaching customers, because 1) It gives them a bad impression and is likely going to cause them to RMA the PC and not buy another one, or 2) Could make them phone up their "computer geek friend" who comes round one day and installs a pirate copy of XP. Both of which are extremely bad for the personal computer industry as a whole, not just Microsoft.But does that justify removing the option for those that have genuine reasons for not wanting an OS? Unless I'm missing something, the comment made isn't specific to any market (consumer/business/enthusiast), just "We want to urge all system builders — indeed, all Partners — not to supply naked PCs.".
The question we have to ask is what proportion of this 5% are actually Joe consumer trying to swindle MS, and between the open source/enthusiast market, and the business one, I'd say very very little.
[edit]And I'm not sure that the 5% referred to in the article directly translates to 5% of system sales, so it's a bit difficult to be sure of the numbers we're talking about.
The question we have to ask is what proportion of this 5% are actually Joe consumer trying to swindle MS, and between the open source/enthusiast market, and the business one, I'd say very very little.
[edit]And I'm not sure that the 5% referred to in the article directly translates to 5% of system sales, so it's a bit difficult to be sure of the numbers we're talking about.
Associate
I think you're all missing the point here.
This was written by MS' head of piracy - nothing to do with being all touchy feely and wanting what's right for the customer, they want everyone to have to buy an OS when buying a new computer to either keep or gain market share.
99.999 times out of 100 this will be a microsoft one.
They couldn't care less if Joe Soap goes home with a freshly baked PC only for it not to work as it has no OS - no comebacks for them so why should they worry?
'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.'
That's what gives the game away as well as having 'feet on the street'.
When was the last time Microsoft was seen to be interested in anything other than itself?
Just an observation btw.
This was written by MS' head of piracy - nothing to do with being all touchy feely and wanting what's right for the customer, they want everyone to have to buy an OS when buying a new computer to either keep or gain market share.
99.999 times out of 100 this will be a microsoft one.
They couldn't care less if Joe Soap goes home with a freshly baked PC only for it not to work as it has no OS - no comebacks for them so why should they worry?
'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.'
That's what gives the game away as well as having 'feet on the street'.
When was the last time Microsoft was seen to be interested in anything other than itself?
Just an observation btw.
Augustus said:
As stated above, they shall merely call on a friend who has some decent knowledge of a PC and get them to install "a copy" of an OS on their system. Hence why it was the Head of Piracy and not Head of Marketing or some other exec who made the above comment.
Associate
yeah, bothered about their bottom line - not bothered about whether someone's pc works or not.
Nothing to do with the welfare of the user.
Nothing to do with the welfare of the user.