6 ms·

Actually a free Windows OS would actually be great. Here in India, Pirated Windows OS are like as common as mosquitoes. No one but Microsoft was losing in all t

by kamaal 13y ago

Actually a free Windows OS would actually be great. Here in India, Pirated Windows OS are like as common as mosquitoes. No one but Microsoft was losing in all this. The price of Windows is generally prohibitively high and was by no way affordable to home and even small business users. The only option was to pirate them or use Ubuntu. People walk in to buy a laptop, check the difference in price for Laptops with Windows OS and Laptops without them. Often the difference is in the range 7 to 8 thousand rupees. The obvious option is Pirate Windows OS or Ubuntu. Instead of making it totally free. Microsoft can even charge a reasonable price and I can assure you people will pay it. The problem was never with Microsoft or Windows. The problem was always affordability. If only Microsoft can make Windows affordable, they can kill all competitors instantly.

chaostheory 13y ago
Piracy feels the the same in most of East and South East Asia as well.
- usaphp 13y ago
  Same thing in Russia and all former soviet republics, I don't know any of my friends back there who has ever purchased a licensed copy of windows.
  - gosukiwi 13y ago
    Same thing for South America, 99% of Windows copies are pirated.
    - higherpurpose 13y ago
      That begs the question - what does Microsoft really gain with this? Poor countries never bought Windows anyway, and rich countries will now be getting it for free, instead of paying money for it.
      - chaostheory 13y ago
        they steer consumers towards MS services like Bing and Onedrive and Skype
ekianjo 13y ago
> If only Microsoft can make Windows affordable, they can kill all competitors instantly. Yeah maybe for the consumers market, but that's already the case with Piracy anyway. But price is not the only issue, Windows is just horrible in so many ways that there's a number of people who will not come back to it even if it's 100% free. I keep Windows (7) as dual-boot on my desktop PC, where I run OpenSuse most of the time, and whenever I have to boot into Windows the sluggishness of it all (on the very same hardware) makes me want to pull my hair out. The very same application (Firefox) is way less reactive on Windows. And just opening a window (no pun intended) takes way more time, too... the overall experience is just deplorable. I only boot into that environment when I really HAVE to.
- stan_rogers 13y ago
  You may be amazed at how much "really have to" covers for a lot of people. There are not nix-based versions for much of the software that people actually use (unless you stretch things far enough to include OS X in the "well, that's nix" category, ignoring the specific requirement to run OS X). The world isn't all about futzing with code and using browsers.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Noticed my first sentence? "Consumers market"
  - nsmartt 13y ago
    I've used GNU/Linux for around 3 years. The only way I could even consider using Windows again would be with cygwin. The programs I use on a daily basis don't have easily available counterparts for Windows. It very much goes both ways.
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      I also haven't used Windows as my main OS in over a decade. I only ever use it when I absolutely have to - and these days, the list of reasons is dwindling and diminishing at a great pace.
balladeer 13y ago
Or give away the OS for free and charge for preferential support and even non-security updates on time and certainly not charge a fortune again.
pekru 13y ago
> Actually a free Windows OS would actually be great. Here in India, Pirated Windows OS are like as common as mosquitoes. No one but Microsoft was losing in all this. Actually, MS knew all along that piracy is rampant and they let it work for them quite well. With everyone familiarizing themselves with nothing other than MS products, MS knew for a fact that money would eventually come, in sacks that too. It wasn't a loss in the long term. Markets like China and India are different wherein enforcement is not that easy. Heck, proper enforcement would even make people opt for a hassle free and priceless option like *nix. So MS chose not to bother too much about piracy in domestic installations and thus sorta sent a message like "go on, use it, we don't care" and fueled piracy to an extent, if I may say. For an average consumer in India, computers are synonymous with Windows products. It's not a choice for them at all, they do not have a choice! Even the local coke/hash peddler would give out stuff for free to get one hooked. ;)
- channikhabra 13y ago
  > Even the local coke/hash peddler would give out stuff for free to get one hooked. Stole my words.
rukshn 13y ago
Well i've to agree with you. It's not just in india in Sri lanka also the price of Windows is just too high for a normal person to afford. The price of a genuine Windows is about 40k. And the price difference of a laptop with Windows and a laptop without windows is around 15k I might be wrong but I don't know why so many people prefer Windows over linux. The unity gnome interface is pretty horrible imo. Plus i don't find good alternatives to my windows software for linux. There are alternatives but not as good as the ones i use on windows. Also when I used Ubuntu i've update my whole system once in every 6 months. Also if i don't the latest softwares will not support my old ubuntu. After getting a new laptop I switched back to windows.
higherpurpose 13y ago
Yes, but pirated Windows actually works better for Microsoft than free Windows. Why? Because at least they can keep asking $200 with a straight face for a version of Windows, if Windows is just pirated in countries like India or China. But if they give it for free there - then the whole equation changes in western countries, too, and people will be demanding they get a free version of Windows as well - and then how will Microsoft make money? Anyway, I don't think Microsoft will do this. At best they will either make it free for OEM's - not consumers - so their devices don't cost more compared to Android devices at the same specs, or they give a free version of Windows that's so crippled people will still prefer the pirated "Pro" edition. Either way, I truly believe Microsoft will get out of the consumer market within a few short years, because they won't be profitable in it anymore, either because of forces they can't handle, such as simply losing market share and people not wanting Windows anymore, or because they give it for free, and as I said, that will get everyone to not buy Windows anymore anyway, if they truly give it away for free. Whichever way they go, Windows is getting commoditized, and it's not good for Microsoft. This is a reactionary move, and reactionary moves are never good.
- cbhl 13y ago
  I actually believe that the opposite makes more sense -- make it free for consumers, but charge the OEMs a small(er) fee, since the OEMs are where all the sales are at. I'm pretty sure almost all the Windows revenues nowadays come from the OEMs, not from the boxed sales.

by kamaal 13y ago

chaostheory 13y ago

Piracy feels the the same in most of East and South East Asia as well.

usaphp 13y ago
Same thing in Russia and all former soviet republics, I don't know any of my friends back there who has ever purchased a licensed copy of windows.
- gosukiwi 13y ago
  Same thing for South America, 99% of Windows copies are pirated.
  - higherpurpose 13y ago
    That begs the question - what does Microsoft really gain with this? Poor countries never bought Windows anyway, and rich countries will now be getting it for free, instead of paying money for it.
    - chaostheory 13y ago
      they steer consumers towards MS services like Bing and Onedrive and Skype

ekianjo 13y ago

> If only Microsoft can make Windows affordable, they can kill all competitors instantly. Yeah maybe for the consumers market, but that's already the case with Piracy anyway. But price is not the only issue, Windows is just horrible in so many ways that there's a number of people who will not come back to it even if it's 100% free. I keep Windows (7) as dual-boot on my desktop PC, where I run OpenSuse most of the time, and whenever I have to boot into Windows the sluggishness of it all (on the very same hardware) makes me want to pull my hair out. The very same application (Firefox) is way less reactive on Windows. And just opening a window (no pun intended) takes way more time, too... the overall experience is just deplorable. I only boot into that environment when I really HAVE to.

stan_rogers 13y ago
You may be amazed at how much "really have to" covers for a lot of people. There are not nix-based versions for much of the software that people actually use (unless you stretch things far enough to include OS X in the "well, that's nix" category, ignoring the specific requirement to run OS X). The world isn't all about futzing with code and using browsers.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Noticed my first sentence? "Consumers market"
- nsmartt 13y ago
  I've used GNU/Linux for around 3 years. The only way I could even consider using Windows again would be with cygwin. The programs I use on a daily basis don't have easily available counterparts for Windows. It very much goes both ways.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    I also haven't used Windows as my main OS in over a decade. I only ever use it when I absolutely have to - and these days, the list of reasons is dwindling and diminishing at a great pace.

balladeer 13y ago

Or give away the OS for free and charge for preferential support and even non-security updates on time and certainly not charge a fortune again.

pekru 13y ago

> Actually a free Windows OS would actually be great. Here in India, Pirated Windows OS are like as common as mosquitoes. No one but Microsoft was losing in all this. Actually, MS knew all along that piracy is rampant and they let it work for them quite well. With everyone familiarizing themselves with nothing other than MS products, MS knew for a fact that money would eventually come, in sacks that too. It wasn't a loss in the long term. Markets like China and India are different wherein enforcement is not that easy. Heck, proper enforcement would even make people opt for a hassle free and priceless option like *nix. So MS chose not to bother too much about piracy in domestic installations and thus sorta sent a message like "go on, use it, we don't care" and fueled piracy to an extent, if I may say. For an average consumer in India, computers are synonymous with Windows products. It's not a choice for them at all, they do not have a choice! Even the local coke/hash peddler would give out stuff for free to get one hooked. ;)

channikhabra 13y ago
> Even the local coke/hash peddler would give out stuff for free to get one hooked. Stole my words.

rukshn 13y ago

Well i've to agree with you. It's not just in india in Sri lanka also the price of Windows is just too high for a normal person to afford. The price of a genuine Windows is about 40k. And the price difference of a laptop with Windows and a laptop without windows is around 15k I might be wrong but I don't know why so many people prefer Windows over linux. The unity gnome interface is pretty horrible imo. Plus i don't find good alternatives to my windows software for linux. There are alternatives but not as good as the ones i use on windows. Also when I used Ubuntu i've update my whole system once in every 6 months. Also if i don't the latest softwares will not support my old ubuntu. After getting a new laptop I switched back to windows.

higherpurpose 13y ago

Yes, but pirated Windows actually works better for Microsoft than free Windows. Why? Because at least they can keep asking $200 with a straight face for a version of Windows, if Windows is just pirated in countries like India or China. But if they give it for free there - then the whole equation changes in western countries, too, and people will be demanding they get a free version of Windows as well - and then how will Microsoft make money? Anyway, I don't think Microsoft will do this. At best they will either make it free for OEM's - not consumers - so their devices don't cost more compared to Android devices at the same specs, or they give a free version of Windows that's so crippled people will still prefer the pirated "Pro" edition. Either way, I truly believe Microsoft will get out of the consumer market within a few short years, because they won't be profitable in it anymore, either because of forces they can't handle, such as simply losing market share and people not wanting Windows anymore, or because they give it for free, and as I said, that will get everyone to not buy Windows anymore anyway, if they truly give it away for free. Whichever way they go, Windows is getting commoditized, and it's not good for Microsoft. This is a reactionary move, and reactionary moves are never good.

cbhl 13y ago
I actually believe that the opposite makes more sense -- make it free for consumers, but charge the OEMs a small(er) fee, since the OEMs are where all the sales are at. I'm pretty sure almost all the Windows revenues nowadays come from the OEMs, not from the boxed sales.