Windows as a software package would have never been affordable to individuals or local-level orgs in countries like India and Bangladesh (especially in the 2000’s) that are now powerhouses of IT. Same for many SE Asian, Eastern European, African and LatinoAmerican countries as well.
Had the OS been too difficult to pirate, educators and local institutions in these countries would have certainly shifted to Linux and the like. The fact that Windows could be pirated easily is the main factor that led to its ubiquity and allowed it to become a household name. Its rapid popularity in the '00s and early ‘10s cemented its status as the PC operating system. It is probably the same for Microsoft Office as well (it is still a part of many schools’ standard curricula).
The fact that Windows still remains pirateable to this day is perhaps intentional on Microsoft’s part.
Yup, when I was talking with a few different Microsoft representatives, they just straightforwardly stated that they don’t focus at all on punishing or pushing consequences for “obtained/purchased windows instances via any existing alternative/not supported ways” when it comes to private/home users.
They surely and happily will put the idea of buying a key or official upgrade from their certified resellers locally or online on the table.
It is quite a different story with larger organizations and companies.
—
Of course all this info is based on just a few talks during the last decade and with incoming subscription (ugh) model a lot will change, I guess.
I agree. If they would’ve locked piracy down sincerely, Linux might have had a shot back in the 90’s.
Yeah, the 90’s were the turning point for MS. If they flopped, we would have a whole different story right now. Unfortunately, they didn’t… which is why we have to have everything MS compliant right now on OSes that share nothing in common with Windows.
Samba and Wine are perfect examples.
I think it is the other way around; easy pirate versions appeared becuz windows was popular, providing access to those who can’t afford.
Or Windows just works on so much different hardware. You can build a PC with the weirdest mix and match of hardware, and Windows will just… work. Also I bought a Microsoft sidewinder wheel from 1998 from a thrift store for $8, plugged it into my Windows 10 PC, and it just worked. Nothing special was needed. 1998 hardware literally plug and play on Windows 10 (and I’ve tested it on 11, and it works the same).
You can install MacOS on non-Apple hardware, but you need to buy very specific hardware, and download very specific hacks, to make it work.
Even Linux only works on specific hardware. This entire thread has people talking about how broken Linux is on their setups. The suggestions are to buy specific hardware and run very specific versions of Linux.
I read something similar many years ago where Microsoft intentionally wanted people to use use pirated windows to increase their user base.
They still do. There’s so much shit in Windows 10/11that could phone home and shut down your install if you don’t have a valid license, but Microsoft doesn’t actually give a shit if you have a license or not. They just want to make sure you have their botnet installed and not any other OS.
I think this is really true. In 2000s people used to pirate everything (at least where I am from). And even now, apple marketshare is never big compared to US for example.
Pirate Linux!
Wait…
For private individuals and small institutions, yes, they would definitely use linux if windows was 100% impossible to pirate.
For corporations and bigger institutions, no, they would 100% continue to use windows just because of the control they can have on their devices, group policies, single sign on, and so on. It’s possible to do that on Linux, but not as easily. They’re already paying 15 dollars / month to microsoft just for AAD/entra/[whatever they call it this week] or even more to have office integrated with that and $200 for a permanent license for a single PC is a drop in the bucket
When I was working IT in a place that produced transcripts - so we had loads of typists all using Windows and MS Word loaded down with a thousand macros - the IT department made all of the servers linux based, and all our production was stored on samba shares. The only reason they hadn’t transitioned the entire workforce to linux was resistance from management.
I imagine there would’ve been resistance from users too, but all of the inertia was due to familiarity and had absolutely nothing to do with technical barriers. The entire IT team was frothing at the mouth to be free of Microsoft’s arbitrary BS. Windows caused us no end of headaches.
In fact, because every typist needed a browser open at all times to research legal terms and other details, I had a number of people complain their computer was running slowly. For every one of them, I installed firefox and made it the default browser and told them they’d need to login to all of their online accounts again. Every single one told me I’d “fixed the computer” and it “works so much better now”.
group policies, single sign on, and so on. It’s possible to do that on Linux, but not as easily.
It is just as easy, if you have a sysadmin who knows what they’re doing. Which is the case for Microsoft too, you need someone knowledgeable for the implementation and management anyway.
This is where Windows being “free” and everywhere comes in, everybody buys Microsoft without a second thought.
Linux is designed to be able to do group policies like that very well
Remember, Linux originates back from the terminal days, and the vast majority of servers run Linux. If any OS is made to function well in large organizations, it’s Linux. Windows is popular on desktop for reasons other than better group policies.
Windows is largely successful because there was nothing else good enough for Intel to use back in the late 80s. They struck a partnership and it took off, indoctrinating people into the Windows way of life for decades to come. Most people hate new tech, it means that they have to learn something new that they’d rather not (akin to telling someone to write with the opposite hand than the one they’ve been using their entire lives), even if that thing is simple. Piracy just strengthened that already strong foothold that they had.
In most countries other than those in Western Europe, North America, Japan and China, computers arrived roughly a decade late. In fact PCs never ended up being used in the mainstream till the late 90’s/early '00s in India, a lot of options had matured by then.
“a lot of options” like what? You have OS X and Linux. OS X only runs on Apple hardware (not including Hackintoshes) and Linux is still seen as less desirable than Windows, because everyone and their grandmother has used Windows at some point in their lives. They’ve probably never even heard of Linux. If they’ve never heard of Linux, they’ve definitely never heard of BSD or Solaris.
By the 2000s Microsoft was the dominant force in computing, Apple was suffering and only regained its foothold in the market after Steve Jobs came back in 97,and it still took years to become popular. Apple was always seen as a premium product so of course it wouldn’t be popular in countries like India. The only way you can usually get Linux on a PC is to build it yourself and install it, or buy it from the very few manufacturers that actually sell a computer with it pre-installed. So what does that leave? Windows.
Specifically talking about India, people started buying PCs when they first used it in offices or cyber cafes back in early 00s. And windows was the obvious best choice. Apart from that, the GUI was always very convenient for home use cases too.
Look man, I think most people would agree that if you want a good gaming experience and you can’t afford a good PC or gaming laptop then you’re either going to the internet cafe or getting a console.
In all Latinoamerica, yes, in the 2000s the Windows xp license was a significant part of the price of a computer, so most people pirate it, probably 7 out of 10 copys of Xp were installed an activated by piracy
Even in China, Windows rules.
If you go to China and ask to build a PC in any shop, they will most likely install Windows by default.
windows is largely successful because of oems.
the major OEMs basically get paid to put windows on the systems they sell. they get the licenses at a deep discount, then top that off with the money coming in for the preinstalled garbage.
I think Windows is successful because it was defacto preinstalled on all computers. Even people in third world countries are buying computers whole, not a basket of parts to assemble.
Also software. You’re not going to assemble a computer, install Linux, and then not be able to run anything on it. You want to run all the software that was built to run on Windows, which was built to run on Windows because it came installed on every computer, etc. (Remember Linux back then really couldn’t run all that much. No office? No games? You’re toast.)
Not true. People wouldn’t buy a pre-installed windows because its much way expensive. They just buy a preinstalled pirated windows instead.
LOL Linux runs the world. https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=mZXx5oErnIc
The problem was that it was not user-friendly, and you needed to know how to use it. Now things are changing and seems it can run games even faster.It wasn’t harder than Windows
Windows was preinstalled
Now Windows also has the benefit of user base
Yeah, Windows is easier because it don’t have many distros and when you buy a new PC it already comes with it (no need to boot a Live ISO to install from 0) so that helps people to get started with their first OS, a Windows, so that’s why most people know how to use Windows.
You might want to read this awesome blog: https://duncanlock.net/blog/2022/04/06/using-windows-after-15-years-on-linux/
None of that matters if a Linux distro was preinstalled
It’s not about difficulty
Also that article isn’t very good
For instance; installing software on windows involves going to the command line and telling it to install a package
But they frame it as going online and downloading from a website; you can do that on either OS even though it’s not something you should ever do. It’s just user error
But they frame it as going online and downloading from a website; you can do that on either OS even though it’s not something you should ever do. It’s just user error
I don’t think those regular users uses the terminal to install their apps.
wingetis 3 years old… and is much easier and faster to just runsudo pacman -Syuorsudo apt update ; sudo apt upgrade(no via Windows updates that forces you to do stuff you don’t want to). Many things changes… and the freedom that Linux gives to use what you like as you like is missing on Windows, starting with the Desktop Environment… KDE has many more features, faster and uses less RAM than any Windows.Most regular users on Windows stills goes on “google.com” and search for their programs, and then things like this happens: https://arstechnica.com/security/2023/10/google-hosted-malvertising-leads-to-fake-keepass-site-that-looks-genuine/
😔
And on Linux they would do the same
Not the same amount of people will do that, if they learn that any app is installed via the same app,
pamacor whatever Ubuntu has to install those packages. It’s harder for them to look outside that app and if they do, probably, and I hope they will get into the community forums. Where they can get to know how that works with transparency, something missing on Windows.But yeah, virus and scams exists everywhere, just that Linux users don’t need to download a
.exeor.msito install anything by default, as far as I know on people around me, they don’t knowwingetexist, even the most gamer.
Can’t wait for Linux to be mainstream in 2085!
The year 7.776769 E+6016(2085! is about 7.776769 E+6016 years after the death of the universe
You’re funny xD, but it is already, just not for normal desktop users.
So servers? Yes we all know that.
Hahaha, the problem is the things you don’t know, not only on servers, on more devices that you ignore and skip just to make fun of it right now.
Linux users can’t stop talking about Linux.
I don’t mind talking about Windows, Apple or Linux, but when someone says Linux is just for a “toast”… makes me think of how many devices runs Linux and not only toasters which I’m sure they also do if there is some screen display or Wi-Fi features.
So I reply to them if they talk about it, yeah.
Not really. Offices were one of the major early adopters of computers and windows is perfect for them with plethora of features they offered right out of the package.
Windows GUI was groundbreaking, their text processing and excel was a game changer, and windows doesn’t allow you to delete your own boot partition with a sudo command so it was pretty idiot proof.
Once windows had the majority of marketshare, it was pretty obvious that whoever was buying PCs (back in the day it was more that a dad got a PC from his office or bought one which was similar), got it with windows.
Its not random thoughts, its the reality and msft knows it and they let it happened same as adobe with photoshop. They let students pirate their softwares so that by the time they graduated and enter the work field, they’d keep using it in their new job/company, where they would charge real expensive money for the license
Maybe, but there’s also the thing where it works reliably and you have software you can use. But yeah, it’s still part of the strategy
I saw a yt video few years ago about how microsoft allowed windows piracy on South Asian countries to increase windows adoption rate.
