Tags

, , , , ,

Microsoft’s half baked Windows Vista operating system continues to add to the woes of the company. The Taiwanese Consumer Foundation(TCF) says that Microsoft is using its monopoly to sell Vista. There is nothing new to this since most companies essentially have similar intentions.

The TCF complaint is based on the reason that most buyers are installing Windows XP even after buying computers preloaded with Vista. So Microsoft is forcing people to buy Vista in the first place which they find unfair.

A lot of people reason that Microsoft cannot go on supporting Windows XP forever and it would be reasonable for them to expect people to migrate to the latest and greatest from their stables at one point of time. I accept this argument. There is nothing apparently wrong in this. But if Microsoft expects people to move over to a new OS which is plagued with numerous problems, has less hardware support than XP, requires more resources to run, is half baked in a lot of areas, comes in a confusing number of choices, and is marketed in a misleading manner, then they are expecting way too much. Windows Vista’s troubles are far from over and Microsoft has acknowledged that. The company quotes increasing sales which is misleading. Due to OEM licenses, most PC manufactures bundle Vista with their computers. So a consumer does not really have a choice not to buy the crappy OS. Consequently, Microsoft’s books record increasing sales for Vista.

My take is that most consumers are really buying the hardware and since they do not have a choice of shunning the OS, they have to take it too. The fact of the matter is many have downgraded to XP after buying brand new computers. Ever since Microsoft pulled the plug on XP, a number of users might have even installed pirated versions of XP. The corporates, of course, have stayed clear of Vista.

I would really like to see more of the leading manufactures selling PCs/notebooks that do not have any OS on that. Give more power to the consumers to choose what they want to run on their systems. The Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux flavors are really good for desktops and are viable alternatives. Why do I have to pay Microsoft money when what I really want is the hardware? Of course I can get a PC assembled. What if I want to have a brand name PC with the advantage of warranties and service agreements? Why should a consumer not have this choice?

Hopefully somebody will see the reasoning behind these questions.

Advertisements