Who's That Peeking In Through Your Windows®?

ZDNet UK reports that Microsoft is urging computer vendors to not sell PCs without an operating system. According to the report, Michala Alexander, Microsoft's head of anti-piracy, wrote:

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

Which, on its face, is saying, "Hey, you're missing potential sales and services. You're missing out on making money." Which from a business standpoint makes sense. That's why the car dealer wants to sell you the extras, or why the girl at the drive-through wants to sell you an apple pie with that burger, and so on.

The thing is, this isn't coming from someone in the Microsoft sales consultants division, but from someone in their anti-piracy division. Which to me says the "missed sales" angle is a smokescreen.

Consider that Alexander also wrote:

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.

That has been taken by some to indicate that Microsoft might be "coming to visit." Microsoft denies they're sending out the "software police."

Now, I certainly understand why Microsoft ... or any software company ... is concerned about piracy. Personally, I'm opposed to software piracy. Not just publicly, but privately. I practice what I preach. You see, I've been guilty of owning pirated copies of software. But I'm older now. I've grown up. And I've put that phase of my computer life behind me.

If a company or an individual puts the time and effort into developing software, and they want to charge for it, that's fine with me. My options are simple: pay it or use something else. But many choose a third option: steal it. Oh, not off the shelf. I'm talking about pirating the software. That's just plain wrong.

Anyway, I understand Microsoft's concern about piracy. They have a right to be concerned. But should they use their influence to suggest that vendors not provide "naked PCs," that is, PCs without software (or an operating system) installed?

No.

If I decide I want to buy a new Dell computer, why should I have to buy an operating system? I already have several.

I own Novell Linux. If I want to buy a new PC and put Linux on it, why should I pay for Windows? Or Red Hat, for that matter?

If I want to put Windows on it, why not use one of the versions I already own? I have three licensed versions of Microsoft Windows XP: one Home and two Professional. And two PCs running Windows XP. That's one more license than I have computers for the license. So, if I bought a new computer, I could put a XP Pro on it and be within the license agreement.

Oh, that doesn't even account for the fact that both of the computers running Windows right now came with Windows on them. Which brings my actual licenses to five! Okay, I upgraded one of the PCs from Home to Pro, so the licenses drops to four. But still, I have a license for Home that's not being used and a license for Pro that's not being used.

So, if I want to buy a PC and say "no" to an operating system, I'm not violating anyone's licenses.

Except Microsoft wants to me to buy one anyway.

Now, the fact that I own five licenses for Windows tells you something. I do like Windows XP. Really. It's not perfect, but it's actually pretty dog-gone good for my purposes.

Oh, and I have a PDA running Windows Mobile.

So, it's not like I have anything against Microsoft Windows.

But I do have something against a company that wants me to buy another copy of an operating system that I already have too many of.

I hate using this phrase, but here goes. Hey, Microsoft, you need to ... ummm ... Think Different.