The Deadly Microsoft Embrace

It really is infuriating how unnecessarily expensive and confusing Microsoft has made creating and exchanging simple document files. I talk to people all the time that are unsure about how they'll edit their resume on a new system or think they'll need a new copy of Office to update a file on their new computer (and then they're confused as to what version to buy). It's amazing how few normal people know about Google Docs - Google should really be pushing this on consumers more.<p>Microsoft might have made a lot of money off of this confusion, but in the process they've become the antithesis of "it just works" in a lot of people's eyes. They've made some of the most basic functions of computing an expensive pain in the ass for most of the PC era.

<i>"...Linux’s Ubuntu operating system comes for free and requires no updates, upgrades or expensive antivirus software to keep the laptop in shape. ..."</i><p>This is not completely true since Ubuntu does provide (various software) updates and upgrades.<p><i>"... The proximity of the Clintons and the Gates is well known to the world and needs no explanation. ... And the revelations of WikiLeaks only show how the US has been forcing governments across the world to buy expensive Microsoft licenses."</i><p>Really? That statement seems a little outrageous.<p>Ultimately, as the article highlights, why are states <i>"...moving back to laptops for poor rural students preloaded with Microsoft Windows."</i>?<p>Does a computer preloaded with Microsoft Windows provide a <i>significant</i> advantage over a Linux distribution? For example, what is the goal of providing computer to poor rural students? Is it to make them computer proficient or Microsoft Office proficient?<p>(Also, presumably, these low-cost computers (provided to poor rural students) are not capable to run Windows 7 or Windows 8 - what version of Microsoft Windows is preloaded?)<p><i>Edit: Updated styling.</i>

The article says that over the next 5 years, about 7 Million laptops will be purchased. The price of windows mentioned in the article is about $110 at current rates, which means $770 million order for MS. That definitely is a big order for MS, considering the full laptop is only expected to cost ~$300.

Too much "the IT intelligentsia", "not offend one of the world’s most profitable and powerful corporations", "the future of computing", "The proximity of the Clintons and the Gates is well known to the world and needs no explanation" for me to take the article seriously.<p>A bad defense of free and open-source software is not always better than no defense.

One of the things that makes a typical Linux install better is the preconfigured programming environments on it such as Perl or Python.<p>Unlike Windows 7. It would be so nice if Microsoft installed Visual Basic Express on all Windows as a matter of course.<p>(Of course, this carries with it the presumption that creation is better than consumption, and to really use a computer, you need to be able to program it).

Some key points from the article. The first requirement was " A dual boot system that had free open source Linux with the proprietary Microsoft Windows starter edition with antivirus software valid for a year."<p>The second requirement was "In its new tender, ELCOT asked bidders to provide only Microsoft Windows and removed Linux from the list."<p>And a key point made from someone from ELCOT: " “We will retain dual boot laptops to ensure uniformity in the supply of laptops by different vendors,"<p>Windows was always going to be on the laptops. More than likely, the vendors charge more for setting up dual boot systems.

Sensationalism aside, reducing HDD capacity by half, removing wifi, removing a whole bunch of educational software just to pay for Windows? Just. Wrong.<p>EDIT: Although, I don't completely buy the argument about upgrades. I still have laptops running Windows XP that work great.