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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
Ignoring unauthorized copying
... Bill Gates said "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
The practice allowed Microsoft to gain some dominance over the Chinese market and only then taking measures against unauthorized copies. In 2008, by means of the Windows update mechanism, a verification program called "Windows Genuine Advantage" (WGA) was downloaded and installed. When WGA detects that the copy of Windows is not genuine, it periodically turns the user's screen black. This behavior angered users and generated complaints in China with a lawyer stating that "Microsoft uses its monopoly to bundle its updates with the validation programs and forces its users to verify the genuineness of their software".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
... the documents identified open-source software, and in particular the Linux operating system, as a major threat to Microsoft's domination of the software industry, and suggested tactics Microsoft could use to disrupt the progress of open-source software.
Windows being easy to pirate wasnt the reason for it's popularity. It had market share because they allowed for it to be preinstalled on machines for virtually nothing. They allowed it to be preinstalled on machines for virtually nothing because the OS wasn't the flagship product.
MS Office has always been the major flagship product for the company. This was true in 1994 and still is today. Office is so important to their revenue streams that it's fairly common knowledge and has been mentioned by former employees that OS development would focus on compatibility with Office programs, not the other way around.
Specifically if you look at the years around Office XP and 2003, that suite is used very much as a CVS. They deprecate their operating systems using Office.
Not true at all. You're thinking the past 20 years instead of the past 35 years. Windows was already "the" OS around the world well before you could just pirate a copy online. They cut deals and made sure if you bought a pc it has windows on it. They made sure the countries you speak of had dirt cheap cd keys without piracy. Microsoft in the late 80s/90s had a lot of moving parts that went into making sure the only OS you'd be using was windows. Even after they got in trouble in 1992-94 and in 2000-2001.
Piracy or not. Windows was almost anyone's only choice.
The past 20 years is what's relevant for all countries apart from Japan, China and those in North America and Eastern Europe when it comes to PCs.
I don't think any cost above ₹200 (~ $2.5) would have been justifiable for an OS in third world countries in the '00s, and the "dirt cheap CD keys" were certainly more expensive than that anywhere.
I'm afraid you're simply making things up. Microsoft donated computers with windows to all the third world countries. Literally the only way any schools had PC's in third world countries was because Microsoft delivered them there, and any business' that got computers used windows because they had office use applications and it was the only OS that anyone had previous practice with using, because of the donated computers.
It's hilarious that you think Microsoft's charity is what brought computers to the third world. Do you even hear yourself?
Of course it has. Maybe try pulling your head out of your ass.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/14/business/worldbusiness/IHT-charity-in-poor-nations-has-2-purposes-microsoft.html
Unbelievable. You genuinely think the rest of the world wouldn't have had computers had your god Microsoft not been so benevolent as to donate a few machines to a few schools for PR
Stay happy in your pathetic white saviours' world, I guess. There's no point discussing anything with you
yup ADOBE is exactly the same.
they do it on purpose for the exact same reason you are mentioning.
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.
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.
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
I saw a yt video few years ago about how microsoft allowed windows piracy on South Asian countries to increase windows adoption rate.
Out of the 4 laptops i used recently, 3 of them were using a pirated version of windows. 1 of them(my laptop) didnt use a pirated version of windows because it was already paid when i bought the laptop. I thought all laptops(that are not using macos or linux) came with windows preistalled
I mean sure in those countries maybe. But the vast majority of people using windows in North America would still be using Windows (And possibly Europe, but I cant speak for Europe) even if it wasnt easily piratable.
I read something similar many years ago where Microsoft intentionally wanted people to use use pirated windows to increase their user base.
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.
