Recently I've had a rash of people who have asked me to help them with their Windows machines. Most of them have had problems related to the Online Activation process that is built into Windows nowadays. Well, I suppose most of these people would not have a problem if they actually went out and bought a copy of Windows, instead of trying to use a borrowed copy or a pirated copy of the Enterprise Edition (no activation required.)
This got me thinking to how, especially in the home computer world, people might be getting a skewed view of Windows because most of them don't actually pay for it properly. If they had to fork over the $200 for an original copy of WindowsXP Home Edition or $499 for a new copy of Office Professional might make people actually think a little before shelling out the cash.
If Microsoft could tighten up their software registration system so that it was harder for people to pirate Windows and Office, and people actually had to pay for a license, they might be much more inclined to take a look at what free software has to offer. Right now, there are a lot of people who still see the choice as using Linux/OpenOffice (free as in speech) or pirate Windows/Office (free as in beer, if you pirate it.) Lets face it, OpenOffice is still a distant second place to Office, which makes the choice easy for those of us without morals.
The sad part of this is that people always hold the "you get what you pay for" argument against open source software. Try paying for a Windows license and then see how you feel when programs bomb out. This time you might actually get pissed off, instead of just saying that it is normal.
Lastly, I wonder if this is an argument that Microsoft already understands. Maybe this is why they don't buckle down on registration. Knowing that the ease of being able to pirate your software is all that keeps the open source folks from winning market share might work for now... but it can't hold them off forever.