For those who continue to bash Microsoft - A Question

Wait...did someone just accept an argument on...the Internet? That, my friend, must be a first

In2Photos wrote in post #3248834
Not sure why you think this thread was designed to bash Windows. I didn't start it for this reason. In fact I am a Windows user, both at home and work. I also used Unix and Mac at school.

I don't think at all you started this thread to bash windows. Actually to the contrary I would guess you like windows for what it is. I was just commenting on why allot of the responses are negative. It is just the conext. For example if the thread discussion was about how well windows supports many different kinds of hardware (via vendor drivers), most of the responses would be along the lines of how mac and linux is not as good in this regard.

Sathi wrote in post #3249060
I don't think at all you started this thread to bash windows. Actually to the contrary I would guess you like windows for what it is. I was just commenting on why allot of the responses are negative. It is just the conext. For example if the thread discussion was about how well windows supports many different kinds of hardware (via vendor drivers), most of the responses would be along the lines of how mac and linux is not as good in this regard.

Ah, I misunserstood your other post then.

Sathi wrote in post #3248130
BTW: The above poster windows why if Mac and Linux are so good why do they only capture 10% market share. Simple...piracy. It is windows piracy that enables it to retain its dominant market position. I know that is counter intuitive to allot of people, but I believe it to be the truth. If people actually had to PAY for windows they would be more inclined to check out alternatives. Remember, even though windows is pre-installed when you buy a dell and most people in this country pay for it that way, that is not the way most of the world works. Microsoft just today worked out a deal with Vietnam to get their government equipment on legal copies of windows software. And that's the government! Think the average person in the 3rd world is going to pay 100s of $$$ for an OS? No way! They are going to buy a pirated copy at the market for 10 cents. One of the things that really keeps Linux down is its lack of market share leaving little incentive for developers to make software and drivers. If all of a sudden a billion people in Asia switched to Linux because microsoft forced them to pay up $200 each then that would dramatically affect the market and give Linux the critical mass it needs. I suspect microsoft knows this.

That's pretty funny. So if people actually had to pay for a Windows OS, they would go out an buy Apple computers and Apple would have a larger market share?

I think it has something to do with the fact that you can use windows on almost any pc out there, even Apple computers where as OS X is legally only available on Apple computers.

That conspiracy theory on piracy made me laugh though...that was a good one.

Tony-S wrote in post #3248050
As usual, I resort to distortion and deception since I am apparently unable to defend my position.

and again...

Ah man, we were just starting to play nice.

mikez wrote in post #3249027
You're comparing cars which cost way more than computers. I can understand couple hundreds but in thousands? Civic is a popular vehicle because it's reliable and the interior is superior any most car at its price range.

I tend to think their interiors are kind of crappy when compared to VW and Subaru.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #3249122
I tend to think their interiors are kind of crappy when compared to VW and Subaru.

I'm going to agree with you on this one Village.

hannaxt wrote in post #3249145
I'm going to agree with you on this one Village.

Oh good, we are playing nice again.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #3249122
I tend to think their interiors are kind of crappy when compared to VW and Subaru.

Hey wait. Only Apple users get to like VW and Subaru.

Sathi wrote in post #3248927
pre-load all that useless trial crap..

You mean stuff like iTunes, iLife, iMovie? I kid.

My new PC from Dell came loaded with nothing as such. It did come with some software that allows me to play movies, show presentations etc without booting Windows. I hardly deem that useless.

Copying a movie to the drive saves battery time better, but handy nonetheless.

There are a lot of myths from both sides here. If people better understood what works for others and not for ourselves we might have a broader understanding of what we need ourselves.

Simply saying "my way is better" is counter-productive. But to say anything other than that isn't saying much, much ado about nothing.

mikez wrote in post #3249027
You're comparing cars which cost way more than computers. I can understand couple hundreds but in thousands? Civic is a popular vehicle because it's reliable and the interior is superior any most car at its price range.

So if something were cheaper, and of a little bit lesser quality than a premium car, and appealed to the masses as a middle of a road solution to transportation, that would sum up the Civic?

Wow, I hear Mac guys say that about PC/Windows all the time.

I think it's useless to continue with this discussion simply because you're a Mac guy that is trying to convince yourself why it's worth to pay more for a Mac and I think this link http://www.thebestpage​intheuniverse....gi?u=​macs_cant sums it up very well.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #3249086
That's pretty funny. So if people actually had to pay for a Windows OS, they would go out an buy Apple computers and Apple would have a larger market share?

I think it has something to do with the fact that you can use windows on almost any pc out there, even Apple computers where as OS X is legally only available on Apple computers.

That conspiracy theory on piracy made me laugh though...that was a good one.

No, if people had to pay for windows they wouldn't choose apple. That completly goes against the logic I used in my post you just qouted. You did read my message right? Apple is more expensive than windows, so why would people choose that if my arguement was that windows was too expensive in the first place for the teeming masses?

The fact that you can install windows on almost all x86 hardware out there is irrelevant. Most people buy a computer with an OS loaded on it. They do not even understand the distinction between the OS and the computer itself. Besides, linux can be installed on 20X the architectures windows can and that hasn't made them the champ.

Windows is most used because it is best for most people. If many of those people had to pay for it then it would not be best for them. Some people will spend $400 on vista ultimate and it will be the best choice for them. But bottom line is if people had to pay for windows microsoft would lose significant market share. Is that really that hard to believe?

Its good to know I made you laugh. Now if only I could be as consistantly funny as you are wrong about this topic I might have a bright future.

Just kidding Not trying to be argumentative, just food for thaught and wanting to do my part for the worst analogy thread of the year.