On Monday 22 January 2007 14:56, Phil Thayer wrote:
I think that what people forget is that there are reasons that all operating systems on the market in today's IT world are there because they have something that the user wants.
Or, in the case of Microsoft, because they have a monopoly.
Windows on the other hand is not as stable as Linux, however has it's own strengths in the fact that it is the most recognizable OS on the market today. If you were to set someone who was relatively computer illiterate down in front of Windows and Linux, which one do you think they would recognize?
If someone is computer illiterate, they wouldn't recognize either. They would certainly have an easier time using a *nix OS than they would using Windows.
I do not understand what you mean by the "Microsoft Tax". If a company or person creates a product and markets it extremely well (regardless of whether it is good or not) and there is a demand for that product, why would they not price it based on the demand? That does not seem like a tax to me, that seems like capitalism to me.
Except that it is not optional. You are *forced* to purchase Windows with the vast majority of computers. If it was optional, you *might* have a point.