Windows vs Linux: a modern desktop comparison 15201
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
Even easier. For all that work you did, you could simply install Linux.
Actually, shows you don't know much about the hows and whys OEM pricing. You're completely ignoring the 800-pound gorilla who dictates the terms.
Linux is fast. And it doesn't slow down with age.
Until something bad happens. (And it often does). Then they come crying to guys like me asking them to "fix my computer!
Of course, you are ignoring that many of the programs are not half-butted (especially when compared to half-butted poo like Outlook Express, Outlook, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word, and IIS.) Many of the are quite good, and a few are indeed "best-of-breed".
No it wasn't.
How do you know this? If so, why is it that users now commonly expect their computers to crap out?
Bullpoo. IBM at its peak had more success. Microsoft isn't even at the top of the revenue heap, in spite of having a monopoly.
Windows vs Linux: a modern desktop comparison 15202
These days, making the transition is geing much easier, and most modern Linux distributions can be made functional on most Windows 9x...
Microsoft has actually been a huge drag on software technology.
I will grant you that they've boosted progress on the hardware front, since their bloatware requires ever more powerful machines just to be useable.
IBM made the PC an open architecture.
You mean the PC standard. Microsoft merely ensured (through highly unethical means) that all PCs carry the Microsoft tax.
And, in spite of that burden, hardware marches on.
Who wants to replace them? We want to get rid of them.
-- When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Linux Advocacy Newsgroups