To: johnd who wrote (33702 ) 11/10/1999 9:30:00 PM From: John Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 74651
Hey, I'm with you 100%. I believe most of the "anti-MSFT" pundits are missing the big picture. Here's my take on things, FWIT. When one considers the seemingly steep learning curve associated with computers in general, including the OS, apps, and so forth, he or she can't afford to take the time to learn something radically new or different. I truly believe that is why other OS's have trouble catching on. I'm sure most everyone on this thread considers themselves savvy Windows users. But do any of us really want to take the time or expend the energy necessary to adopt a different OS? Maybe if something is introduced that's far superior to MSFT Windows, people would take notice. This will inevitably be the case. In the interim, people seem relatively happy with Windows. Oh, we all have our complaints, but I think most would agree that MSFT vends out quality, although not flawless, products. As for the argument about MSFT impeding their competitors ability to be successful and so forth, I believe it's unsubstantiated. I have ALWAYS been free to choose between Netscape and IE, between Windows, UNIX, LINUX, OS2 and Mac, between MS Office and the Word Perfect suite, and between Real Player and Windows Media Player. In each case, I was given a choice, and I freely chose. Isn't that how the process is supposed to work in a free market society? (Incidentally, I use Real Player vice Windows Media Player. Heh.) Case in point, and I believe this says it all: We use MSFT products at work, and almost all of my friends and associates use MSFT products, so why should I want choose a different option? I like MSFT products for the most part, and if I chose a different solution, it would only serve to create potential compatibility issues with everyone I communicate with. Sorry for the rant... Wait... No I'm not sorry! Heh. Ciao, John in Iceland