Replies

"But a percentage of the millions that are end up being part of the broken window fallacy"

There is no Window fallacy.
Windows creates vastly more jobs than Apple does because Windows totally dominates the computer business.
It's common sense.

"It will be hard to get an IT department to admit that because getting a system that's easier to maintain makes empire building kind of difficult"

Plenty of IT departments switch to Windows very single day, after doing extensive analysis or comparative platforms.
On the other hand, Apple computers,ipods and other products from Apple have a failure rate than is going to drive ya up the creek, but the apple zombies would much rather swallow poison than admit that.

"You gotta be kidding me. You're trusting vendor hype?"

I am trusting facts, and documented statements from highly reputable outfits like the London stock Exchange(which has a much better track record on veracity than the known liar that Steve Jobs is) and Continental AG that chose Windows over Linux after extensive studies.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/casestudies/cag.mspx

There is no Window fallacy. Windows creates vastly more jobs than Apple does because Windows totally dominates the computer business. It's common sense.

Since it takes more people to manage and secure (remember viruses and such) a Windows platform, then those extra jobs are a waste. That Windows dominates only multiplies the waste. Thinking that those extra jobs is a good thing is a prime example of the broken window fallacy.

Plenty of IT departments switch to Windows very single day, after doing extensive analysis or comparative platforms.

Those switching from other OSs to Windows are few and far between. Those switching from UNIX usually switch to Linux.

Apple computers,ipods and other products from Apple have a failure rate than is going to drive ya up the creek

I would like to see evidence for the average failure rate of modern Apple computers being above the industry average. Remember, they started moving to a new platform over a year ago, so the problems of IBM's PPC are gone.

and Continental AG that chose Windows over Linux after extensive studies.

You need to read what you link to. Continental's "out-of-date and disparate client-server infrastructure" was already Windows-based. They chose to stay with Microsoft because of high migration costs if they chose Linux.

Microsoft likes high migration costs, and they probably do anything they can to keep migration from Windows to other platforms as expensive as possible.