[An.American.Expatriate]

Because I wasn't referring to mid range machines.

From my post #35: As usual you a re clueless to the midrange / mainframe market and the ROI and TCO figures - but here's a clue - any MS configuaration that could, in theory, satisfy the same needs (uptime, transaction speed, etc...) exceeds the costs of the midrange mainframe systems by exponential figures.....

Selectively chosing arguments??

YOU claimed "And the cost of actually maintaining that mainframe crap is astronomical..." in reference to "90% of corporate data is still in IMS and performing rings around anything MS could do. DB2 has more new development (that actually work in production) than SQLServer." By implication you claim that the "MS" Cost is not "astronomical" for comparable level of service / quality - PROVE IT!

By all means point out where I've ever done that.

See above and just about every post where you claim that MS is better than (fill in whatever OS / Application you desire) -

[stevestras]

uhhh, where do I chime in that my BSOD from NT/XP has become a White Screen of Death under XP Media Center?

Not only that, I can't join a domain. Bastards.

[Bush2000]

Selectively chosing arguments??

Erect all the strawmen you like. You'll notice that my original post was directed specifically at mainframes.

By implication you claim that the "MS" Cost is not "astronomical" for comparable level of service / quality - PROVE IT!

That's quite an assumption on your part. I wasn't just talking about M$. There are other OSes which run on PC hardware (BSD, Linux, etc) and database servers (Oracle, mySQL, etc).

See above and just about every post where you claim that MS is better than (fill in whatever OS / Application you desire) -

Uh uh. You're not off the hook that easily. Point out a post where I've said that.