Microsoft is no more a monopoly than Apple is. You can not only still choose an alternative, but the leading alternative to Microsoft and Apple is FREE OF CHARGE. Yet million of users freely decide to pay extra for Windows or even more extra for OS X.
It's called "quality". get over it.
"million of users freely decide to pay extra for Windows or even more extra for OS X."
Customers opt for Windows because they don't feel technically proficient enough to handle Linux. If they buy OSX it's because it's the best.
There still is a need for a viable alternative to the monopolistic Windows.
There is a "Follow the herd" thing, almost more like extortion. We all know about the Linux alternative, but here is where it gets me: Two on my machines here are (Red Hat) linux. But I work a Day Job, and run a business and work over a hundred hours a week (No thanks to my worthless 401(k) ).
I simply do not have an hour a week to get all my docs over onto those systems, fully learn Linux sufficiently to use it exclusively,and figure out the updates and drivers all the time. I would LOVE to. I put it on an old P-3 733 MHz machine that used to limp along under Wxx, and it screams on Linux. I see the advantages.
But not this week.
Let's see.
Microsoft XP Professional MSRP $299
Macintosh OSX MSRP $129
Now, would you care to repeat that comment about "even more extra for OS X"?
Wrong. Microsoft is indeed a monopoly.
You can not only still choose an alternative, but the leading alternative to Microsoft and Apple is FREE OF CHARGE.
Yet, for the vast majority of purchases of a new computer, Microsoft still gets a cut of the price. I wonder why that is?
It's called "quality". get over it.
The only place I've ever heard "Microsoft" and "quality" in the same sentence is in a Microsoft marketing brief.
Begone, foul troll of Redmond.