Piracy is a market response to what consumers view as overvalued merchandise. IP only exarcebates the issue.

Linux simply took too much of my time. Find something nice to download? Time to reboot and log in as my admin so I can install the thing.

then there was the constant flipping of Console to GUI. Reminded me of Windows 3.1.. more wasted time.

Oh, and then there were the hardware changes that didn't get reocognized by linux right a way, that was a pain.

Sylphas, its called intellectual property. Its not infinite, its just highly reproducible. Complete different things.

Linux simply took too much of my time. Find something nice to download? Time to reboot and log in as my admin so I can install the thing.

then there was the constant flipping of Console to GUI. Reminded me of Windows 3.1.. more wasted time.

Oh, and then there were the hardware changes that didn't get reocognized by linux right a way, that was a pain.

Sylphas, its called intellectual property. Its not infinite, its just highly reproducible. Complete different things.

Linux simply took too much of my time. Find something nice to download? Time to reboot and log in as my admin so I can install the thing.

Then there was the 2 dvds worth of software that all did the same thing but had slightly different interfaces, all given to me at once without any idea about what the differences between them are. So I got to spend more time figuring out which one was better to use.

then there was the constant flipping of Console to GUI. Reminded me of Windows 3.1.. more wasted time.

And the difference between the games is the difference between reading the latest Tom Clancy novel, and reading the orginal Sherlock holmes books. Time makes all the difference.

Sylphas, its called intellectual property. Its not infinite, its just highly reproducible. Complete different things.

Also, Kashim, I said WITHOUT all that. Just the OS itself.

Stuff.

Theft is a not a "market response"

I don't understand why.

Yes, it is. There is no reason to steal if there is a reasonable method for legitimate acquisition.

Mac OS is a viable alternative to Windows if you are willing to buy a Mac.

1. Not knowing the primary language of the Phillipines (I always spell that wrong) does not really equate to not being in touch with the lower classes in a (totally different) third world country. I wouldn't have made that mistake, if only because I hear so much totally incomprehensible tagalog occasionally mixed in with English words, but I'm not in touch with anything.

1. Not knowing the primary language of the Phillipines (I always spell that wrong) does not really equate to not being in touch with the lower classes in a (totally different) third world country. I wouldn't have made that mistake, if only because I hear so much totally incomprehensible tagalog occasionally mixed in with English words, but I'm not in touch with anything.

2. I'm pretty sure you do not need a 100% market share to have a monopoly. When I took business & economics the legal definition came up as being 50%, or 66%, or something comparably low like that. That's why Microsoft got sued over it a while back. I think they lost that and had to do exactly nothing about it by forming one of those sister company things.

Not really. Microsoft was convicted in an antitrust case, weren't they?

Definition in America is that you have no other viable choice. Percentage doesn't mean anything. Its a matter of having a choice that is an adequate replacement. And in the computer world, you have many viable alternatives.

"Microsoft's dominant market share is protected by the same barrier that helps define the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. As explained above, the applications barrier would prevent an aspiring entrant into the relevant market from drawing a significant number of customers away from a dominant incumbent even if the incumbent priced its products substantially above competitive levels for a significant period of time."

"That Microsoft's market share and the applications barrier to entry together endow the company with monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is directly evidenced by the sustained absence of realistic commercial alternatives to Microsoft's PC operating-system products."

"One of the ways Microsoft combats piracy is by advising OEMs that they will be charged a higher price for Windows unless they drastically limit the number of PCs that they sell without an operating system pre-installed. In 1998, all major OEMs agreed to this restriction. Naturally, it is hard to sell a pirated copy of Windows to a consumer who has already received a legal copy included in the price of his new PC system. Thus, Microsoft is able to effectively contain, if not extinguish, the illegal secondary market for its operating-system products. So even though Microsoft is more concerned about piracy than it is about other firms' operating system products, the company's pricing is not substantially constrained by the need to reduce the incentives for consumers to acquire their copies of Windows illegally." <--- Interesting, no?

" Microsoft's actual pricing behavior is consistent with the proposition that the firm enjoys monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. The company's decision not to consider the prices of other vendors' Intel-compatible PC operating systems when setting the price of Windows 98, for example, is probative of monopoly power. One would expect a firm in a competitive market to pay much closer attention to the prices charged by other firms in the market. Another indication of monopoly power is the fact that Microsoft raised the price that it charged OEMs for Windows 95, with trivial exceptions, to the same level as the price it charged for Windows 98 just prior to releasing the newer product. In a competitive market, one would expect the price of an older operating system to stay the same or decrease upon the release of a newer, more attractive version. Microsoft, however, was only concerned with inducing OEMs to ship Windows 98 in favor of the older version. It is unlikely that Microsoft would have imposed this price increase if it were genuinely concerned that OEMs might shift their business to another vendor of operating systems or hasten the development of viable alternatives to Windows."

"Furthermore, Microsoft expends a significant portion of its monopoly power, which could otherwise be spent maximizing price, on imposing burdensome restrictions on its customers — and in inducing them to behave in ways — that augment and prolong that monopoly power. For example, Microsoft attaches to a Windows license conditions that restrict the ability of OEMs to promote software that Microsoft believes could weaken the applications barrier to entry. Microsoft also charges a lower price to OEMs who agree to ensure that all of their Windows machines are powerful enough to run Windows NT for Workstations. To the extent this provision induces OEMs to concentrate their efforts on the development of relatively powerful, expensive PCs, it makes OEMs less likely to pursue simultaneously the opposite path of developing "thin client" systems, which could threaten demand for Microsoft's Intel- compatible PC operating system products. In addition, Microsoft charges a lower price to OEMs who agree to ship all but a minute fraction of their machines with an operating system pre- installed. While this helps combat piracy, it also makes it less likely that consumers will detect increases in the price of Windows and renders operating systems not pre-installed by OEMs in large numbers even less attractive to consumers. After all, a consumer's interest in a non- Windows operating system might not outweigh the burdens on system memory and performance associated with supporting two operating systems on a single PC. Other such restrictions and incentives are described below."

Do you have links to any data showing the market share of Mac OS on Intel machines? Can happen doesn't mean it happens enough to matter.

Didn't the EU also hit Microsoft for integrating Windows Media Player?

I have no idea why you are arguing against Microsofts monopolizing ways, so I thought I'd just quote excerpts from the US court findings of fact (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iiia)
It goes on and on, and I highly suggest having a look... its quite an interesting read.