Payware/Ripoffware/Open Source..... et al. Tis a complicated argument is it not?
My view is that Microsoft are entitled to charge for their software.
Arguments against is I think they charge too much for their software and that as Vista was plainly not the Golden Goose they promised then Win 7 sould have been either free as a correctional patch/upgrade or just cost a nominal tenner to Vista licence holders.
That would have been fair and maybe have gone some way to give confidence in Microsoft to Windows users.
The equation is thus:
Option one:
Pay lots of money, bow to DRM, be dictated to, play games, be a front line target for malware & viruses and use an operating system that is very user friendly - choose Microsoft Windows.
Option Two:
Pay no money, have freedom of choice, become part of the Open Source movement, be able to play only a very few games, use an Operating System that in part is not user friendly and difficult to understand, be at minimal risk from malware and viruses, be prepared for a steep learning curve - choose a Linux Distro.
Option Three:
Buy a Mac, become a weirdo, get the best of both worlds but pay an arm and a leg for all your software and hardware.
Bonus: Bask in how cool your Mac looks whilst carefully avoiding thinking about how low spec the hardware is for the price.
And there, Gentlemen, we have it.
At one time, before Bill Gates dreamed up the word 'Windows' we used Microsoft DOS.
Guess what? It was just as hard to understand as Linux Console commands
Me? I'm kinda looking forward to Windows Seven, despite all my criticism.
If only for the fact I just tried installing Vista SP2 again and it still won't have it
But really - Vista with speed. Desirable, almost.