FUD, you want to face my wrath too?
I believe the point of parker's statement (#4) is that if we rejected any operating system, or indeed any software application, which has at least a single bug, we'd have no software at all. I'm sure you are a smart enough man to have understood that, why did you have to play dumb and respond with sarcasm?
The fact of the matter is Microsoft software has bugs. The fact that any other software has bugs does not excuse Microsoft's bugs. What a wise consumer will do is compare the relative quality of software, bug fix policies, and tech support policies in conjunction with the intended usage of the software. If you plan to run a data center with terrabytes of data transfer per month and millions of users, you have different needs from the home user. Each consumer with his/her specific needs should evaluate needs vs. vendor offerings.
I have made such evaluations personally and professionally. Microsoft thus far has better offerings for my needs than that of its competitors. For my needs, Microsoft's offerings far exceed Sun/IBM/HP for servers, Oracle/IBM for database, Java for dev platform, Linux for server or desktop. So far as Microsoft continues to provide for my needs, I'll continue to use them. That's not the lowest common denominator. That's an informed consumer, doing his reasearched, making a wise decision. If your needs (or anyone else's) differ from mine, that doesn't negate that Microsoft provides the best solution for me.
|