Microsoft Sued Over Vista-To-XP Downgrade Fees (Information Week) [Archive]

Drew Wilson

February 17th, 2009, 09:53 PM

A Los Angeles computer user has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), claiming that fees the software maker and its partners charge for downgrading PCs from Windows Vista to the older XP operating system violate antitrust rules.

Emma Alvarado says in court papers that she was forced to pay $59.25 to downgrade a Vista-based Lenovo system she bought last year to XP. Alvarado claims Microsoft is able to impose such fees because of a lack of competition in the PC market.

"Since the introduction of Vista, Microsoft has effectively eliminated competition in the operating system PC market and created a monopoly position for itself in that market," Alvarado claims in papers filed this week in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

"Microsoft has used its power to coerce OEMs, Internet access providers, and others into agreeing to restrictive and anti-competitive licensing terms for its Windows XP operating system in order to stifle competition in the market," according to Alvarado's complaint. "Microsoft did so in order to maintain, protect, and extend its market power in operating systems software into the next generation of personal computing, to lessen competition, and to enhance its monopoly position," Alvarado claims.

More... (http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214200260)

Microsoft? A monpoly? When did this happen?

[/sarcasm]

w31n3r

February 17th, 2009, 11:15 PM

actually the charge is 100% justified, and microsoft cannot be faulted on this one....after all, she is upgrading to a better operating system.

mountain_rage

February 17th, 2009, 11:34 PM

Personally I want to have a dedicated Linux box so I can learn to properly use it. But that will have to wait until I do a major upgrade and am left with a unused box.

rkoomans

February 18th, 2009, 12:05 AM

Mountain Rage, If u want LINUX, try UBUNTU, best of lot, like windows almost, and easy to run, all free programs like OOffice etc. PLUS, u can boot a CD from start, and load up UBUNTU (From www.ubuntu.com) and chose to use free space on HDD etc... unless u already have an unused portion on HDD, then load into unallocated space on disk.

rkoomans

February 18th, 2009, 12:12 AM

U can run WINDOWS of any sort, PLUS choose to boot into UBUNTU, which has almost nil viruses written for it, and use it on the inet safely.
W31N3R, good humor there mate! - even I prefer MSwinXPpro to VISTA! Note how they lied to us and sold PC's with VISTA, saying it would run with only 512Mb? - it run like a 486 trying to push WinXP! - Just how far is MS going to go? - end up with a terrabyte of ram to open a new MSwinOPSYS, and need a 10 terrabyte HDD to keep it in????

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 12:20 AM

rkoomans, its more of a issue where I wont use Linux if I have to reboot to get into it, and I'm not ready to use it exclusively. Most of the software I use on my PC is currently opensource, but Linux is still too much of a pain to trouble shoot. The only reason I would install it again on a partition would be to run Cinelerra and a couple Linux only programs. I've had Ubuntu, Red Hat, Sabayon, Fedora on my machine at various times, so no worries, I know how to set it up. In fact at one time I had windows XP 64 bit, 32bit, Ubuntu and MacOSX installed on my PC.

U can run WINDOWS of any sort, PLUS choose to boot into UBUNTU, which has almost nil viruses written for it, and use it on the inet safely.
W31N3R, good humor there mate! - even I prefer MSwinXPpro to VISTA! Note how they lied to us and sold PC's with VISTA, saying it would run with only 512Mb? - it run like a 486 trying to push WinXP! - Just how far is MS going to go? - end up with a terrabyte of ram to open a new MSwinOPSYS, and need a 10 terrabyte HDD to keep it in????

Windows 7 uses less memory, is more modular, and boots up faster than XP. Vista isn't terrible either if you get past the fact that its a memory hog. It boots faster than XP, manages files better than XP, but is slightly less stable.

To be honest, the best operating system so far seems to be Mac OSX. Its too bad the hacked version was unstable on my machine. If money wasn't an issue I would probably have at least one computer be a Mac.

w31n3r

February 18th, 2009, 12:30 AM

yes well, in retrospect i guess i should add that my post was made firmly tongue in cheek. personally, i haven't come across any real issue with vista so far, and believe it's a decent OS.

Drew Wilson

February 18th, 2009, 01:03 AM

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 01:07 AM

Four issues I have with Vista:

1. Explorer crashes on a fairly regular basis (I'm not alone on this one apparently, so it isn't just me)

2. Vista destabalizes FireFox. I've never had Firefox crash on a regular basis until I started using it on Vista.

3. Sound driver crashes at times while using a headset (only resolvable if you restart the whole machine)

4. Certain things still on will crash Vista while going in to sleep mode (unsaved notepad windows, the welcome window, a web browser window, even a regular explorer window at times) You have to close/save these or the computer will crash while trying to go into sleep mode and boot back up (even with the window closed, thus risking overheating or losing battery power)

Those have to be the most frequent issues I'm running into these days.

I've only experienced the Explorer crashes which is caused by how Vista creates media thumbnails. You need to make sure your Codecs can detect broken media, otherwise this is a pain in the ass problem. Firefox and all my drivers work flawlessly on both my desktop and laptop.

Drew Wilson

February 18th, 2009, 01:15 AM

I've only experienced the Explorer crashes which is caused by how Vista creates media thumbnails. You need to make sure your Codecs can detect broken media, otherwise this is a pain in the ass problem. Firefox and all my drivers work flawlessly on both my desktop and laptop.

Interesting. Explorer kept crashing randomly for me. At one point, I had just booted my machine and, I figured, the reason it crashed and caused the taskbar to freeze was thanks to Yahoo! Messenger. Task manager, killing Yahoo! and killing and restarting explorer.exe resolved the problem. Other times, I just browse through stuff (but haven't been paying attention to thumbnails in particular, but haven't had broken thumbnails to my foggy knowledge. Explorer just dies and Vista restarts it for me two prompt screens later. Could be different bugs for the same prog though.

drtoker

February 18th, 2009, 08:02 AM

Four issues I have with Vista:

1. Explorer crashes on a fairly regular basis (I'm not alone on this one apparently, so it isn't just me)

2. Vista destabalizes FireFox. I've never had Firefox crash on a regular basis until I started using it on Vista.

3. Sound driver crashes at times while using a headset (only resolvable if you restart the whole machine)

4. Certain things still on will crash Vista while going in to sleep mode (unsaved notepad windows, the welcome window, a web browser window, even a regular explorer window at times) You have to close/save these or the computer will crash while trying to go into sleep mode and boot back up (even with the window closed, thus risking overheating or losing battery power)

Those have to be the most frequent issues I'm running into these days.

1. Never had explorer crash without me doing something stupid like not waiting for an app to finish something, etc.

2. I use FF as my default on vista at home. Never ever had it crash, except the 1 or 2 times I got caught in popup hell

3. Driver issue, don't blame vista

4. I've never ever ever gotten sleep mode to work 100% on ANY os from M$. I just use hibernate if I need a 'sleep' mode, or just set it to turn off my monitor.

Back to the topic at hand, I really don't see why you should have to pay a fee, to use an older version of a product, if you own a current product key, and are not going to try to double up on another machine or something like that.

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 01:11 PM

drtoker

February 18th, 2009, 01:30 PM

Man, this is a bullshit case. When she purchased her "Vista-based Lenovo system" last year... what the hell gives her the right to demand a copy of XP free of charge? Meh, 15 minutes of fame for the less intelligent. Take it to Springer.

Ok, lets say I buy some software from you, verion 2.0
Lets also say, version 2.0 does not do X correctly, when verion 1.0 did do it correctly.
Version 2.0 costs $200
Version 1.0 costs $150

If I paid you $200 for 2.0, and it is not working to my expectations like version 1.0 did, why should I have to pay you to use 1.0, when I've already paid you MORE then 1.0 costs total? I'm not using 2.0, so whats with the extra money involved, what is the purpose, what is the resoning?

I feel I should be able to install an older version if I have paid for a newer version, and am not going to use it. M$ has the right to say, we won't support it, but hey, if I think that's ok, why should I not be able to do this?

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 01:31 PM

Man, this is a bullshit case. When she purchased her "Vista-based Lenovo system" last year... what the hell gives her the right to demand a copy of XP free of charge? Meh, 15 minutes of fame for the less intelligent. Take it to Springer.

She is suing because if Microsoft did not hold a monopoly they would likely have been able to buy a machine with XP preinstalled, or even a cheaper Linux machine and not have been forced to pay for Vista. This lawsuit is banking on the fact that there is no competition to Vista in the retail space because of Microsofts monopoly, so she should not have to pay to use the OS she wants. It would be like having to pay to downgrade to Linux, which I've seen be the practice at times.

Signa

February 18th, 2009, 02:17 PM

last year...

You know, that wasn't that long ago. I didn't read any articles, but did it say what month she got it in? I suspect nov-dec.

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 02:29 PM

If I paid you $200 for 2.0, and it is not working to my expectations like version 1.0 did, why should I have to pay you to use 1.0, when I've already paid you MORE then 1.0 costs total? I'm not using 2.0, so whats with the extra money involved, what is the purpose, what is the resoning?

Licensing.

You would then have two completely separate products for the price of one. Does that seem fair? If I were the software company and you came to me wanting a free copy of 1.0 after a year of 2.0 usage, I'd think you're crazy... particularly when 1.0 still retains a relatively high price tag, not to mention popularity.

She is suing because if Microsoft did not hold a monopoly they would likely have been able to buy a machine with XP preinstalled, or even a cheaper Linux machine and not have been forced to pay for Vista. This lawsuit is banking on the fact that there is no competition to Vista in the retail space because of Microsofts monopoly, so she should not have to pay to use the OS she wants. It would be like having to pay to downgrade to Linux, which I've seen be the practice at times.

You can't possibly be suggesting that she was "forced" into buying a pre-built system with Vista installed. Come on... seriously.

You know, that wasn't that long ago. I didn't read any articles, but did it say what month she got it in? I suspect nov-dec.

Okay, let's say it was a few months. Who cares? She intentionally paid for a Vista license. Nobody put a gun to her head and made her do it.

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 02:34 PM

You can't possibly be suggesting that she was "forced" into buying a pre-built system with Vista installed. Come on... seriously.

Go to any major retailer and tell me how many machines you find that don't have Vista preinstalled on the system. 90% of systems will be sold with vista on it. This is called a monopoly, and is bad consumer and economic practice. So for that reason we have laws against monopolies, and many have argued systems should not be sold preinstalled with an operating system, but installed after the sale.

drtoker

February 18th, 2009, 02:44 PM

Licensing.

You would then have two completely separate products for the price of one. Does that seem fair? If I were the software company and you came to me wanting a free copy of 1.0 after a year of 2.0 usage, I'd think you're crazy... particularly when 1.0 is still retains a relatively high price tag, not to mention popularity.

But the point is, your not using both, your using 1 or the other in this case. If its a dual boot, sure, charge full price. But to pay for something your not going to use? C'mon...

AND if its popular still, why not just offer that version, why only offer a 'downgrade' for an EXTRA fee. Thats the issue here.

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 02:53 PM

Go to any major retailer and tell me how many machines you find that don't have Vista preinstalled on the system. 90% of systems will be sold with vista on it. This is called a monopoly, and is bad consumer and economic practice. So for that reason we have laws against monopolies, and many have argued systems should not be sold preinstalled with an operating system, but installed after the sale.

So, who do you blame? The software or hardware manufacturer? How many brand-name computers have you seen showcasing XP when it was launched? How about '98? It's the "latest and greatest", and I would suggest an implementation from marketing to turn people on to buying their computers. You may not get to pick and choose which flavor you want installed when you walk into a store, but some of the big boys do offer the choice when ordering online. Maybe you're one of the few "alternative OS" end-users out there that have a legitimate bitch. But most of the people I've spoken with that scream bloody murder about MS have been (and still are)... MS customers. And these same people are going to buy (or pirate) Windows 7. I'm not quite the Vista fanboy, but I don't have any issues with it either.

But the point is, your not using both, your using 1 or the other in this case. If its a dual boot, sure, charge full price. But to pay for something your not going to use? C'mon...

AND if its popular still, why not just offer that version, why only offer a 'downgrade' for an EXTRA fee. Thats the issue here.

I don't think software companies would survive or do very well with the honor system. Are you going to promise that you won't give the unwanted version to a friend or relative... or sell it on eBay??

drtoker

February 18th, 2009, 03:02 PM

Preinstalled copies of Vista are not transferable. And if you try to install them on a different brand, they will not activate.

If microsoft would stop using the single key method for companies like Dell, they could EASILY disable activation for the vista copy sold, thus allowing only XP to run.

But they dont. Every single Dell here has a unique product ID sticker, but they all show the same key when you run a key finder.

Way to go M$.

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 03:11 PM

So, who do you blame? The software or hardware manufacturer? How many brand-name computers have you seen showcasing XP when it was launched? How about '98? It's the "latest and greatest", and I would suggest an implementation from marketing to turn people on to buying their computers. You may not get to pick and choose which flavor you want installed when you want into a store, but some of the big boys do offer the choice when ordering online. Maybe you're one of the few "alternative OS" end-users out there that have a legitimate bitch. But most of the people I've spoken with that scream bloody murder about MS have been (and still are)... MS customers. And these same people are going to buy (or pirate) Windows 7. I'm quite the Vista fanboy, but I don't have any issues with it either.

Actually I'm more annoyed with the fact that I'm stuck using Microsoft due to the lack of foresight from policy makers years ago. At the inception of computers, legislation should of been passed forcing open standards on all computer platforms. Instead we ended up with a bunch of proprietary systems that have allowed Microsoft to develop a monopoly and continue to do so to this day. No market choice really exists because a large majority of software is only compatible with the Microsoft operating system. Since its highly unlikely we will see a voluntary move towards open standard, I can at least state the obvious that measures should be taken to lower Microsoft's stranglehold of the market, shifting it into more open standards.

If anything consumers should at least be able to transfer their unused licenses to a 3rd party, so they did not purchase a license for nothing. Then it would be a least a little more of a consumer friendly practice where you can recoup some of the cost associated to buying the system.

When I buy a tv, am I not allowed to sell the extra cables that came with the unit that I am currently not using. What about when I buy a sofa that comes with a crappy free tv, am I held to a contract saying I must keep the tv associated to the sofa at all time, no. This is essentially Microsoft's business practice. In fact they take it a step further making it so 90% of people need to use that tv with their sofa, because other sofa's are not compatible.

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 03:33 PM

If microsoft would stop using the single key method for companies like Dell, they could EASILY disable activation for the vista copy sold, thus allowing only XP to run.

I doubt MS is willing to invest a dime into policing that.

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 03:35 PM

I doubt MS is willing to invest a dime into policing that.

Of course not because they have a monopoly of the market, no one has market choice because of it. Not even system builders have any leverage against Microsoft to get them to change their practices.

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 03:55 PM

Actually I'm more annoyed with the fact that I'm stuck using Microsoft due to the lack of foresight from policy makers years ago. At the inception of computers legislation should of been passed forcing open standards on all computer platforms. Instead we ended up with a bunch of proprietary systems that have allowed Microsoft to develop a monopoly and continue to do so to this day. No market choice really exists because a large majority of software is only compatible with the Microsoft operating system. Sine its highly unlikely we will see a mandatory move towards a open standard, I can at least state the obvious that measures should be placed to lower Microsoft's stranglehold of the market, shifting it into more open standards. If anything consumers should be able to transfer their unused licenses to a 3rd party, so they did not purchase a license for nothing, then it would be a least a little more of a consumer friendly practice.

When I buy a tv, am I not allowed to sell the extra cables that came with the unit that I am currently not using. What about when I buy a sofa that comes with a crappy free tv, am I held to a contract saying I must keep the tv associated to the sofa at all time, no. This is essentially Microsofts business practice. In fact they take it a step further making it so 90% of people need to use that tv with their sofa, because other sofa's are not compatible.

Well, you would think after all these years, someone (anyone) would introduce a gui-based operating system that is robust enough to truly compete with MS. Have there been? I don't recall. Well, there's OSX. But Mac users represent a tiny niche in comparison. Definitely not knocking mac-heads here. I absolutely love mine (the new mac pro desktops are fantastic). Anyways... Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony and other heavy hitters are simply going to shake hands with those that have a well known, household brand. And as long as mom and dad order a new Dell for the living room, it's more than likely going to ship with Windows.. for years to come. The real question is: where's the true competition? Is it really out there? Some folks claim Linux is next to God. It's open source. Wouldn't that automatically make it extreemly unsecure?

Of course not because they have a monopoly of the market, no one has market choice because of it. Not even system builders have any leverage against Microsoft to get them to change their practices.

Why would system builders want leverage? What would they want to push other than a different flavor of Windows?

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 04:08 PM

Well, you would think after all these years, someone (anyone) would introduce a gui-based operating system that is robust enough to truly compete with MS. Have there been? I don't recall. Well, there's OSX. But Mac users represent a tiny niche in comparison. Definitely not knocking mac-heads here. I absolutely love mine (the new mac pro desktops are fantastic). Anyways... Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony and other heavy hitters are simply going to shake hands with those that have a well known, household brand. And as long as mom and dad order a new Dell for the living room, it's more than likely going to ship with Windows.. for years to come. The real question is: where's the true competition? Is it really out there? Some folks claim Linux is next to God. It's open source. Wouldn't that automatically make it extreemly unsecure?

The problem is not the operating system, its the lack of cross compatibility. Linux is only starting to manage decent compatibility with Microsoft proprietary platform, which I'm sure once they do Microsoft will change the standards, or sue them for copyright infringement. Microsoft actively goes against standards in order to keep their monopoly and that is a huge issue that politicians should rectify. The fact is no one wants to run Linux because it won't run the software they want. In fact Linux is highly secure because anyone can patch the holes, and many corporations contribute to such patches since they have some machines and servers running Linux. The only other issues with Linux is that it often suffers from having too many developers, creating a overly modular GUI, as well as a it lacks of good graphics drivers, but that is due to a lack of market share.

If Microsoft did not have a monopoly system builders could try and talk down the price they pay for the operating system, demand a more stable system before implementing it, and possibly request features. But under the current market, builders have no leverage, what are they going to threaten, going to Linux. Its not going to happen, and its thanks to the business practices I mentioned above.

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 04:44 PM

In fact Linux is highly secure because anyone can patch the holes, and many corporations contribute to such patches since they have some machines and servers running Linux.

You scare me sometimes, MR.

Anyways, my question still stands. Where is the competition? Is it remotely possibly that the reason MS and PC hardware manufacturers are successful, is because there simply is a lack of competition? Is microsoft writing code to appease nVidia? Or is nVidia basing their architecture to work exclusively with MS code? Is ATI or Creative Labs legally bound to manufacture hardware solely for MS and any deviation would be considered an illegal breach of contract? Who's got who by the balls here? This is what I want to know. As for software developers... what other chance at earning revenue do they have other than writing code for Apple or MS? Is it simply end-user popularity? Does MS truly have the secret sauce? Or are we just made to believe that?

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 05:20 PM

You scare me sometimes, MR.

What its true, Red Hat is an IBM product, mainly developed for servers. It's used for big enterprises and needs to be secure as its protecting tons of information. When patches are made for red hat, those changes trickle down to other distro's through whatever avenue's are present. Fedora would be the desktop variant of Red Hat, meaning Fedora is patched by IBM. So you essentially have a multi-billion dollar company supporting the product, as well as hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur programmers. Firefox is a clear example of how an open platform can be more secure than a closed platform.

Its also well known that Microsoft has been making much of their code avaiable to Universities, and some components are actually Opensource. If having code open to the public was a problem, than Microsoft would be in the same boat as Linux. In fact the ability to have code revealed and the program still be secure means the system is well designed. Opensource is only a hinderance on security if the system is poorly designed.

Anyways, my question still stands. Where is the competition? Is it remotely possibly that the reason MS and PC hardware manufacturers are successful, is because there simply is a lack of competition? Is microsoft writing code to appease nVidia? Or is nVidia basing their architecture to work exclusively with MS code? Is ATI or Creative Labs legally bound to manufacture hardware solely for MS and any deviation would be considered an illegal breach of contract? Who's got who by the balls here? This is what I want to know. As for software developers... what other chance at earning revenue do they have other than writing code for Apple or MS? Is it simply end-user popularity? Does MS truly have the secret sauce? Or are we just made to believe that?

Alot of hardware manufacturers release some or all of their driver code to the Opensource community for them to code drivers that are compatible with their hardware. So I don't think hardware makers care who is in the lead, peole will still upgrade their systems to increase performance. The only real gain they have in a Microsoft monopoly is the fact they only have to code one set of drivers. Although I imagine porting a driver can't be that resource intensive.

The best way I can break it down for you is how many people would be willing to pay for a Microsoft operating system if Linux was compatible with Windows software? Can Microsofts product legitimately compete with free? The only real reason I can see for their market power is the fact they have a monopoly caused by a proprietary system.

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 05:39 PM

The best way I can break it down for you is how many people would be willing to pay for a Microsoft operating system if Linux was compatible with Windows software? Can Microsofts product legitimately compete with free? The only real reason I can see for their market power is the fact they have a monopoly caused by a proprietary system.

How many? I suppose it would depend upon the number of Linux users out there, not to mention MS supporters willing to ditch in a sense, their way of life. Would Linux look and perform identically to Windows? Does it now? Would you consider it intuative enough to attract the novice computer user?

So you essentially have a multi-billion dollar company supporting the product, as well as hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur programmers.

With so many cooks in the kitchen, don't you think the risk of compromised end-user systems on a global scale would be relatively high? To me, it's like a open-door platform fit for the Star Trek generation, where everyone pitches in "for the greater good" without malice or ill will. Is it just me?

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 06:19 PM

How many? I suppose it would depend upon the number of Linux users out there, not to mention MS supporters willing to ditch in a sense, their way of life. Would Linux look and perform identically to Windows? Does it now? Would you consider it intuative enough to attract the novice computer user?

Hard to say at this point. Linux has some very user friendly variants, but you still run the risk of people complaining they can't figure out how to do things they did on Windows. Personally I think better standards need to be implemented in order to make Linux more user friendly. It would help to maybe have a standard layout that all distributions support as default, and offer alternatives to those who want to use them. Either way its not far off from being a very user friendly distro. The biggest hurdle is peoples familiarity with Windows.

With so many cooks in the kitchen, don't you think the risk of compromised end-user systems on a global scale would be relatively high? To me, it's like a open-door platform fit for the Star Trek generation, where everyone pitches in "for the greater good" without malice or ill will. Is it just me?

Well it does not function like Wikipedia if that is what you are thinking. You have a core group of paid or trusted programmers that review the content that will be implemented into the distro. So their is oversight in the distro, I guess the fear would be can you trust these core programmers? From my standpoint since anyone can take the code and review the changes I find it safer than what you get with Microsoft. With opensource there is a 3rd party scrutiny of the code and its security.

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 06:46 PM

Well it does not function like Wikipedia if that is what you are thinking. You have a core group of paid or trusted programmers that review the content that will be implemented into the distro. So their is oversight in the distro, I guess the fear would be can you trust these core programmers? From my standpoint since anyone can take the code and review the changes I find it safer than what you get with Microsoft. With opensource there is a 3rd party scrutiny of the code and its security.

You do make some interesting points, but we will definitely have to agree to disagree on this one. I just can't help but think if an open source operating system were to become a true threat to MS shareholders, the spark of victory would be short-lived. Regardless of reviews by core programmers, the fact that anyone having access to critical code is spooky in today's society. I would think the potential for security exploits and the need for plugging them up would exceed anything MS has had to deal with.

Signa

February 18th, 2009, 06:52 PM

wapazoid

February 18th, 2009, 07:05 PM

Thanks for cleaning it up for me. Looks neater now.

mountain_rage

February 18th, 2009, 07:07 PM

wappa needs to learn how to multi-quote and not multi-post

I was going to point out that I did a pretty big double-take yesterday when I was at Costco. They were selling some sort of micro-laptop that had XP installed on it. It heavily amused me.

Those are Netbooks, they don't have enough ram to run Vista. In fact they were mostly Linux only machines when they first released. But I think at some point Microsoft tweaked XP for the platform, basically destroying the Linux machines. You can still buy Linux based machines for about $50 cheaper than the XP machines. Quite frankly this is an application where Linux makes a lot of sense, because Netbooks are generally a second computers for simple office tasks. Linux is perfect as a complementary machine.

You do make some interesting points, but we will definitely have to agree to disagree on this one. Totally agree, at first I just got the impression I was not expressing my point properly, but I guess its more a difference of opinion. Still think in the next 5 to 10 years there is a good chance of seeing some significant development in the Linux camp. The main projects that lead me to support this hypothesis is the development of Windows software compatibility, as well as pushes to improve GUI standardization and finally a recent movement to simplify system operations.

The Linux GUI is definitely nicer than windows, but it lacks consistency and usability. This is where Linux fails, its has too many options and needs to be standardized. But seriously, look how beautiful the interface is, its like Vista and Mac has sex and this was the offspring.
Compiz
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-E4Fbk52Mk1w/compiz_fusion_a_quick_demonstration/
Beryl
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2155353011707841108&ei=pducSfAIoYb8Aay3lLcG&q=beryl&hl=en

Windows compatibility project
http://www.winehq.org/about/