Ahhh i see. Thanks

I do not see Microsoft at fault here, and more to the point I do not see the argument that justifies the need for having multiple operating systems. The more systems there are the less fluent users will be, and the more technical problems will arise. The blanket statement that competition is good is not always the truth. Some markets need a standard barer, and you need not look any further then for example the railroad industry.

The industry functions, because a few large companies established standards such as gauge. Thanks to that trains could be made to a uniform design. Trains could transit large distances. Plus the standardization allowed for real price reductions and efficiency. So there are advantages. The problem for these companies isn't just that they are smaller or less well known. The problem is that they haven't developed a vastly superior or different product.

Make a very intuitive operating system, and the world will beat a path to your door.

When XP expires for you, either because MS drops support or you can't physically buy it, I'm saying Linux requires less retraining and has lower costs than upgrading to Vista or later. Is that not important?

I'm just going to let Soleron field this, he's a lot more knowledgeable about this particular subject than I am.

I see your point, but what you're really calling for is interoperability - that programs can be portable between OSs. This is possible without using one OS. MS has consistently been against portability by making its APIs (e.g. DirectX, .NET) closed and tied to MS platforms. It's very easy to port Linux apps to Windows - just recompile with one button press. The reverse takes years due to MS's tactics.

Also, interface consistency is achieveable withoout using one system via the use of standards. Linux is fragmented... but most apps look the same and are usable in the same way consistently due to adherence to voluntary standards. You'd think MS would be at an advantage here since the platform is under the control of one company - but even MS's own apps have contradictory behaviours. Buttons and functions look and behave differently between Office, IE, Windows Media Player, Movie Maker, Outlook, the Taskbar, the Control Panel... it's a usability mess. This is why OpenOffice is an easier upgrade than Office 2003 -> 2007 - it sticks close to what people know.

Also, running everything on one closed system puts you at the mercy of that company. Why is it a single virus or trojan can take over millions of computers at once and take months to recover? Why was the Y2K bug so big and cause billions of dollars of spending to fix it? It's because we ALL run MS. The day that the Big One of vulnerabilities is discovered then 95% of the world's PCs will go down.

Did your people have problems with the new interface? I'm genuinely interested.

- If MS increase the price by say $100 per system with Windows 7, would you just absorb that?
- Do people have problems using documents on their home PCs? Few people have upgraded to Office 07.
- Do you have problems with apps supporting Vista? Have you had to pay money for upgrades or replacements that do work?

"tax breaks"

So the government is subsidising MS indirectly. The reason you can afford to keep buying MS stuff is because of the government making everyone else pay for it via taxes?

OK. I concede it works for you.

But, on a national level? Our government is spending hundreds of millions on MS IT. The government is big enough such that a wholesale switch wouldn't have compatibility problems (since they can pay devs to port stuff), but it would save all of that money that could then be ued for other things. It would mean they would have lower hardware requirements, be immune to viruses so they could spend less on security, and release documents in formats everyone can open (not just MS Office users). Should they look into alternatives?

Linux isn't free though, its not like these companies were complaining because they didn't have the opportunity to give away something at absolutely no charge with no return to themselves.

It is free if you support it yourself. And governments have a large enough IT staff to be able to do it.

If you want professional support for Linux then you pay Red Hat probably about a tenth of what MS charges for XP and then you get more support than MS gives for that license. But it's entirely optional.

But you couldn't exactly call it a straight up waste of money because they would have to have some personal gain for them to go ahead and sue the government. Also if Linux doesn't support one of the programs they want to run or requires training costs which are greater than the cost of the Windows Licences then they would be better off with Microsoft. Its quite likely that the cost per machine is $25 per year or so, which is probably not even going to pay for even one hour of training in Linux.