And arguing that Bill Gates is evil won't make him so. No matter how much you rail against the man, no matter how much pouting you do, you won't convince me that he's a crook.
The regular crashes that WIN 9x suffers through is another matter entirely. Components are hard to set up on WIN 9x (even worse on UNIX; although I can't speak for LINUX, SCO peripheral setup is a pain in the ass). This has much to do with the competitive nature of the computer business, where companies regularly make their gear incompatible with rival firms (the crooked dealings of 3dfx come to mind; also, the cravings for lawsuits that Apple was famous for back in the day). What COMPAQ does with their machines isn't very nice, either (proprietary gear violates the pressure-gradient law, by both sucking and blowing simultaneously); one would have thought they'd have learned something from Packard-Bell. I wish that Commodore was still in business ...
Gates has used unfair business practices to dominate the market. Because they've artificially kept WIN 9x from competing honestly with its competitors, Microsoft is inevitably doomed to fall behind.
Amazing. Empirical evidence overcomes bad argument. I agree with your assessment of Microsoft, despite your arguments. Perhaps the statement in regards to the strengths and weaknesses in your knowledge bvears some merit.
(P.S. Y'know ... I thought of something. If Microsoft buys out the best developers of UNIX-based GUI interfaces, they might be able to crush their opposition and improve their own OS beyond the present level of complaints. Hmm ... Is that what the fates portend?)