But what really puzzles me is why people and businesses put up with the crap dished out by Redmond when other alternatives are either already available or within reach of being quickly developed. Just imagine the loss of productivity brought by the need to retrain millions of workers to use the new shit crapped out by Redmond aka Office 2007. Form a purely business perspective it makes no sense, since the functionality offered by 2007 is nearly the same as that of 2003 for most business uses, but the menus have been so completely rearranged, that previously learned skills are almost entirely obsolete.
Jordan mentioned support - but in my experience it is a total canard. In my entire life time I have not received a single bit of useful support information from Redmond, all they could say was that my file was probably "corrupted" and I had to start my work anew. Their "support" would be totally laughable if it were not so frustrating. For every single problem I had with their buggy software I either found the solution myself (e.g. by Googling it) or from more knowledgeable friends and co-workers.
So, really, what makes otherwise cost-conscious people and businesses, especially outside the US, fork over good money to Redmond for their overpriced and poorly debugged crap?
Wojtek
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Bhaskar Sunkara <bhaskar.sunkara at gmail.com>wrote:
> Or you can just be good anti-capitalist and pirate Windows like everyone
> else.
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I will stay with Google, and next time I buy a computer I
> > will go for a Linux or a Mac.
> >
> > Wojtek
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>