You're just reinforcing their argument. By not using the competition, you're ensuring the market for those products on the competition's OS doesn't exist. It's actively strengthening Microsoft's hold on the markets you frequent.
OK. The primary application that I need Windows for is Quickbooks Enterprise. I also still use my Windows Photoshop license since it was expensive, and not transferrable to OS X. My primary operating system is already OS X, and I only use Debian Stable on servers. I run Windows in a VM when I need those application, and only when I need those applications. How would you suggest replacing Quickbooks Enterprise? Do I just stop keeping accounting records? What about the 13 years of records that are already in the accounting system? Should I throw those out? What about inventory and accountant's copies? Will you train my customer's accounting firm to use some other package? What about the inventory database?
Microsoft has 90% desktop market share. Software developers won't support other operating systems until they have more market share, and people won't switch to other OS'es until there's more software.
If the software you need only runs on Windows then you should pay for Windows. Those that can move to Mac, Linux, etc and get away with using Wine or other alternatives should. The markets for alternative OS'es will grow then more people will be able to move.
Sounds like you are stuck on the Windows environment. You should stay and pay for Windows. There's nothing wrong with that.
You've got a point. That why Microsoft turns a blind eye on piracy in developing countries. Piracy is the only way they can get os market share they want. That's the reason why their copyright technical protections are so lousy.
I always use the competition to the extent that it's available. My main point is that sometimes, there simply are no good non-Windows substitutes.
Secondly, I'm pointing out that a lot of people have spent money on licenses for Windows software that has a Mac/*nix equivalent. (I haven't personally, but this applies to a lot of people.) If you have hundreds or thousands of dollars invested in those licenses, switching away might not be financially viable.
If either of these situations applies to you, I sympathize with your complaints about Windows and its licensing system.
His point is that there are no good non-Windows substitutes precisely because the non-Windows market for that software is too small and that by using the Windows version you are removing yourself from the already-too-small market that you should have been part of, which continues the cycle. Your points are definitely valid, but they only reinforce the argument that pirating Windows only harms the competition. Put another way, if you were completely unwilling to either pay for or pirate Windows, the market for the hypothetical non-Windows substitute for a program you need would is guaranteed to be one person larger than it currently is, whereas with the willingness to pirate Windows, that market may be one person smaller.
Correct. I use OS X 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time, I'm running Windows-only software. I'd much rather be able to run that stuff on my Mac.
