Jon writes:
It's not Microsoft's fault that your mother-in-law can't be bothered to learn enough about computers before trying to use one.
I couldn't identify in Theodoric's account the specific ignorance about computers on his m-i-l's part to which you refer.
Could you point it out?
I'm sure MS has no legal obligation--that's why corporate lawyers and fine print terms-of-service check boxes exist.
MS lumbers into the 21st century the same way GM lumbered into the latter half of the 20th: bloated, arrogant, kept afloat by enormous capital accrued through a near monopoly ruthlessly exploited.
Sure, MS doesn't have to support a free product--one they heavily promoted as reliable and gee whiz good, replete with security questions and restore methods reassuringly touted.
And GM didn't have to make cars anyone wanted to buy.
In the long run, the folks truly getting screwed by MS' cavalier attitude are the shareholders, because their reputation for supporting their commercial products is no better. The people who complain, like Theodoric's m-i-l, are doing them a favor...if they'd listen.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
™ Version 4.2
