I'll try to not sound sanctimonious, but it's hard. I could say "because I have a conscience" or "because I don't believe resistance is futile," but then I'd sound like a jerk. So, I'll just say it's because "I don't care to vote for Redmond."
The truth is, Mr. Gates can do without my patronage. I think he'll manage to scrape by without me. And, I'll find a way to scrape by without him, which is far more relevant to this article.
Some of the Empire's software is very good at making computing far easier than any of their competitors. This ease-of-use has not only created a far larger computer market for Redmond's own bottom line, but it has allowed many timid computerphobes to become friends with their PC. I'm grateful for the GUI on account of this (and to the early visionaries at PARC Labs).
What fries my grits, however, is when Bill of Borg insists on becoming the only game in town. When he dictates the direction of the market by his sheer size and weight rather than let our collective choice direct that market, I say something is amiss. I have nothing against a better mousetrap, but I reserve the right to choose it for myself. As I walk into nearly any consumer software store, I see very few operating system choices available. And as one who has been using PCs for a while now, I realize the market doesn't reflect the diversity of platforms available to computer users.
Ask any upper level student of computer science how many operating systems there are available for the PC, and you'll hear a dizzying list of names: Hurd, minix, lynx, FreeBSD, OS/2, OS/9, Linux, Taos, numerous flavors of Unix, and the list could go on and on. Most of these take more familiarity with systems and hardware than Windows 95 requires, but OS/2, for example, is far easier, in my humble opinion, and its performance is far superior. The major reason why Windows 95 occupies more shelf space in software stores than OS/2 appears to be marketing.
Many of the other operating systems mentioned are available either for free, or for a nominal charge for getting it on a CD-ROM. The catch is that you often don't get support from a telephone call. However, support for nearly any of these operating systems is abundant on the Internet. Also, San Diego is home to several universities where computer gurus abound. (How many other cities have their own Super Computer Center?) Suffice it to say, help is available.
Further, I've read some of the anti-competitive charges filed against Microsoft. After looking at some of the evidence, I feel those charges are probably based in fact, not fantasy. When Mr. Gates competes, he competes very hard. Winning for him is not just important, it's his religion, and he's a zealot. And that probably inspires a great many followers to tag along behind him. And they follow not because his products are necessarily of high quality, but rather because Mr. Gates seems like some sort of marketing god.
I suppose if Mr. Gates were Darth Vader and the Redmond Giant were the Empire, I'd have to become a rebel. Though I find some of the pretty interfaces and oh-so-easy tools as seductive as anyone else, I'm not willing to support Microsoft or Bill Gates' quest for control with my dollars.
Compatibility should not be dependent upon who can best dominate a marketplace. If competition were for product quality rather than for product image or "spin" I would perhaps say otherwise. But there are industry standards that are supposed to ensure compatibility. Following the biggest bully should not be necessary. We should be civilized and responsible enough to respect standards in computing. These standards promote cooperation over competition, and Redmond routinely flouts many of them. They persuade the market that they themselves are the standard. This is simply dangerous, since the market, the majority of new personal computer users, are possibly vulnerable to spin and are unaware of the subtle loss to the computing community in their transactions.
Fortunately, somewhere along the line, I largely stopped listening to the media. I have found and experimented with alternative operating systems that I actually believe to be far superior to Windows 95 or even Windows NT. So, as long as I don't have to use Microsoft products, and as long as the market allows me to select alternatives which don't hurt my conscience, why should I do Windows?
Copyright, David S. Jackson, 1997.