Viruses on an MS o/s is a pathetic example and discussed many times only to
meet the same conclusion.
Why would a virus writer bother with an o/s with a poor turnout? Popularity
is not an indicator of bad quality as your points indicate (see attached
below).

Yes MS are immoral *******s but not because they are popular or good
marketers.

----------------
"Jack Stein" wrote in message ...
Microsoft has survived so far, and at the consumers expense, clearly
demonstrating why monopolies and corrupt government is bad, directly
opposite of HeyBubs contemplations.

Of course while government could have fixed this when the DOJ filed suit
for anti-trust in 1994, and found Microsoft guilty of horrendous
violation of the Federal Anti-trust laws, The DOJ APPEALED it's VICTORY
and the judge was removed from the case. This had to have cost
Microsoft a TON of money. It's not everyday the VICTOR in a lawsuit
appeals a ruling in it's favor.

The Judge said that the violations were so ****ing bad he sent the the
consent decree back as insufficient based on the degree of violations.
In other words the judge, after reviewing the case decided that the
redress sought by the DOJ was not nearly enough based on the severity of
the violations.

The result of this corrupt bull**** is the world is stuck with the
worlds worst operating system, whilst the dumb ass users think they are
getting one virus after another, the truth is its the operating system.

Capitalism only works well when competition thrives, and Microsoft is a
prime example of what happens when a corrupt, inept government allows
competition to wither on the vine.