If Macs were preinstalled with another word processor, do you think most Mac users would still go out and buy a copy of Office? I don't. In which case, if MS didn't have Windows, it would take one small move on Apple's part to completely wipe them out of the PC software market.
"To answer your question, the reason I care about what version of Office I run is for security. It seems like every release has some glaring security hole they won't patch that can be exploited through a browser, etc."
Then why do you keep buying new versions of Office, if you know it has a security problem? It sounds to me like you're someone who feels they need Office for some reason or another - probably for business. Business users tend to take fewer risks because their paycheck depends on it. Home users, however, are probably much more likely to not buy Office if it means saving $100 or so - or even switching to an entirely new office suite, such as OpenOffice.org or something. Then once they're comfortable with it and know it works well, they might try it on their business machines.
"Its the same reason you might upgrade a linux box to a new kernel release or the latest firefox version."
It's different in that with the Linux kernel and Firefox, you don't have to pay money. Most people would probably prefer not to pay the $120 or whatever. That's part of what I like about Linux - I have a word processor, an OS, a browser, games, and everything Windows has without paying the $100.
I see your point, but I still like TuxGuitar - it lets me not only listen to the music and play along, but also look at the guitar tabs at the same time. It's handy for beginners.
Then you explain to them that VHS and DVDs are different formats - it's impossible to play DVDs in VHS players. There's no money-making scheme, just that it's physically impossible to play a DVD on a VHS player. But it's technically possible for any recent PC with a soundcard, or for any MP3 player, to play MP3s - the only thing stopping you from playing it is the fact that the copyright owner doesn't want you to.
With DRM the company you "bought" it from has a say in what you can and can't do with it. If they have a deal with Microsoft, you can't listen to your music on a PC with MacOS or Linux (or anything else, for that matter) unless you download a hack, and you also won't be able to listen to it on your iPod or any other device that doesn't use MS software or hardware.
That means that if you buy a CD with MS' DRM, you won't be able to listen on it on:
- many CD players, including those built into stereos (car and home)
- most DVD players with CD playing capabilities
- your iPod, or any or a wide range of other MP3 players, again including those built into expensive stereos (both car and home)
- your Mac or Linux PC
- your PS/PS2/PS3/PSP / GameCube/Wii / any other non-Xbox game system - regardless of whether or not it has multimedia capabilities.
Note that all of these devices you paid good money for. You also paid good money for the music; however, the music requires you to buy new devices. Why? Simply because the maker of the device didn't pay for the music company's DRM. Maybe they couldn't afford it, maybe it only supported certain media codecs, but most likely because that form of DRM wasn't invented yet - meaning that any device made before the DRM is 100% incompatible with any media that uses that form of DRM.
But perhaps the biggest problem with DRM is that it solves nothing. Pirates can still hack the DRM and sell cheap copies, or make them available online -- and any true pirate not only knows how, but is completely comfortable with doing this. It's no sweat off the pirate's back - they can simply download a tool off the Internet (or program their own) to get rid of the DRM. It doesn't matter how tough the DRM is, the pirates will find a way around it - it's their job.
So in short, DRM is a way for media companies to force you to pay more and buy only from them and their partners.
Yes, Microsoft has Office for OSX but I'd be willing to bet that most Mac users stick with whatever is preinstalled. Not everyone likes Office. If they made a Linux version of Office, I would never buy it.
The majority of Office users use Windows. If we got rid of Windows then MS would be screwed because the only other Office version they have is for Mac, and I'm pretty sure there are absolutely NO Macs with Office preinstalled. And for most people, if they saw the pricetag of a new copy of Office, they would probably consider using an alternative rather than buying Office.
"Why buy vista? Perhaps so you can run office 2007? No other app has been announced for it that we must have yet. Just think about that."
Wow, you've gotta be the only person I know who wants to buy Vista to run Office 2007.
Let me ask you this. . . why do you care what version of Office you run if all you use it for is word processing and Excel? That's all most people use it for.
Most people won't buy Office 2007 or Vista until they absolutely have to.
Microsoft will be around until Windows and Office are unseated. With Linux and OpenOffice.org (not to mention many other non-MS alternatives) I can see where this *could* happen very soon.
Not to mention that Google also has many different business ventures, and Apple also has a couple of their own.
Maybe you could try using a PC with a video capture device - you know, hook the camera to a TV tuner or something and record it that way. Then you could burn the video files to DVD, upload them to a server, put them on a backup drive, etc. It's also possible to record from the computer to the tape if you want a tape backup.
"your argument that the economy would suffer is meaningless"
I never said it would suffer. I said that in order to completely stop using oil, it would need to shut down.
There is almost no way to completely stop using oil.
"Why was the President of the United States allowed to ruin the American economy over the thirst for foreign oil when all of that lost (and growing) war money could have been used to remove oil dependence through major research initiative, both in new forms of energy production as well as in cost effective delivery systems for upcoming technolgies?"
You underestimate our President. He might not be a genius, but he knows the difference between oil and terrorism. No matter what you believe about him, there's no logical way for him to reason that "hey, we're fighting a War on Terrorism, let's go get some oil!" Maybe he really did think they had WOMDs (John Kerry did too, FYI, and strongly supported the invasion of Iraq -- right up until he started campaigning). Maybe what the Democrats think is true, that he used the war as a cover-up to get some oil from Iraq. Either way, he didn't just say "let's go get some oil!"
And now I turn the question to you - why did you let him ruin the American economy with his thirst for oil? I did because I think no matter what his motive, what we did is a good thing - we set an entire nation of people free. And I don't care if Saddam didn't have WOMDs, he definitely had the money to afford them and the anti-Americanism to fund terrorists.
No one would've voted for Bush if he was a total dumbass. He's not very smart, you're right, but at least he's humble enough to realize that and smart enough to hire people smarter than him.
"There are many other avenues to ensuring that the next Stephen Hawking (by golly the next 1000 Stephen Hawkings!!) will live. A massive portion of the world's population still lives in poverty and is famished. Providing them with basic food and clean water will do much more to ensure survival of those future geniuses than stopping animal testing."
Yes it will. But what good is a blind deaf genius if he can't communicate his brilliant ideas to you, and he can't be taught? Yes, some people have found ways to communicate with blind and deaf people, but that only matters if the blind deaf genius finds somebody who can do this. IIRC in Helen Keller's instance, her parents hired someone to do this. This isn't possible for everyone in all parts of the world. Not that we can't make it happen, but it's unlikely that we'll be able to help everyone.
If we could do some animal testing to figure out how to fix their blindness and deafness, these people wouldn't need to be hired, and people who do this could focus on those who can't afford the procedure.
Also, there's a big problem with any program that wants to make things better in that they need money. Animal testing that could benefit the blind everywhere, rich, poor, black, white, will be more likely to get funding than a program that targets poverty in Africa. Both are helpful, but most people aren't perfect and are self-centered, to a degree. For example, many people run Folding@Home because they want a cure for Alzheimer's in case they ever get it themselves (understandable). Or, when's the last time you've seen that commercial with the poor kids in South America or wherever and ran for the phone? Many people make excuses instead - it's a fraud, the organization keeps most of the money, they've got bills to pay, etc. Not necessarily because they don't care, but because they don't understand - they don't know anyone in this position and don't really understand how bad it is down there.
But they undoubtedly know people with poor eyesight and/or hearing, and certainly realize that with time they may be in a similar position.
Another thing to keep in mind is that not all environmentalists take all things into consideration. They get caught up in what they think is a hug
Might I remind you, this animal is dead. It can't feel pain, it won't cry, it won't feel bad.
If you eat the brain some people might think that's gross or whatever, if you eat the meat they'll see nothing wrong. That's the only difference - you still killed it to eat it, no matter what part you're gonna eat.
Yeah, if you just want to eat everything that's bad. But if you're killing something because you're hungry, that's perfectly fine.
This guy isn't just testing on the monkey just because he can, he's doing it to gain some knowledge that could potentially be used later to cure blindness, enhance the sense of sight, maybe figure out why some people/animals are born blind.
"Who cares about the historical use of oil to get around. We know that pollution from oil kills the elderly, and lots of other very very bad things. I don't need to prove a point about history.. I assume that's already known to you."
Think about this:
We're going to need to use oil until we find a way to do without it. In fact, we're probably going to need to use it simply to discover a way around it - be it through powering the communication devices and tools, through the technology required to support the scientists working on the solution, or even through transporting the scientists working on a solution.
Should we shut down our entire economy -- the car companies, the electric companies. . . until all of them find a way to not use oil (or get the oil to not pollute)? Remember that if we do, we won't be able to produce the equipment required to discover a way to do this.
Likewise, by not using animals in research, we could be "closing the door" on the next Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein simply because he couldn't see and we didn't do some tests on a monkey without thinking about how much good a person of this sort of ingenuity could bring to the world if he only had a pair of working eyes.
"If you're walking down the street and see someone beating a cat or dog would you not stop them?"
That's entirely different.
What, would you prefer that this testing be done on humans?
Maybe we should start using animal-rights activists as test subjects - then we'll see how "immoral" animal testing is! (j/k)
Seriously, though. . .
do YOU want to be testing the shampoo that was accidentally made with a pH that's too high/low, or the cancer medicine that gives you another disease?
Worse yet, how would you like to buy such products simply because no one volunteered to test it, and because animal testing is "immoral"?
That's why labs started doing animal-testing in the first place - because it's better to use animals than humans.
Bittorrent's blocked at school, but even at home I don't use 160GB of space for it!
Wow. . . what are you downloading? A DVD takes ~4.5GB of space, so thats about 35 full DVD's. . .
Not to mention you can always transfer the files to somewhere else.
What's with the Slashdot mods always adding "such-and-such is also owned by OSTG"? Does that add anything to the article/summary? Does someone actually care who it's owned by?
Thanks for modding me -1 Troll! It makes perfect sense, especially since I was simply mocking a phrase in the movie (Jackson says "All props to the PlayStation!" after Kenan lands the plane, with his only flight experience being a PlayStation flight simulator).
"I'd like to thank the motherf***ing Academy for this got-damn award. I'd also like to thank my motherf***ing wife, my motherf***ing agent, and the motherf***ing director."
"Say 'motherf***' again! Say 'motherf***' again! I dare you! I double dare you, motherf***er! Say 'motherf***' one more God-d***ed time!"
Because all scientists are chemists and study medicine? I think not. I doubt that these scientists would be working on this if they were chemists.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a physics major working on something related to his major than trying to find a cure for cancer when he probably knows very little about chemistry or the human body.
I liked it too - it's so stupid it's funny, it had some good one-liners, and it's also got some good action.
I mean, it's not everyday you see a snake get tazered to death by Sam Jackson!
I seriously doubt anyone went to this movie expecting an Academy Award performance - everyone I know who saw it, just wanted to see how corny it was (myself included) and was thoroughly satisfied with the corniness.
Thanks for typing all that for nothing. I already knew all that. Yes, if you really want to do some hardcore stuff it's better to build your own servers and routers. Not everyone needs to do that, though.
"I don't see this router as a useful fileserver except for those with very minimalistic needs."
I've got 160GB storage on my laptop (currently all I've got with me here at school). It suits me just fine.
"Also, I doubt this router has very good performance at all (in MB/sec) when compared to any old PC (no idea if it even has GBit Ethernet)."
Wireless routers generally don't have Gigabit Ethernet - and I doubt you'll get very good download speeds with ANY server on ANY wireless network, at least in comparison to Gigabit Ethernet.
This router might not suit your needs very well, but for others it may be just perfect.
Yes, you can make your own server from an old PC, but you'd still need to buy an access point and/or a switch - and if you're going to need a file/print/FTP/HTTP server, why not get one of these routers if it suits your needs? It would save you time, money, and energy, compared to purchasing and setting up separate machines (or even compared to setting up a single machine to perform all of these functions).
As for why you would need BitTorrent on the router. . . well, the router usually stays running anyways so you can turn your PC off and save some power.
I like "DIY" too sometimes, but when it comes to the router that I need for Internet access, I'd rather have a company to call for support if something goes wrong. I would probably never buy one of these routers, but if I needed all those functions I might.
The beauty of this ROUTER is that you don't need to leave a PC on for your downloads anymore. Or, at least you can leave your PC's cycles to do something else, be it gaming, Folding@Home, or whatever else.
Not only that, but now you don't need to run your fileserver AND your Web server, since it's got a built-in fileserver and Web server. It also has a print server if you've got PCs dedicated for that.
Google stole nothing. Googol is a number, anyone can use it. So is 711 - what, should we sue them? Ritz is a real last name, as well as a camera service store chain and a rock club - should we sue Nabisco? Should we go after Porsche, too, since 911 is a nationwide emergency telephone number?
Whether they care or not, they at least know the brand. People who have had bad luck with Apple products are probably less likely to buy an iPod, and people who have had bad luck with MS products are less likely to buy a Zune or an Xbox.
You're right - most people complain about the brand of PC, not about Windows. But only until they encounter other people with different branded PCs having the same problems. Or sometimes the person just bought a crappy PC or crappy parts (which happens more often than you'd like to think). The people who do this, though, aren't the ones who pay good money for a high-end machine and know that their PC is made of high-quality parts. And then they talk to someone who knows something about PCs and that person will tell them what's wrong (or at least what could be wrong), and they'll find out from that person whether the PC is crap, the new mouse sucks, or it's just Windows.
Techies aren't born techies. I have known since I was young that Windows is crap - not because I was some computer genius with loads of experience, but because I knew people who were. And people tend to figure things out. Put one-and-one together - if this mouse doesn't function properly, and the previous one didn't either, maybe it's not the mouse that's causing the problem.
And most people do know that it's made by MS - either because originally they marketed it as Microsoft Xbox and said Microsoft prominently in the commercials, or because it says Microsoft every time it gets turned on. Whether they care or not is a whole different thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"To answer your question, the reason I care about what version of Office I run is for security. It seems like every release has some glaring security hole they won't patch that can be exploited through a browser, etc."
Then why do you keep buying new versions of Office, if you know it has a security problem? It sounds to me like you're someone who feels they need Office for some reason or another - probably for business. Business users tend to take fewer risks because their paycheck depends on it. Home users, however, are probably much more likely to not buy Office if it means saving $100 or so - or even switching to an entirely new office suite, such as OpenOffice.org or something. Then once they're comfortable with it and know it works well, they might try it on their business machines.
"Its the same reason you might upgrade a linux box to a new kernel release or the latest firefox version."
It's different in that with the Linux kernel and Firefox, you don't have to pay money. Most people would probably prefer not to pay the $120 or whatever. That's part of what I like about Linux - I have a word processor, an OS, a browser, games, and everything Windows has without paying the $100.
I see your point, but I still like TuxGuitar - it lets me not only listen to the music and play along, but also look at the guitar tabs at the same time. It's handy for beginners.
Then you explain to them that VHS and DVDs are different formats - it's impossible to play DVDs in VHS players. There's no money-making scheme, just that it's physically impossible to play a DVD on a VHS player. But it's technically possible for any recent PC with a soundcard, or for any MP3 player, to play MP3s - the only thing stopping you from playing it is the fact that the copyright owner doesn't want you to.
It looks like you're trying to boot Windows!
That means that if you buy a CD with MS' DRM, you won't be able to listen on it on: - many CD players, including those built into stereos (car and home) - most DVD players with CD playing capabilities - your iPod, or any or a wide range of other MP3 players, again including those built into expensive stereos (both car and home) - your Mac or Linux PC - your PS/PS2/PS3/PSP / GameCube/Wii / any other non-Xbox game system - regardless of whether or not it has multimedia capabilities.
Note that all of these devices you paid good money for. You also paid good money for the music; however, the music requires you to buy new devices. Why? Simply because the maker of the device didn't pay for the music company's DRM. Maybe they couldn't afford it, maybe it only supported certain media codecs, but most likely because that form of DRM wasn't invented yet - meaning that any device made before the DRM is 100% incompatible with any media that uses that form of DRM.
But perhaps the biggest problem with DRM is that it solves nothing. Pirates can still hack the DRM and sell cheap copies, or make them available online -- and any true pirate not only knows how, but is completely comfortable with doing this. It's no sweat off the pirate's back - they can simply download a tool off the Internet (or program their own) to get rid of the DRM. It doesn't matter how tough the DRM is, the pirates will find a way around it - it's their job.
So in short, DRM is a way for media companies to force you to pay more and buy only from them and their partners.
The majority of Office users use Windows. If we got rid of Windows then MS would be screwed because the only other Office version they have is for Mac, and I'm pretty sure there are absolutely NO Macs with Office preinstalled. And for most people, if they saw the pricetag of a new copy of Office, they would probably consider using an alternative rather than buying Office.
"Why buy vista? Perhaps so you can run office 2007? No other app has been announced for it that we must have yet. Just think about that."
Wow, you've gotta be the only person I know who wants to buy Vista to run Office 2007.
Let me ask you this. . . why do you care what version of Office you run if all you use it for is word processing and Excel? That's all most people use it for.
Most people won't buy Office 2007 or Vista until they absolutely have to.
Microsoft will be around until Windows and Office are unseated. With Linux and OpenOffice.org (not to mention many other non-MS alternatives) I can see where this *could* happen very soon.
Not to mention that Google also has many different business ventures, and Apple also has a couple of their own.
Maybe you could try using a PC with a video capture device - you know, hook the camera to a TV tuner or something and record it that way. Then you could burn the video files to DVD, upload them to a server, put them on a backup drive, etc. It's also possible to record from the computer to the tape if you want a tape backup.
I never said it would suffer. I said that in order to completely stop using oil, it would need to shut down.
There is almost no way to completely stop using oil.
"Why was the President of the United States allowed to ruin the American economy over the thirst for foreign oil when all of that lost (and growing) war money could have been used to remove oil dependence through major research initiative, both in new forms of energy production as well as in cost effective delivery systems for upcoming technolgies?"
You underestimate our President. He might not be a genius, but he knows the difference between oil and terrorism. No matter what you believe about him, there's no logical way for him to reason that "hey, we're fighting a War on Terrorism, let's go get some oil!" Maybe he really did think they had WOMDs (John Kerry did too, FYI, and strongly supported the invasion of Iraq -- right up until he started campaigning). Maybe what the Democrats think is true, that he used the war as a cover-up to get some oil from Iraq. Either way, he didn't just say "let's go get some oil!"
And now I turn the question to you - why did you let him ruin the American economy with his thirst for oil? I did because I think no matter what his motive, what we did is a good thing - we set an entire nation of people free. And I don't care if Saddam didn't have WOMDs, he definitely had the money to afford them and the anti-Americanism to fund terrorists.
No one would've voted for Bush if he was a total dumbass. He's not very smart, you're right, but at least he's humble enough to realize that and smart enough to hire people smarter than him.
"There are many other avenues to ensuring that the next Stephen Hawking (by golly the next 1000 Stephen Hawkings!!) will live. A massive portion of the world's population still lives in poverty and is famished. Providing them with basic food and clean water will do much more to ensure survival of those future geniuses than stopping animal testing."
Yes it will. But what good is a blind deaf genius if he can't communicate his brilliant ideas to you, and he can't be taught? Yes, some people have found ways to communicate with blind and deaf people, but that only matters if the blind deaf genius finds somebody who can do this. IIRC in Helen Keller's instance, her parents hired someone to do this. This isn't possible for everyone in all parts of the world. Not that we can't make it happen, but it's unlikely that we'll be able to help everyone.
If we could do some animal testing to figure out how to fix their blindness and deafness, these people wouldn't need to be hired, and people who do this could focus on those who can't afford the procedure.
Also, there's a big problem with any program that wants to make things better in that they need money. Animal testing that could benefit the blind everywhere, rich, poor, black, white, will be more likely to get funding than a program that targets poverty in Africa. Both are helpful, but most people aren't perfect and are self-centered, to a degree. For example, many people run Folding@Home because they want a cure for Alzheimer's in case they ever get it themselves (understandable). Or, when's the last time you've seen that commercial with the poor kids in South America or wherever and ran for the phone? Many people make excuses instead - it's a fraud, the organization keeps most of the money, they've got bills to pay, etc. Not necessarily because they don't care, but because they don't understand - they don't know anyone in this position and don't really understand how bad it is down there.
But they undoubtedly know people with poor eyesight and/or hearing, and certainly realize that with time they may be in a similar position.
Another thing to keep in mind is that not all environmentalists take all things into consideration. They get caught up in what they think is a hug
Might I remind you, this animal is dead. It can't feel pain, it won't cry, it won't feel bad.
If you eat the brain some people might think that's gross or whatever, if you eat the meat they'll see nothing wrong. That's the only difference - you still killed it to eat it, no matter what part you're gonna eat.
Yeah, if you just want to eat everything that's bad. But if you're killing something because you're hungry, that's perfectly fine.
This guy isn't just testing on the monkey just because he can, he's doing it to gain some knowledge that could potentially be used later to cure blindness, enhance the sense of sight, maybe figure out why some people/animals are born blind.
Think about this:
We're going to need to use oil until we find a way to do without it. In fact, we're probably going to need to use it simply to discover a way around it - be it through powering the communication devices and tools, through the technology required to support the scientists working on the solution, or even through transporting the scientists working on a solution.
Should we shut down our entire economy -- the car companies, the electric companies. . . until all of them find a way to not use oil (or get the oil to not pollute)? Remember that if we do, we won't be able to produce the equipment required to discover a way to do this.
Likewise, by not using animals in research, we could be "closing the door" on the next Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein simply because he couldn't see and we didn't do some tests on a monkey without thinking about how much good a person of this sort of ingenuity could bring to the world if he only had a pair of working eyes.
That's entirely different.
What, would you prefer that this testing be done on humans?
Maybe we should start using animal-rights activists as test subjects - then we'll see how "immoral" animal testing is! (j/k)
Seriously, though. . .
do YOU want to be testing the shampoo that was accidentally made with a pH that's too high/low, or the cancer medicine that gives you another disease?
Worse yet, how would you like to buy such products simply because no one volunteered to test it, and because animal testing is "immoral"?
That's why labs started doing animal-testing in the first place - because it's better to use animals than humans.
Bittorrent's blocked at school, but even at home I don't use 160GB of space for it! Wow. . . what are you downloading? A DVD takes ~4.5GB of space, so thats about 35 full DVD's. . . Not to mention you can always transfer the files to somewhere else.
What's with the Slashdot mods always adding "such-and-such is also owned by OSTG"? Does that add anything to the article/summary? Does someone actually care who it's owned by?
I'm such a troll! You caught me!
"Say 'motherf***' again! Say 'motherf***' again! I dare you! I double dare you, motherf***er! Say 'motherf***' one more God-d***ed time!"
You forgot "Fsck your PlayStation, buy an Xbox!"
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a physics major working on something related to his major than trying to find a cure for cancer when he probably knows very little about chemistry or the human body.
I liked it too - it's so stupid it's funny, it had some good one-liners, and it's also got some good action.
I mean, it's not everyday you see a snake get tazered to death by Sam Jackson!
I seriously doubt anyone went to this movie expecting an Academy Award performance - everyone I know who saw it, just wanted to see how corny it was (myself included) and was thoroughly satisfied with the corniness.
"I don't see this router as a useful fileserver except for those with very minimalistic needs."
I've got 160GB storage on my laptop (currently all I've got with me here at school). It suits me just fine.
"Also, I doubt this router has very good performance at all (in MB/sec) when compared to any old PC (no idea if it even has GBit Ethernet)."
Wireless routers generally don't have Gigabit Ethernet - and I doubt you'll get very good download speeds with ANY server on ANY wireless network, at least in comparison to Gigabit Ethernet.
This router might not suit your needs very well, but for others it may be just perfect.
Yes, you can make your own server from an old PC, but you'd still need to buy an access point and/or a switch - and if you're going to need a file/print/FTP/HTTP server, why not get one of these routers if it suits your needs? It would save you time, money, and energy, compared to purchasing and setting up separate machines (or even compared to setting up a single machine to perform all of these functions).
As for why you would need BitTorrent on the router. . . well, the router usually stays running anyways so you can turn your PC off and save some power.
I like "DIY" too sometimes, but when it comes to the router that I need for Internet access, I'd rather have a company to call for support if something goes wrong. I would probably never buy one of these routers, but if I needed all those functions I might.
How do you install any of those on a ROUTER?
The beauty of this ROUTER is that you don't need to leave a PC on for your downloads anymore. Or, at least you can leave your PC's cycles to do something else, be it gaming, Folding@Home, or whatever else.
Not only that, but now you don't need to run your fileserver AND your Web server, since it's got a built-in fileserver and Web server. It also has a print server if you've got PCs dedicated for that.
Your router needs to be on anyways, so. . .
It's still fairly new. And maybe they made some changes to it.
Google stole nothing. Googol is a number, anyone can use it. So is 711 - what, should we sue them? Ritz is a real last name, as well as a camera service store chain and a rock club - should we sue Nabisco? Should we go after Porsche, too, since 911 is a nationwide emergency telephone number?
Whether they care or not, they at least know the brand. People who have had bad luck with Apple products are probably less likely to buy an iPod, and people who have had bad luck with MS products are less likely to buy a Zune or an Xbox.
You're right - most people complain about the brand of PC, not about Windows. But only until they encounter other people with different branded PCs having the same problems. Or sometimes the person just bought a crappy PC or crappy parts (which happens more often than you'd like to think). The people who do this, though, aren't the ones who pay good money for a high-end machine and know that their PC is made of high-quality parts. And then they talk to someone who knows something about PCs and that person will tell them what's wrong (or at least what could be wrong), and they'll find out from that person whether the PC is crap, the new mouse sucks, or it's just Windows.
Techies aren't born techies. I have known since I was young that Windows is crap - not because I was some computer genius with loads of experience, but because I knew people who were. And people tend to figure things out. Put one-and-one together - if this mouse doesn't function properly, and the previous one didn't either, maybe it's not the mouse that's causing the problem.
And most people do know that it's made by MS - either because originally they marketed it as Microsoft Xbox and said Microsoft prominently in the commercials, or because it says Microsoft every time it gets turned on. Whether they care or not is a whole different thing.