Much of what you say is true. This is America, and I don't think that there is anything at all wrong with charging a fair price for a good product. The problem I have with M$ is that after my initial (usually large) investment in a M$ product, I must then shell out more cash to obtain a 3rd party package to secure the aforementioned M$ product to a reasonable level. That doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

In this case, M$ has stepped over the line by blatantly stating that their products are better, when, in fact, they have been proven time and again to be of the same or lesser quality than the other available solutions. They opened the door, so they deserve any flak that they catch over it.

As to the issue of why M$ is "king of the hill". That's simple: good marketing. If there is one thing that M$ does better than anyone, it's convincing the sheep that their grass tastes better.

Personally, I do use M$ products. I also use Sun products, Linux OS's, Cisco stuff, and anything else that I feel will best suit the role it will be playing. In my experience, M$ products have been less than secure, and slow to correct problems. More so that any of the other products I use.

This is why I think that M$ should re-evaluate their design concept, or maybe their business model.

You stated: "you get what you pay for", but in this case, it seems more like "let the buyer beware".

Boa

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/191/5333#5333