I'd be better off getting in an argument with my 3 year old cousins, at least I know where they stand when we're sparring with "yes it is/no it isn't/yes it is/no it isn't".

Software development has tradeoffs and compromises. Reliability, time to market, features, ease of use, resource requirements, development cost, compatibility... many of those aspects of putting out a piece of software dictate doing more of one and less of another. Your argument ignores those who stood up for a Windows alternative and the features that they value. That's poor debate practice and doesn't win you any points here.

We are going to write a piece of software that will run on almost all hardware made. ... Nothing crashes an OS faster than a device driver that is poorly written. Microsoft should take a hint from Apple and say "if you want to write for my OS, then you WILL use these libraries, and these tools. If you don't, its not going to work."

So which is it? I don't dispute that device drivers are probably the most problematic aspect of operating system reliability. Being strict in the certification of drivers increases the cost of development of drivers to the manufacturer that provides them. If you do that, you're not going to be compatible with every piece of hardware under the sun.

It's O.k. if you don't if know much about setting up you computer, our installation process will take care of it.

That's a noble goal certainly, but it's a tradoff in control and customizability. Have you ever tried to set up a Windows 2000 machine in a mixed Unix/Netware environment? Surprise, surprise if you don't have to hack the registry to get it to work correctly. Additionally, usability once the system is set up and running for regular desktop users isn't automatic. Have you ever tried to walk a user through changing their DNS addresses over the phone? Or maybe instructing a user how to resore their screen resolution after using a different monitor? Have you seen someones eyes glaze over after uttering the words "safe mode"? Computers are hard, and Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on trying to make it easier.

If I here one more person say "why can't I uninstall Internet Explorer" I'm going to flip. Why do you want to remove it. If you don't like it don't use it. It's not costing you anything, and IE by it's self does not have THAT big of a footprint.

Funny, I CAN uninstall IE on a Mac and it's no less usable. For that matter on my Linux box I can use lynx, links, Galeon, Mozilla, Konqueror, and Netscape; removing any one of those programs doesn't affect my ability to browse the filesystem. Internet Explorer is a fine browser, but is it the best? Ability to choose a best of breed application is important to me, and saying that IE is on your system whether you use it or not is NOT choice.

The two that really erks me is the combo of "it cost to much," and "I don't want to register my copy" both of these complaints come from the same source. Piracy.

Think about that one for a moment. Really. If everybody pirated a piece of software, would cost matter at all? Does a jewelry thief complain that his diamonds were too expensive? In actuality, Microsoft has issues with copyright infringement and complaints about registration and cost because it is has an effective monopoly in desktop operating systems. Since Microsoft has a monopoly, they are less susceptible to market price pressure. Due to its cost and the intense network effects of having Windows on so many boxes (in addition to Microsoft's efforts at blocking competitors) people who have problems affording Microsoft products turn to copyright infringement. Does that make it OK? Of course not, but it's also not a dismissal of the charges of expense for Microsoft products. Building the cost of copyright infringement into its products is not an innovation of Microsoft either, other vendors deal with that as well.

The registration process of XP is Microsoft solution to this rampant problem. And therefore they can bring down the cost of the OS. And it's work... XP is less the 2000. I'll be it, not much.

Yes registration is a way to combat illegal copying. But it IS a hassle -- that doesn't change. I don't have that problem with my copy of Linux, and that to me is an advantage. Regardless of whether one product is closed source and another is open, I still have to spend an extra twenty minutes dealing with license management with Windows for a single computer that I don't have to waste when I install Linux.

I use Microsoft products because the work, and they do what I need them to do. I also use them because it the OS that my user have at home.

That's the most sensible thing you've said yet. I can honestly believe that many people like you would use Windows for the same reasons, and there is nothing wrong with that. As an aside however, don't come crying to me when Microsoft gets ruled an illegal monopoly for creating artificial barriers to entry against competitors and unfairly strongarming customers.

I know Novell, Linux, OS X, and have babble in BSD. And I will tell you, I will pick 2000/XP over them all anytime.

I'm sure you babble a lot :-) Joking aside, you're lucky you didn't use the old line about using the "right tool for the job". Because if you had, I think you'd be lying. Making effective use of any complex piece of software requires experience and training and merely dabbling in alternatives to Windows does not give one the tools to craft solutions out of these other powerful OS's.

The primary reasons were semantic at best. Things like "I can't configure it how I want to" or "it won't run on a 486" or "it's too expensive" or even "I shouldn't have to re-register if I make any changes with my computer." These aren't reason to not use a system, these are just people looking for a reason to not like a product...Nobody gave me any real reason to change my opinion of Windows.

semantic adj : of or relating to the study of meaning and changes of meaning; "semantic analysis"

You insinuate that the arguments of people who don't use Windows are merely tricks of language, that we are trying to divert attention from something. But you are the one who is completely ignoring the argument. Cost, configuration ability, and system requirements are very valid reasons for choosing one OS over another. Why do they have no merit to you? The reason that you've ignored the issues is because for the most part you're not interested in merits. In general debate, there are two areas that are pointless to argue about, one is elementary fact and the other is a faith or belief system. When someone believes something out of faith, there is no rational approach to changing their mind. You said, "Nobody gave me any real reason to change my opinion of Windows." If that's true, then Windows is your religion, and I will leave you to your pointless jihad.