>>but what offends me the most is the price they gouge you for because most people dont feel they can go elsewhere for a operating system.<<

I hope we're in the death-throes of this monopoly now, and they're gouging for whatever they can get, while they still can.

As of right now (since I'm a programmer and hobbyist) I have four computers in my personal office. Unusually, for someone in that position, I have four LEGAL copies of Windows, and of Office. Just for that, I have more money in the software than in the hardware (at least, not counting LCD monitors). Add some basic software just to get the hardware working (fax modems, DVD burners) and you're up to $1,000 per PC.

Then, you boot to the Linux side, and suddenly almost all the applications are free. Thousands of programs, often several in each category, available for download at no cost. Even when I do contribute money to the effort (and I have), NO ONE expects or requires me to buy another copy of every program for each and every PC in the room, even though some are only used occasionally.

The real money savings in Linux, if that's what you care about, is not in the OS, it's in the apps. Check sourceforge and freshmeat.

>>when i bought this pc i didnt even get a win xp operating system cd like i did with past computers, they want you to buy another are they nuts? if i paid FOR the os i want the disc of that os its only fair and logical.<<

The OEM version of Windows that ships with PCs is supposedly "discounted", and you cannot legally install it on any other machine. In the case of XP, it actually tracks the hardware, and if you change too much, it refuses to load... and MS generally will not give you another key for an OEM version. Their stance is that for you to legally move it from one PC to another (never mind that the first PC is now a pile of ashes) you must buy the "full" (priced) version, at close to twice the cost.

In this wonderful world of IP that we live in now, it doesn't matter a bit how many hundreds of dollars you spent for the software, you don't "own" anything.. you're paying to have MS tolerate your use of their software on very limited terms.

>>this is the same as the vcr VS. betamax situation in the past. betamax was a superior system quality wise but the vhs people convinced the public that there was "just something wrong with betamax its too different etc" and crushed the product and consumed the market.<<

Actually, you may have that sort of backwards. Betamax was the first VCR standard, and dominated the industry for a time. It was arguably superior, but there are still heated arguments about that, and the difference, if any, wasn't something that most people could see.

But it was a proprietary Sony standard, and licensed by them. Sony loves proprietary standards, see "memory sticks", "minidisks", etc. Even some of their earlier CD burners defaulted to a Sony proprietary format.

So, a consortium of other electronics manufacturers (I think JVC was the prime motivator) came up with the VHS format as an alternative that, being a lot more open, also had the potential to make VCR tapes a lot less expensive. So, there was a war in the marketplace, stores and rentals were divided for awhile between the standards, but the public "voted" with their dollars, mostly on the basis of price and availability of equipment.

Ironically, there's a legal movement afoot right now to revoke the judicial "Betamax" decisiion that established your right to copy broadcast programs for your own use. The entertainment industry wants to go back to total control. They'll let you time-shift what you want to watch, and even make crippled copies- so long as you pay for the privilege.