Why do you think switching to linux would be much more simpler? Every one says they should use linux. I have yet to seen a good reason why they should switch. I love MS i really do. I think there IDE software is a 100x times above any thing open source can produce(Eclipse is a fucking joke). There documentation is 100x better than any other language or API i have ever seen. Every time i look at the android api it makes me fucking cry. Its pathetic. Every one hates MS but Linux is no better. There is no documentation there is no real help for new users. People dont want to use linux cause ppl on this site see them as lesser ppl The differance between linux and MS is price. How many of you ppl actually contribute to linux? I doubt many if any of you do a damn thing for linux. Yet your all here to bitch how MS is so fucking evil. They are doing what linux will never do. That is called market share. It will always be Mac or windows. There is no community for new ppl for linux and it will fail. Fuck it i love Microsoft cause it will do things things that you linux butt buddys will only wish it could do. Its called market share and usability. Nothing linux can do till they work together and make one or two gui and work as one. Till then keep bitching. There is a reason in the last 20 years linux has done shit on consumer market... beside linus

The question is do you really thing said company would change if it was running with linux software?? if there charging that much for a driver do you not think they would charge just as much for linux kernal?

From what i know chromebooks is a joke... They are all online... Even google online services have proven to not work 100%. You need a physical storage system. Not some cloud storage crap. Cause it will go down and it will go down at the worst time. Ohh you want to access that bill you wrote sorry google services are dont try back in a hour. Just wont cut it. For that reason London council is stupid. I would never trust my important data to a cloud service cause when i need it most it wont be there.

sorry im really drunk but my post was about the fact if you wait 10 or 11 years to upgrade your system..... well it will cost you.... alot... I think that cost is OS independent. Just the way the world works. They had more than enough time to know that updates would stop.

the problem is no microsoft... its the fact that no matter what company your with.. they dont update. The cost would probably be the same if you waited that long. File formats change and other things change.

It really annoys me when i hear of ppl not updating. It has been 13 years since windows xp came out. The fact that windows xp was out of support isnt new news. We had windows Vista then windows 7 then windows 8. At no point you thought you need to updated? I find it hard to believe that it cost that much to update your systems. I know nothing of exchange but for christ sakes later versions of office supports older format. I just dont get this type of crap. OMG we are on windows xp and they no longer supported what were we supposed to do for the last 13 years... There were no updates or alternatives at all. When i read this crap its a joke. I doubt its the IT problem more of a Bureaucrat problem. Windows, Linux, or OSx don't matter a bit. Same problem would happen. I only know how to use one version lets not upgrade cause i say so. Then there forced to update and it cost money. OS option doesn't matter. No reason they couldnt upgrade OS/software... they didnt want to. Now they have to suffer from skipping versions they didnt want to upgrade to. Kind of like a tax. Didnt upgrade to next version waited 10 years fine pay 3x more for that version. Dont know how to say this linux wise. But if you waited 10 years on a distro update since it would cost a litte. would you be suprised that a 10 year update cost money? I doubt it. No a real story here. Would cost the same to migrate from a 10 year old linux to a current version.

Why do articles like this say attacker. I guess if i own a S4 i would be the "attacker". At no point in the article did I read that if I clicked on a link i would be attacked. I think people that use the word "attacker" should be beaten till there bloody. There is no "attacker" cause it would be me doing the work, yet current user agreements they have i guess i would be the "attacker"...? Last time I rooted my phone or change something I didn't 'ATTACK" my phone neither did any one else "attack" my phone. I think or I hope i did it my self.