Why do you think the world's governments are now trying to avoid 'lock-in'? Could it possibly be that Microsoft's most valuable applications have a history of locking people in, forcing them to continually upgrade expensive solutions?
And are people unaware that Windows used to constantly crash? Jokes known the whole world over have even been made about it.
Linux was always heralded as being stable. Windows was always heralded as being prone to crashing. This was the general consensus - which can be read in many old news articles - even if people don't want to admit it.
Do some research. It's all there.
Isn't this because people started to see just what Microsoft was up to?
Having to pay to upgrade the operating system every two or three years (which is what Microsoft would have liked).
Having to pay for new hardware in order to run the new operating system.
Having to pay to upgrade Microsoft Office every two or three years or be unable to open newer documents.
For a few years people were blindly paying out to keep up with new technology, until they suddenly realised they were spending too much with very little gain, purely in order to keep Microsoft afloat.
People used to think that operating systems and software were expected to crash multiple times each day. It was at the point when Linux and Open Source software was in the mainstream news that people realised that security and stability could be achieved.
People have become wise, and they're no longer just accepting everything Microsoft produces as 'normal'. Microsoft has had to work overtime in order to overcome this.
If schools stop giving children homework then the children can't cheat.
If children are supposed to produce extra work then why not require the school day to increase by an extra hour? That way they can be supervised.
Of course a dog wouldn't directly turn into a horse, we would expect it to gradually change:
For an example, its feet would turn into hooves over a period of time, and we would also expect to find fossils of this change at various stages.
This brings up a point that Darwin mentioned: there is a distinct lack of fossils at these intermediary stages.
Speciation is one thing, but changing form completely (e.g. flippers turning into legs) in order to produce a different kind of creature is only speculated.
The speciation that is factual is merely a change of shape, behaviour, colour, etc. Darwins Finches have different beak shapes, but they are all still finches. Insects remain insects, even though they may completely change appearance.
There is no evidence in the world today which can prove that all land creatures evolved from fish. There is no evidence supporting the theory that one kind of creature can evolve into another (e.g. mammals evolving into birds).