Should the use and sale of Microsoft Windows be made illegal?

I voted yes but really this is going too far. Just forbid internet access for all Windows machines.

The extent and world-wide reach of MS Windows OS makes it an expensive proposition to switch over to a new OS in case such a drastic step is taken. Millions of systems/programs will go berserk and business processes will go haywire if Windows were to be made illegal affecting all present users. If it is made illegal from a prospective date, leaving existing systems intact, the impact could be less severe. Even so, widespread wrangles cannot be ruled out.

The world is now used to Windows presence in the education, business and gaming sectors for there ever being a valid escape route from them. Students of all ages will predominantly use Windows systems in the classroom, which (if nothing else) educates them into becoming familiar with said OS. Business sectors also see a familiarity with Windows as a benefit, as a grand majority of them use it to (in some cases) help run their businesses entirely. Also, do you know anyone who would use one OS at work, only to come home and adjust to another OS for personal use? No - not outside enthusiast OSX/Unix/Linux users. And the gaming sector: well, Microsoft has this tied up as well. Their proprietary DirectX API is known and used throughout the gaming industry. OpenGL, the only viable alternative to DirectX is aged by comparison - though once king of the graphics API's, the open source initiative struggled to compete with the billions invested by Microsoft in the Windows API. In fact, though there is a large support of OpenGL in the console market, as both Sony and Nintendo use it for their respective consoles, it's with Microsoft's support of their XNA game development suite and the XBLA publishing system, that they will again keep the industry stuck in a never-ending loop of dependence to them. To be fair, DirectX is an exceptional API, and one Microsoft keep well-updated and supported, but it's still a commercial asset, and one that locks you into using the Windows environment. So, even if such bill did pass, and Windows was made illegal to distribute or sell, we've now grown so dependant on it, the infrastructure would struggle to adapt to an entirely linux-only system. That, and I believe you've forgotten that 'small' fruit-flavoured company itching to clamp-down on the heels of the Redmond company...

that's like saying we should ban oil. nice in theory but impossible in reality.

with the chromebook out, maybe windows will phase out in 10 years' time, becoming a legacy machine like Sun.

Sure lets get rid of all the closed operating systems.

Yeah. And every user who is discovered using it after it's declared illegal must be shot in the head. Preferably after being burned alive.

Don't think that will be enough to make Linux viable though.

I've being using Apples LION For the past month and found it too has some issues with the learning curve and ease of use even though paying a premium price for this experience. Windows also by it's closed nature doesn't allow modifications to basic program functions like linux does. The latest Linux Mint 12 seems to be the best and easiest to use with a very quick learning curve. The amount of freely available quality programs make this OS one of best user based programs out there.

In terms of past precedent, not only can products found harmful to the public be made illegal, under such circumstances, corporations themselves may also be disbanded. In the 19th century, corporations used to have to stand before a magistrate and prove that they had NOT caused any harm to the community (or communities) in which they operated every 5 years. If they could not do so, their corporate charter would be revoked by the magistrate, and the corporation was dissolved.

I do not think Windows per se is a harmful product (although certainly there may be specific instances where a failure of the product could be shown to have contributed to a harmful circumstance), but I do think it's significantly more probably that Microsoft could be demonstrated to be causing a type of harm to the larger community in which it operates. This may also apply to other large corporations. This might be the more fruitful line of investigation. We should always remember whenever there is a debate about government vs. corporate power that governments, in their role as 'sovereign', retain the power of eminent domain. Eminent domain is too complicated to explain in detail here, but suffice to say, it means that the government has god-like powers to expropriate (i.e. take) ANY property within its territorial boundaries, and that includes corporate charters.