When I grew up, I wanted to get away from being stuck using Windows. When I finally was able to get my hands on Linux, I spent the time and effort to make the transition. Heck, I even put linux on my laptop despite that meaning losing wireless support.
My main system now is dualboot, though all it means is an extra 10 seconds on startup to get into Windows. I found myself booting into Linux less and less, not because I liked Windows more but because that's what supported the software I was using. What good is having an operating system that either can't support, or only supports through a lot of fiddling around, the software you want to use? It's not so much that Windows has led a better marketing campaign, but they're in the prime position for developers to make software for. Add to that lack of support for various hardware, and really is it all marketing?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to switch to Linux and have no love for Microsoft. But that's not down to marketing, it's down to markets. Perhaps that might change in the future, and if so, great! But until then, decrying the OS is like decrying the CPU architecture. Yes, RISC archicecture might be surpass the x86 architecture in many ways - but most of us want the computers for software that runs on the hardware.
Keep Up with TechRepublic