And why should the government and the tax payers be held responsible and be forced to pay for the bad decisions of Microsoft and their customers?

MacOS is not limited in any way for the needs an average citizen has from computers. The average citizen is even fine with an iPad. 8GB is considered "low" by people here, just like a 170 horse power hatchback is considered "low" by muscle car enthusiasts and mining companies looking for dump trucks. But those uses have no bearing on reality for most people.

> And why should the government and the tax payers be held responsible and be forced to pay for the bad decisions of Microsoft and their customers?

Ah, a motte and bailey argument! I always love those.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

I don't find anything hard to defend about my argument. It origins in response to people arguing on the lines that the government should subsidize RAM because it is expensive. But it is not expensive for a customer unless they're getting a lot of it. My argument has been the same all through this thread, while hackers are arguing all over the place.

The most absurd argument is that any consumer would need more than 8GB, when it is proven beyond all doubt in physical reality that 8GB gives you extreme amounts of power in for example an Apple device - at consumer friendly prices.

> I don't find anything hard to defend about my argument.

Of course. Because "I need more than 8 GB of RAM" and "the government should subsidize Microsoft" are logically equivalent statements. If you're insane.

You have provoked yourself into a rage, because you didn't understand the arguments being made here. Whether you have the capacity to understand, I don't know. But I'll assume so, and explain:

1. Nobody has argued either for or against for the government to subsidize Microsoft.

2. However people are arguing that the government should subsidize RAM makers. And their extended argument for it is that people choose to purchase Microsoft Windows. A well known low quality product.

That's a very weak argument. If you choose to make bad decisions and use sub-par solutions when good solutions are readily available, that isn't something that the government should take to account when deciding on subsidies.