If you don't like their product or policies, don't use it. If you use it then you should pay for it. Use Linux, a BSD Unix, or a Mac. People who pirate Microsoft products don't really hurt Microsoft, they hurt the rest of the competition.
In the current climate, it's this kind of blog post that undoes a lot of the good work people are doing around protesting SOPA/PIPA. For those with a very simple view of copyright, saying you're going to 'steal Microsoft's IP' because you've been inconvenienced is just evidence that Something Must Be Done and the proposed law is a Good Thing.
I'm not commenting on whether pirating Windows is ethical. I'm just pointing out that sometimes you'll have to ditch a lot of software to ditch Windows.
If the software you need only runs on Windows then you should pay for Windows. Those that can move to Mac, Linux, etc and get away with using Wine or other alternatives should. The markets for alternative OS'es will grow then more people will be able to move.
Sounds like you are stuck on the Windows environment. You should stay and pay for Windows. There's nothing wrong with that.
No idea whether or not it's a good replacement as I've never used either.
Use your Windows only software in there
Adobe will cross-license Mac Photoshop for you. Have to talk to a person, deactivate PS, and fill out a destruction form.
Secondly, I'm pointing out that a lot of people have spent money on licenses for Windows software that has a Mac/*nix equivalent. (I haven't personally, but this applies to a lot of people.) If you have hundreds or thousands of dollars invested in those licenses, switching away might not be financially viable.
If either of these situations applies to you, I sympathize with your complaints about Windows and its licensing system.
What I mean by this is, while Notepad.exe may run flawlessly, SolidWorks doesn't.
If I find it necessary to move from the Mac to something else, as much as I hate it I will cut the cord and not worry about the software investments that I have made.
If you have an application that only works on Windows, then you need to either (a) deal with the Microsoft Tax and all that implies or (b) yell at your software vendor and tell them you want alternative platform support.
The worst thing for Microsoft would be a strict enforcement of copyright: people would be running to alternatives.
This strikes me as a valid ethical position, though I happen to think things are more complicated than that.
People who pirate Microsoft products don't really hurt Microsoft, they hurt the rest of the competition.
This, on the other hand, doesn't make sense. You seem to be assuming that the invariant is that the user will not be paying Microsoft. And that might be true for you. If you're not going to be sending any money to MS no matter what, then yes, using MS products helps them somewhat.
For the author of the article, however, the invariant is that he will be using MS products. Since he's going to be using their products in any case, when he is fed up with their policies and decides to pirate instead of purchase until they get fixed, of course this hurts them.
If you want to argue that nothing is invariant, and that the best way to hurt MS is to both stop purchasing and stop using, well, of course that's true, but it's not relevant. What the author is talking about is simply stopping paying for something until it gets fixed; whether he still uses it or not is of very minor importance to MS next to whether or not he pays for it. His goal isn't to destroy MS or make them irrelevant; on the contrary, he just wants a better customer experience.
What's more important than whether he pays for it is whether everybody else will still pay for it.
If everyone around you use Windows, you probably have to still use Windows in order to be able to collaborate with them. And you don't even have to think about open standard.
The more people around you use other OS, the more you are likely to think about using platform-independent technology. Then the more likely you are to be able to move to other platform since there are less and less fraction of people holding you on Windows.
The author using Windows gives everyone around him the inertia of moving to other platform. He is part of the reason why most people knows how to use only Windows.
And then when big company wants to buy a platform they will chose Windows because most people use it. And big company will pay. And big company will buy more expensive software and extra support.
"If you don't like it, then don't use it" is pretty useless advice in this situation.
But most people aren't ready or capable of learning a whole new operating system they have to install and manage themselves (unless Linux comes preinstalled on the computer). And most importantly, almost everyone uses certain software for which there is no equivalent on other OSes.
Now consider a certain user who is completely fed up with the way Microsoft has been (mis)treating their paying customers and doesn't want to support this behaviour with his money anymore. If you're not opposed to piracy "on principle", which is fine but ends all discussion before it can even start, then pirating Windows seems like a possible (yet illegal) solution.
I buy all my software but I still can't really blame them.
If that's too much, though, I'd recommend just using either http://office.live.com or http://docs.google.com. They're easier to use, the files don't get lost, they have all the features students will need, the documents auto-save, they're available on any computer with an internet connection, it's easy to share the documents (read-only or read-write) online, and the services are free. I've set my daughter up to write all her papers online, and it works great.
If you haven't tried http://office.live.com, you should check it out. It's really a slick.
I think the "more right" reaction would be to complain about this, at increasing levels of hierarchy, rather than support a monopoly that will push the $119 bill on other families who might be worse off. Either way, I don't blame them for not wasting too much time on it.
I see why it won't happen: Many pirates can't wait until a 99% feature-compatible competitor emerges. People who don't want to buy Windows or Photoshop can also not just throw money in a Kickstarter pot instead (imagine how much $$$ that would be?!) - I can't see a good competitor emerging without iterative market forces.
A tragedy - I would love to work full-time on a killer product pitted against either of them, but I just can't see how it fits into the scheme of the market. :(
Gimp would be a good competitor to Photoshop if it could just get a ton of focus on usability. If you want to "fight" Photoshop, that would be a good place to help out.
I think the GIMP stinks and I would still honestly dedicate myself to it for a small salary. I would madly dedicate myself to it if I were to sell it commercially and with perfect copyright in place, because then my "salary" would depend on my merits. But I won't, because I know everybody is used to warezing Photoshop by now. (FWIW, I spent a long time being the target of laughter and facepalms by not warezing Photoshop but supporting cheaper alternatives instead. There's even a social push to do it now.)
Maybe this will work again once we have perfect DRM in the disguise of SaaS, but that's a day I fear for different reasons.
Can I pirate a copy, because it is getting damn ridiculous. What do you say?