But is that a valid anology? How many people accept Windows because it comes with the computer, and how many accept it because it's the only convenient way to run games and most other software these days?
I don't know about that... About the only thing that you can do better in Windows than any other computer is play games. Any other application or use, can be done as easily if not easier in *nix, more efficiently, and costs nothing. Back in the late 90s early 00s, ok, but nowadays..
Going back to the Steam-Windows anology, think about this: the very first computer you got or used, what OS did it have? Did you go out and looked into other OSs to see which one was better? I don't know how old you are, so I don't know if you are aware of what happened to the personal computer market in the late 80s and early 90s (and yes, I am an old gizzard still playing video games
) . Long story short, Microsoft made deals with mass marketers like Dell and others to include Windows installed in the systems they sold. In those days, the main players in the personal computer market were Mac, IBM's OS/2, and Windows. As late as 1995-97, you could still go to any Egghead store ( again, yes, I am THAT old
) and buy IBM's OS/2 for your PC, or get OS/2 when you bought an IBM computer from IBM. Mac, same. But you got Windows when you bought a computer from Dell, or HP, Compac, etc. Unix OSs were exclusively used for high-end computing. As time passed, Mac developed its cult following, OS/2 faded away -not because it wasn't as good, more because bad marketing practices by IBM), and Windows was left as the one widely known OS available to the mass marketers to include in the computers they sold. So, in a nutshell, you ordered a computer from Dell, you got Windows.
So now, we are getting Steam in our game, like it, or not. The one difference of course, unlike an OS in a computer is that, for the game, we do not have a choice of either use something else, so our only other choice is to not buy the game.